Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 21

< November 20 November 22 >

November 21

Category:Religious sees in the United Kingdom

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: relisted Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_8#Category:Religious_sees_in_the_United_Kingdom because it wasn't tagged. Kbdank71 18:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Religious sees in the United Kingdom to Category:Dioceses in the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: The two terms are, practically speaking, homonyms. The articles in the category, without exception, are about the latter. Only the cat on Scotland uses the word "see". Additionally, the adjective "religious" is superfluous. There is no such noun as "see" that is not always a religious see. The parent category reverts to "diocese" (e.g. Category:Dioceses in Europe. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2010 (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.

Category:Religious sees

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: relisted Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_8#Category:Religious_sees because it wasn't tagged. Kbdank71 18:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Religious sees to Category:Dioceses
Nominator's rationale: The two terms are homonyms. The adjective "religious" is superfluous. There is no such noun as a see that is not always a religious see. The parent category reverts to "diocese (e.g. Category:Dioceses in Europe. If this re-name is successful, then all children of the category will also need to be re-named by the same rationale. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename There is in fact some slight distinction between an episcopal see and a diocese, but these articles are almost without exception about the latter. The category hierarchy of dioceses could use some additional rationalization. Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - they are not always called diocese. Sometimes they are ecclesiastical provinces, archdiocese, eparchies, archeparchies, or exarchates. In fact isn't the generic term "episcopal polity"? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 05:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Province" is a special case, in that it lacks a consistent definition across episcopally-organized churches. I question whether we should use it as a category at all. The other cases are all subspecies of dioceses and if we feel so compelled could be made subcategory hierarchies of Category: Dioceses. I suppose the other solution would be to make Category:Religious sees the root and put all the other subspecies directly from it. However there is absolutely no reason to have a "episcopal see" hierarchy with subcategories of "Religious sees in X". Behind all of this is that the hierarchy of dioceses is not especially consistent, as it cannot seem to decided whether to divide up by geography and then by church, or by church and then geography. This is important to the present discussion because the hierarchy within the different churches uses different terms and structures, so that (for instance) in Anglicanism the title of "archbishop" does not correspond to its usage in the Catholic Church (an RC archbishop for instance is more or less at the same level in the hierarchy as an ECUSA diocesan bishop, whereas an Anglican archbishop more closely corresponds to the Pope or to the head of one of the uniate churches). It might make more sense to reorganize the whole tree by church/communion and then establish separate patterns for each. Mangoe (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with user Mangoe's analysis above and Support the suggestion to organise by church/communion rather than by state. Ireland is a prime example where both the RC Church and the Church of Ireland are organised on an all-Ireland basis. The dioceses of each criss-cross the border. It is an entirely artificial device to pretend that they could be compartmentalised by state. Having said that, a continental geographic is probably worthwhile. It's less likely that dioceses would straddle continental divides. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2010 (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.

Category:Songs written by Billy Yates

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 to delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs written by Billy Yates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only one entry, not likely to expand. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In certain circumstances small/one-entry categories can be useful, and I'd think subcategories of "Songs written by X" would be one of them. When you're working your way down through the categories from the top, especially, it makes sense to me - e.g. Category:Songs > Category:Songs by artist > Category:Songs written by X, looking for a song that way without small/one-entry cats, you either find them in "Songs by artist" which would just be weird, or don't find them at all. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 23:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If there is no hope of expansion, then this is an unnecessary category. Resolute 00:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Ten Pound is already aware, categories that are part of a larger category scheme, i.e. songs by songwriter may have single entry categories. Also, I wouldn't mind use of Ten Pound's crystal ball - so sure that it won't expand! --Richhoncho (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2010 (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.

Category:Dorabella Cipher

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: upmerge article and delete category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dorabella Cipher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category only contains two articles: the main article Dorabella Cipher and a user page. Pburka (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the user space page was User:PeterBrooks/Sandbox. Someone has now removed this page from the category leaving just the title article. Pburka (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2010 (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.

