Category talk:Sculptures by artist

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture 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.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture 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

Suggestion to rename a bunch of categories

I believe that all the categories included in “Sculptures by Artist” should be renamed “Sculpture by Artists,” but am not quite sure of the process for getting this done. The word “sculpture” is a plural or collective noun. It seems to me to be pretty much universal in the sculpture community to use the word this way. Save Outdoor Sculpture! is not “Save Outdoor Sculptures.” The Smithsonian Institute’s Inventories of American Painting and Sculpture does not say “Sculptures.”

The SIRIS data base is set up as, “Outdoor Sculpture by State/City:” and “Paintings & Sculpture by Subject,” not “sculptures.”

Then there is the literature on the subject, let’s go UK style here., just so that this is not a purely an American rant (references upon request). “Public Sculpture of Glasgow” by Ray McKenzie, “Public Sculpture of Liverpool” by Terry Cavanagh,” Public Sculpture of Birmingham” by Noszlopy & Beach”, “Public Sculpture of Leicestershire and Rutland” by Cavanagh & Yarrington,” “Irish Public Sculpture”. Then there are the books such as , “The Sculpture of. . .” Donald De Lue, Joseph Coletti, (hmmm , might need an article here), Frances Rich, Verrocchio, and Eric Gill: The Sculpture.”

Jacob Epstein did NOT entitle his autobiography, “Let there be Sculptures.”

And this is just wandering through my library, where I found a lot more examples, if you want them.

In all fairness, I found one book, “Nolamba Sculptures” by K. Krishna Murthy published by Sundeep Prakashan in Delhi, 1987, that used “sculptures” in the title.

It is as if we are telling the entire world, who we know do show up on wikipedia, “Fine you all are doing it that way, but this is wikipedia and we are choosing to do it this way. We set up the first category as “sculptures” so that’s it.” IS that what we want to say? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Normally a category rename would be an instant matter of WP:CFD, but I can imagine, given the large number of categories involved, that you first try a more informal way to see whether a CFD nomination may potentially have a reasonable chance of success. I've notified WikiProject Visual arts about this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll just start by alerting editors that I see involved hearer. Carptrash (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:::I am going to try a mass pinging, something I have never done before, so let's see what happens. @Tim!:, @Od Mishehu:, @Biruitorul:, @Outriggr:, @RevelationDirect:, @Another Believer:, @Look2See1:, @Oculi:, @Hontañon3:, @Ramblersen:, @Koavf:, @Epbr123:, @MTLskyline:, @Shawn in Montreal:, @JackofOz:, @Theramin:, @Black Falcon:, @Gareth E. Kegg:, @Eastlaw:, @Mais oui!:, @Good Olfactory:, @Svensson1:, @TonyTheTiger:, @Quadell:, @RevelationDirect:, @Hassocks5489:, @The Bushranger:, @Mxn:, @Smetanahue:, @Pichpich:, @Ilyaroz:, @Lucid:, @Catalographer:. Okay, that’s not everyone, but it’s a bunch and real life demands that I leave now, so I am posting this now rather than later. Please read over the proposal above, that the name here and everywhere appropriate be changed from "sculptures" to "sculpture." Carptrash (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should match Category:Works by creator, which is always plural works, singular creator. However, if there is some specific reason why "sculpture" shouldn't be pluralized with an s, I have no objection. Of course, "film" is equally a plural noun in some cases. In fact, "work" is too. I personally don't see this gaining traction unless you can make a case for the entire category tree. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is the topic category Category:Sculpture, subcat the list category Category:Sculptures. This is how it should be. Oculi (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in making a case for "the entire category tree." I am interested in making a case for wikipedia not sounding ignorant because "that is how we do things here." This is how sculpture is referred to in the sculpture world.Carptrash (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you wouldn't say a group of sculpture, or there are many sculpture, or, I bought two sculpture by (insert artist name). This issue is not important enough to devote allot of time. There are so many more important things to do, such as expand stubs, write new articles on notable subjects, or simply improve existing articles. That said, either way is fine with me. I'm sure most curators, historians, dealers, collectors, art students, teachers, etc., wouldn't notice the difference one way or the other (with or without "s"). Coldcreation (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the use of the plural is the way to go in this instance. Pichpich (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pichpich's comment above is an example of what you'll likely encounter. You're going to have to come to terms with the "entire category tree" at Cfd in a sense, if you want to deviate from the overall naming structure of Works by artist. I've spend quite a lot of time at WP:CFD or WP:CFDS and you'd need to back up the view that 'this is how sculpture is referred to in the sculpture world' with solid, persuasive references -- and any opposers might counter with examples of their own where the word "sculptures" are used to refer to multiple works. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed several books from my library (see above, and I could do a lot more), the Smithsonian Institute, Save Outdoor Sculpture!, and have found 1 instance where "sculptures" is used in the title. A quick google brings up, "Ohio Outdoor Sculpture Inventory", actually the list is virtually endless because "sculpture" not "sculptures" is . . ... the industry standard. At wikipedia we always claim, "We go with the sources." So, aside from policy or rather precedence on wikipedia (we are not supposed to use wikipedia as a source, right?) please come up with a list of 10 or 12 instances from the published ( on the web is fine) sculpture literature where the word "sculptures" is used. Here we are trying to cram the square peg of what the rest of the world does into the round hole of wikipedia policy and it is a poor fit. Carptrash (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose renaming — the 'child categories' of this parent are each for a single sculptor, not a collaborating group of sculptors. [Category:Sculptures by artists] can imply that an art collective/sculptor & landscape architect/collaborating sculptors/etc. were the creators. We do the ultra-parent as Category: Categories by country, not [Category:Categories by countries], because its sub-categories are each an individual country. It is the same for all the [Category:Categories by country]'s child/grandchild/et al sub-cats, including Category: Sculptures by country. That precedent seems relevant here also. — Look2See1 t a l k → 18:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Look2See1.
The use of Sculptures in the literature, from Google Books:

