Category talk:Forteana

Category overlap
Khaosworks, I saw your comment in a recent edit: I just realised that there is a potential problem here with redundant categories. From my POV it may be best to leave the redundancy as is until a project is created, but I definitely want to hear other perspectives. &mdash; FJ | hello  10:35, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that people will start to comment on this soon enough - my off-the-cuff reaction is that Paranormal phenomena and Forteana are almost equivalents and I'm afraid that Forteana might have to give way. I'm not pressing anything at the moment because my own watched areas on Wikipedia keep me busy, but just to give you a heads-up that a possible conflict between the two categories might be in the offing. --khaosworks 21:55, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, I totally see your point and kind of expected it to be an issue. I'm sure it hardly needs to be said that the Fortean perspective is focused on the bigger picture and almost rewrites the book on this kind of stuff -- one example is the idea of perinormal.  I'd rather find a better solution but I can see how a potential compromise might be to settle for creating a Fortean list.  I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia - do you think proposing a project might be the right approach?   &mdash; FJ |  hello  10:35, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * It can work out quite nicely. I started WikiProject Doctor Who recently, and it's solved a lot of problems about consistent styles, not to mention provides a central location for editors to trash out matters common to the entire subject rather than fighting it out across multiple talk pages. Go ahead and set it up and see if people show up at the watering hole. That being said, as you're new, do the reading first before you plunge ahead. :) --khaosworks 22:57, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Dude, my handle is Forteanajones - my role model always plunged ahead. But then again, Spielberg rarely bothered to show Jones' more studious side. :)  &mdash; FJ |  hello  12:13, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Judging by its current contents, this category is redundant with Category:Paranormal phenomena, Category:Cryptozoology, Category:Occult, and Category:Legendary creatures, with the exception of things related directly to Fort and specifically Fortean studies and publications. I think parenting this category to those four categories and retaining Fortean-specific content in this category would be the best solution: following a link to Category:Forteana can take a user to the related categories without needlessly duplicating said categories. -Sean Curtin 01:20, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * So from a veteran to a noob, would you suggest I revert the cat edits and start putting a project together instead? I suppose the worst that can happen is confusion/irritation and weakening the case for making these sorts of categorical changes.  Btw thank you for the review and comment, Sean. &mdash; FJ |  hello  04:13, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * As the category exists now, it's redundant with Category:Paranormal phenomena, with the exception of medical oddities and specifically Fortean persons, publications, and events. I think that making this a subcategory of Category:Paranormal phenomena and eliminating the overlap from here is the best solution.  -Sean Curtin 05:50, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * True enough. I removed many entries from this category today (reversing my own prev. actions) to address not only the redundancy, but also as a first step towards developing something more comprehensive.  I think Forteana is a valid category on its own, but it's time to come up with a new term to envelop the following areas: anomalous phenomena, paranormal phenomena, perinormal phenomena, occult, legendary creatures, cryptids, Earth mysteries, simulacra, medical curiosities or oddities and others.  I must think on this some more before I proceed with the WikiProject.  Again, I appreciate the attention.    &mdash; FJ |  hello  06:15, May 8, 2005 (UTC)