June 30
Category:News Limited
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- Propose renaming Category:News Limited to Category:News Corp Australia
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. News Limited has been renamed News Corp Australia. Bbb2007 ( talk) 19:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Tim! ( talk) 06:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Rename to match article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Jordanian Armed Forces
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Category now has three members so a discussion that started with one member could be misleading. No problem with an immediate new nomination based on the current contents and the discussion here. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Category with just a single article is not useful. User<Svick>. Talk() ; 13:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Steam5 ( talk) 13:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Reverse Merge with (possibly merge into) Category:Military units and formations of Jordan. I found two other articles with which to populate the category, then I found the other category, which seems to cover the subject much more fully, and I fail to see that one is properly a parent of the other. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete – redundant to Category:Military of Jordan, and the articles in it are already in a subcat of Category:Military of Jordan. ( Category:Armed forces redirects to Category:Military.) Oculi ( talk) 17:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- (Vote above unchanged) According to British usage the navy and air force are NOT military. Jordan was a British protectorate, so that I expect that British uisage is appropriate. However we certainly have too many categories here and they need to be rationaliused somehow. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Byzantine emperors killed in battle
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Roman emperors killed in battle. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: A whole category for two individuals is rather a stretch, per WP:SMALLCAT. Category:Monarchs killed in action suffices perfectly well. Constantine ✍ 12:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep We have long accepted very small categories for holders of majorly important international offices. and these Roman Emperors (that was their real title) clearly qualify as the top international leaders of their time.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 02:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Great, then put them in Category:Roman emperors killed in battle. Because a category with two people is as meaningless as a list with two people.-- Constantine ✍ 07:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Listify -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 03:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete That we could accept a very small category because they were emperors does not mean we should. Not seeing a purpose to such a small category that obviously cannot grow. Reso lute 21:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:21st Century Fox subsidiaries
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: No consensus. There was no discussion here on this being a member of
Category:Corporate subsidiaries by company.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:21st Century Fox subsidiaries to Category:21st Century Fox
- Nominator's rationale: If this is how the category is going to be used, maybe rename to match main article. ViperSnake151 Talk 06:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Rename per nominator. Steam5 ( talk) 13:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- do not rename Create a new category as actually both categories are needed. One to hold the subsidiaries and one to hold the non-subsidiary articles as well as the subsidiary category. Hmains ( talk) 20:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:European Capitals of Culture
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Having been a ECofC is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a city. This is an award recipients category (which fails WP:OC#AWARD) and/or an event category (which fails WP:OC#VENUES). This has some similarity with the Olympic host cities CFD. We don't categorize cities by things like whether a city has an underground (metro) system or whether it has been beseiged which (IMO) is a much longer-lasting and significant characteristic (although also not strictly a WP:DEFINING characteristic). For info: There is a list at European Capital of Culture and Template:European Capital of Culture. The Ruhr.2010 article could be upmerged. DexDor ( talk) 06:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep It IS a defining attribute to that city. See this previous CfD about this. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Per our article: "The European Capital of Culture is a city designated by the European Union for a period of one calendar year during which it organises a series of cultural events with a strong European dimension" So, at best, this is a "current category" because if the designation is defining for a city, why does the city lose the title after year? Apparently, Brussels no longer thinks the city worthy of being denoted as a capital of culture. Moreover, each city seems to have to come from specific countries with no recognition that London or Rome has never won, but Luxembourg has won twice shows the non-defining nature of the award, unless the consensus here is that Luxembourg has twice the culture of Antwerp, and London and Rome are culture-less. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- The previous CFD was withdrawn after the nominator was told that ECoC is a big deal in Europe. IMO, in the UK at least, thats dubious - a news item about an event may mention that it's part of ECoC activities, but I don't see much in the national news about ECoC itself. Even if it was a big deal, "a year-long series of events accompanied by ... promotion of a city" (quoting from one of the keep votes in the previous CFD) isn't (in the long term) a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a city. DexDor ( talk) 20:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete -- I see no distinction from the Olympic category, which we have now deleted. I am not sure whether to say it is an award category or a perfomrance category, but it is certainly in that area. A different city is given the title each year (which is an award). This comes with a lot of funding to enable it to improve its cultural assets (effectively a prize). It is certainly highly defining in the year and shortly after, but not permanently. