- 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. – Fayenatic London 12:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: While the category contains a few people who were once "Miss [Firstname]" on different versions of the show, it mostly contains individual television stations that aired it. But categorizing television stations by individual syndicated shows that they have carried is not a thing we do on Wikipedia, because it's not WP:DEFINING of the stations and would lead to extreme category bloat if we had such a category for every syndicated or locally-franchised show that has ever existed (try to picture, for instance, a category for every individual television station that ever carried Ellen or Entertainment Tonight.) And categorizing the people this way violates WP:PERFCAT. Bearcat ( talk) 21:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- delete as the union of two WP:PERFCATs. Mangoe ( talk) 15:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- delete as per nom. Category is primarily be used for TV stations which broadcast or had version of the show, which is not appropriate as noted above. Dunarc ( talk) 16:16, 8 December 2017 (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
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 20#Category:Fictional countries in the Americas.
ℯ
xplicit
01:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary mid-level category between Category:Fictional countries and its two subcategories, both of which are already in Category:Fictional countries by continent along with three others. 165.91.13.209 ( talk) 05:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Weak keep as it is also part of the Category:Countries in the Americas hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 22:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support per nom, and probably Category:Countries in the Americas can be nominated for the same reason. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- This is an unnecessary category level. No need to merge as both are already in parent. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Has potential for growth, according to Category:Countries in the Americas. CN1 ( talk) 22:31, 11 December 2017 (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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 03:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The only “Fictional X in the future” category, according to Category:Future history. 165.91.13.209 ( talk) 05:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep – the rationale is IMHO not a reason for deletion, and this category appears to be a useful intersection with the other parent Category:Fictional countries. If not kept, selective merge to parents Category:Fictional countries and Category:Future history. – Fayenatic London 22:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per Fayenatic. It is potentially a useful intersection. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:02, 3 December 2017 (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: upmerge. While participation was low in this discussion, the argument made is convincing. ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:SMALLCAT: contains only two files. However, they are not in the parent category, Category:Images of fictional maps. 165.91.13.209 ( talk) 05:31, 30 November 2017 (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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:OC#EPONYMOUS: consists only of the main article and three files. Those three files are used in an article about a specific three-dimensional chess game, Dragonchess, though. 165.91.13.209 ( talk) 04:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- The images have been nominated at FfD owing to improper licensing. 05:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I have to laugh here. This is my first time, seeing a category with nothing but one article, no subcategories (OK, and 4 images) CN1 ( talk) 22:32, 11 December 2017 (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: merge to Category:Gundam (if not in other sub-cats already), Category:Gundam characters (if not in list sub-cat already), and Category:Gundam images. No objection to creating sub-categories Category:Mobile Suit Gundam and Category:Mobile Suit Gundam images if justified (note – the proper contents of such categories may not match the current categories). – Fayenatic London 11:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming
Category:Universal Century to
Category:Gundam Universal Century
- Propose renaming Category:Universal Century characters to Category:Gundam Universal Century characters (added on relisting)
- Propose renaming Category:Universal Century images to Category:Gundam Universal Century images (added on relisting)
- Propose renaming
Category:Universal Century to
Category:Gundam Universal Century
- Nominator's rationale: Title is not appropriate per MOS:INUNIVERSE, and should reflect that Universal Century is a Gundam term. This should also reflect in its subcategories. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Rename to
Category:Universal Century (Gundam). This title flows a bit better in my opinion. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk)
14:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- That would imply that it's disambiguating from another "Universal Century", which it isn't. Starting with Gundam unifies it more with the parent category. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 02:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- Rename as the proposed name follows the format of other articles in the category. That said, I would have felt better about the name change if a Gundam Universal Century article existed. gidonb ( talk) 20:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding sub-categories to nomination
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 11:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Adding sub-categories to nomination
