Forum talk:Temporary forums/Categories for stories without summaries

Question

This has only just occurred to me, but what do we name categories for non-narrative source pages without summaries? They don't lack a plot summary, just a summary of their contents, so perhaps something like Category:Features without summaries? Also, I feel the "hub category", to take into account of non-narratives, should be titled Category:Missing summaries; although all the subcats for television stories, comics, audios, etc, should remain at the proposed Category:TV stories without plot summaries. Sorry for not realising this before the closure of the thread!

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

14:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, your suggestion seems reasonable. Category:Missing plot summaries should be a redirect to Category:Missing summaries, though. Bongo50 ☎ 14:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree, the point for that naming convention to distinguish between publisher summary and plot summary. You're collapsing two categories into one. We could have Category:Missing summaries (as our new Category:Missing plot summaries) and also Category:Missing publisher summaries, that would work. Or Category:Missing summaries and Category:Missing plot. Najawin ☎ 18:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

What about the following:

• Category:Missing summaries
  • Category:Missing plot summaries
    • Subcategories for different mediums and series
  • Category:Missing publisher summaries
    • Subcategories for different mediums and series
  • Category:Missing feature summaries
    • Subcategories for different mediums and series

Bongo50 ☎ 12:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

If we decide in general that features shouldn't have publisher summaries, sure! Najawin ☎ 19:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why we'd have to do that. Surely, a feature page could be in both Category:Missing feature summaries and Category:Missing publisher summaries? However, I do feel that it might be worth considering whether we need Category:Missing publisher summaries. Generally, publisher summaries are reliably filled in during page creation as a standard. Thoughts? Bongo50 ☎ 19:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure there are a few. Probably ones where we weren't sure if one existed - it wasn't immediately obvious when the thing was created and it might or might not have gotten one later. Regardless, whatever we decide I'll probably create the rough outline of the category tree this weekend if that's okay with everyone? A bot can then add it to all the pages. (I'll probably add one entry to each of the categories in order to create them. The rest can be added by the bot.) It's going to be enough work that I want to block out some time to actually do it. Najawin ☎ 07:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I have a bot now so I could have a go at using that for adding cateogires. What's your opinion on features potentially being both in (a subcategory) of Category:Missing feature summaries and Category:Missing publisher summaries? If you're ok with this, I think we can probably go ahead with an elaboration of the category tree I've presented above. Bongo50 ☎ 16:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe ask SOTO? They've done bot work before, I've not. Part of my immediate hesitancy is our category structure is notoriously complicated, and a bot will have to deal with that. I'm not innately against it. Najawin ☎ 19:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm 90% certain that adding both categories is possible via bot. Bongo50 ☎ 21:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

It's the traversal of the tree that worries me. Najawin ☎ 21:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)