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep A more than credible defining characteristic and an effective aid to navigation. Alansohn ( talk) 03:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete and Lisitfy per nom and precedents cited. Tim! ( talk) 06:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete absolutely not defining, they change yearly - so is the capital of culture suddenly devoid of culture once it's year in the limelight is over? very similar to various US things like Tree City USA or All American City. Meaningless, other than getting a few euro out of Brussels and throwing a party with it. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete This is either an award or event venue category, and we avoid those categories. This is not how we want to categorize cities. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Listify per Tim -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 01:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. I have come to understand a bit more about this status since I started the last nomination. As I look through news reports etc. about it, it seems to be a relatively big deal in Europe during the year the city holds the status. After the time has passed, however, it pretty much ceases to be defining for the city and is rarely mentioned. It's a transient definingness, if anything, which to me would suggest that it's not really defining in the timeless way that that term is usually meant. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete and listify - We should not categorize people & places by association. Here it's a sort of roving tourist festival season. Eventually and in theory every European city could be so classified. A list would be much better, since it can group the cities by country, or era, or theme, or other relevant indexing attributes. -- Lquilter ( talk) 16:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete (already listified). Nondefining. Neutrality talk 05:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Locations in the Iliad
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: No consensus.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Locations in the Iliad to Category:Fictional locations in the Iliad
- Nominator's rationale: We should not categorize real places by associations with fiction (e.g. mythology is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of Lemnos). After renaming this category should be purged of real places. For info: This category was mentioned in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_10#Category:Robin_Hood_locations. DexDor ( talk) 06:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- It is NOT fiction. The Illiad purports to be history; we do not know of quite what date or how accurate the tradition embodied in it. The Iliad, as one of the few surviving narrative works of the ancient world is such an important work that the normal rules on this should not apply. Robin Hood is not a good precedent, because there is no single literary work incorporating the tale. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Even if the Iliad is a work of history, "(real) places mentioned in <book>" isn't a category structure that should be encouraged.
The Second World War (book series) is an important work, but we shouldn't use it to categorize every place it mentions.
DexDor (
talk) 21:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't put one or two or twenty ancient works in a separate class. ... In its original, there's only one, but that might be said of many myths -- that there is one original source work. Then it gets adapted into many others. ... And even if there were only one text, the real places referred to it have changed name, geopolitical identities, and so forth over time ... -- Lquilter ( talk) 16:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Even if the Iliad is a work of history, "(real) places mentioned in <book>" isn't a category structure that should be encouraged.
The Second World War (book series) is an important work, but we shouldn't use it to categorize every place it mentions.
DexDor (
talk) 21:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment wouldn't that be Category:mythological locations i the Iliad ? And not all of them are mythological, some of them are real. -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 07:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. We don't categorise ancient works like this as fiction and non fiction. The current title is clear enough. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - other than the Bible, I don't think we have a cat like this. The Iliad may (or may not be) the next most read book in English translation. But, we ought go no futher. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. People do not approach and treat the Illiad as a work of history, they treat it as a literary work, mentioning fictional places. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- People do approach the Iliad as a historical work. It has an ancient religious framework. Comparing the Iliad with the Bible is imbalanced due to different historical scope. A comparison with the books of Samuel might be better. Are the Books of Samuel fiction? Is the Iliad fiction? These questions are better left to article, and it is better to leave categories silent on asserting that something like the Iliad is fiction. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- (still oppose as vote above). The Illiad purports to be a hisotrical work, not fiction. Comparison can appropriately be made with the two great Hindu epics, such as the Mahabaratha; the history books in the Bible; and several other national epics. These claim to be history, though how far the story has been altered in oral trnasmission before it was writtne down will always be a matter of debate. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete or rename to fictional locations per nom - Whether you consider the Iliad historical or fictional or ancient myth or whatever, we ought not categorize real places by cultural associations. -- Lquilter ( talk) 16:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
