< October 3	October 5 >

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. Postdlf (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another "Fictional characters by physical characteristic" category. Can you imagine how many such categories are possible? - jc37 21:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (Listify if no consensus to delete) - as nominator - jc37 21:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being a hunchback is hardly some random "physical characteristic", unworthy of notice. It's a gross deformity, chosen by the author as a literary device to convey a sense of grotesqueness. And unlike some characteristics, it's certainly not subjective -- all of these characters are clearly identified as hunchbacks. Cgingold (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An inarguably defining characteristic for the individual included in this category. I can imagine substantial numbers of such categories, and I would keep them all if they meaningfully characterize articles by a defining characteristic. Why is that an excuse for deletion? Alansohn (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it is defining, go get some sources which state it is defining. Otherwise, it is just opinion that it is defining, and we don't do editor opinion on Wikipedia. I'd certainly love to see some sources regarding author intent on each member, because otherwise it seems to me there is serious analysis of primary source going on, something we don't do. If you can't do it in article space, I'll be interested to hear why you can in category space. Why should being able to imagine a vast quantity of categories mean we keep them? Do we just imagine the rules don't apply? Hiding T 20:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find the notion that being a hunchback is somehow not a defining characteristic for such characters as Quasimodo to be intriguing, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. It is not original research to determine that a characteristic is defining. It is a function of building consensus through the WP:CAT and the WP:CFD process itself. Keep. Otto4711 (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a hunchback does not define Quasimodo. How he is written and portrayed is what defines Quasimodo. That's the basic difference between an out of universe and an in-universe approach, and an encyclopedia takes the former approach. It is original research to voice un-sourced opinion within the Wikipedia encyclopedia. Hiding T 11:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, how the character is written and portrayed defines the character, and Quasimodo is written and portrayed as a hunchback. How can it possibly be original research to simply identify a hunchback as a hunchback? And even if one were to accept the absurd notion that simple identification rises to the level of original research, there are plenty of reliable secondary sources that discuss Quasimodo, his hunched back, and what they mean. Otto4711 (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've demonstrated why we should have an article on Quasimodo. I fail to see why we need a category for Quasimodo. Hiding T 15:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a category for Quasimodo. I would support the deletion of Category:Quasimodo in a hot minute. This is a category for fictional hunchbacks, of which Quasimodo is a member. Otto4711 (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you have yet to demonstrate why we need such a category. At the minute, all I can see in the arguments presented is that we need it because Quasimodo is a hunchback. Hiding T 08:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking we don't need any category. However, it is fairly standard to characterize articles based on the defining characteristics of the article's subject and, again, the member articles here are all clearly defined by being fictional hunchbacks. Otto4711 (talk) 09:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But, and forgive me, this is the bone of contention. How do we define what a defining characteristic is? Personally, and I think this is pretty much supported in guidance and policy, a category should only exist if we can write an article detailing the point of categorisation. So in this instance, would we be able to write an article on hunchbacks in fiction, or fictional hunchbacks, which doesn't amount to anything more than a list of characters? Is there enough published material to support the argument that this is a recognised genre of fiction, or a well utilised trope? Or are we just saying, well, we've got Quasimodo, and look, we've got all these other hunchbacks too, let's make a category? Is it a question of, we like this so let's make a category; or, scholars have noted this theme in a number of works so let's make a category? Hiding T 10:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But, and forgive me as well, that is why we have the consensus-building process. If we as a community, using good judgment and common sense, feel that something is a defining characteristic, then the category is valid and the process has worked. Yes, there may be times when we decide that a characteristic is defining even if there is no mass body of literature behind it, and per WP:CAT, while usually there should be such a body of literature to allow for writing at least a few paragraphs, CAT is a guideline and subject to the occasional exception using the aforementioned good judgment and common sense. And while you've said elsewhere that you're not in favor of deleting all fictional character by feature/characteristic categories, adopting your line of reasoning would indeed IMHO lead to the deletion of the vast majority of them. Otto4711 (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the consensus argument, but don't we look to guidance and policy to form our views as there is no common sense? I'm grounding mine pretty clearly, and all I'm seeing in return is what to me appears to be I Like It arguments. I mean, are we reducing the argument to being that some people would like to categorise fictional hunchbacks, and that's okay? Is that all we need in category creation, mob approval? Or is there more, is there some sort of agreed standard like WP:CAT. I don;t mind exceptions, but they need to make their case, and so far in this debate the case appears to be that it would be cool to categorise all the fictional hunchbacks together. My question, which doesn't seem to be getting any closer to being answered, is why is it cool to categorise all the fictional hunchbacks together? How does that improve the encyclopedia? What purpose does it serve? What links Quasimodo to Richard III (who by the way is a very tenuous fictional character, being based upon a real person), and what's so good about categories that it is the best way to show that link? Where's the utility, the encyclopedic scope, the sourced opinion which notes that this characteristic is of more worth than any other? Hiding T 11:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Renaming "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" to "The Bellringer of Notre Dame" was the subject of some controversy, so I'd say it's a fairly notable disabililty in fiction. Andjam (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are several things wrong with suggesting that as an analogy. But suffice to say that the concerns of purists vs. the concerns of the politically correct concerning a production have little to do with the question of whether a category should exist based upon a characteristic of a fictional character. - jc37 18:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Defining disability for several of the characters included. Dimadick (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's only five articles in the category, one of which is a redirect. In what sense is it a defining disability rather than an authorial whim? Hiding T 13:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My point was that there are a lot of physical charactistics of characters in fiction. Some that immediately come to mind are: Cleft palate, Conjoined twins (aka Siamese twins), Club foot, etc. The Elephant Man (and homages thereof) is another. And that's another problem. Authors (especially in short stories, or serial fiction such as television or comics) often have characters which are based on, or homages of, previous characters. Consider how often that Quasimodo and Igor have been copied or parodied in fiction. Such characters are merely "alternate versions" or depictions "in pop culture", which should be lists, if they should be anything at all. - jc37 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there are sourced alternate versions of Quasimodo or Ygor, then put them in an alternate versions list either within the main article (the way many comics articles include sections called "Other versions" and "In other media") or in a separate list article (as, again, many comics characters have in Category:Alternate versions of comics characters). Few if any singular alternate versions will in and of themselves have sufficient independent notability to warrant full-fledged articles so I don't think your concern is, well, concerning. "Quasimodo in popular culture" should of course be destroyed on-site since it will inevitably become a horrible trivia magnet. I can't think of any notable fictional conjoined twins off the top of my head but if there are being a conjoined twin certainly seems sufficiently defining for categorization. We've already deleted a category for fictional characters with facial disfigurements so cleft palated characters would probably fall under that and not be categorized. Otto4711 (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is one "disfigurement" (to use your term) more appropriate than another? - jc37 17:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Disfigurement" was not my term, it was in the name of the category. As for why one physical characteristic is more defining than another, again, it's the consensus of the community, jsut like every other category brought here. Otto4711 (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification.

