Category talk:Artistic works

Thank you for reviewing categories of fiction, apparently to reflect the results of a recent poll. However, Asterix, Astro Boy and Care Bears are defined as works of fiction (among other definitions); so, in my opinion, your decision of removing them from Category:Artistic works is not constructive and should be reverted. If you don't mind, I would be happy to repopulate that specific category with these terms. --Daniel. 23:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As Fiction is a subcategory of Artistic works, categorizing them as Artistic works is redundant and per that poll a Bad Thing. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 23:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Fiction is a subcategory of Artistic works" is a complex concept, which I wasn't aware of and was implemented in the category tree minutes ago. Let me try to rationalize it.
 * As I see it, a title of a work of fiction is among the many terms that fit the umbrella of "fiction", so it may be categorized into Category:Fiction.
 * Similarly, a title of an artistic work is among the many terms that fit the umbrella of "art", so it may be categorized into Category:Art.
 * If we have Category:Works of fiction and/or Category:Artistic works, then a number of titles of works may be placed into these two categories and removed from Category:Art and/or Category:Fiction.
 * In short:
 * Category:Art > Category:Fiction > Category:Works of fiction
 * Category:Art > Category:Artistic works
 * There is not necessarily a relation between the concepts of "artistic works" and "fiction", so my initial opinion remains, and my request too. --Daniel. 23:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? Isn't every work of fiction an artistic work? I do not understand your argument. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 05:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait, I do now. You're saying that the cat "Artistic works" is only for titles of artistic works, and is not a cat devoted to artistic works generally (despite its name). Recall that as a dictionary our entries are terms, not referents, so that Artistic works as the title of a category makes it sounds like either (1) the words in the category are artistic works, which doesn't make much sense, or (2) it's a topical category on the topic of artistic works generally, which would not restrict it to titles. A cat devoted to titles would not be a topical category but a lexical one (though IMO it shouldn't exist) and would be, according to our current naming scheme, named English titles of artistic works. So IMO either switch the current use of the category as now named to the more general one, delete it as overly specific, or rename it per above. Thoughts? &#x200b;—msh210℠ 16:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have been considering Category:Artistic works a good place to have only titles of artistic works. In fact, Category:Art serves well the different purpose of being devoted to art (including artistic works) generally.
 * As long as we have a certain number of entries defined as titles of artistic works, it seems natural to me having a category for them. (It's roughly like having both Category:Geography and Category:Place names.)
 * To make the objective of Category:Artistic works clearer, I would support it being renamed to Category:Titles of artistic works, but not Category:English titles of artistic works. It's a topical category to me, like Category:Languages and perhaps Category:Sex positions. --Daniel. 02:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)