- 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: rename to Category:Airport film series. Kbdank71 14:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Suggest merging Category:Airport films to Category:Multiple parents
- Nominator's rationale: Merge - to all parents except the film series one. small category with no growth potential, not needed to navigate between the films as they are linked through the articles as well as through their infoboxes as sequels. If kept, at least rename to Category:Airport film series to clarify that the category is not for films about or set in airports. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. 4 members. And this is a film series. - jc37 12:11, 3 September 2008 (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.
- 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: keep both, needs manual cleanup. Kbdank71 14:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Suggest merging Category:Fictional media to Category:Fictional works
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. Appear to be covering the same territory. Reverse merge is also acceptable although I do have a preference for keeping the works category. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Merge
Category:Fictional media lists to
Category:Lists of fictional works, and Merge non-lists to
Category:Fictional works. -
jc37
12:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- User:Johnbod has a fair point. Still maintaining the comment above, except to also retain Category:Fictional media, but only for specific media. In other words, this looks like a cat that needs cleanup. - jc37 21:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Rebuild to separate fictional fiction from fictional non-fiction 70.51.11.201 ( talk) 13:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Redistribute Newspapers are media, not works, as are most tv programmes & software. Some of these have sub-cats for fictional editors etc. Plays, books, poems and encyclopedia are works. Maybe works should be a sub-cat of media. The maps appear to be mostly real maps of fictional topography & maybe should not be in either of these. Johnbod ( talk) 16:27, 3 September 2008 (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.
- 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: Withdrawn. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Rename Category:Comics based on fiction to Category:Comics based on novels
Same rationale as the nomination below. - jc37 19:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Rename - as nominator. - jc37 19:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - the lead article is at
List of comics based on fiction and includes short fiction, which should probably be addressed in the course of this nomination.
Otto4711 (
talk)
22:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think I'm going to withdraw this nom. I think you've pointed out a weakness in the "...novels" convention. Going to think about this further. - jc37 12:11, 3 September 2008 (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.
- 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:
Relisted at
2008 SEP 15 CfD.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
03:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC) - Propose renaming:
- Category:Films based on fantasy books to Category:Films based on fantasy novels
- Category:Films based on horror books to Category:Films based on horror novels
- Category:Films based on military fiction to Category:Films based on military novels
- Category:Films based on mystery books to Category:Films based on mystery novels
- Category:Films based on romance books to Category:Films based on romance novels
- Category:Films based on science fiction books to Category:Films based on science fiction novels
- Category:Films based on thriller books to Category:Films based on thriller novels
- Nominator's rationale: Rename all to align with recently renamed parent cat ( Category:Films based on novels). Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with renaming but perhaps they should be
Category:Foo films based on novels to better match
Category:Films based on novels and the various
Category:Foo films parents?
Otto4711 (
talk)
22:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Kinda depends...what about items like Biggles: Adventures in Time (films based on novels, not sf) and Yellow Sky (western film based on a Shakespeare play), which are films from one genre based on literature from a different genre? Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- For Biggles, the article is currently categorized as a science fiction film. It involves non-magical time travel so I assume it qualifies. As for Yellow Sky, do we have a Genre films based on plays structure? If so I'd put it in Western films based on plays if it exists. Not really sure what the concern is. Otto4711 ( talk) 23:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just that Biggles, for example, is a sf film based on a book with no sf elements whatsoever. There aren't any <genre> films based on <literary form> categories. I don't have an objection to <genre> films based on novels, just pointing out the difference. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- If there are no SF elements in the Biggles books, then categorizing it as a film based on SF books seems invalid on its face. Otto4711 ( talk) 01:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- (Right, which is why it's categorized under Category:Films based on novels as well as Category:Science fiction films, and not Category:Films based on science fiction books.) I think Films based on foo novels emphasizes the source material and Foo films based on novels the film genre; it's just a question of which "direction" is more useful/informative/likely to fit in with the current hierarchy. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Military I'm not sure everything there is a novel based film. Aside from which "military novel" is better as "military fiction novel". So subcategorize as Category:Films based on military fiction novels. 70.51.11.201 ( talk) 13:48, 3 September 2008 (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.
- 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: keep name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Rename Category:Fictional timelines to Category:Timelines in fiction
Per the recent discussion of Category:Storylines in fiction. - jc37 18:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Rename as nominator. - jc37 18:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not all timelines in fiction are fictional, so the two categories would cover different ground. As an example, take the
Flashman books. These stories take place against a meticulously accurate factual timeline, that from the 1840s to the 1900s. Though some (but not all) of the characters are fictional, their actions are largely dictated by real historical events. That is, they operate on a non-fictional timeline that is nonetheless a "timeline in fiction".
