Jump to content

Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/10/Category:Photographs of dance

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

A great majority of dance-related files are photographs, so this category largely overlaps Category:Dance. It's unlikely that someone would search for just photos of dance when photos are by far the predominant media type. Also, this category currently covers only a tiny fraction of dance photos; it would be a monumental task to increase coverage to a useful level and there seems to be no logical reason to do so. I suggest that it be deleted. Lambtron (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Many of the sub-categories don't fit into a tree anyway. We have Category:19th-century photographs of dancing bears but no Category:Dancing bears in the 19th century, Category:19th-century photographs of balls (dance) but no Category:Balls (dance) in the 19th-century. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The tree includes a multitude of subcategories which are similarly problematic; these should also be deleted:

Lambtron (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment there aren't just videos too in the cat but also diagrams, photos of say dance schools, and so on so subcategorizing photos of dance where the emphasis is not on photos but on "of" seems reasonable. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambtron: I agree with eliminating the simply 'photographs of' categories under ballet, but not 'portrait photographs of' ones. Portrait photographs are a particular style of image that may well be sought to illustrate an article or other use, so it makes sense to have these remain. Any objection to moving forward with the rest while excluding portrait photograph categories from deletion? Josh (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Lambtron (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 19th century is the first EVER to have photographs of dance (or any subject). This alone should be enought to justify a seperate category. It's not drawings or paintings, but real images of dance and dancers. If you want more detail, fine, but let's keep this one to hold all the old images together. I'm talking of the 19th century here, not of the category "Photographs of dance"; I agree that a category "Photographs of dance" would be a little strange.--Judithcomm (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Judithcomm and Lambtron: probably should be used system: Category:19th-century photographs of ballet to be merged into Category:19th-century ballet. This system was already stated above--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
19th-century ballet is not just photographs, but also paintings, possibly documents, etc. Also dances originating from the 19th century, but danced in the 21st --Judithcomm (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Judithcomm and Lambtron: I guess, soon we ask: do we need Category:Photographs by topic (is already under discussion). Category:Images by subject is already emptied--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]