Category:Burj Khalifa

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: upmerge sole article delete category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Burj Khalifa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Move images to commons and delete the category or just tag the images and delete the category. No reason to have images categories awaiting moving to commons. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The images have been moved to Commons, and what's left in the category is just the Burj Khalifa page itself. Jafeluv (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/upmerge per the above. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 23:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/upmerge category for a single building is not useful. Elekhh (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2010 (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.

Category:North Battleford North Stars players

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: Rename. Dana boomer (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:North Battleford North Stars players to Category:Battlefords North Stars alumni
Nominator's rationale: Match category to article name, and change from players to alumni to match junior hockey standard. Resolute 17:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. -DJSasso (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom to Category:Battlefords North Stars players. While most junior hockey categories use "alumni", about one-fourth of the categories in the category tree use "players" (e.g., all subcategories of Category:Saskatchewan Junior Hockey League players). Given that the term "alumni" has another usage on Wikipedia, it seems to me that "players" is much less ambiguous. Even the article Junior hockey uses the term "players" instead of "alumni".
    What has been the reason so far for using "alumni", and is there a difference in terminology between American and Canadian junior hockey? Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See below, I am seeking to address the inconsistency in junior team categories, and seek to bring all under the umbrella of "alumni". The only reason I did this one separately was because it involved a change to the entire category name, rather than one word, as the others are. Resolute 19:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what happens when I don't scroll down. :)
  • Thank you for clarifying, I've revised my comment. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appreciated! And to answer your remaining question, there does not seem a difference between American and Canadian junior terminologies. The CfR below includes USHL and SJHL teams for the most part, so from both countries. Resolute 20:58, 21 November 2010 (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.

Junior hockey alumni

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: Rename. Dana boomer (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Junior hockey graduates are considered alumni of their organizations, and by their leagues. (i.e.: USHL Alumni) Propose rename of the following categories to bring them in alignment with the majority of junior hockey alumni categories. Resolute 17:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for accuracy and constancy.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. -DJSasso (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (for now) - we rarely categorized people as "present" or "former" XXX, you have to explain to me why this is different (and I'm a hockey fan, but you need to explain it in way that anyone could "get").—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevlar67 (talk • contribs)
    That isn't true at all. There are thousands of categories in all sports where we categorize people by the team they used to play for. There are alot of categories where we also categorize people as alumni of schools. This is done all the time and is very common. All that is being done here is changing the wording to match the other categories in this tree. The purpose of the categories isn't changing at all. It still will be doing the same thing is has always done. -DJSasso (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • well, my example on the talk page at WT:HOCKEY is that we categorize graduates of schools as alumni. i.e.: Category:Harvard University alumni. We don't call them Category:Harvard University students. Junior hockey organizations classify their former players as graduates, and define them as alumni. On that basis, the proposed move is changing to the more accurate terminology. And, much like former students of educational institutions, junior players are overwhelmingly non-notable until after they graduate, so there is little concern about trying to differentiate between "present" and "past" as only a handful of players a year would fall afoul of this. Resolute 15:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This remains the only place on Wikipedia where athletes are defined as "alumni" rather than "players." All of the hockey "alumni" categories should be converted to "players." (This is a disagreement we've had many times before.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed it has, and given I can show any number of examples of junior hockey graduates being defined as alumni, I would ask why that should not be considered the proper naming scheme. Your opposition really is nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Resolute 16:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, I can show quite a few examples of junior hockey using the term "players" as well, likely considerably more than the number that use "alumni." As for WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I also wouldn't like it if there were Category:National Basketball Association ballers or Category:Major League Baseball sluggers. Just because there is an alternate terminology for two countries doesn't mean the structure of the category system has to bend to it. This is more of a procedural objection, though. I don't actually expect that you guys will change your minds, and since that's the case, not having outliers within the "alumni" structure is a good thing.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I admit, changing everything to "players" was my first suggestion, simply because the number of junior league categories using "players" outnumbered those using "alumni". Checking out league websites and sources, they all use "alumni" when referring to graduated players. I don't think the argument about other sports rings true, because most other sports don't have a system of junior leagues isolated by age. Universities are the development stream in most cases, which is an entirely different setup. Canada Hky (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. As noted, "alumni" is the correct terminology. oknazevad (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2010 (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.

