Category talk:Greyhounds in art

When I first created this category, I made subcategories by period of creation, and by subject or theme of art. Accordingly, along with subcategories by century and medieval, I made a parallel subcategory Greyhounds in art in antiquity. Somehow, that was perceived as a category by subject, and art from other periods but with a classical theme appeared. Then, not unreasonably, the original name of the category, meant to indicate period of creation, was renamed Greyhounds in art in classical antiquity. There was then no category containing only Greyhounds in art in antiquity. I have now created a subcategory Greyhounds in art by period, and placed all the subcategories by period in it. I did not remove them from this parent category. I intend to remove the categories now in this category, as they are duplicated in the subcategory Greyhounds in art by period. But I will wait a bit to see if there is any reaction. Henrytow (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Henrytow: : I sense that you're not super familiar with commons categorization style, so please let me help. Think through the category tree you'd like to create and write it out clearly here, like this:

• Base category
  • Child category 1
  • Child category 2
    • Grandchild category 1
  • Child category 3

I'll watch this page, and offer my thoughts on your proposed tree. Then you or I can proceed in making it. We need to create categories that are very clear about the contents. Category:15th-century greyhounds in art‎ suggests any art from any period that depicts a greyhound that was alive in the 15th-century. Category:Greyhounds in 15th-century art‎ suggests art from the 15th-century that depicts greyhounds, regardless of when/where they are depicted. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a fine idea, to change the period labels as you suggest. Is there any way of renaming Categories, other than creating a new one, then transferring, one by one, the contents of the old one to the new?? Henrytow (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Henrytow: Yes, they can be moved, which kind of does the steps you mentioned but automatically. But please discuss your proposed moves first, if you don't mind. The issue with your new category Category:Greyhounds in classical art is that we have no Category:Classical art so it doesn't fit into the rest of Commons's category tree. We do, however, have Category:Dogs in ancient Greek art‎ and Category:Dogs in ancient Roman art so perhaps we can divide this category up and then delete it? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, maybe there should be a Category:Classical art. But one must hope that it is better than the Category:Classical music by century, which references only 20th and 21st century music!! It seems to me that my Greyhounds in art category and its subcategories fit your model of Base - Child - Grandchild quite well. I think your notion that people will think that Category:15th-century greyhounds in art contains " any art from any period that depicts a greyhound painting from any period that was depicted as if alive in the 15th-century" is improbable. But who knows: I am surprised at the stuff loaded into Category:Greyhounds in classical art that caused you to rename it.

I do not want to redo the Greyhounds in Classical Art category into Greek and Roman for several reasons: There are no GiA made in classical Greece to my knowledge; and second, much Roman sculpture is essentially derivative, even a copy, of Greek; and third, too long to explain here. See the commentary on File:Diana, Vatican.JPG for an example of the difficulties. Experts can disagree about provenance. Why take sides?

It has been some time since I paid any attention to this category, and I'd like to do quite a bit of what seems to me to be more substantive. There are quite a few nice images that needs to be uploaded, to begin with.

Henrytow (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Henrytown: You certainly don't have to change "Greyhounds in Classical Art" into "Greyhounds in ancient Roman art" yourself, but you also don't get to decide on your own that it shouldn't be moved there if there is a general consensus to do so. You may notice that there is no wikipedia article for en:Classical art either - it just redirects to en:Ancient Greek art. I suspect others would agree that the "Greyhounds in art" category should not have a unique structure, but should follow the same category structure as every other "Subject X in art" category on commons. You may recall that I am not' the one that nominated your categories for discussion in the first place. The nominator was effectively suggesting deletion of "Greyhounds in art" as overly specific, and I've put in a great deal of work to organize your category tree into something defensible.

I don't think anyone is going to think it's very likely that Category:15th-century greyhounds in art‎ describes 15th-century greyhounds either, but the fact remains that your category name is grammatically incorrect in terms of adjective placement if you are describing 15th-century art featuring greyhounds. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)