Category talk:Art works

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Art objects

[edit]

What's an art object? Themightyquill (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, it's mostly silver objects in Argentina. (Silver... argent... nah, that can't be the reason.) But the content here should be recategorized under art works. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could see a case for paintbrushes or canvas being 'art objects' that are not 'art works', but clearly this is not what this cat is being used for, so I support the merge at this point. Josh (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill and Auntof6: Closed (no objections; merge Category:Art objects into Category:Art works) Josh (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Art works

[edit]

Is there a clear line of difference between what goes in Category:Art and what goes in Category:Art works? For instance, what goes in Category:Art works in Russia vs Category:Art in Russia? Is this a useful differentiation? Should Category:Art by material actually be Category:Art works by material ? Thanks. Themightyquill (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And what about Category:Creative works? Does it belong as a subcategory of Category:Art? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not all creative works are necessarily works of art (not to get into the thorny "what is art?" question!) but all works of art are creative works, so I would go the other way around, make "art works" a sub of "creative works". Josh (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Art works would be pieces of art that are created. That would go under art, as would things like I don't think all creative works should be under art or art works. Writings are creative works, but I wouldn't put them under art. Art works could be under creative works, though. A lot of what's in the "Art by <foo>" metacategories is probably art works, too, so we might want to rename those (or create separate, new categories if there's anything there other than works). --Auntof6 (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose an art studio for example should be in the Art tree, but is not an art work, so I can see a reason for keeping them seperate. Josh (talk)
@Themightyquill and Auntof6: I would propose we keep both Category:Art and Category:Art works. "Art" is the overall field of art, while "Art works" are the actual created works of art, but other things would go under art but not art works, such as artists, art-related items (materials, tools, etc.), and other media about the field of art that are not just depicting a work of art. I do think a more careful eye should be given to the sub-cats as you mentioned, they may need a bit of sorting: I agree that "Art by material" should be "Art works by material". I think we should put a good note on both categories and keep both. I've listed some of the other tagged cats below. What do you think?
Category:Art by condition: Move to Category:Art works by condition
Category:Art by country: Keep as parent for the field of art in each country but have sub-cat Category:Art works by country of location and Category:Art works by country of origin
Category:Art by date: Keep as it has Category:Artists by date, add Category:Art works by date (assuming this is date of creation)
Category:Art by country of origin: Move to Category:Art works by country of origin (see "Art by country" above), rename subs from "Art from country" to "Art works from country"
Category:Art by continent of origin: Move to Category:Art works by continent of origin (see "Art by country" above)
Category:Art by origin: Delete. Move Category:Art by culture, Category:Art works by country of origin, Category:Art works by continent of origin directly under Category:Art
Category:Art works by artist and Category:Art works by subject: Keep under Category:Art works
Category:Art-related occupations and Category:Art occupations: Keep one under Category:Art, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/03/Category:Arts occupations
Josh (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds very good, except that Category:Art works by country of origin and Category:Art works by continent of origin should be under art works, not directly under art. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, here's the proposal as it stands:

Thanks. Themightyquill (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I suppose there would be a lot of overlap under those last two. Should the occupation category be a subcat of people associated with art? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: I put a slash there as the issue of which of those is the correct name is under discussion elsewhere I believe. I would think that once that is resolved, only one of them will remain in that spot. Josh (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: Yes, I understood that. What I meant by "those last two" was the last two lines, not the two on the last line. Wouldn't the occupation category fit under People associated with art? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: That matter has also come up in that discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/03/Category:Arts occupations. Yes, there would be overlap and in fact Category:Arts occupations should probably be under [:Category:People associated with art]]. I guess I was focusing more here on sorting the 'art' v. 'art work' question. Josh (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: Can I ask you to please start a separate discussion on that issue? We do need some base category for art works, art profesions, etc. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I raised it here since although it is a separate issue it means that it would be better to not select "Art" as one to keep and instead turn it into a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it time this discussion was closed? Evidently "Art" is an umbrella category for everything art-related. Most of the content needs disseminating into the specific categories (which already exist). Sionk (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point. "Art" should not be an "umbrella" category for everything, but in fact it is. Unfortunately the whole category tree is a mess. Reasons: 1. pertinent category definitions are widely missing and 2. commons does not (strictly) follow the established art classification. "Established" may seem very old-fashioned, but it would make the maintenance job a lot easier and, above all, there is no other alternative. Please keep in mind that

