Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Works of art of women smoking (activity)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Category:Works of art of women smoking (activity)

[edit]

Category had been at "Smoking women in art" since 2010. (Alternative formulation "Women smoking in art" IMO would have been equally ok.) @Joshbaumgartner: unilaterally moved it to "Works of art of women smoking (activity)", as far as I can see without discussion. Very awkward, counter-intuitive name that does not improve usefulness. I suggesting reverting to previous name. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also related cats: Category:Works of art of men smoking (activity), Category:Works of art of adult humans smoking (activity) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment there are a number of CfDs that go into the category fixes going on there. There was a CfD regarding standardizing the arts and related sub-categories, including works of art, to clarify whether a category is about the arts at large, or specifically works. Next, there was a CfD covering the standard terms to use for people of different age and gender combinations (changing things like 'adults' to 'adult humans', etc.) Next, there was a CfD regarding the standard formatting for people doing activities, settled on the activity following the actor in verb form. And of course, the basic Universality Principle  has to be applied, so the same term for smoking should be used from the parent category down through the hierarchy. Taken together it makes for a pretty substantial rework in category naming and organization on a particular area such as this where all of those conclusions all come together in one place, so I understand the question, but yes, this is all based on previous conclusions. Josh (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there has been other relevant discussion, please link. I'm sorry, the new category name seems exceptionally awkward and unnatural in English and I don't see how this is specifically warranted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Infrogmation. "in art" has been our normal way to do this for probably tens of thousands of categories for roughly two decades. Changing something like that should not be done by one person or even a handful of people without notification somewhere like COM:VP that such a discussion is taking place. - Jmabel ! talk 06:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree with Infrogmation and Jmabel: I prefer short and clear category names, even if that conflicts with a Commons principle. Perhaps we should look at the (grand)parent which causes this conflict and rename it (which is it? Because Category:Works of art of adult humans smoking (activity) does not have any valid parent category at all). JopkeB (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @Jmabel: That excuse just doesn't hold water. This was a discussion that involved several users with a lot of discussion over the course of multiple years. As a regular CfD participant, you had every opportunity to participate and to solicit further participation by promoting it. Choosing not to participate or promote it only to complain later about not being notified just doesn't hold up--you aren't new to this. Josh (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: No, I am not particularly a "regular CfD participant" and was completely unaware of that discussion. I probably see about 5% of CfDs, usually because either they are about a category I created or because there was a notification to a page of someone whose user talk page I monitor, usually either because we have had significant interaction in the past or because there is a pending question I am waiting for them to answer.
I stand by my statement that closing a stale discussion with seven participants and no clear consensus is not a good way to make a decision affecting thousands of categories.
But beyond that: there is exactly one (tangential) mention of the "in art" construction anywhere in that CfD, and it's not even parallel to the case here: if we were to follow the example of changing Category:Facing forward in art to Category:Facing forward in art works, then the category being discussed here would become Category:Women smoking in art works, not Category:Works of art of women smoking. - Jmabel ! talk 20:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well perhaps you are also unaware that this particular issue has also been resolved, see below, and we are moving forward. I miss lots of CfDs too, I don't whine about not being told about them. Josh (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also Commons:Village pump#Works of art of men smoking (activity) --JopkeB (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner Can you provide links to the CFD(s) that had decided to use "works of art" instead of "in art"? While I do support many of your initiatives, I don't like renaming "[topic] in art" to "works of art of [topic]" per above. Although I have also moved some "activity people" categories to "people activity", I have kept the "activity people in art" categories as they are. Even though there was a CFD regarding this topic, we can re-discuss the topic to find the new consensus on artwork categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 Sure... you can readily find it at Category talk:Art. The bulk of the discussion was probably before you became a regular CfD participant, so you might not have seen it. It seems like we may stick with 'in art', which I think is fine without violating the spirit of that conclusion, so I'll amend that CfD conclusion with a note to that effect once this closes. Josh (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Agree It should've been "Women smoking in art" (or "Smoking women in art"). The current subcategories for smoking are all incredibly cumbersome. ReneeWrites (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support "women smoking in art" because (1) it follows the consistent "people activity" pattern, (2) it uses the orthodox "in art" naming, and (3) "(activity)" is unnecessary if "people smoking" clearly refers to an activity. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are some separate things coming together, so to summarize:

  • Works of art: It sounds like there is a pretty good consensus to keep 'in art' vs. 'works of art of' as a construction, so I agree with that. Let's keep things at 'in art' going forward.
  • Adult/Female/Male: There doesn't seem to be any problem with this, so we should keep implementing this going forward.
  • Activity verb location: Some users seem used to some categories being in "doing people" format, but not any real problem with consistently adopting a "people doing" format, so we can keep implementing that going forward.
  • (activity) dab: There seems to be some legitimate question about whether smoking requires this appelation. I suggest a specific CfD on this question for this topic to determine if it is really required, the result of which will of course be reflected here.

Josh (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Smoking (activity) for a discussion about dropping the '(activity)' dab as unnecessary. Josh (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I have reverted all cases of "works of art of X" to "X in art" as it appears there is no controversy on that point, so might as well get it done. If there is a better way to do it that we agree on in the future, I'll gladly implement that consensus. Josh (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that decision. Can this discussion now be closed and leave the "(activity)" additive to Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Smoking (activity)? Or is there something else still to discuss here? JopkeB (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/07/Category:Works_of_art_of_women_smoking_(activity)&oldid=899866914"