June 30
Category:News Limited
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- Propose renaming Category:News Limited to Category:News Corp Australia
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. News Limited has been renamed News Corp Australia. Bbb2007 ( talk) 19:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Tim! ( talk) 06:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Rename to match article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Jordanian Armed Forces
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Category now has three members so a discussion that started with one member could be misleading. No problem with an immediate new nomination based on the current contents and the discussion here. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Category with just a single article is not useful. User<Svick>. Talk() ; 13:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Steam5 ( talk) 13:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Reverse Merge with (possibly merge into) Category:Military units and formations of Jordan. I found two other articles with which to populate the category, then I found the other category, which seems to cover the subject much more fully, and I fail to see that one is properly a parent of the other. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete – redundant to Category:Military of Jordan, and the articles in it are already in a subcat of Category:Military of Jordan. ( Category:Armed forces redirects to Category:Military.) Oculi ( talk) 17:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- (Vote above unchanged) According to British usage the navy and air force are NOT military. Jordan was a British protectorate, so that I expect that British uisage is appropriate. However we certainly have too many categories here and they need to be rationaliused somehow. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Byzantine emperors killed in battle
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Roman emperors killed in battle. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: A whole category for two individuals is rather a stretch, per WP:SMALLCAT. Category:Monarchs killed in action suffices perfectly well. Constantine ✍ 12:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep We have long accepted very small categories for holders of majorly important international offices. and these Roman Emperors (that was their real title) clearly qualify as the top international leaders of their time.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 02:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Great, then put them in Category:Roman emperors killed in battle. Because a category with two people is as meaningless as a list with two people.-- Constantine ✍ 07:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Listify -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 03:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete That we could accept a very small category because they were emperors does not mean we should. Not seeing a purpose to such a small category that obviously cannot grow. Reso lute 21:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:21st Century Fox subsidiaries
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: No consensus. There was no discussion here on this being a member of
Category:Corporate subsidiaries by company.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:21st Century Fox subsidiaries to Category:21st Century Fox
- Nominator's rationale: If this is how the category is going to be used, maybe rename to match main article. ViperSnake151 Talk 06:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Rename per nominator. Steam5 ( talk) 13:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- do not rename Create a new category as actually both categories are needed. One to hold the subsidiaries and one to hold the non-subsidiary articles as well as the subsidiary category. Hmains ( talk) 20:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:European Capitals of Culture
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Having been a ECofC is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a city. This is an award recipients category (which fails WP:OC#AWARD) and/or an event category (which fails WP:OC#VENUES). This has some similarity with the Olympic host cities CFD. We don't categorize cities by things like whether a city has an underground (metro) system or whether it has been beseiged which (IMO) is a much longer-lasting and significant characteristic (although also not strictly a WP:DEFINING characteristic). For info: There is a list at European Capital of Culture and Template:European Capital of Culture. The Ruhr.2010 article could be upmerged. DexDor ( talk) 06:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep It IS a defining attribute to that city. See this previous CfD about this. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Per our article: "The European Capital of Culture is a city designated by the European Union for a period of one calendar year during which it organises a series of cultural events with a strong European dimension" So, at best, this is a "current category" because if the designation is defining for a city, why does the city lose the title after year? Apparently, Brussels no longer thinks the city worthy of being denoted as a capital of culture. Moreover, each city seems to have to come from specific countries with no recognition that London or Rome has never won, but Luxembourg has won twice shows the non-defining nature of the award, unless the consensus here is that Luxembourg has twice the culture of Antwerp, and London and Rome are culture-less. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- The previous CFD was withdrawn after the nominator was told that ECoC is a big deal in Europe. IMO, in the UK at least, thats dubious - a news item about an event may mention that it's part of ECoC activities, but I don't see much in the national news about ECoC itself. Even if it was a big deal, "a year-long series of events accompanied by ... promotion of a city" (quoting from one of the keep votes in the previous CFD) isn't (in the long term) a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a city. DexDor ( talk) 20:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete -- I see no distinction from the Olympic category, which we have now deleted. I am not sure whether to say it is an award category or a perfomrance category, but it is certainly in that area. A different city is given the title each year (which is an award). This comes with a lot of funding to enable it to improve its cultural assets (effectively a prize). It is certainly highly defining in the year and shortly after, but not permanently. