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?
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]
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
Category:The arts is on top of the category tree and contains correctly named and categorized subcategories separating the three following main arts disciplines :
Category:Visual arts (see Visual arts) including architecture, sculpturing, painting, graphic arts, decorative arts, filmmaking and art photography)
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.
Each of the above mentioned differentdisciplines produces a different kind of works of art. Consequently each of them needs its own art works category :
Category:Visual arts has NONE (except the bad named, misleading/misunderstood Category:Art works, resulting in a confusing holdall category suitable for every purpose)
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]
Reasons : aim is the categorization of « works of art in physical form, i.e. products of the en:Visual arts » (see category definition and above discussion). That should be clearly stated in the category name (see Commons:Naming categories#Principles). See also : WP:de (german).
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)
@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:
Category:Works of art (merge current Category:Art works here and sort appropriately--I understand the vast majority will actually go to "visual works" or whatever we call that new cat)
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]
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]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Second, the categorization of literature based on the assumption that literature is, first of all, what is sold at the book market(?), doesn’t seem to me a very good idea.
I think the category is supposed to be about the book market, that is, the commercial trade of books as such. This does not seem very useful, as it will contain almost all book-related categories. I would not mind a category "book markets", that does what I originally thought this category does, namely show markets for (used) books. --rimshottalk06:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First thing: This is a field of studies - book history, you can take courses at universities, secondly I began with it to cover statistics etc. like these. --Olaf Simons (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of Literature (Drama, oral traditions) is not part of the book market. The book market is rather a commercial enterprise among other markets like car manufacturing, banking... --Olaf Simons (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"are all elements of the book market literature?" - that depends on your concept of literature. The book market is everything from fiction to sciences and religion. I'd say literature is part of the market. Yet literature is not entirely a sub-category, only part of the literary production is paper based, printed in books, and that part (basically fiction) is sold on the book market. --Olaf Simons (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One way would be to put a see also to both category pages and uncat Category:Literature from Category:Book market. On the other hand, Literature as a knowledge sector is a object or subject of the study field book market and all literature is a potential object of the market sector book market. Are E-books and hear books parts of the book market? --Diwas (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Are E-books and hear books parts of the book market?" - good question. I suppose the book traders hope these things will remain their business. For the moment the publishing houses have the rights on most texts, and the publishing business is to a good extent a business of rights. --Olaf Simons (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concernant la bibliographie de l'écrivain Claude Klotz allias Patrick Cauvin , je tiens à signaler qu'en plus d'avoir enseingné à Bezons il à enseigné également dans un college technique A La Garenne Colombes 92 jusqu'en 1973 et qu'il à non pas vécu en cite à Sarcelles mais Cité H Wallon à Bezons 95 je l'ai eu comme prof de 1970 à 1972 .
Resolved by consensus
Merge Category:Art into Category:The arts and other changes (see above)
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)