Grutness...
wha?
02:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- An
historical novel is still fiction. You may also be interested in:
Category:Alternate history timelines. -
jc37
12:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, an historical novel is fiction, hence the word novel. The timeline used in it, however, need not be fictional - not all historical novels use alternative history timelines. At least some use true historical timelines, such as in the example I gave above. As such, renaming this category would be incorrect.
Grutness...
wha?
01:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- The timeline is fictional. I think you're confusing an historical timeline of the setting, with the fictional timeline of the novel. And of course we should never see historical timelines in this category, regardless of it's name. -
jc37
01:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- If anything, it is you who are confusing - or more precisely conflating - the two. Both the timeline of the story and the timeline of the setting are, by definition, timelines in fiction. Only one of them is fictional, however. The current category name makes it clear that only one of these is welcome in this category; the new proposed name does not. You say, correctly, that we should never see historical timelines in this category, yet we would be likely to if the category name were changed in the way you propose.
Category:Timelines in fiction would easily cover things like
Timeline of Georgia (U.S. state) in the American Civil War, since it is used in fiction as the backdrop of
Gone with the Wind. As such, it is a timeline in fiction. It is not, however, a fictional timeline, and that is why the current name is far clearer and more sensible. This, by the way, is also what makes this a different case to the one on comic storylines that you cite in your nomination as a comparison. Storylines in fiction are, by definition, fiction, and as such, there is no problem with them being categorised without the addition of the word "fictional", as that is implicit. The storylines may take place against real events, as in the cases I have named, but those real events never form the storyline, only providing colouring, motivation, or backdrop for it, or a timeline against which the story can be based. And therein lies the rub. A storyline - always fictional and with its own fictional timeline - can take place against real events and a real historical timeline. Just as you could not blithely change
Category:Fictional events to
Category:Events in fiction, as many events in fiction are factual events used as colouring and causation, so too removing the word fictional for timelines becomes a thorny issue and opens the category up to the potential for ambiguity.
Grutness...
wha?
23:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is "timelines in fiction", not "timelines used in the creation of fiction". I honestly doubt that someone would place actual historical timelines in this catgory in the ways you state for the reasons you state. - jc37 21:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- If anything, it is you who are confusing - or more precisely conflating - the two. Both the timeline of the story and the timeline of the setting are, by definition, timelines in fiction. Only one of them is fictional, however. The current category name makes it clear that only one of these is welcome in this category; the new proposed name does not. You say, correctly, that we should never see historical timelines in this category, yet we would be likely to if the category name were changed in the way you propose.
Category:Timelines in fiction would easily cover things like
Timeline of Georgia (U.S. state) in the American Civil War, since it is used in fiction as the backdrop of
Gone with the Wind. As such, it is a timeline in fiction. It is not, however, a fictional timeline, and that is why the current name is far clearer and more sensible. This, by the way, is also what makes this a different case to the one on comic storylines that you cite in your nomination as a comparison. Storylines in fiction are, by definition, fiction, and as such, there is no problem with them being categorised without the addition of the word "fictional", as that is implicit. The storylines may take place against real events, as in the cases I have named, but those real events never form the storyline, only providing colouring, motivation, or backdrop for it, or a timeline against which the story can be based. And therein lies the rub. A storyline - always fictional and with its own fictional timeline - can take place against real events and a real historical timeline. Just as you could not blithely change
Category:Fictional events to
Category:Events in fiction, as many events in fiction are factual events used as colouring and causation, so too removing the word fictional for timelines becomes a thorny issue and opens the category up to the potential for ambiguity.
Grutness...
wha?
23:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- The timeline is fictional. I think you're confusing an historical timeline of the setting, with the fictional timeline of the novel. And of course we should never see historical timelines in this category, regardless of it's name. -
jc37
01:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, an historical novel is fiction, hence the word novel. The timeline used in it, however, need not be fictional - not all historical novels use alternative history timelines. At least some use true historical timelines, such as in the example I gave above. As such, renaming this category would be incorrect.
Grutness...
wha?
01:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- An
historical novel is still fiction. You may also be interested in:
Category:Alternate history timelines. -
jc37
12:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Grutness. I note the sub-cat Category:Alternate history timelines in fact contains almost entirely articles on works; in fact I can't see any timelines as such, unlike the well-ordered Comics sub-cat. This should be renamed and removed. Johnbod ( talk) 18:30, 6 September 2008 (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.
