Category talk:Iconic photographs

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Iconic photographs

Seems an arbitrary collection, and no guidance on how to apply it is given there. Perhaps we should create a definition; maybe "photos that are the subject of an article in at least one Wikipedia"? Or simply delete it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• Lean toward delete, but before doing that, make a gallery, which would be appropriate. - Jmabel ! talk 17:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
• Delete. This isn't Category:Quality images which are good images on Commons but photographs that are themselves 'iconic' from what I can tell. It's too arbitrary. It was previously called Category:Famous photographs but moved there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
• Delete If a more precise definition can be given, there will probably be a more precise category name that can be used. Looking through the images and subcategories, the contents appear to be a strange mix of astronomical, political, brutal and bizarre images. The only thing consistent here is that random editors had a personal view that each photo was somehow special. If the images have won an award, they should be in a category for that award. If they have achieved a particular rating from a Wikimedia site, they should be in a category for that rating. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
• Tending towards delete as well. If we want to keep something like this around, it needs objective criteria for what's supposed to be in there. Also, it should probably not contain any files directly. If an image doesn't even have a category on its own, it's probably not that iconic after all. --El Grafo (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
•  Keep I agree that guidance should be given. "Photos that are the subject of an article in at least one Wikipedia" is a good start. For me it is about photographs that are etched in the collective memory of the people of a country, or even worldwide, because once they generated a lot of fuss. For the Netherlands I think of this one because it revealed the relationship between crown princess Beatrix and her future husband Claus von Amsberg from Germany (20 years after WWII). But also the ones about the first steps on the moon, Marilyn Monroe above a windblowing metro fan, the Tiananmen Square protester (1989), and I can go on. So I would like to keep this category, perhaps with another name. Perhaps in the description of a file should be a mention of why the photo is iconic. --JopkeB (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  We have plenty of topics that are at least one Wikipedia. Instead of "there are articles on these paintings on Wikipedia", this is "there is an article for this photograph" and a category for the photograph is here but that doesn't mean the Commons category is that important for anyone. It would also be nice if Commons wasn't just copying English Wikipedia with all the biases that creates and instead was a stand-alone project that has its own focus. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Ricky81682: What criteria and/or definition would you suggest for this category? JopkeB (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I'm still in the delete category as I don't see the purpose. This aren't images that Commons considers importance but images that are important because (English) Wikipedia (no one has even seemingly looked at other projects here) has considered them important enough to have an article on them. It's an odd categorization. Either Commons is making its own determination of what photographs are "iconic" or just deferring to some other project, both of which seem wrong to me. Category:Mona Lisa is organized by categories of what the painting is not in some overarching "Iconic paintings" category. You bring up en:File:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg which isn't even on Commons as an image for this category so what is this other than "we have a chance to make up our own definition of great, important photographs some of which we don't even have on this project"? Ricky81682 (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep I linked it to en:List of photographs considered the most important, but we need a rule for inclusion. Pictures listed in that page may be one. Yann (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  Wouldn't a gallery be a better choice for that? Arbitrary selections are fine in the gallery name space, and it would offer the opportunity to add additional information as to who considers an image iconic for what reason. El Grafo (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  We can have both. A category to link to all subcategories of iconic photographs is useful. Yann (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

   Agree to have a gallery page with links to subcategories as well. JopkeB (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 Keep with tighter criteria. Dronebogus (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

---