Talk: Literature

Literature vs Literary References?

What's the difference between this category and Literary References? Some articles are in one category or the other; some are in both. -- Danny (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Took me awhile to get back to this. One difference is simply that Literature was created first and encompasses many items that aren't references: Fictional books that mention the Muppets (Fudge), characters like Storybook, characters that are writers (Flo Bear), as well as literary figures that have interacted with the Muppets or Creature Shop but haven't necessarily been referenced. Isaac Asimov is one, and there's Amy Tan who I just added and a ton that should be added (Maya Angelou, Alan Bennett, etc.) There should be a see also to Category:Fairy Tales though (since I'm not sure it's worth repeating everything in there, except for actual writers like Hans Christian Andersen or something like Pinocchio which isn't quite a fairytale). The definition on the category page is quite old but looking at it, I think it still works as far as the scope: "Literature and presentations thereof in Muppet/Henson productions, as well as Muppet practitioners of the literary arts, including poets and playwrights." I'd just add in the note on real authors, poets, and playwrights and link to relevant categories.

I'd say merge the References category, or even double count Literature in Category:References if need be, since everything in Literary References is by definition literary. However, not all items in Literature are references, and a few were both referenced and have another direct connection. That or do some subdividing, subcatting, since something like Fudge is already in Category:Book Mentions, and subdivide out literary characters, literary people, etc. But I think a merge would be simpler, and basically keep this on the same lines as comparable theme catagories like Sports. Some of the entries in Category:Adapted Authors, which preceded this, or indeed almost the whole category, could probably be merged in (I just recategorized Douglas Adams, who should definitely be here, pending whatever other changes we may make). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 23:43, September 29, 2009 (UTC)

I think the References categories are useful, so I'd want to keep the Literary References category as is. I think the problem is that this category seems to overlap, so people are putting things in here rather than in Literary References, where they belong. For example: Heidi is currently in this category, but belongs in References.

So I'm not sure I understand why we need this category at all; it seems like a hodgepodge of literary references, book mentions, adapted works and a few celebrity authors. I think it confuses more than it enlightens. -- Danny (talk) 00:07, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

It's a theme category which was around before we had the references category, so I don't think its existence hurts either or really confuses, though it is the only case where we have both. Category:Sports just covers everything, we don't have another category for references to sports teams or players (thinks like Ferret Jeeter just go in Category:Celebrity References). Can you think of a solution that doesn't involve choosing to junk one category over the other? Like I said, I'd be up to reorganizing or subcategorizing. I created Heidi, by the way, so that's just my goof and also a problem I was having with the "Add category" thingummy. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 00:17, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually going through it now and fixing a few pages that weren't in References. I don't hugely mind this category, now that I know that there's a difference, but I don't really see the point of it. I've never been a huge fan of the theme categories in general, and this one seems less coherent than most. -- Danny (talk) 00:20, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looking at it again, there'sCategory:History, which is larger and includes many things that aren't references, and Category:Historical References, and Category:Sports References does exist, but it's pretty puny compared to the existing Category:Sports (which again predated it and has very little overlap, except everything in the former being in the latter). Again, some are in both (looking at it, I'd actually take Uncle Sam out and just keep him in Category:America. So perhaps really we should discuss the larger issue of theme categories versus reference categories, and when or whether to have both. Sports References definitely looks pretty useless to me, but the others are more complicated.

I think this category is actually pretty coherent (and the additions of authors would help, plus I never really liked Category:Adapted Authors which existed just as a place to house Twain, Stevenson, plus people that weren't referenced like Roald Dahl; some are here, some aren't) but I'd definitely agree with re-appraising some of our themes, now that it's been awhile since we've been theme crazy (and many of those arose basically as a way to solve our porblem with lists without losing a useful way of grouping related items).

In broad terms, though, as long as there isn't utter overlap (which is the case with the two Sports categories), and since users find the pages in different ways, as long as the scope is defined clearly (and categories linked, another failing here, again because the original category predated the references and neither page has been updated in any way since), I think a little overlap is fine. It would definitely help to discuss the broader issue, though, list where the overlaps exist, get input from the rest of the community, and then handle each area in question. That's generally proved to be the best way of handling these things in the past. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 00:32, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if you feel like this is worth it, then that's cool with me. It's good that we had the conversation; it'll probably help to give this category a more clear definition. -- Danny (talk) 00:54, September 30, 2009 (UTC)