Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/12/Category:Photographs of male screenwriters
This seems to be an odd category. While we do have some "photographs of" categories, normally they are catcats to group things like "black and white photographs of", "aerial photographs of", etc. Otherwise: photographs are the bulk of Commons' content, and we don't usually spell that out. We could nearly double our categories if we separated out "photographs of" for things like this. Jmabel ! talk 18:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Having had no comments here, I have posted at COM:VP#"Photographs of" (permalink). If anyone thinks I've failed to be neutral in my wording there, please comment there; otherwise, discussion should remain here. - Jmabel ! talk 19:55, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Agree with it! I took as an example File:BobGale2024.jpg. That file has now the categories “Bob Gale” and “Photographs of male screenwriters”. I my opinion “Photographs of male screenwriters” should be removed and to Category:Bob Gale the category Category:Male screenwriters from the United States should be added (and not “Photographs of male screenwriters from the United States”). Wouter (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Support merge to more typical categories - probably to Category:Male screenwriters if nothing more specific applies. Some of the photos in this category could also use attention for notability; I've already F10ed a bunch of unused selfies. Omphalographer (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2025 (UTC)- Support per Jmabel's and Wouterhagens' arguments. --ReneeWrites (talk) 12:19, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Eskivor: as creator of this category, do you have any argument against the above? - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- But a cateogry Category:Photographs of people by occupation already exist with its sub-categories. So what's the exact problem here? Do you accept the whole existence of Category:Photographs of screenwriters and its sibling categories like Category:Photographs of actors or is the problem just the combination between Category:Photographs of screenwriters and Category:Male screenwriters? Eskivor (talk) 22:35, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Eskivor: If those were set up as "catcats" (categories that should contain only other categories, {{Catcat}}), they could be fine, as long as there are legitimate categories under them that justify their existence. Category:Photographs of actors definitely has that; Category:Photographs of screenwriters probably not (the only reasonable category under it is Category:Black and white photographs of screenwriters, and that could just go directly under Category:Screenwriters rather than create a "candlestick" in the category hierarchy. In theory the same would be true for Category:Photographs of male screenwriters, but since it doesn't contain any categories, that would leave it empty and it would just get deleted for a different reason. - Jmabel ! talk 01:17, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- But a cateogry Category:Photographs of people by occupation already exist with its sub-categories. So what's the exact problem here? Do you accept the whole existence of Category:Photographs of screenwriters and its sibling categories like Category:Photographs of actors or is the problem just the combination between Category:Photographs of screenwriters and Category:Male screenwriters? Eskivor (talk) 22:35, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
