Talk:Erwin Mortier

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Belgium

	Belgium portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Categorisation

Consensus is that the cats are fine and should stay, (I was actually going to !vote but as it's been open for nearly a month it makes more sense just close it), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dispute about how a writer should be categorized: if he published writing in multiple genres of literature, then does he belong in the specific subcategories for each genre of literature that he wrote, or should he be excluded from the subcategories and left only in the overarching category for general non-specific writers? Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some points:

would avoid overcategorisation
is a writer (in multiple disciplines, including essays and translations)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a writer writes in multiple disciplines, then he belongs in the subcategory for each individual discipline — it does not constitute a reason to exclude him from the specific subcategories and leave him categorized only as a general non-specific writer. If he isn't in Category:Belgian novelists, then a person looking for Belgian novelists is not going to find him; if he isn't in Category:Belgian poets, then a person looking for Belgian poets isn't going to find him; if he isn't in Category:LGBT writers from Belgium, then a person looking for LGBT writers from Belgium isn't going to find him. That's why the subcategories for specific types of writing exist, and the fact that a person belongs in more than one such subcategory scheme is not a reason to exclude him from all of them. The fact that he wrote both novels and poetry is not a valid reason to leave him only in the parent category instead of the subcategories for novelists and poets.

As you may or may not also have noticed, Erwin Mortier is now the only writer sitting directly in the non-specific Category:Belgian writers category, as all other writers have been diffused into their relevant and appropriate subcategories for their specific genres of writing. For all other writers, if they wrote both novels and poetry then they're categorized as both novelists and poets, and not just left as general non-specific "writers" just because they were active in more than one type of writing. Wikipedia's categorization scheme for writers is designed for people to be subcategorized as specifically as possible by the specific types of writing that they did, but essentially you're demanding that Mortier stand alone as a unique exemption from the way all other writers are supposed to be handled.

You're also misconstruing "overcategorization", which has nothing to do with this matter — that's about categorizing people on non-WP:DEFINING characteristics like their hair colour, their blood type or what non-standard number of fingers or toes they might happen to have, and has nothing to do with the matter of adding people to defining subcategories that they do properly belong in just because they might properly belong in more than just one subcategory. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Bearcat here--if not in all the particulars, at least in the general thrust. An important caveat being, each category/subcategory he is listed in should be verifiable via reliable sourcing. I for one have never seen the harm in keeping an author in both a parent "plain" category and subcategories; it seems the reasonable organizational thing to do. But in any event, if sourcing puts weight on particular genres, there's no reason not to (sub)categorize accordingly. Where those categories become increasingly idiosyncratic and based on NOTDIR#6 issues, that's where the issue would start to abut against over-categorization. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bearcat for the most part. Categories are an essential aspect to Wikipedia. I see no reason to avoid author categorisation, as long as they're correctly assessed and determined beforehand. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Bearcat. Categories are useful for the purpose of finding information. If the category is a useful one, than it should contain what it needs to contain. I'd argue that over-categorization only applies if either the category itself is not useful, or if there is a more specific category that should be used instead. In other words, you want to be MORE specific, not less. Fieari (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In this instance, I agree with Bearcat. I am aware of 'category bloat' on some articles, to the point that the info is no longer helpful (of course a well known Austrian-German was implicated in 'The holocaust in country A,B,C......ZZ' and was similarly part of 'WWII everywhere', but is it useful to create a list that long?). I don't think that applies here though where the categories are informative, if 'defining' and solidly sourced. Pincrete (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Erwin Mortier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]