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.
Nominator's rationale: More clearly phrased as only including works of fiction with fashion as a defining characteristic, per
WP:NONDEF. ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 18:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Support, more clearly phrased as a defining characteristic.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak Support I don't actually see much of a difference between the two phrases, but I suppose some articles could be miscategorized.
Dimadick (
talk) 07:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Category contains 1 article, 3 redirects, and 2 categories. Both categories are SMALLCATs and are up for deletion.
User:Namiba 16:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per Grutness. --
Just N. (
talk) 20:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)reply
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:New Iberia Pelicans
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.
Upmerge per Grutness. --
Just N. (
talk) 20:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Only article has has its tag removed for being unclear, and this category does not correspond to any WikiProject. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 12:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
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:Prisons in fiction
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.
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:NONDEF. Mere inclusion of a prison should not be enough to justify inclusion in the category. ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 12:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Support, more clearly phrased as a defining characteristic.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Fair point, I support this rename too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
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:Circuses in fiction
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.
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:NONDEF. Mere inclusion of a circus should not be enough to justify inclusion in the category. ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 12:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose - convention in
Category:Locations in fiction is 'XXX in fiction'. 'Mere inclusion of a circus' should indeed be insufficient and any such articles should be ejected from the category.
Oculi (
talk) 12:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
These few anomalies (3 out of 37) would be speedy renames, per
WP:C2C. On the contrary it is the nom who has to make a case for creating exceptions to the obvious convention. If the intention is to rename all the subcats of
Category:Locations in fiction, that would be a different matter.
Oculi (
talk) 12:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
The problem is that some of them are different. For example, a category called
Category:Fiction about cities would not make much sense, as it is set in the city. It is not, as you claim, a one size fits all situation. And trying to rename everything at the same time would result in a
WP:TRAINWRECK, which is what you are suggesting. ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 15:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Support, more clearly phrased as a defining characteristic.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Fair point, I support this rename too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Alt rename per Dimadick & Marco. --
Just N. (
talk) 20:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)reply
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:Fictional sunken cities
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.
Support - Dolwyn belongs in the Fictional category as well.
Grutness...wha? 16:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Support Not enough articles on fictional cities, as opposed to cities from
myths and
legends. And I have no idea why a film is included in this category.
Dimadick (
talk) 07:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Support Suggest we have some notes explaining that fictional means "arbitrary invention", "known to be false", while mythical can include "fictional" but can also include "Known only or principally through myths rather than through verifiable historical facts; belonging to or existing only in myth; fantastical." (OED)
Troy being the most obvious example of a place that was once mythical but is now known to be real.
Be aware that these categories were created by simply adding the word "fictional" to the front of the established categories in
Category:Former cities and
Category:Former places. Whatever we do, it's important for non-real locations to maintain a parallel structure to the ones used for real geographical locations, for the primary purpose never confusing readers as to which is which. Without a specific fictional (or mythical if you prefer) sub-category, articles about fictional locations will default up into categories of real places. -
Dennis Bratland (
talk) 17:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
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:Fictional lost cities and towns
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.
Nominator's rationale: There are not enough members of the category for the name to be this specific. As such, it should be moved higher in the category tree, to
Category:Lost places. ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 12:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose I am not particularly thrilled by the current name, but the suggested name is too vague. Would this include individual buildings or islands?
Dimadick (
talk) 07:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Anything that would normally be categorized into "Lost places" including islands, buildings, etc. ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 11:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
"Places" is too vague and inconsistent with the criteria of the parent category "populated places".
Support Dennis Bratland's proposal. We do not need to specify the type of the settlement in the category.
Dimadick (
talk) 06:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Support Dennis Bratland's proposal. This adopts then solution we came up with long ago. The question is how far "lost" adds anything; I suspect not, but if we do need "lost", it would be rename to
Category:Fictional lost populated places.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)reply
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:New Iberia Cardinals
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.
Nominator's rationale: Category for defunct baseball team that has only one entry and one subcategory.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof? 09:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per Grutness. --
Just N. (
talk) 20:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)reply
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:Adam and Eve in Islam
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:upmerge. bibliomaniac15 18:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Upmerge to
Category:Adam and Eve. This category has no chance of expanding to contain multiple articles on
Islamic mythology. I have no idea why it was created in the first place.
Dimadick (
talk) 07:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per Dimadick. --
Just N. (
talk) 20:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per Dimadick as well. --
Dan Carkner (
talk) 19:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)reply
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:Prophets in Islam
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.
Nominator's rationale:rename, topic category rather than a set category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Support The current name suggests inclusion of biographical articles, and has no connection to the actual contents.