The Sculptures of Andrea Del Verrocchio, Andrew Butterfield - 1997
The Parthenon Sculptures, Ian Dennis Jenkins - 2007
Bharhut Sculptures, Ramesh Chandra Sharma - 1994
Vatican sculptures, selected, and arranged in the order, Robert MacPherson - 1863
Sculptures, Isabel Thomas - 2012
The Ceremonial Sculptures of the Roman Gods, Brian Madigan - 2012
Chinese Wood Sculptures of the 11th to 13th centuries, Petra Ršsch - 2007
Antiquity explained, and represented in sculptures - Volumes 3, Bernard de Montfaucon - 1722
History of Restoration of Ancient Stone Sculptures, Janet Burnett Grossman, ‎et al - 2003
Moving Sculptures: Southern Netherlandish alabasters from the 16th to 17th centuries in Central and Northern Europe, Aleksandra Lipińska - 2014
Sculptures of Ganga-Yamuna Valley, Mihir Mohan Mukhopadhyay - 1984
Uffizi : the Ancient Sculptures, Giovanni Di Pasquale, ‎Fabrizio Paolucci - 2001
A Catalogue of Sculptures from the Sanctuary of Diana Nemorensis in the University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia, Pia Guldager Bilde, ‎Mette Moltesen - 2002
Auguste Rodin: Sculptures, Deanna Muller - 2015
Ellsworth Kelly, Recent Paintings and Sculptures: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Ellsworth Kelly, ‎Elizabeth C. Baker - 1979

Coldcreation (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OKay. I asked a question and @Coldcreation: answered it so I will withdraw my objection to the Sculptires vs Sculpture issue. Thanks for taking me seriously even though it appears that I was mistaken. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 05:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to my knowledge, almost all by x categories are singular.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per various consistency arguments above, and to make it clear that the contents of the category are normally individual sculptures. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]