Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/10/Category:Impressions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Category:Impressions

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/10/Category:Tracks.

What is this category for? There are different things that the name could mean, but neither the content nor the parent categories seem to make sense with them. Auntof6 (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think you think of a less encyclopedic or obvious category than this. ill try to see if there is a photographic definition. well, cant find any. its being used very vaguely here. we do have categories for colors, that should be enough.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the content here does seem weird to me too, but please be careful. Category:Impressions left by objects and Category:Impressions left by traveling objects were, after lengthy discussion, the only way we could find to group together foot prints, animal tracks, hand prints, and vehicle tracks. They obviously belong together, but it's hard to find a common noun for them. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: @Themightyquill: I would like to do some categorizing of media by color and location, but given the controversy about this category I wanted to talk about it with you guys first. Are categories like that acceptable? Should the naming scheme follow the "Red impressions in the United States" format or is there a better naming scheme that doesn't descend from this vague category? Abyssal (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Abyssal: What's an impression? The whole category is at risk of deletion. -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: I'm not trying to defend this particular category; as you noted, the word "impression" is basically meaningless. I do think the concept behind "[color] impressions in [place]" subcategory could be useful if it were unburdened from its gobbledegooky name, though. I was just wondering what category to use that's a bit less narrow than "[Color] objects in [place]" so it can include living things, landscapes, the sky, etc. Abyssal (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What about "subjects" (e.g. Category:Red subjects instead of Category:Red impressions)? We have Category:Unidentified subjects, Category:Proposed or planned subjects, Category:No longer existent subjects. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an improvement to me. Abyssal (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, the category should be disambiguated between:
  • Impressions (physical marks)
  • Impressions (perceived)
  • Impressions (tools) (such as used in dentistry and metalwork)
The second being useful for distinguishing gestalt impressions of, say, shapes from explicit shapes. The fact that "$colour impressions" even is a thing stems from earlier separation that was desired between images that are purely (e.g.) red and images that feature things that are red, or look like red. --Pitke (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That abiguity is exactly the problem, but Category:Impressions (perceived) and Category:Red impressions (perceived) are more than a little awkard. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think/hope that "subjects" could work.

Thoughts? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a loss of words to describe my own complaints sufficiently right now, but I know that our maths-minded friends will be very upset if we call our "these birds form a sort of symmetrical arrangement" media just "symmetrical X". This is why I originally called the "symmetry impressions" category that, because the media within has impressions of symmetry, not true symmetry. That's what I intended to be the scope of these sorts of categories. Photographic impressions, less than precise but communicative exapmles of various phenomena. In the sense of the art movement. The frantic brush strokes don't exactly portray the subjects, they deliver impressions. And while some categories could easily be given equivalent names without the word "impression" (how about "symmetry approximations in nature"?), some would be harder to rename ("animals being visually hard to distinguish from their environments"? how about the collective category for "X on X" colour photos, "almost monochrome photos"?) --Pitke (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ies: I don't understand this subcategory either: why does it have subcategories like Category:Yellow impressions? Jarble (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking the wrong user. I didn't invent this impression stuff. Only added a then missing color. -- Ies (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Impression is when things come together. Like when an artist assembles pieces of wood to create an art piece. The wood is then the common element, but the result or assembly can be anything (which is why some don't see it as a category). I need this category, and will miss it when it is gone. Very useful to highlight a common element. JMK (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support: Subjects, as suggested by Themightyquill. It seems like an apt category name for media depicting both objects and/or non-object phenomena. In photography, the term subject is used that way. Sinigh (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2016/10/Category:Impressions&oldid=988445017"