Dimadick (
talk) 07:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is a higher container category for the subcategories that actually cover the articles on the prophets.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 13:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
I am not sure how this is relevant. The articles in the nominated category are topic articles, that is what matters.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Support -- Much better description of contents.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: More clearly phrased as only including works of fiction with fashion as a defining characteristic, per
WP:NONDEF. ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 18:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Support, more clearly phrased as a defining characteristic.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak Support I don't actually see much of a difference between the two phrases, but I suppose some articles could be miscategorized.
Dimadick (
talk) 07:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Category contains 1 article, 3 redirects, and 2 categories. Both categories are SMALLCATs and are up for deletion.
User:Namiba 16:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per Grutness. --
Just N. (
talk) 20:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)reply
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:New Iberia Pelicans
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.
Upmerge per Grutness. --
Just N. (
talk) 20:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Only article has has its tag removed for being unclear, and this category does not correspond to any WikiProject. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 12:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
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:Prisons in fiction
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.
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:NONDEF. Mere inclusion of a prison should not be enough to justify inclusion in the category. ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 12:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Support, more clearly phrased as a defining characteristic.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Fair point, I support this rename too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
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:Circuses in fiction
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.
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:NONDEF. Mere inclusion of a circus should not be enough to justify inclusion in the category. ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 12:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose - convention in
Category:Locations in fiction is 'XXX in fiction'. 'Mere inclusion of a circus' should indeed be insufficient and any such articles should be ejected from the category.
Oculi (
talk) 12:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
These few anomalies (3 out of 37) would be speedy renames, per
WP:C2C. On the contrary it is the nom who has to make a case for creating exceptions to the obvious convention. If the intention is to rename all the subcats of
Category:Locations in fiction, that would be a different matter.
Oculi (
talk) 12:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
The problem is that some of them are different. For example, a category called
Category:Fiction about cities would not make much sense, as it is set in the city. It is not, as you claim, a one size fits all situation. And trying to rename everything at the same time would result in a
WP:TRAINWRECK, which is what you are suggesting. ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 15:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Support, more clearly phrased as a defining characteristic.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Fair point, I support this rename too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Alt rename per Dimadick & Marco. --
Just N. (
talk) 20:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)reply
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:Fictional sunken cities
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.
Support - Dolwyn belongs in the Fictional category as well.
Grutness...wha? 16:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Support Not enough articles on fictional cities, as opposed to cities from
myths and
legends. And I have no idea why a film is included in this category.
Dimadick (
talk) 07:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Support Suggest we have some notes explaining that fictional means "arbitrary invention", "known to be false", while mythical can include "fictional" but can also include "Known only or principally through myths rather than through verifiable historical facts; belonging to or existing only in myth; fantastical." (OED)
Troy being the most obvious example of a place that was once mythical but is now known to be real.
Be aware that these categories were created by simply adding the word "fictional" to the front of the established categories in
Category:Former cities and
Category:Former places. Whatever we do, it's important for non-real locations to maintain a parallel structure to the ones used for real geographical locations, for the primary purpose never confusing readers as to which is which. Without a specific fictional (or mythical if you prefer) sub-category, articles about fictional locations will default up into categories of real places. -
Dennis Bratland (
talk) 17:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
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:Fictional lost cities and towns
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.
Nominator's rationale: There are not enough members of the category for the name to be this specific. As such, it should be moved higher in the category tree, to
Category:Lost places. ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 12:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose I am not particularly thrilled by the current name, but the suggested name is too vague. Would this include individual buildings or islands?
Dimadick (
talk) 07:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Anything that would normally be categorized into "Lost places" including islands, buildings, etc. ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 11:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
"Places" is too vague and inconsistent with the criteria of the parent category "populated places".
Support Dennis Bratland's proposal. We do not need to specify the type of the settlement in the category.
Dimadick (
talk) 06:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Support Dennis Bratland's proposal. This adopts then solution we came up with long ago. The question is how far "lost" adds anything; I suspect not, but if we do need "lost", it would be rename to
Category:Fictional lost populated places.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)reply
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:New Iberia Cardinals
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.
Nominator's rationale: Category for defunct baseball team that has only one entry and one subcategory.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof? 09:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per Grutness. --
Just N. (
talk) 20:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)reply
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:Adam and Eve in Islam
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:upmerge. bibliomaniac15 18:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Upmerge to
Category:Adam and Eve. This category has no chance of expanding to contain multiple articles on
Islamic mythology. I have no idea why it was created in the first place.
Dimadick (
talk) 07:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per Dimadick. --
Just N. (
talk) 20:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per Dimadick as well. --
Dan Carkner (
talk) 19:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)reply
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:Prophets in Islam
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.
Nominator's rationale:rename, topic category rather than a set category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Support The current name suggests inclusion of biographical articles, and has no connection to the actual contents.
Dimadick (
talk) 07:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is a higher container category for the subcategories that actually cover the articles on the prophets.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 13:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
I am not sure how this is relevant. The articles in the nominated category are topic articles, that is what matters.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Support -- Much better description of contents.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)reply
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.