Category:Calgary Royals alumni

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: Rename. Dana boomer (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Calgary Royals alumni to Category:Calgary Mustangs alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename category to match article as the team has adopted a new nickname for this season. Resolute 17:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to match teams new nickname and parent article.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. -DJSasso (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Shouldn't this be Category:Calgary Mustangs (ice hockey) alumni? There is also Calgary Mustangs (soccer) which makes the name ambiguous (see nomination immediately below). Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was considering that when making both noms. Basically, I am marrying the category tree to the article title - and the hockey team is the primary title. I don't see any reason why the article names should change, but if there is determined to be a need to dab this category, then so be it. Resolute 22:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure—just raising it as an issue. I don't oppose the current proposal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2010 (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.

Category:Calgary Mustangs players

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: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Calgary Mustangs players to Category:Calgary Mustangs (soccer) players
Nominator's rationale: To match article title, avoid confusion with the hockey team of the same name. Resolute 17:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to disambiguate from the hockey team. Jafeluv (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2010 (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.

Photography by country

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: Rename. Dana boomer (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My request concerns a number of subcategories of Category:Photography by country, and I think a brief introduction to what's there may help.

The subcategories have two naming patterns, exemplified by "Category:French photography" and "Category:Photography in Japan". A counter-illustration: there is no combination of both (say) "Freedonian photography" and "Photography in Freedonia"; it's only the one or the other. (Indeed, for the majority of nations -- even "major" ones such as Canada or Italy -- there's neither.) Regardless of the form of the title, the typical content combines (i) "Category:Freedonian photographers" as a subcategory with (ii) a small number of miscellaneous pages. However, those with the longer titles ("Photography in Freedonia", etc) tend to have rather more pages, including the names of photographers from elsewhere.

For three categories -- Category:Bulgarian photography, Category:Serbian photography, and Category:United Arab Emirati photography -- there's nothing beyond the relevant "photographers" subcategory.

There would be a small gain in elegance via consistent use of one or other of these naming patterns. Between them, my own first reaction is preference for the adjective. (Certainly I far prefer the simple "British photography" to the pomposity of "Photography in the United Kingdom".) However, I conclude by swaying in the opposite direction, and consistency has nothing to do with it. Below, I explain.

What do or can these titles mean? Despite some special pleading, "French photography" (say) is not meaningful in the sense that "French philosophy" (let alone "French horn") is. (At best, there's been the occasional decade about which it may make sense to talk about a French style.) Rather, "French photography" has meant something like "what French photographers have done" or "photography in France", no more.

Now let's consider how Wikipedia might treat two small bodies of work.

The French photographer (and Magnum member) Marc Riboud visited Japan in the 50s and took all the photographs for a (French) book whose English-language edition is titled Women of Japan. (There's also a Dutch-language edition.)

The Japanese photographer Ihei Kimura visited Paris around the same period and took photographs for a book of his own that won high praise and was much later reissued with English as well as Japanese text and with the English title Paris.

Now, Wikipedia is keen to label biographees by origin. Thus these two belong to, respectively, Category:French photographers and Category:Japanese photographers. However, I for one am just as interested in who's been photographing what or where. Perhaps Riboud might eventually be in "Category:Photography of women in Japan" or similar, but some days ago I settled for adding him to Category:Photography in Japan. Easy so far. But how about Kimura? Was he carrying out "Category:French photography"? Perhaps yes, perhaps no; if I added him, a later editor might well toss him out of that. "Photography in Freedonia" seems handy.