And I've heard of consensus once or twice, but telling me about it, doesn't actually answer the question.

But perhaps I should clarify: Why do you feel thatone "disfigurement" is more appropriate than another? - jc37 18:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Klein zach 03:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - I'd like to avoid further copy-pasting comments to nearly every discussion on this page. I request that you please read and take into account all my comments concerning these fiction-related categories. Thank you. - jc37 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer Please review the rebuttal to Jc37's arguments listed under "Fictional Holocaust survivors", most notably the argument that sources cannot be trusted because quoting them constitutes original research. The arguments Jc37 has put forth are simply unviable in terms of Wikipedia, and the "Fictional Holocaust survivors" argument makes it clearest why. Alansohn (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If complying with Wikipedia on reliable and verifiable sources carries weight here, all of the characters so identified in this category are unquestionably described as being a "hunchback" as their defining (if not only) characteristic. "Clintonia Eagle to offer ‘Fright Fest’ in cooperation with ‘Terror on Washington Street’ haunted house" describes Fritz (Frankenstein) of the 1931 film Frankenstein as "Scientist Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) and his hunchbacked assistant, Fritz (Dwight Frye), embark on an unholy mission by stealing a body from a graveyard and a human brain from a medical college." Kurt Loder at MTV.com (see "'Igor': Calling All Monsters, By Kurt Loder"), describes a new children's film that plays on the character in which "Each of the Evil Scientists is attended by a hunchbacked lab assistant called an Igor, a member of a blighted tribe that's trained to respond with alacrity to such tremulous commands as 'Pull the switch!'" Igor (Young Frankenstein) is described by Clive Barnes of the New York Post (see "NOT QUITE A MONSTER") who contrasts the Broadway show, noting that "There is no Hitler to have a Springtime, and, as a cult movie, "Young Frankenstein" owed a terrific amount to the personas and performances of the entire movie cast, particularly the goggle-eyed, cockney Marty Feldman as Igor the hunchback and Gene Wilder as the eponymous hero, Frederick Frankenstein." I don't think we need to bother with sources for Quasimodo from The Hunchback of Notre Dame, but I will provide them if needed. The article "A SECOND LOOK AT EVIL IMAGE OF RICHARD III" describes how "Cleaning up the image of King Richard III - portrayed in books, film and Shakespearean drama as the hunchback who had his nephews murdered in the Tower of London - is the task taken up by a group of Britons, Americans and others on the 500th anniversary of the king's accession to the throne." There are thousands more sources where these came from and I will be happy to provide them if anyone has any questions as to reliable and verifiable sources trumping the proffered rationale for deletion of "Can you imagine how many such categories are possible?" Alansohn (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional cannibals

