Category talk:Foundation universe books

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I reverted this change: [1]

Category:Foundation universe is an indirect subcategory of Category:Fictional. Category:Fictional is meant to be the inheritance root for everything fictional, like fictional characters, fictional locations, fictional technology. But not for books, movies, authors and actors.

If you disagree or if you have any question about the Fictional categorization, please discuss at Category talk:Fictional.

Pjacobi 06:52, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to have snuffed your change like that. I'm not in the habit of checking a history before I make changes; I probably should. But the reason why I made the change: I think that Category:Foundation universe books should be a subcategory of Category:Foundation universe, because it is an element thereof, not seperate therefrom. I won't revert you if you choose to reinstate your edit, because its not worth quibbling over. So you make the call on whether Category:Foundation universe books is part of Category:Foundation universe.--→Iñgólemo← 00:28, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC) (a.k.a. User:216.228.163.41)

The main argument was, that a book in Category:Foundation universe books is real. It has an ISBN and you can buy and sell it. In contrast, the Encyclopedia Galactica is fictional. Anyway I'm hunting around in over ten fictional universes and try to fine-tune the categories, so that the Category:Fictional scheme will work. If you think, something is fundamentally wrong with this categorization, it may be best to voice it Category:Foundation universe, as the question how to handle the book articles affects quite a large number of places. For now, I'll revert to my version. -- Pjacobi

I also think this (and other similar categories, like Star Trek movies, Star Wars movies, etc.) should be part of the Foundation universe category. It's not that uncommon in Wikipedia categories that a subcategory fits very well into a category, but subcategory of that subcategory, while it fits very well in the subcategory, does not fit into the superior category, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Furthermore, I don't think the Category:Fictional is that necessary anyway. There are also numerous articles that describe both the fictional universe and the book in one article. Ausir 10:34, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The idea if Category:Fictional is to make it possible in a future version of the mediaWiki software, to optionally exclude (or include) all articles describes fictional things from searches. If both books and fictional items end up in Fictional, this scheme would be less exact. But of course, as there are already articles which describe both to some extent, the border will always be fuzzy. -- Pjacobi 10:51, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)