Creation Edit

See creation discussion at category talk:arts

Sub-categories Edit

"Fictional literature" for novels, etc. "Scientific literature", etc for engineering/medical papers, texts, etc. I think this distinction might make sense in light of all the scientific papers listed on okudagrams. --LauraCC (talk) 19:57, August 23, 2016 (UTC)

Fictional literature sounds like the book is fake, not that its contents are. That's not a good name. - Archduk3 17:40, October 15, 2016 (UTC)

You're right. How about just "Fiction" or "Works of Fiction"? --LauraCC (talk) 17:43, October 15, 2016 (UTC)

Same problem. Don't look for sub-categories based on fiction and non-fiction. - Archduk3 17:53, October 15, 2016 (UTC)

And "novels" is already a real world category. *sigh*. --LauraCC (talk) 17:55, October 15, 2016 (UTC)

You haven't got all the technical manuals out of the main category yet. The rest doesn't need to be broken down any more than that. - Archduk3 18:04, October 15, 2016 (UTC)


The discussion from MA:CS needs to be put here when these are created. I don't see it here, and can't find it readily on the MA:CS page. Where's the discussion for this? -- sulfur (talk) 20:15, October 18, 2016 (UTC)

I didn't post any suggestion there regarding this category creation. But it was partially inspired by the fact that people were putting drama-related things in Category:Visual art, when I intended that rename to focus on things like paintings. I took the initiative. --LauraCC (talk) 20:17, October 18, 2016 (UTC)
A question, though; I've filed some playwrights here and at Category:Earth drama and I'm guessing I probably shouldn't have or did it slightly wrong. --LauraCC (talk) 20:19, October 18, 2016 (UTC)

All categories have to go through MA:CS. IT's how we keep things tracked and in line. -- sulfur (talk) 20:24, October 18, 2016 (UTC)

Odd. I've been told just to make something myself, several times. --LauraCC (talk) 20:29, October 18, 2016 (UTC)

When it comes to categories, we are a bit more particular, because we want to ensure that our category tree is actually sound, and doesn't contain things that don't make sense. Put it on there, discuss it, nobody objects, make it. -- sulfur (talk) 20:32, October 18, 2016 (UTC)

But having seen what's in there now, can I just be forgiven and keep it as it is for now and remember to post all my suggestions first next time? And about my question above?
Also, aside from an overarching category for shakespeare plays, I suppose "Earth drama" isn't much of a category after all. --LauraCC (talk) 20:40, October 18, 2016 (UTC)

Literature breakdown Edit

Literary devices Random related stuff Remains

Category:Literature has nearly an equal portion of literary "works" and "elements". I think the elements should remain here and the works be re-designated as "literary works".--Alan del Beccio (talk) 00:49, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

I would rather have a "literary elements" category than moving the works to a sub, if only because I think this would lead to less of a mess with the current subcategories, which mostly contain works, but not exclusively. - Archduk3 02:26, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

Good point. In which case "literary terminology" would be my second choice. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 02:43, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of using "terminology", but I have no better suggestion for a category containing dust jacket and subplot. - Archduk3 10:32, May 12, 2017 (UTC)
Oppose putting the elements in a category. These "literally elements" are too varied in nature, and "grab bag of things that aren't stories" isn't a good unified characteristic to base a category on. If they really need to be separated out, then I think it might be better to create a subcategory for works, and leave the rest in the old category - that way it would resemble other relative high level categories which contain some one-offs, sui generis stuff, and other oddballs, but are mainly gateways to a number of large and important subcategories. -- Capricorn (talk) 12:48, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. "Literary techniques", which would be better than "Literary terminology", and that as a subcategory of "Literature" is the same treatment their Wikipedia equivalents receive (short of the sub-sub-sub-categorizations they use). Either way, titles and techniques do not need to be all lumped together like this. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 12:55, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

There's a lot of things that absolutely qualify as literary techniques, but then there's also a bunch of other things for which that term, at least as it's commonly understood, would really be a stretch. Slogan, plagiarism, Journalism,...
And by the way, going further, I'm confused why something like dust jacket is considered for this category (as Archduk3 suggested). Surely in the works and elements scheme things like that would be leftovers remaining in the parent category? -- Capricorn (talk) 13:19, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

