The content is identical to Category:Dyed people. If this category is supposed to help user with wayfinding for people by ethnicity, by descent, etc., then this shuld be a disambig-page. --ZH2010 (Diskussion) 13:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC) ZH2010 (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's a category that contains only subcategories of "[Primary colour] people" - I think it's pretty clearly unrelated to ethnicity/descent. If you want to change all the subcats to "People dyed blue" etc, that's fine, but they are currently not restricted to dyed people. As it stands, "Category:People by colour" is the most accurate description of these subcategories. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. So people by colour is the parent category of dyed people. and images and categories in white people can include people dyed white or naturally white? Should then http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_with_black_skin moved to "black people" and "dyed people" into a top-position of people by colour? And if there were more images to come, categories like "people dyed XY" would become subcategories of "Blue people" etc.... --ZH2010 (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. It seems you just added "White People" to "People by colour." I'm not sure what purpose it served before. I'm not sure that "People with black skin" is a useful category, beyond "People of Black African descent." Personally, I think categorizing people by their natural skin colour instead of ethnicity is bound to be imprecise (not to mention political issues). "White people" after all, are not particularly white, and most "Black people" are more brown than black. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
White people was in the ethnicity-tree before, but it had images of people/faces being white for all sorts of reasons. I also just added Pink people. I think Commons neither should nor wants to categorize people by their natural skin colour, but the cat-names and common language may suggest that Commons does. Can we seperate the discussion about category:people by colour and all the sub-categories: For the parent cat i would withdraw from the delete-proposal, for the sub-categories it could be discussed to have different names (like "Blue-coloured people"...?) but that doesnt bother me. I think "People with black skin" should be deleted if not re-categorised into "People by colour". --ZH2010 (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say go ahead and change the sub-category names as you see fit. As long as the names represent the variety of images contained within. - Thanks for brainstorming with me on this! Themightyquill (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For discussion:
I propose for all the subcategories to be moved to :XY-coloured people. Dont know if thats good English or if that sounds overly politically correct. According to other Category:Categories by color, categories and images should just be related to colours (but not restrictive in the reason for the colour). --ZH2010 (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Categorizing people by actual skin color is impossible. whats black to one person is light brown to another. "black people" is understood to mean dark skinned people of african descent, with associated physiognomies. There are a few nearly black people, as there are albinos which are white, and the blue-black australian aborigines. all other terms are way too vague: olive, tan, etc. This category should be a disambiguation to dyed people, and people by ethnicity and race, as thats what people are really looking for. PS i found at least 2 images in "people with black skin" who were at best 1/8 african, maybe even just hispanic, or were malay. see, it doesnt work.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
typical photo from "green people"
Support i think we should move foreward now. the discussion started nearly 3 years ago. and becasue of misunderstanding with "white" and "black" people it's better to clarify that these categories relate to images of people being coloured (or dyed, painted, including full clothes etc.). These categories do not relate to "native skin colour", "human races" or so. Therefore "XY-coloured people" sounds good. Holger1959 (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what we do with the category in question, @ZH2010: 's suggestion has broad support. @Mercurywoodrose: was opposed, but seems to have missed the point that these sub-categories are not intended to categorize people by their natural skin colour but rather buy colouring through dyeing, painting, computer effects, or other means. And over the past four years, that seems to be what they have been used for. At any rate, can we at least change the sub-categories, even if we need to leave discussion open on the main category? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Foroa (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: Categorizing people by actual skin color is impossible. whats black to one person is light brown to another. "black people" is understood to mean dark skinned people of african descent, with associated physiognomies. There are a few nearly black people, as there are albinos which are white, and the blue-black australian aborigines. all other terms are way too vague: olive, tan, etc. This category should be a disambiguation to dyed people, and people by ethnicity and race, as thats what people are really looking for. PS i found at least 2 images in "people with black skin" who were at best 1/8 african, maybe even just hispanic, or were malay. see, it doesnt work.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