- 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. Kbdank71 15:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
-
Category:Albums produced by Richard Landis (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization; Richard Landis is a red link, no point in categorizing by producer if the producer lacks a page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete The category is empty. Lugnuts ( talk) 18:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and populate (the nom has emptied the category, eg 29 Aug 08 and there are at least 10 articles which belong). Here we have a producer with sole production credits on several notable recordings so one would suggest that he is notable (whether he has a page or not). Occuli ( talk) 14:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm truly surprised to learn that TenPoundHammer emptied this category immediately after taking it to CFD, as he's been around (here) long enough to know how much that bothers people when it's done. So please repopulate the category so we can see what we're talking about, TPH.
Cgingold (
talk)
02:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Someone repopulated the category. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - The fact that there is no article about a particular producer is hardly a reason to delete an otherwise viable category. If anything it suggests that there's an article that needs to be written. Cgingold ( talk) 11:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm finding no sources for an article on Richard Landis. Nothing at all. So why bother with a category if he fails WP:V? He's produced a few albums, but that doesn't make him inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is a cfd, not an afd on 'Richard Landis'. 'Produced by Richard Landis' is a defining characteristic of an album produced solely by RL, of which there are 7 or 8 (so far). Occuli ( talk) 17:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Until such time as he has an article and has notability. If we were to categorise things by non-notables they had in common, we'd be here until the cows come home. Narson ( talk) 16:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - per my comments at Category_talk:Albums_by_producer if the producer doesn't have an article than he shouldn't have a produced by category. Unfortunately the conversation rather fizzled after I made my suggestion so perhaps it's time to revisit the proposed guideline. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - It seems to me that Category:Albums by producer is very much analagous to Category:Books by author, where the standard/guideline calls for such categories even when there's no article about the author. Cgingold ( talk) 23:37, 2 September 2008 (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.
- 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 as recreation of deleted material (see CFD Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 24 and DRV Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 31). Kbdank71 15:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:OC#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and WP:CATGRS. Not opposed to listifying.
I'm not including the subcats in this nom, except the one noted below. - jc37 19:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Listify/Delete as nominator. - jc37 19:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as essentially re-created material that was previously debated/deleted. ( Category:Fictional Catholics was deleted at 2008 FEB 24 CfD.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as a container category restricted to sub-categories only -- no articles to be placed directly in category. We already have two sub-cats ( Category:Father Ted characters and Category:Fictional popes), and there are more than enough articles to warrant other sub-cats, such as Category:Fictional Catholic clergy, and possibly Category:Fictional Catholic bishops, etc. Cgingold ( talk) 01:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is the template I created for use with container categories:
- Template:Container-cat
-
Cgingold (
talk)
02:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- You may be looking for the already existing: Template:Parent category.
- Also (without discussing the existing subcats), all of those suggestions would make better lists. - jc37 12:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- There's also {{ diffuse}} 70.51.11.201 ( talk) 13:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as container per Cgingold. Johnbod ( talk) 18:32, 6 September 2008 (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.
- 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. Kbdank71 14:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:OC#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and WP:CATGRS.
I don't know about listification in this case. If listified, it would need a rename, at least. - jc37 17:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. - jc37 17:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as a variant/subtype of above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2008 (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.
- 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 (gives a renom a clean slate to work from, esp if you're only going to nominate one of these). Kbdank71 15:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
While I understand that Dark Jedi and Sith have a slightly different semantic meaning in the expanded universe, these cats are nearly identical, and should be merged.
Mergeas nominator. - jc37 02:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Updated, see below. - jc37 00:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)- Comment you didn't mention what to merge these into. 70.51.11.201 ( talk) 05:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Each other. Hiding T 09:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- In which direction? Occuli ( talk) 10:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Per discussion : ) - jc37 12:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Merge both into
Category:Star Wars Sith characters which supplies more context and seems to be slightly more general.
Occuli (
talk)
16:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that's more general... since there are only two, master and apprentice (what Yoda said)
70.51.11.201 (
talk)
13:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't oppose listification of Category:Dark Jedi. Since there is a slight "in-universe" difference. But as the commenter above notes: Lord of the Sith is a fairly clear distinction. Dark Jedi is a bit more elusive in definition. And note that there are characters that have wielded the powers of the Dark Side, which are currently Jedi, not Dark Jedi. ( Mara Jade, comes to mind.) So at this point: Listify Category:Dark Jedi and Delete. Keep Category:Star Wars Sith characters. - jc37 00:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that's more general... since there are only two, master and apprentice (what Yoda said)
70.51.11.201 (
talk)
13:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Star Wars darkside force-wielders 70.51.11.201 ( talk) 13:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- To the closer - Since there seem to be several ideas for a resolution, please either relist this, or else close as "no consensus" (presuming that's appropriate), and I'll renominate. - jc37 21:50, 8 September 2008 (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.