Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive/Works and media

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Purpose of Works and media categories

I'm inclined to start a discussion of these at CfD, but perhaps the creator of the categories can explain the idea first.

It seems a muddle to me. Perhaps the idea is to be able to aggregate all types of expression about a subject. However, IMHO Works categories and Media categories work fine in their separate ways.

For example,

  • Religious television and Religious radio should be under Religious media.
  • Religious television programs and Religious radio programs should be under Religious works.
  • Religious books are works.
  • Religious newspapers are media.

There are enough up/down/sideways connections between these to navigate between them. It creates a muddle to have this overarching "Works and media". There is no need for a category that holds them side by side. – Fayenatic London 22:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Purpose: 5 reasons
Indeed, the idea is to aggregate all types of expression about a subject because Works-categories and Media-categories don’t work very well in their separate ways
Some examples:
  1. The categories Category:Political fiction, Category:Political literature, Category:Political publications, Category:Political drama and Category:Political music present both (works and media) in there subcategories. Grouping them in Category:Political works and media seems an elegant solution to me – separating would harm navigation a lot, I think.
  2. And what about the articles in Category:Political art, Category:Political podcasts and Category:Political blogs: works or media ? By grouping them together in Category:Political works and media, we don’t need double listings in Category:Political works and Category:Political media.
  3. An additional reason (maybe too far-fetched): technology will evolve to the point where there will be no meaningful difference between being print media and electronic media - books (like blogs) will be ‘media’ and not ‘works’, like is already the case in the French language.
  4. Separating Works and Media Categories results in categories that are too small and ill-named - see Category:Works about countries, check the first 10 : they have less than 5 articles (and list often media, not works). Expanding and grouping (introducing some History-categories) would do a good job here.
  5. The splitout Works/Media introduces a category system that creates confusion, while including them both in broader ‘Works and media’-categories speeds up navigation: in one blink of the eye, you can find information about a particular subject, whatever the format/medium it is collected in and the way it is accessed.
Stefanomione (talk) 10:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, a neat and sufficient way to achieve almost the same benefit would be to make sure there are "see also" links between each interest category for Works and the corresponding one for Media.
But still thinking it through, what's the difference between Category:Political works and media and Category:Works and media about politics? – Fayenatic London 14:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Purpose: to mark the difference

To illustrate the difference, let's take

OR

So, a

political novel
is (critical) 'about politics', but isn't 'political'.

The "see also" option doesn't seem to be sufficient: as I said, what about e.g. the categories Category:Political fiction, Category:Political literature, Category:Political publications, Category:Political drama and Category:Political music: they all have both (works and media) in there subcategories ... that makes a split-up (works vs media) in categorization impossible.

I wait for your opinions before I (eventually) continue the scheme. Stefanomione (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the difference, thanks for the porn example which makes it clear. The current split of "Political" doesn't seem to follow your explanation, e.g. Category:Political fiction is in both, but that's probably inevitable.
Coming back to the existence of these "works and media" categories, I still think "works" should cover everything, or almost everything, that you want to include. Is it only the Category:Political publications which might be problematic to include category Category:Political works? if so, then all you would need would be a "see also" link to that. – Fayenatic London 09:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather keep the distinction, because works are generally by an individual, whereas serial publications are generally by a large number of people. – Fayenatic London 09:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few things to note:

"Works" categories are all subcats of Category:Creative works. And all usages of "works" are meant to imply "creative works".
"Media" is a subjectively defined, vague term, of the kind that we typically don't use in category naming. The word "media" needs to have a modifying adjective (news media, mass media, storage media, etc.) in order to be accurate. Medium/media is merely a generic term expressing a format of "something".

So just because you may feel that media applies to a particular type of media, that doesn't make it accurate enough for Wikipedia (

WP:SYNTH
comes immediately to mind.)

As for combining works and media, a work is a product; a media is a format of something.

As a matter of fact, a work can be presented through a presentation medium, discussed through a news medium, showcased in an advertising medium, critiqued in a print medium, and can be stored on a storage medium, and for that matter, when critiqued, can be rated as not great, not bad, but "medium"... - jc37 22:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Works/products -vs- media/format

1/. Consider / check Category:Legal works and media: this category contains publications that exist in two versions - print (products) and electronic (format) versions: Category:Law books, Category:Legal codes, Category:Legal documents, Category:Encyclopedias of law, Category:Legal citation guides, Category:Law journals, Category:Legal magazines and Category:Legal newspapers. Then, in my opinion, the scheme Category:Legal works and Category:Legal media doesn’t work. The German Wikipedia has understood this and categorizes as Category:Medien (how do I redirect to interwiki-versions anyway ?).