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep A more than credible defining characteristic and an effective aid to navigation. Alansohn ( talk) 03:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete and Lisitfy per nom and precedents cited. Tim! ( talk) 06:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete absolutely not defining, they change yearly - so is the capital of culture suddenly devoid of culture once it's year in the limelight is over? very similar to various US things like Tree City USA or All American City. Meaningless, other than getting a few euro out of Brussels and throwing a party with it. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete This is either an award or event venue category, and we avoid those categories. This is not how we want to categorize cities. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Listify per Tim -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 01:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. I have come to understand a bit more about this status since I started the last nomination. As I look through news reports etc. about it, it seems to be a relatively big deal in Europe during the year the city holds the status. After the time has passed, however, it pretty much ceases to be defining for the city and is rarely mentioned. It's a transient definingness, if anything, which to me would suggest that it's not really defining in the timeless way that that term is usually meant. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete and listify - We should not categorize people & places by association. Here it's a sort of roving tourist festival season. Eventually and in theory every European city could be so classified. A list would be much better, since it can group the cities by country, or era, or theme, or other relevant indexing attributes. -- Lquilter ( talk) 16:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete (already listified). Nondefining. Neutrality talk 05:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Locations in the Iliad
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: No consensus.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Locations in the Iliad to Category:Fictional locations in the Iliad
- Nominator's rationale: We should not categorize real places by associations with fiction (e.g. mythology is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of Lemnos). After renaming this category should be purged of real places. For info: This category was mentioned in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_10#Category:Robin_Hood_locations. DexDor ( talk) 06:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- It is NOT fiction. The Illiad purports to be history; we do not know of quite what date or how accurate the tradition embodied in it. The Iliad, as one of the few surviving narrative works of the ancient world is such an important work that the normal rules on this should not apply. Robin Hood is not a good precedent, because there is no single literary work incorporating the tale. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Even if the Iliad is a work of history, "(real) places mentioned in <book>" isn't a category structure that should be encouraged.
The Second World War (book series) is an important work, but we shouldn't use it to categorize every place it mentions.
DexDor (
talk) 21:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't put one or two or twenty ancient works in a separate class. ... In its original, there's only one, but that might be said of many myths -- that there is one original source work. Then it gets adapted into many others. ... And even if there were only one text, the real places referred to it have changed name, geopolitical identities, and so forth over time ... -- Lquilter ( talk) 16:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Even if the Iliad is a work of history, "(real) places mentioned in <book>" isn't a category structure that should be encouraged.
The Second World War (book series) is an important work, but we shouldn't use it to categorize every place it mentions.
DexDor (
talk) 21:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment wouldn't that be Category:mythological locations i the Iliad ? And not all of them are mythological, some of them are real. -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 07:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. We don't categorise ancient works like this as fiction and non fiction. The current title is clear enough. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - other than the Bible, I don't think we have a cat like this. The Iliad may (or may not be) the next most read book in English translation. But, we ought go no futher. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. People do not approach and treat the Illiad as a work of history, they treat it as a literary work, mentioning fictional places. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- People do approach the Iliad as a historical work. It has an ancient religious framework. Comparing the Iliad with the Bible is imbalanced due to different historical scope. A comparison with the books of Samuel might be better. Are the Books of Samuel fiction? Is the Iliad fiction? These questions are better left to article, and it is better to leave categories silent on asserting that something like the Iliad is fiction. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- (still oppose as vote above). The Illiad purports to be a hisotrical work, not fiction. Comparison can appropriately be made with the two great Hindu epics, such as the Mahabaratha; the history books in the Bible; and several other national epics. These claim to be history, though how far the story has been altered in oral trnasmission before it was writtne down will always be a matter of debate. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete or rename to fictional locations per nom - Whether you consider the Iliad historical or fictional or ancient myth or whatever, we ought not categorize real places by cultural associations. -- Lquilter ( talk) 16:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.