Category talk:Architecture in the Ottoman Empire

message: This will sound like a rant, but I intend it as comments for future considerations: The original move of "Category:Ottoman architecture" should have been discussed separately instead of being bundled with over a hundred other modern country architecture categories (here) that were moved to this format. Obviously there was barely any discussion about the issues of this particular historical context and now we're stuck with the current schema unless there's a new consensus around a clearer proposal. I myself wasn't even aware of the move discussion until the articles themselves were moved after discussion was closed. I don't see why the original problem could not have been solved by simply creating more precise subcategories under a general-topic "Ottoman architecture" category, rather than creating multiple overlapping parent categories whose distinction is technical/semantic rather than topical.
For now: the difference in scope between the now newly-created :Category:Ottoman architecture and this category (formerly under the other's name) is not very clear, but I'm going to assume that this parent category can at least accommodate topics and monuments in the Ottoman empire that do not relate more narrowly to the Ottoman architectural style (e.g. the many European-style buildings of the 19th-20th centuries, plus other issues). The problem is: many of the articles currently categorized here need to be moved to either :Category:Ottoman architecture or to one of the categories under :Category:Buildings and structures of the Ottoman Empire (which is embedded here but not in the other). This would be fine, but then most of the categories and articles in the latter clearly belong in the former, or in both, but neither is embedded in the other, so... it's all over the place. Individual Ottoman monuments could be embedded under both of those parent categories where relevant, but aside from the added redundancy it would also likely mean hundreds of unsorted articles under :Category:Ottoman architecture alone. I'm going to try to sort some of it out, but a large amount of work would be needed to figure out the rest, and I'm concerned that the average editor won't know what to do this at the moment. R Prazeres (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, by splitting it, this has become simpler. This parallels other sections of the tree, and avoids circular categorization. Architectural elements are all under :Category:Ottoman architecture. Buildings and structures are under :Category:Buildings and structures of the Ottoman Empire. Buildings that are "Classical" Ottoman architecture remain under :Category:Ottoman architecture with its (main) article until there are enough to avoid WP:SMALLCAT. If more Empire buildings are again placed under architecture, revert.William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Please don't make more circular or small categories, it just wastes our discussion time deleting them.William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I didn't notice this earlier because I didn't expect it: why is "Category:Architecture in the Ottoman Empire" embedded under Ottoman architecture via :Category:Ottoman architecture by country (when it's a non-existent country, for that matter)? What is the purpose of this category if everything is under "Ottoman architecture" anyways? Are editors expecting there were Ottoman buildings outside the Ottoman Empire? R Prazeres (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

text: PS: In the meantime, under the circumstances, I've tagged :Category:Architecture in the Ottoman Empire by style‎ for speedy deletion, since circular categories was not my intention either way. I'm less familiar with the process for deleting categories; I assumed that inserting  was the easiest method but please feel free to change that if there's a better way. R Prazeres (talk) 09:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization has become much more complicated