What about Freedonian photographers who've spent most of their careers outside Freedonia? Wouldn't "Freedonian photography" be far more appropriate? Yes it would, but these people are already in the category "Freedonian photographers".

Below, the specifics. -- Hoary (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted word of this at Talk:Photography in Australia, Talk:Photography in Denmark, and Talk:Norwegian photography (the only top pages), and also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of photography. -- Hoary (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United Arab Emirati photography to Category:Photography in the United Arab Emirates. (Or just deleting it.)
Nominator's rationale: See above. Hoary (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bulgarian photography to Category:Photography in Bulgaria. (Or just deleting it.)
Nominator's rationale: See above. Hoary (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Serbian photography to Category:Photography in Serbia. (Or just deleting it.)
Nominator's rationale: See above. Hoary (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American photography to Category:Photography in the United States (or similar).
Nominator's rationale: See above. Hoary (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Australian photography to Category:Photography in Australia.
Nominator's rationale: See above. Hoary (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:British photography to Category:Photography in Britain (or similar).
Nominator's rationale: See above. Hoary (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed change to different name. Suggest that the change be to Category:Photography in the United Kingdom. JackJud (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Danish photography to Category:Photography in Denmark.
Nominator's rationale: See above. Hoary (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:French photography to Category:Photography in France.
Nominator's rationale: See above. Hoary (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Norwegian photography to Category:Photography in Norway.
Nominator's rationale: See above. Hoary (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the category is only for photographers, not the industry (that is, Nikon does not belong to Category:Photography in Japan), then what's the point of having it? Photographers by citizenships will be fine. I'm not comfortable with classifying traveling photographers under countries where they've been: it's a worthwhile classification for a very thin minority; press photographers, on the other side, might have been in dozens of countries. East of Borschov 21:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category is not only for photographers. Yes, let's look at Japan and Nikon. Nikon is one of the best known and most important among a large number of Japanese photographic companies that have articles in en:WP. This indigenous photographic industry has been very important to photography in Japan. (Nikon, directly and recently so, via for example the Nikon Salons and the Ina Nobuo Award.) Nikon is within Category:Photography companies of Japan, rightly a subcategory of Category:Photography in Japan. The country category is neither exclusive nor snobbish: Whether you enjoy or loathe it, Japanese porn is a major purveyor of photography (and bread-earner for photographers, some using the proceeds to finance unrelated work that you'd happily show to your mother); Category:Japanese pornographic magazines is thus also a subcategory of Category:Photography in Japan. ¶ I too am not at all happy with classifying a photographer within "Photography in X", where X = any country where he or she happens to have verifiably clicked the shutter. But I'm also not happy about any classification system that fails to alert people interested in photography in/of India to the work of, say, Henri Cartier-Bresson or Don McCullin, each of whom has put out a significant book (or more) of his photography there. (See the introductory text to either Category:Photography in Japan or Category:Photography in India and what it says about eligibility criteria for foreign photographers.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright then, support the move from adjectives to "in country X". East of Borschov
  • Support the proposal. Category:Photography in Denmark would be fine. But don't be surprised if there are arguments in favour of the existing categories to keep things in line with, for example, Category:Danish art, Category:Danish architecture, Category:Danish literature, etc. - Ipigott (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think they're a little different. "Freedonian literature" is likely to conflate nationality and language; it's a special case. "Freedonian architecture" and "Freedonian art" are more relevant. The two suggest to me work that either was or could have been done by a native. Certainly I'd find it strange to see the term "Chinese art" used for paintings of Chinese treaty ports done over a century ago by visiting westerners (and of course in a western tradition). But whether or not you prefer to use a term that will encompass "alien" painting of the same place, there tends not to be all that much of it, so it's not too problematic. (Did Gauguin create "Tahitian art"?) -- Hoary (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the proposal per