  1. Category:The arts is on top of the category tree and contains correctly named and categorized subcategories separating the three following main arts disciplines :
    1. Category:Visual arts (see Visual arts) including architecture, sculpturing, painting, graphic arts, decorative arts, filmmaking and art photography)
    2. Category:Performing arts (see Performing arts) including dance, music, theatre... and
    3. Literature.
  2. Category:The arts as "top" category for any kind of established art disciplines AND other creative activities should logically include a "top" art works category IMHO ideally named Category:Works of art (preferred, see works of art) with second parent Category:Works.
  3. Each of the above mentioned different disciplines produces a different kind of works of art. Consequently each of them needs its own art works category :
    1. Category:Visual arts has NONE
      (except the bad named, misleading/misunderstood Category:Art works, resulting in a confusing holdall category suitable for every purpose)
    2. Category:Performing arts → subcategory:Performances
    3. Category:Literature → subcategory:Literary works is perfect.
      --Bohème (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This subject has wide ramifications for the entire project and is yet hidden away here, left for two or three people to make wide ranging decisions that may or may not be easily maintainable or even popular. The subject itself is not perfect , but its not broken either, and could be easily left alone. No one has complained about it, being, not fit for purpose.
I say make no changes.
The discussion is so large it should be advertised on the village pump in capital letters. It affects every editor on the project, This is a cynical punt by one knows best person, who is aiming to make huge numbers of edits for self aggrandisement. He is going to go ahead at some point and make changes without consensus. He's already done that with "Ships by name" which he changed against consensus into a made up term, by himself, a so called "flat list"; and even worse, again without consensus, made it useless by making it into a hidden category. That category because its hidden is seldom used, and more difficult to maintain because of the unwarranted changes. Broichmore (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion
Rename Category:Art works

Consequences :

  1. All "art works by..." categories, by …artist …condition, …continent, …country (of location & of origine), …date, …subject should move under Category:Works of art
    --Bohème (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bohème: I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't see how this helps us. What else will go in Category:Works of art but not *Category:Art works (visual arts)? And won't we end up with:

- Themightyquill (talk) 08:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this is off topic or should be posted elsewhere. What exactly is the difference between "period" and "date?" There seems to be a lot of overlap in terms of centuries, decades, years, etc.; and it seems like the subcategorization flips the further down it goes. Any clarification would be appreciated.- Invokingvajras (talk) 10:39, 17 Sept 2022 (UTC)
@Invokingvajras: Medieval,ancient, contemporary and prehistoric are time periods without exact/fixed dates attached. -- Themightyquill (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill and Bohème: In hopes of resolving this--the current situation is a mess and right now perfect is becoming the enemy of the good. I'd like to get at least a basic structure agreed for now. We can tweak and refine it as we go forward, but the current structure is hopeless to work in, so how about this:

I think once this is in place we can shake out all of the sub-categorization within it, but until we get at least this done, down-tree adjustments will be hard to do. What do you think? Josh (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a couple of years this has been open, we have gotten a lot of good input, and I think we have more-or-less boiled down to some good basic conclusions, so I'm going to go ahead close this discussion. If there are parts of it or other tangental elements that need further discussion, we can easily open a new CfD for those topics as needed. Josh (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved by consensus
Actions Merge Category:Art into Category:The arts and other changes (see above)
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment This is a large amount of work and will need to happen over time. This discussion can serve as a guideline on how to transition existing categories and create new ones to fit in the improved scheme. Please include this discussion on the talk pages of any main categories that are changed to help users navigating, building and maintaining them. Note that we can also continue to adjust in the future as we get real experience upon implementation. Josh (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Cement works in 1904" and "Buildings destroyed in Indonesia" listed at "Art works"? It's a NO-NO-NO!

[edit]

Category:2009 works in Canada features:

This category is indirectly hosted, however, at Category:Art works. Somebody here apparently has assumed "works" would always spell "art works", and has built a huge category scheme consisting of tons of such sub-subs all abiding by the theoretical idea that "works" are by-definition "art works". As shown, bottom-categories of each "Works by country"/"Works by continent" tree may display items which have nothing to do with arts: this is perfectly fine, what isn't fine is the ill-titled, ill-structured and ill-maintained roof-scheming of the two categories "Works by country" and "Works by continent" both pretty longstandingly listed under Category:Art works while on their bottom floor there's items that may be associated with art - and equally may not. Another example: Category:Built in Spain in 1709 is (the only) resident of Category:1709 works in Spain. Across a tortuous clickway uptree you harbour (again) at Category:Art works, and ask yourself whether we should have considered construction as art..? My own answer is no. "Category:Built in ..." is perfect under "Category:Works in ...", but "Category:Works in ..." is very mistakeful when placed under Category:Art works, which restrains it in a strange, upside-down way.

As an initiatory, I've now removed Art–speaking cats from Category:Works by continent and Category:Works by country, but this whole thing seems a bit more fundamental.

Orrlingtalk 03:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Art_works&oldid=807198458"