Talk:Art

Namespace vs. Category
I've always been a little confused when trying to look through the art pages; why do we use a namespace for them, rather than a category? It seems to end up with the art pages being categorized somewhat haphazardly, or not at all (like this page). It also affects searching (though that could be intentional). Is there a reason why we don't just have art pages in the main namespace, with the top-level ones in Category:Art, and various subcategories extending off of that (fan art, avatar art, etc.)? --Emufarmers 21:36, 10 July 2006 (PDT)
 * "It also affects searching (though that could be intentional)" It was intentional.  Articles like  or  have no business being in the main namespace, even if they are categorized under Art.  Having all art contest articles in the Art: namepsace allows them to enjoy a greater freedom than main namespace articles do.--Fiddler 21:52, 10 July 2006 (PDT)
 * Hmm, alright. Is there a reason there's no top-level art category, then?  (Also, is it intentional that this page and Avatar artists directory are both in the main namespace?) --Emufarmers 21:58, 10 July 2006 (PDT)
 * Is there a reason there's no top-level art category, then? Never got around to making it.  (Also, is it intentional that this page and Avatar artists directory are both in the main namespace?)  Yes, to make it easier for people to find.--Fiddler 22:01, 10 July 2006 (PDT)
 * I'll see what I can do, then, if nobody beats me to the punch. As to the ease of finding, that needn't be a problem; you could have art redirect to something like Art:Contents, and avatar artists directory redirect to Art:Avatar artists directory . --Emufarmers 22:06, 10 July 2006 (PDT)
 * No. The point is that the Art: namespace is for actual creative works or archives of creative works, not for articles describing the role art plays in the game.--Fiddler 22:10, 10 July 2006 (PDT)