See an existing example for interwiki links, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Media_by_interest&action=edit . Once they are added in one place, bots come along and propagate them, with more or less success. – Fayenatic London 08:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2/. Should we rewrite all categories contained in Category:Sports media by sport: some are works, some are "media" ? Should we split up in Category:Sports media and Category:Sports works ? Stefanomione (talk) 07:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question, but I think that "works and publications" would cover what you want. Category:Golf media also includes people (Category:Golf writers and broadcasters), but I think it would be better to exclude them. Certainly your examples above don't include any People categories. This illustrates the problem with the "media" name, which is so broad & vague that it does invite such mingling.
Would "Works and publications" do what you want?
I'm still inclined to keep "works" for creative works, and therefore split up sports media into "works about sport(s)" and "sports publications" with "see also" links. But "works and publications about sport(s)" might be an acceptable replacement for sports media, and set a pattern to replace these "works and media" categories. – Fayenatic London 08:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


First, I thought the scheme "Category:Works and publications about X" would be a good option. But then we have to leave out the television + video games-categories in e.g. "Category:Works and publications about golf". Concerning the sports-categories, some things I don't know for sure:
  • Television networks and channels with ABCDE-content: works, publications or media ?
  • Radio networks and channels with ABCDE-content: works, publications or media ?
  • Podcasts: works, publications or media ?
  • Blogs: works, publications or media ?
  • Photographs: works, publications or media ?
  • Films: works, publications or media ?
  • Video games: works, publications or media ?
  • Homevideos: works, publications or media ?
  • Software: works, publications or media ?

Two minutes ago, I thought of the scheme "Category:Content about X". Odd name. Give me three hours ... my comments will follow. Stefanomione (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • television, radio, and podcast productions = shows. Shows = works.
  • print media (books, newspapers, magazines, websites, etc.) = publications. publications = works.
  • photographs = works
  • films and other video presentations = works
  • video games = works
  • software = works

A network isn't media or work. Depending on how it's defined, it's either a programmed channel or a company.

And none of these should have people in them (and quite a few appear to). - jc37 10:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re TV and radio: Agreed. Why do you (Stefanomione) want to include TV/radio networks and channels? I thought these "works and media" were intended for anything with content on each subject; that would include programs/series/shows, but not networks/channels/stations.
Re newspapers and magazines: I thought these (serial publications) were not works. If these are works, then scrap my suggestion of "works and publications"; all you need is works. – Fayenatic London 10:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at Category:Television channels and networks by content and Category:Radio stations and networks by content: channels and networks arranged by topic of programming. They 'provide' content (programs, ...), so I put them in Category:Media by topic Category:Mass media by topic. But do they belong to Category:Works by topic ? Stefanomione (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rule of thumb: If it is a product or a production, then it's a work.
I understand the hesitance to have non-fiction (such as news publications or scientific journals) to be considered "creative works". Because we tend to think of creative works to be works of fiction. But a work of non-fiction may be no less creative.
That said, I wouldn't have a huge problem with splitting off the news/journal/opinion works from the rest. Initially, I liked the idea of publications, but such works are not limited to print, and could be done as shows, among other things. - jc37 11:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't intend a distinction over non-fiction, but the characteristic of being the work of a large number of people who change over time. That sets newspapers/ magazines/ journals apart from books, and that's why I didn't think they should be "creative works." Although buildings & films are also created by large teams, they are creative works because the architect or directors has creative responsibility for the overall design. Come to think of it, I'm not sure why I never had a problem with TV shows or video games... you're quite right, some TV/radio shows have much in common with serial publications. – Fayenatic London 14:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comic books are another collaborative product : )
I think the only place we need to be concerned about the who and the how many of a particular work's makers/creators/producers, is when we categorise Works by X (author, for example). And yes, that's a fine line we walk with that. - jc37 21:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I came to understand that "Works by topic" is the best option. I will rename and transfer (manually, to achieve perfection) my last creations. I'm sure you agree, ... or not ? Stefanomione (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, thanks. If you want any parts of the work to be done by a bot, ask either of us as we can do it without delay using the criterion
WP:C2E. – Fayenatic London 08:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Some more doubts:

Stefanomione (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images (Wikipedia image files) are none of the above.
  • Entertainment databases are works.
  • Trade shows: as exhibitions, could be considered works; if you are creating intermediate categories, I suggest you use the word exhibitions.
  • Albums: works.
  • The last three are publishing organisations rather than content, so I would not advise you to include them. Provide "see also" links to such "mass media by topic" categories instead.
– Fayenatic London 08:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Archive/Works_and_media&oldid=1027716165"