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 11:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- Consider merging/dispersing the content to Category:Gundam and subcategories, it is questionable if "Universal Century" really adds a lot. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- Merge as suggested to Category:Gundam, Category:Gundam characters, and Category:Gundam images AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 04:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Rename or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 04:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: Universal Century, which redirects to a section about it, is not in the category, and Gundam Universal Century does not exist. 165.91.13.209 ( talk) 04:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Upmerge the 7 character articles in Category:Universal Century characters and Category:Mobile Suit Gundam SEED characters to Category:Gundam characters, lists should be merged to Category:Lists of Gundam characters if the lists aren't there already. There are simply not enough character articles to justify such category diffusion. Rename Category:Universal Century and Category:Universal Century images to Category:Mobile Suit Gundam and Category:Mobile Suit Gundam images respectively because this is the name of the base franchise. — Farix ( t | c) 23:25, 11 December 2017 (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: merge (
non-admin closure).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
18:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Meteor strikes in fiction to Category:Meteoroids in fiction
- Nominator's rationale: When a meteroid enters Earth’s atmosphere, it becomes a meteor. Since meteors often strike Earth in fiction (unlike real life), the categories are largely overlapping. I also suggest possibly renaming the latter category to Category:Meteors in fiction since a meteoroid, by definition, eventually becomes a meteor. 165.91.13.209 ( talk) 03:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Merge CN1 ( talk) 22:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Merge WolreChris ( talk) 22:50, 12 December 2017 (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
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 20#Category:Rogue planets in fiction.
ℯ
xplicit
01:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Some articles are about specific rogue planets in works of fiction. In line with other “X in fiction” categories, I propose emptying these into a subcategory, Category:Fictional rogue planets. 165.91.13.209 ( talk) 03:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Query Is this really a rename proposal? What's the current scope and the intended scope? Is it fictional planets that are rogue? Or is it planets that are rogue fictionally? Or is it either of these two things? Mars is not a fictional planet but it has appeared in fiction (War of the Worlds) as a rogue planet so is it in scope?
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
11:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment
Rogue planet is defined as orbiting the galaxy center directly, as opposed to being part of a
planetary system. Are there works were Mars is not part of the Solar system?
Dimadick (
talk)
15:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
-
A Pail of Air is about earth that fictionally turns into a rogue planet, so for this article
Category:Rogue planets in fiction would fit better, but presumably having this article instead in
Category:Fictional rogue planets would not be entirely wrong. Neither keeping the current category name nor renaming sounds like a big deal.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
03:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- No, I meant fictional rogue planets like
Mongo (fictional planet).
165.91.12.221 (
talk)
13:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- I may have misunderstood the intention of the nomination, thought it was a rename proposal but perhaps you mean splitting the category? Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- No, I meant fictional rogue planets like
Mongo (fictional planet).
165.91.12.221 (
talk)
13:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
-
A Pail of Air is about earth that fictionally turns into a rogue planet, so for this article
Category:Rogue planets in fiction would fit better, but presumably having this article instead in
Category:Fictional rogue planets would not be entirely wrong. Neither keeping the current category name nor renaming sounds like a big deal.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
03:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment
Rogue planet is defined as orbiting the galaxy center directly, as opposed to being part of a
planetary system. Are there works were Mars is not part of the Solar system?
Dimadick (
talk)
15:21, 2 December 2017 (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: rename. –
Fayenatic
London
12:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Fictional seas to Category:Fictional oceans and seas
- Nominator's rationale: It contains Category:Fictional ocean planets (note the word ocean. Seas and oceans are geographically distinct but similar enough to group them together. 165.91.13.209 ( talk) 03:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Would also support Category:Fictional oceans or seas as not every sea is an ocean. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 11:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support per nom. See also a follow-up nomination about Category:Oceans in fiction. Marcocapelle ( talk) 03:26, 8 December 2017 (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. Participation in the discussion was low but the argument made is convincing. ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Four articles, all of which are already interlinked. Appears to fail WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. 165.91.13.99 ( talk) 00:29, 30 November 2017 (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.