Disputatio Categoriae:Scripta per civitates digesta

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Arbores categoricae[fontem recensere]

This and related items reach an enormous range of categories, which may have gotten mixed up, so let's pause here and reconsider. Scripta are 'writings' (i.e., individual works), but litterae are 'letters' (i.e., literature), not quite the same thing. Scriptores (writers) are implicated in litterae (literature), but they aren't a subset of scripta. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:36, 28 Maii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About 10 years ago (I think!) we fixed on using "Scripta" for writings-by-country and "Litterae" for writings-by-language. I believe it's been consistent ever since. An article about any text that is of interest as literature should always be categorised here under both category trees, one for the language it's in (and it might occasionally have two if it's bilingual) and one for the country where it's written or published (and it might have two if there's some notable ambiguity).
The category tree above the "XXXae scripta" categories (and likewise the "Scriptores XXXae" categories) should rise towards country names, never language names. The category tree above the "Litterae XXXicae" categories (and likewise "Auctores XXXici") should rise towards language names, never country names. Chance visitors occasionally insert supercategories that conflict with this, but not often, and whenever I find inconsistency has got in I correct it, and I hope you would too.
Hmm. Not all of that may have sunk in, so I may have created some erroneously named categories today. Poetae are a subcategory of scriptores. Should artes then be a higher-order category of scripta or of scriptores? Presumably the former, with scriptores rising to artifices? And then at the top, if cultura stands above artes, what stands above artifices? "Homines per munera digesta"? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:16, 28 Maii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have been very weak at categorising art generally, and I'm really happy that you plan to improve things! But if you're doing it geographically, I would suggest that you adopt the "scripta" category tree to represent the written genres that are a subcategory of the artistic or cultural supergenre. Thus I merged your "Litterae Canadae" into "Canadae scripta", and made "Artes in Canada" a supercategory of that. Would that do to be getting on with? (I hadn't at first realised the extent of your work today.)
Yes, OK. The next few days will be busy on other matters; however, with the structure in place, moving items from "Poetae" to nationally specified categories (like "Poetae Franciae"), will be easy, almost mindless, a job to be done piecemeal, as time becomes available. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:42, 28 Maii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel the simple term "scripta" doesn't cover it adequately, after all, we can talk about changing it. But we always need a term for "writings/literature geographically" (currently "scripta") and another term for "writings/literature linguistically" (currently "litterae"). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:32, 28 Maii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I know, we do better than any other Wikipedia in categorising literature explicitly both by language and by country of origin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:05, 28 Maii 2017 (UTC)[reply]