Category talk:Paintings by year

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles

Visual arts

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Untitled

So this is when the painting is first displayed? Is year by year granularity perhaps a bit too fine? Maybe for every decade would be better?

Ideally there would be a year-decade-century hierarchy, but I'm not sure there are enough paintings for that. Recently I've done Category:Novels by year, with the full hierarchy, essentially the same as Books by year. Some would say that there are not enough novels, and there are fewer paintings still.

As far as paintings are concerned, this categorization is obviously hardly useful for browsing, but it makes some sense for tagging purposes. And yes, this is a limitation of WikiMedia software. E.g. I want to see a list of all 1960s novels. But I can't, I have to click all individual years in the decade. Same would be with paintings. (True, there is Cat Scan: [1]. It doesn't work 100% correctly at the moment, though.)

Finally, the year is when the painting was finished, or - if that is unknown/uncertain - when it was first displayed. If both years are unknown, it should go somewhere under paintings by century... GregorB 11:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to just categorize paintings by decade, and then by year later if need be. However, I notice that under the books by decade, etc. there are only subcategories, not individual pages. Is this because of some rule or something? Or is it just by convention? Would it be ok to just go ahead and start to do this? (Rajah 14:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Categorizing directly by decade (and not by year) is somewhat unusual... Categorizing by both decade and year (so that an article is directly put in both) would also be unusual; it is a general rule that redundant categorization should be avoided (e.g. a 1923 book is by definition also a 1920s book, so there is no need to say it explicitly). That's why there are no articles directly under book by decade. Note that all this is done through templates (compare Template:Paintingyr and Template:Bookyr), not by hand! GregorB 16:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that when I go to say 1821 books, there is a small menu with all the years of the 1820s and i can easily walk along year by year, but when I go to 1821 paintings, there is no such small menu with the years of the 1820s? How can we fix this? (Rajah 01:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

That simply requires an adjustment to the template. Since it will probably require additional parameters, it will probably need all the articles moved to a temporary template and then copied back (so that nothing is broken). I will try to get to that, as well as organizing the paintings from years into decades and then centuries so that it is in a organized structure. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone object if I create a temporary template, putting all paintings into their respective works categories, and also into decades and then centuries, i.e., Category:1663 paintings would go into both Category:1663 works and Category:1660s paintings? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably be the best solution. After all, that's how Template:Bookyr works. GregorB 09:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finished. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A big thank you for fixing that. And also to whoever put the << arrows >> in to go from one decade to the next. --Rajah 05:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]