Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 14 January 16 >

January 15[edit]

Category:Middle-earth regions[edit]

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: speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. User:Debresser's point that cleanup is a better option than deletion with this category convinced me. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think this category should be merged into Category:Middle-earth realms. Only one of these regions, Harad, is not a redirect, and it is comparable to several of the other articles in the Middle-earth realms category, like Gondor and Rohan (Middle-earth). Per WP:RCAT, the redirects can be taken out of the article category and moved to Category:Middle-earth redirects. Categories are for the helpful organization of articles, not for creating a labyrinthic system of organizing redirects. Hog Farm (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what is a region and what is a realm? At first glance these are incompatible categories, one being geographical and the other political, in which case this proposal is not a good idea. Also, how are forests like Mirkwood or Fangorn realms and not regions? Debresser (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Debresser: The distinction between these two terms has been really blurred in the creation and assigning of these categories. Gondor and Harad are both countries in their own right for most of the time covered by Tolkien's works, but for some reason, Gondor is a realm, but Harad is a region. Also, in Tolkien's universe, there's a substantial overlap of both. For instance, Mirkwood is both a forest (geographic) and a realm of the Wood Elves (political). It's really weird, and with the scrambling of the categories, I think it'll be difficult to separate the two. Beleriand is in the realms cat, and the lead of the Beleriand article states "Beleriand was a region (emphasis mine) in north-western Middle-earth." The categories seem to have been used almost interchangeably in categorizing the articles, and since most of the non-redirect entries are in the realms cat, I feel like condensing into one would help with the confusion, given all the ambiguity. Hog Farm (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. Then what I think should be done is to go over all articles and add them to either region or realm or both as need be. In which case no deletion is needed, IMHO, so keep. Debresser (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2020 (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:Dune species and races[edit]

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: do not merge. MER-C 08:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only three articles. TTN (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is nothing wrong with the categorisation of redirects such as Phibian (Dune). There is everything wrong with the cluttering-up of the general topic category Category:Dune universe with pages from specific set sub-categories such as this one. Oculi (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Only three articles, and 10 redirects. Agree with Oculi. Debresser (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oculi. The extra specificity this category allows for is ideal. — Hunter Kahn 03:53, 16 January 2020 (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:Dungeons & Dragons dragons[edit]

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. MER-C 19:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to both. Only four articles. Redirects should go to a redirect category. Future expansion is extremely unlikely. TTN (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support including merging redirects. TTN should read the guidelines. Oculi (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The practice of keeping redirects in fictional categories is rare. It's much more common and practical to use redirect-only categories or not even bother. The only commonplace usage I've ever seen is soap opera characters for some reason. TTN (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense; you have personally brought dozens of such categories (mostly redirects) to cfd. You are endeavouring to make it rare. Oculi (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are all extremely old category structures, many pre-notability guideline. Go look at the category structures of completely up to date fictional topics and you're not going to see this kind of mess. Category:Video game characters by game for example has a majority of notable or attempting to be notable articles. The amount of redirects is extremely low and the number of "redirects to lists‎" categories is higher. TTN (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2020 (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:Dungeons & Dragons constructs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 23#Category:Dungeons & Dragons constructs

Category:Eberron creatures[edit]

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. MER-C 08:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two actual articles. TTN (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge This category is too specific to be of use, given the number of articles within it. The main category for Eberron is more functional than these maze of mostly redirect categories we have in many fiction categories. Hog Farm (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2020 (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:Dungeons & Dragons vermin[edit]

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. MER-C 08:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two redirects, possible expansion very unlikely at this point. Possibly also merge the redirects to a redirect category. TTN (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2020 (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:Dungeons & Dragons fey[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 23#Category:Dungeons & Dragons fey

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_15&oldid=937397721"