The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge. Please properly tag and nominate the other category in a separate discussion. ℯxplicit 05:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge both. Having the "-only" suffix does not make sense at all. CravinChillies 11:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Rename per the naming scheme of the other articles in the parent category (e.g. "Magic in film"). ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, much clearer and defining. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Much clearer scope. Dimadick (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed. The current name suggests that video games are performing magic tricks. The proposed name provides clarification. CravinChillies 11:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. ℯxplicit 05:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is a problem in that it's not really about dogs in art; it's the root of a tree of specific artworks depicting dogs. Paintings, for whatever reason, were not split out, and I am suggesting splitting them out, with ruthless pruning to eliminate those where the dog is simply part of the background rather than being part of the principal subject (there are a great many listed where I had to go to some effort just to find a dog in the picture— this is not "Where's Fido?".) Once those are split out, we have a main category of artworks with subcats by medium; presumably anything that doesn't fall neatly into one of the three principal media would remain in the main category. I'm open to a better name for the main cat. Mangoe (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on "there are a great many listed where I had to go to some effort just to find a dog in the picture— this is not "Where's Fido?"." This would be because you are looking at a miniscule thumbnail image, or at best a postcard-sized full file on screen. In the vast majority of examples, you would not have this problem at all if you were looking at the actual picture, where most of the dogs are life-size or near. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pruning this fine category would remove many of the nice paintings of dogs that dog lovers would happily search for. One reason to include every painting with a dog in it ("dogs in art") is that dog species change through the years and centuries, and paintings - the "pre-photographic" record of an era - capture the look, sizes, and other features of species which may no longer appear as they did then. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Oppose to the first part, and the pruning. Milder oppose to splitting out paintings. There is a vast tree (Category:Art by subject) using this convention. We should avoid wherever possible using the over-worked and almost exclusively American term "artworks" in category names. We already have too many categories that are only for paintings, rather than all art, which is often an unhelpful distinction. Except where the size is getting unwieldy, we should avoid this. Mangoe's OR ideas on what is significant in art go against all art history, and should not be allowed to influence us here. This category is not a problem; just leave it. Johnbod (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a vast structure of inaccurate categorization, so what? In fact there appear to be two conflicting systems of categorization, so that we have Category:Art by subject which does not contain Category:Mammals in art (which is a bad category anyway—nobody really organizes art that way) and which appears to be severely underpopulated.
The problem I see in a quick survey is that, for the most point, almost everything belongs in the "subject" structure, and hardly anything belongs in the "in art" category, because almost everything is a painting or sculpture having the thing in question as a subject, and almost nothing is a discussion of how such-and-such a thing appears in art. The "subject" structure breaks out by medium first, so paints of dogs as subjects ought to exist as a category. But beyond that, dogs, like carpets and putti and (in paintings of Neptune) fish are often simply visual furniture. I don't think it would be hard to find citation of that, but I don't have both a library of art criticism which I have time to troll through looking for it, and I could just as well object that it's OR to claim that every painting that has a dog in it somewhere is a painting of a dog, any more than every painting with a tree in it (which is to say, pretty much any exterior painting) is a painting of a tree.
At any rate, I'm not wedded to the word "artwork" (though I find the not-invented-here impulses toward American English tiresome), and fi we have to live with "Dogs in art", the "subject" structure still implies that the paintings need to be split out. Mangoe (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why? This is a completely wrong approach. I'm going to start ranting again! Yet again, CFD regulars show no understanding or respect for how art history works - very much of it is concerned with what is "just ... in the background". I could go on but I won't. I will repeat that most of the vast Category:Art by subject tree rightly includes stuff that is "just ... in the background". If you want to change that you should do a different CFD. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why, because now it is getting completely arbitrary. Take for example Joseph's Tunic, the only subject by which it is categorized is by a dog, while (a) the article doesn't even mention the dog and (b) there are so many more (and more defining) subjects by which the article could potentially be categorized, but it isn't, e.g. "clothing" and "Old Testament people". Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the badly named Category:Paintings depicting Hebrew Bible themes, which may one day sprout a sub-cat for Joseph. You really think "clothing" is more defining?? That people haven't set up other potential categories is obviously no rationale for a deletion - that would lead to Catch 22 arguments over which needs to be set up first. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more and more inclined to think that the whole category tree by subject was a bad idea (as too subjective) and that lists would be a better solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why? No-one ever looks at lists - who would bother to link to these, or maintain them. There is no problem, so no "solution" is needed. There is nothing "subjective" about whether a dog is depicted or not, and if you are interested in dogs in art, why would you care whether the dog is the main subject of a work or not? Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether lists are more or less popular than categories. More importantly, since the articles in this category aren't articles about dogs in art, this categorization goes entirely against the spirit of WP:V and WP:DEFINING. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DEFINING is neither a guideline or policy. Either way, "Dogs in art" is self-explanatory, and if a dog is discernible as part of the painting or sculpture, there you have it. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the point. It's a Facebook-like tagging, not based on reliable sources about the topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except that, unlike Facebook tagging, the canine content of many works of art can be sourced if need be. See for example The Bellelli Family, where Arthur Danto's comments are quoted; more on this particular dog is found here, here, here, and elsewhere. Ewulp (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can see some sense in separating paintings from sculptures under "Dogs in art", but "artworks" seems unnecessary: are there likely to be representations of dogs in other media that merit their own articles? (dogs in collages, dogs in mosaics, dogs in prints/engravings)? prob not. Presumably the category is mostly used as a means of locating images of dogs: focus on dogs, not art, so from that standpoint a dog in the background cd be as useful as dogs as a main subject (not sure why "Dogs in art" is a subcat of "Dogs in popular culture"; art doesn't generally count as popular culture). Eustachiusz (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It often does in WP. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, there is way too much sub-categorization on Wikipedia, and this one is fine as is. 'Dogs in art' is simple, not overpopulated, and easy to find. I looked up something a couple of days ago and had to go through six subcategories before finding it, making that level of subcategorization almost useless. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So true, but I'm not sure you'll find a very receptive audience for that view here. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, more intuitive than the proposed alternatives; not broken/don't fix. Ewulp (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no problem here to be fixed (a painting of a dog is still precisely that, even if it is not the main subject in a larger painting). A sub-cat of "Dogs in art" called "Paintings of dogs" to sit alongside "Sculptures of dogs" might conceivably clarify things slightly, but 95%+ of the articles in the present "Dogs in art" are paintings (broadly defined), so prob not worth the effort. Eustachiusz (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The title should be read as "dogs IN art" which means the category includes works within which dogs are depicted. We have a print of an 18th/19th century painting (I don't know what it's called, sadly) which principally depicts people at mealtime and there are a cat and a dog in the room with the diners (as you would expect, the cat is eating and the dog is awaiting his turn). If there were an article about the painting, I would expect to see it categorised by both Category:Cats in art and Category:Dogs in art. CravinChillies 11:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
You're absolutely right. I've removed the category. Edward (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. It appears that this nomination is out of the bounds of CFD's scope, and it may require a broader discussion to establish a proper naming and categorization scheme. ℯxplicit 05:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is an anachronism. Poland had been partitioned in 1795 and was part of other European powers- Russia, Prussia, etc at the time. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep of 1803 and 1809. I've noticed that many non-political establishments (e.g. establishments of buildings) are categorized by current country rather than by country at the time of establishment. A random example: Bobbio Abbey is in Category:614 establishments in Italy. If that needs to be changed, it would require a much broader discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep As Marco pointed out above, there are a lot of anachronistic categories like this. Should we redirect the more common names (e.g. Germany, India, Italy--all of whom didn't exist in their present form until the 1880s or 1947)? Should we include anachronistic names for places that have a very long history but have relatively recent states (e.g. China, which has existed for millennia but has two states from the 20th century or Egypt)? Should we change all names so that they are no longer anachronistic but have some kind of navigation between them (e.g. Imperial Russia → Russian SSR → Russian Federation or British Colonies in the Americas → Thirteen Colonies [the confederation] → United States of America)? There are a lot of considerations here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The arguments of Koavf and Marcocapelle ignore the reality of how categorization has been done. Italy is somewhat of a tricky case, that might need some more refinement. However in the case of Germany, it has been largely avoided before 1800 in favor of Category:Establishments in the Holy Roman Empire by year, with the mid-19th century Germany categories facing much oppositions. It might be argued that we should rename say Category:1827 establishments in Russia to Category:1827 establishments in the Russian Empire, but the later is what we are using, and the former is what the common name description would be in the year in question. India we use the generalized borders of the British Raj, before 1840 choosing the name British India. What is 100% clear is we cannot categoize something established in Haifa in 1823 as an establishment in Israel. Using Poland for anything in this period is too confusing. The Dutchy of Warsaw can be used, but Poland makes weather the then or present boundaries are used too ambiguous, since there was no clear then boundaries. While in India and Russia and Iran they clearly exist, although different than at present. Pre-1860 boundaries of Italy and pre-1870 boundaries of Germany are on the tricky side, so those might need more refinement. However Poland in these years just plain does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. In a broader discussion I would propose to drop the intersection of year/decade/century (dis)establishments with country altogether, because it is too much a can of worms. Just categorizing them by year/decade/century, and intersecting these with the type of (dis)establishment, should be sufficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
REname/merge per Greyshark. Recent practice is to use the contemporary, not an anachronistic current polity, for these categories; there have been a series of CFDs to eliminate anachronisms. I suspect that the Napoleonic War period resulted in some short-lived polities, which probably do not need a split by year, so that these should be upmerged to a wider establishment by year category and an establishments in polity one. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and add other proposed categories if these are truly wanted. Fram (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Poland existed as a nation, though not in the political sphere, and the establishments were essentially Polish in character. CravinChillies 11:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
