Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/01/Category:Periparus ater (illustrations)
Category:Periparus ater (illustrations)[edit]
Move back to Category:Periparus ater in art (disputed move), several of these images are artworks, not illustrations. If necessary, the category can be split. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - (a) all the other subcategories of the parent Category:Paridae illustrations are of the format Category:Genus species (illustrations), so this maintains consistency, and (b), the ones you call 'artworks' are equally illustrations in ornithological texts. Additionally, I'd consider 'artworks' and 'illustrations' synonymous anyway; they both cover whatever is done by human hand, as opposed to camera lens. - MPF (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Really? The Bunce reredos shown above is an artwork, not an "illustration", and is not "in an ornithological text". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Do we need to choose? What if we keep Category:Periparus ater (illustrations) as a sub-category of Category:Paridae illustrations, but put Category:Periparus ater (illustrations) in Category:Periparus ater in art along with other artworks? So:
- Thoughts? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
To me "Periparus ater in art" is the better category name, as I mainly want to throw the artworks like statues and comics in a subcategory. I don't want to find the anatomy files in this category, as they are interesting for wikipedia articles for a completely different reason. The argument with consistency is in some way nonsense as I had one day made up "in art"-type categories for all species which had enough artworks in it and someone changed all of them. --Kersti (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Kersti Nebelsiek: I don't think it's just consistency but the very logic of categorization. Anatomical & zoological illustrations (etc) are art, just as paintings and sketches are art, so art should be the base category. But there needs to be some link between Category:Category:Paridae illustrations and another with Category:Category:Tits in art. Following the style of Category:Cyanistes caeruleus in art and Category:Cyanistes caeruleus (illustrations) makes sense. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
To me an art or illustrations category in which are anatomy files is a problem, if there is no anatomy category in the species category in which they are as well. If i see an Illustratiions category with files showing eggs, young birds, anatomical details etc. I start to make um a category for eggs or young birds or anatomy, as I think if I make up a Wikipedia article I would have a problem to find it if it is in the art category. For the Wikipedia author the question if something is art or a photo is almost irrelevant and the question what is on the picture is the main point. --Kersti (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- Then, if I understand correctly, you are opposed to the whole tree under Category:Illustrations of animals and Category:Zoological illustrations. That's fine, but it's not appropriate to make such a decision in a category discussion about Periparus ater. Perhaps you might take that suggestion to the vilage pump? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- No, that's not what I said. It's more complicated. I said in the moment when there is an "illustrations" or "in art" category eggs and anatomy files which are in it need an eggs or anatomy category visible in the main category to be findable. Therefore I would start illustrations categories when the others already exist or when the main category is too big and it is therefore a good idea to start all these categories. It's a question of timing. --Kersti (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)