View source for CZ Talk:Literature Workgroup

Thanks for creating this workgroup. I look forwarding to taking part in it.--[[User:Jason Sanford|Jason Sanford]] 09:30, 21 November 2006 (CST)


Jason, do join the discussion on the Forum [[User:Amal Chatterjee|Amal Chatterjee]] 14:05, 21 November 2006 (CST)

==Bonnie Hicks==
I know that Sanger has urged authors to focus on major articles, but circumstances in my life have occurred such that I needed a good grasp of the Singaporean author [[Bonnie Hicks]]. I therefore thought I would contribute this article to maximize my labor. I am unsure exactly how the '''approved article''' nomination works - specifically, whether or not authors as well as editors can so nominate - but I did nominate this article. While the article could go into considerable more detail, I do not think that is appropriate in this case. So here we have my first significant contribution to CZ - one I would never have prior foreseen. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 02:15, 14 January 2007 (CST)

:Though not familiar with Bonnie Hicks, the article looks well-written and well-researched indeed. Will keep an eye on Hicks in the future - yet another advantage of being part of this! --[[User:Carmen Mendez|CM]] 05:29, 14 January 2007 (CST)

== Minor revisions ==

I just read through the article, which indeed seems to me to be well-researched and amply documented.  I have made just two small stylistic revisions, and I think there may be a few other places where a kind of 'copy-editing' editing could strengthen the overall flow of the article.  I don't know enough about Hicks to comment on any substantive matters, though I do have some background in, and occasionally teach, postcolonial literature.

[[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 07:32, 14 January 2007 (CST)

:Hi Russel and Carmen. Thanks much. I addressed Russel's referencing concern at [[Talk:Bonny_Hicks]]. I did copyedit the article some more but have probably exhausted my own ability at such for now by reason of my proximal investment in the article. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 19:08, 14 January 2007 (CST)

== Are all workgroup discussions this slow? ==

I joined, but what's the point of the workgroup, if there's no collaboration? [[User:Kevin Scott Bailey|Kevin Scott Bailey]] 02:59, 1 December 2007 (CST)

:Literature is tiny compared to others.  The best way to get attention to whatever it is you'd like to write is just to be bold and write it for now. :-) [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 12:14, 1 December 2007 (CST)
::Will do, and thanks for the response. I contributed heavily to the ''To Kill a Mockingbird'' article at WP, so I may C&P that, and rework it for CZ. [[User:Kevin Scott Bailey|Kevin Scott Bailey]] 15:51, 2 December 2007 (CST)

== Categorizing literatures by "nation," language, etc.? ==

When this workgroup was just getting started, various suggestions were put forward about how to subdivide "Literature." Now that we have the "Related Articles" subpage, such subdivisions could have a practical effect. How, for example, do you navigate from the top "Literature" article to, say, H.G. Wells? Via "British literature" (which, if interpreted literally, he would share with 14th-century Welsh-language poet Dafydd ap Gwylim), or "British literature in English" (with the Welsh-, Cornish-, etc.-language authors off in their own categories), or "English-language literature" (with Mark Twain, V.S. Naipaul, etc.)?

The Britannica, in its "Outline of Knowledge," seems to go for pragmatism over a strict scheme. They have some strictly national articles ("American Lit.," "French Lit.," "Japanese Lit."), though their "English Literature" article covers works in English by authors from all the British Isles, including Ireland.  Then they have "German Lit.," which is really German-language, as it includes Austrians and Swiss, and "Yiddish Lit.," including residents of many sovereign entities.  There are regional entries ("Scandinavian," "Australia and N.Z.") and cultural ones ("Islamic Arts"). 

Why does it matter? Well, if I, or others, goes through now and puts "British literature" as the parent topic in the Related Articles page of every English-language British writer, and then some Powers That Be later decide that we want to categorize by language, it might require a lot of drudgery to change them all. With an individual writer of ambiguous status, it's not a big deal -- it's not much work to move Kafka from Czech to Austrian to German and back again, but if the whole scheme changes, lots of Related Articles pointers will have to move. (Or is there an easy way to do that on a large scale that I don't know about?)

Any thoughts? [[User:Bruce M.Tindall|Bruce M.Tindall]] 21:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

:P.S.  Maybe there might even be overlapping categories. Dylan Thomas, for instance, might be mentioned on one article about "Welsh poets," where his work could be placed in a context including Welsh-language poets, and also in "British lit.," where he would be discussed alongside English and Scottish poets who wrote in English. [[User:Bruce M.Tindall|Bruce M.Tindall]] 21:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
::I have been experimenting with masterlists so that if changes are made they only have to be made a few times.  For example, you could start a page [[British Literature/Related Articles/Masterlist]] where all brit lit authors are kept. Such a page can then be transcluded to multiple pages. For example, the [[Dylan Thomas/Related Articles]] subpage could have '''<nowiki>{{:British Literature/Related Articles/Masterlist}}</nowiki>''' under the related topics section. As would many other ''brit lit'' authors.  If a change is subsequently needed, a deletion or an addition, then the change is only needed once on the masterlist, not on many different pages. I started a discussion [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2532.0.html on the forum] with a few examples. Is this what you had in mind? Also see [[Leptotes/Related Articles]], it uses two masterlists, one under Other related topics and another under subtopics. 

::Also there does not need to be one route to an author.  Mutliple classifications is preferable as you never really know which route someone will be browsing through related articles.  I don't think of it as a linear hierarchy but more of a network. From each Related Articles subpage one can browse up and down.  Track any given path as readers move between different RA subpages, via the [r] links and the path could be quite complex. The more chance of hitting Dylan Thomas, as in the more related articles subpages that point to him,  the better. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 21:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

:::Thanks, Chris -- that would be a big help for a problem I hadn't even thought about, although I don't think it solves the one I was thinking about.  My problem is: We set up "British literature." Then we decide we want to classify literature by language instead. "British literature" and all its subpages get deleted, a new "English-language literature" gets created, and there are ten billion articles out there whose "Parent Topic" now points to a nonexistent article.  Redirects would probably help in some cases but not necessarily in all.  Anyway, the Masterlists idea does look like a great solution to the problem you described. I'll try it out. [[User:Bruce M.Tindall|Bruce M.Tindall]] 21:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

::::Somewhere recently, and it's driving me crazy because now I can't find it, I wrote a number of words about my thoughts on subgroups. Various people were discussing the possibilities of creating new subgroups, or sub-workgroups, and I asked if anyone at all, such as me, could come along and add "Mystery stories" and "Science fiction" and so forth to the Literature Workgroup? And then sub-sub-groups, such as "Agatha Christie" and "Rex Stout" to the "Mystery stories"? It seems like a tempting idea, but one fraught with dangers, I would say, it if isn't very carefully worked out in advance. I would think that my comments would also apply to what you've written above. I really don't have any answers of my own -- I really *was* asking other people precisely what they meant.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 22:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
[undent]Redirects do help under such a situation. Remember that after a page move all the subpages get redirect to. The R template will change from a blue to black link if a redirect is used, so authors would be subtly alerted to the change and the links would eventually be updated. If the term is part of of a masterlist then it would be easier to change many at once. Here is an example of how it would look on a page if such a move was made. We have an article on [[Drama]] and with the R template it looks as follows:
{{R|Drama}}
But lets assume that it was originally called Dramatics and it might have looked like the following:
{{R|Drama|Dramatics}}
Now after a move from Dramatics to Drama the link left on the Related article subpage would look like the following:
{{R|Dramatics}}
Obviously this is not a disaster due to the presence of the redirects. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 22:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
:::