Category talk:Authors

RFDO discussion: September–December 2014
Since we don't allow entries for people, this category won't have any entries in any language. Instead, it has ended up as the parent category for three categories about specific authors. But those categories are quite ill-defined. What is Category:William Shakespeare meant to contain? Words related to the author? Names of his works? Names occurring in his works? Words he invented? Words derived from any of these? I don't think a category simply for anything related to some person is dictionary-worthy. I mean, is related to Shakespeare, because he wrote on it, and  is related to Tolkien, because he published it. If someone were to create Category:Albert Einstein, would we then put gravity in it, since that's what he studied? —CodeCat 00:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Currently, names of his works. Which makes sense, to a degree, but if we're going to keep it I suggest it be renamed to "William Shakespeare's works" or somesuch. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 02:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The purpose of these three categories is to create central places in which terms related to these authors and their works can be collected as part of the topical categorization system. Category:J. R. R. Tolkien is meant to slot into Category:British fiction and Category:Fantasy along with Category:Harry Potter, allowing readers to easily find terms related to Tolkien, his works, and the fandom thereof. The descriptions of the three categories currently explain what they're intended to contain, but if these descriptions are not sufficiently clear, they could always be modified.
 * I find it troubling that CodeCat isn't proposing any alternatives, such as renaming Category:Lewis Carroll to Category:Alice in Wonderland, or Category:J. R. R. Tolkien to Category:Tolkien legendarium. I think the current titles are preferable, as they are broad enough to allow for the inclusion of terms like Carrollian and Tolkienite, which are related to the authors, rather than to specific works by them. But changing the titles of the categories to the names of works would resolve CodeCat's concerns about having categories named after people. Wiktionary is a collaborative project, and compromise solutions are preferrable whenever feasible.
 * I don't think having categories named after specific authors is the same as having dictionary entries for them. Shakespeare, Carroll, and Tolkien have all helped shape language. The categories are meant to serve as jumping-off points for anyone interested in their individual linguistic contributions.
 * It's also worth pointing out that Category:Authors can be used to house general terms for authors like ghostwriter, biographer, etc. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: You can fill categories about people with words they invented. For example, truthiness and any other of Colbert's WØrds could go into Category:Stephen Colbert.  It's also probably a mistake to take the hard line we have about no people entries; every paper dictionary I own has a smattering of biographical entries.  We should at a bare minimum have any person who is etymologically significant. Pur ple back pack 89   05:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If we do keep this stuff, can we please put a prominent note at the top of the category index pages, stating that it is not a free pass to add any character or made-up item from their books? Otherwise we will keep getting people who "helpfully" start filling a category with Harry Potter potions and so on. Equinox ◑ 06:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: These are major authors who, as Cloudcuckoolander points out, have had wide and varied influence on English literature and vocabulary. And because their influence is wide and varied, it's difficult or impossible to draw up a specific and detailed description of what the category should contain. But I agree with Equinox that we need to put some explicit guidelines at the top. Suggested kinds of content, whether subcategories or not (these are just the ones I can think of at the moment; I'm sure there are more possibilities):
 * Certainly the titles of their works should be included, if they have entries.
 * Words that the authors coined: e.g.,
 * chortle, Carroll
 * Newspeak, Orwell
 * Words that they did not coin but whose use they significantly influenced:
 * orc, Tolkien
 * Cheshire cat, Carroll
 * Senses that they originated:
 * portmanteau, Carroll
 * Words derived from their names: Shakespearian, Carrollian, Tolkienian
 * User:CodeCat raises the question, "If someone were to create Category:Albert Einstein, would we then put gravity in it, since that's what he studied?" No, we wouldn't, because Einstein's studies of gravity didn't have a significant effect on the use or meaning of the word gravity, and this is a dictionary.
 * Thnidu (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would we lump all of those things together into one rather vague category? We already have Category:English terms derived from The Simpsons and Category:English terms derived from Nineteen Eighty-Four and such, so why not extend that principle and create a variety of other categories? —CodeCat 17:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Because there's an etymological categorization system and a topical categorization system. We've got the topical Category:Harry Potter and the etymological Category:English terms derived from Harry Potter. Some words fit into both categories, but there's others that don't, since they were coined by the Harry Potter fandom (e.g., , ) rather than drawn directly from the Harry Potter books (e.g. or ). Thus, it would be inaccurate to place such terms in Category:English terms derived from Harry Potter, but there's still value in gathering them within the framework of the topical categorization system. That said, I do think we should create a etymological categories for Tolkien, Carroll, etc. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 10:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * RFDO kept: no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)