Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/10/Category:2 men with other organisms

Category:2 men with other organisms

I wonder why this would be useful. I don't think even just 2 humans with other organisms would be a variable that is reasonable to categorize by. Humans with other organisms would be a reasonable cat but I doubt this one is. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just part of an overall structure and not empty, so no harm here. Josh (talk) 04:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"just part of an overall structure" is not an argument. The overall structure is a problem too. This level of differentiation certainly is. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner Would these organisms include... microbes? Or which kind of organisms, specifically?

Support

Delete nonsense category. Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Report UncategorizedCategories with redcats shows also Category:2 women with other subjects, Category:4 clothed children with 2 clothed men (CfD subject too), Category:4 men with other adults, Category:4 women with other people and Category:5 women with other people. Wikiwerner (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All including the ones mentioned by Wikiwerner. With this category specifically, there's Category:Men with animals. I'm not sure what other organisms men when be with. So this should either be merged to a category for two men with animals or deleted. The usefulness of categories based on how many objects are with how many other types of objects in images questionable anyway though. So I think it and similar cats should just be deleted.

BTW, the whole thing is also just tautological recursive nonsense. With a category like Category:5 women with other people you could have it where the "other people" are women. Creating a situation where you'd either end up with a category for "6 women with other women", "7 women with 2 women" Etc. Etc. Or just a category for "X women." Even if the other people were men, then what? Category:5 women with 2 other women and 1 man, Category:7 women, 2 men, and other organisms, and Category:4 women with other people and other organisms? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would not mind a much broader set of deletions, but the example here is particularly absurd. (Two men and a daffodil. Two men who just caught a fish. Two men in a city where there is a tree in the picture. Etc. Not useful.) - Jmabel ! talk 19:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as well as any similar categories. Not useful. See similar categories like Category:Adult humans in groups of 5 -> Category:Adult humans in 5 people -> Category:Clothed adult humans in 5 people -> Category:Clothed adult humans in 5 clothed people -> Category:Clothed men in 5 clothed people -> Category:2 clothed men in 5 clothed people -> Category:2 clothed men in 5 clothed adult humans -> Category:2 clothed men with 3 clothed women. Nosferattus (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A big part of the problem here is that these are all effectively intersection categories - "2 men" + "other organisms"; "4 clothed children" + "2 clothed men", etc. We've never allowed those, and I don't see any reason why these categories should be an exception. Omphalographer (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]