nom, except that the British category should be Category:Photography in the United Kingdom. JackJud (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a reoccurring problem as the adjective signifies the nationality/culture regardless of country borders, while the noun signifies the current country borders. In many cases the two are the same but often enough they are not. For arts, arguably cultural realms are more important than political borders, but is more pronounced by language based arts, and least by recent abstract arts like photography. Both pose problems: the nationality/culture definition is problematic as it is often hard to objectively classify artists which were active in countries different from that of their origin (and is the source of a lot of edit warring), but it has the advantage of not being biased by current political conditions (why not Kurdish photography, or Catalan photography, where are the limits of Irish photography?). On the other hand the noun/country definition has the advantage of being easy to objectively classify recent content, however is problematic where country boundaries have changed (just think of Photography in Yugoslavia, Photography in Serbia and Serbian photography), and thus can be misleading as well. I think on a case by case basis one or the other could be better, or even both could be needed. I am in general against standardisation in the name of formal "elegance". The accurate name for the main category however would than be "Photography by country or nationality" as Category:Arts genres by country or nationality. --Elekhh (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the thoughtful response. I'm not particularly fond of "Photography by country" and had been starting to wonder about a change to that too, but I'm not sure how the addition of "or nationality" would help. It already includes Category:Photography in Korea (which I created), because the division into "North" and "South" postdates WW2 and applying it to coverage of the Korean war or period of Japanese hegemony/rule would be irksome. I'm in no rush to create Category:Photography in Antactica but it seems a most worthwhile grouping, one that parallels those above but has nothing to do with nationality and little to do with country as this word is normally used. Toward the other pole, although Greenland is Danish to call the photography in/of Greenland either "Danish photography" or "Photography in Denmark" seems pedantic or perverse. All in all I'd be inclined toward "Category: Photography by geographical area", though I haven't yet fully thought this through. Anyway, the mismatch with "Category:Arts genres by country or nationality" wouldn't worry me: although the notion that photography is an art is one that's widely held and sometimes meaningful, if you insist that photography as a whole -- commercial portraiture, war reporting, porn, the lot -- is one of the "abstract arts", I offer you this of an execution and this of children escaping napalm (both are "photography in Vietnam" but arguably only one of them is "Vietnamese photography"). -- Hoary (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your considerate response. I think you're right that "Photography by geographical area" would be the proper categorisation for documentary photography, photojournalism, landscape and other place specific genres. Photography as art would need to be than categorised under a separate category something similar to the French Wiki fr:Catégorie:Style ou mouvement photographique. If there is truly any national photographic style/movement it would need to fit in there. --Elekhh (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for drawing my attention to fr:Catégorie:Style ou mouvement photographique. A pity that its content is underwhelming; but then fr:WP can only categorize what it has. Arguing over prepositions can quickly become tedious, and my apologies for the fact that I'm probably about to bore you, but: Yes, "Photography of Freedonia" would mean either (a) photography pertaining to it or (b) photography of more or less recognizable images of it; in the latter sense, it would be an odd term for, say, photographs of Freedonian peppers, mantises, or (Sugimoto-style) seascapes. However, what I'm proposing is instead "Photography in Freedonia". If somebody notably did "art" photography of mantises -- you laugh? see this -- in Freedonia, I'd be happy to add the category "Photography in Freedonia" to them. I'd also happily add "Insect photography" (or, if this kind of thing were to catch on, even "Mantid photography"). Or again, if we had good reason to think that "Art macrophotography" or whatever was a helpful label, then that too. But I don't think we need discuss these matters here. All we need to do is to remember that categorizable concepts needn't be orthogonal as long as they meet other requirements: one kind of category doesn't preempt another. -- Hoary (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS. As "Photography in Antarctica" could be a useful category (Hurley, Ponting, etc), as could "Photography in the South Pacific" (or Micronesia, Melanesia, etc), "Photography in Greenland", and "Photography in the Himalayas", etc, I recommend a change in the name of the parent category to "Photography by country or geographical area" or something similar. -- Hoary (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_21&oldid=1074805999"