The more I look at this category, the more of a mess I see it really is. Taking a step back and regrouping, I can see: The "derivatives" (the components of literature, your literary devices and whatnot), the "styles" (how the literature is expressed) the "works" themselves (examples of, your titles), and the "writers" (the ones making the works). I can't entirely say that is how we've actually applied our categorization system on this topic, also I think Category:Drama was poorly thought out and should be Mulliganed. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 14:32, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

Having created many of these elements' pages, perhaps "Category:Literary devices" might be best? --LauraCC (talk) 17:07, May 12, 2017 (UTC)
Drama is dead, long live drama.
Dust jacket is the most "how is this literature?" entry in the category, when it's more of a tool for books than anything else. I used it as an example of something that should be removed from the category, either by placing it in a sub or just plain removal, and I didn't see how that was being addressed by any of the options, so I slipped it in and waited to see if anyone noticed it. It wasn't suppose to be taken seriously. - Archduk3 12:01, May 13, 2017 (UTC)
I've weeded out some of the pages I thought don't fit the "is (a piece of) Literature" category rational, and placed a table at the top of this section to help keep track of the rest. If we're going with the standard "<Page> is <Category>" structure, the first column meets the "<page> is (a) literary device" bit, but the second column is "<page> is related to <category>" stuff, which works well enough when it's a couple of pages, or the Authors sub, but since there are no other categories for these pages, I think something better than just leaving them in arguably the "wrong" category should be found. - Archduk3 21:06, May 13, 2017 (UTC)
We could do with literary devices what we've done with genres; we have a page Genre and a category Category:Genres that the former is in. --LauraCC (talk) 16:31, May 16, 2017 (UTC)
I was asked on my talk page if I was still opposed to this - well, I was specifically opposed to the "literally elements" half of the original proposal because it seems too much like an ill-defined grab bag. And I'm pessimistic that "random related stuff" and "remains" will be morphed into something better then that so tentatively at least I'm opposed to those too.
I've briefly mentioned this idea before, but the more I think about it the more it seems to me that the best solution might be to just (grudgingly) embrace the "<page> is related to <category>" status for the literature category, but take the heat of by creating a "literary works" subcategory, thus at least splitting works from the various other concepts related to literature that have also been put under its fuzzy banner for lack of a better place.
I mean: consider this bit of absurdity about the current situation. You have category:literature, which contains a lot of works + all these other things, and then you have the subcategory:Earth literature, which one would think contains everything that should go in literature but is from Earth (in reality it only contains works) - meaning that in the current logic this random related stuff should actually be split up between literature and Earth literature, depending on if we know it only from Earth culture. Nothing can fix that unless you rename "Earth literature"‎ to "Earth literary works", at which point it would still be very odd for non-Earth literary works to be mixed in a category with other stuff.
On a sidenote, I tried to gain wishdom from the Elders by taking a look at the wikipedia category literature. It has over fifty subcategories and still contains various types of other articles. So we're probably doomed. -- Capricorn (talk) 06:14, May 25, 2017 (UTC)
I'm not following your logic on having a "works" sub, since you seem to agree with my reasoning for not having one, I.E. most current subs would have to be subbed under the new "works" sub but then couldn't contain any non-works, which should be an option, because a few "related" pages do not a category need/make. Not to mention lit would stand alone as "needing" a "works" sub when compared to all the similar cats.
It might help to only consider the "literary device" suggestion for now, which is at least pretty cut and dry, since everything beyond that gets messy. Clarity and usability remain the goal of the category tree, and a complete breakdown seems to have become the enemy of that by us overthinking the problem, which, while refreshing to the seemingly new standard of underthinking the problem, is still not great. - Archduk3 06:36, May 25, 2017 (UTC)
I have no problem with a "literary device" category, unlike the others that one makes sense (going by your list). It probably would have saved some time if I'd make that more clear earlier, sorry. I'm going to talk a bit more about works now, but as for "literary device", consider me on board :)
Regarding "works", I was just implicitly assuming that that one would not contain works that were Journals, Reports‎ & Technical manuals, because there's better subcategories for those. I'm not sure what reasoning of yours you thought I agree to, so tbh I'm not following your logic about you not following my logic - to me, the things you raise appear to be be non-issues, so maybe we're misunderstanding each other or something.
I'm also not sure what categories you have in mind when you talk about similar cats to literature, though Music at least is organized like I'm suggesting, containing a Musical compositions subcat leaving the master cat a repository of assorted music related concepts. -- Capricorn (talk) 04:09, May 26, 2017 (UTC)