Well, here we have another "Fictional characters by dietary choice". (smile)

At best, this should be listified in order to clarify the circumstances surrounding the "event" of cannibalism. - jc37 21:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Listify if no consensus to delete.) - as nominator. - jc37 21:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (ahem) We are not amused... by the idea that cannibalism is a mere "dietary choice". Seriously now, jc -- if cannibalism isn't sufficiently distinctive in your estimation to warrant categorization, then nothing is. I couldn't disagree more. And there's certainly no requirement for the circumstances to be noted, either -- that is merely your personal preference (sort of like a "dietary choice"). Cgingold (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well said Cgingold. What's the point of having categories if someone with a bias opinion (no offense jc) wants to delete everything (s)he disagrees with? I think we should be targeting the most obvious/silly ones, like Category:Fictional virgins, for deletion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An inarguably defining characteristic for the individuals included in this category, which goes well beyond the sneering sarcasm of categorization by "dietary choice" and has already included several dozen such articles. Alansohn (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While I admire the dryness of your nominator's rationale Jc37 there is no reason to delete this category. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no real valid reason that this category defines anything other than Wikipedian whim, much like a category on Fictional butterflies who like blue flowers, or even a category on people with red shoes. If there is significance in this intersection, it needs to be shown in article space through reliable sources. The lack of a well sourced article on Cannibalism in fiction tends to mean there are no sources and this intersection has no significance. If we allow this but not fictional blondes, it's a breach of the neutral point of view. If we allow this because we think it is important, it is breach of original research. If we allow this because it has been written about as important, it breaches verifiability. Hiding T 20:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems reasonably defining for most of its included articles. There is rather an enormous difference between consuming human flesh and wearing red shoes, unless you're suggesting that Hannibal Lecter's most memorable character trait is the equivalent of Dorothy Gale's? A quick Google search turns up The Body in Swift and Defoe which notes on page 151 that there have been a number of articles on the theoretical implications of cannibalism in fiction, along with additional sources on the topic. This suggests that such an article can be written for Wikipedia. I see nothing in WP:CAT that forbids this category. Otto4711 (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have sources for the portrayal of cannibalism in fiction, not fictional cannibals. Huge difference. Further below you argue that foo in fiction is separate from fictional foo, so if that is the case your argument has no bearing on this category, which based on your comments you indicate has nothing to do with "foo in fiction". Hiding T 11:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cannibal film is a valid and once popular genre of film... so there should be fictional cannibals for the subject matter of these films. 70.51.8.75 (talk) 06:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, necessarily significant about a character. Cannibalism is such a taboo and extreme practice that it is necessarily going to be tied into other aspects of that character. Vegetarianism (category discussed below) is something that could be dropped into a casual aside in a conversation, and is really a common and unremarkable practice. Cannibalism, not so much. That tends to get noticed and remarked upon. Imagine Jules in Pulp Fiction during the Big Kahuna burger conversation—"My girlfriend's a cannibal, which pretty much makes me one too." Postdlf (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Defining category for the characters included. That dietary choice is what makes them notable. Dimadick (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to run that one by me. Isn't it the coverage in reliable sources which makes the character notable? Hiding T 13:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The main problem with this category is the problem of Wikipedia's guideines which state that fiction must be presented in literary present tense. So we simply can't categorise a fictional character based upon some choice or preference. Since every event is "now", a character is what they were before they chose to be (or perhaps were forced or tricked into being) a cannibal, at the same time as being who they are after becoming a cannibal. So by its very nature the category is inaccurate. And that doesn't go into the fact that the category doesn't explain the circumstances of the cannibalism. (And would someone eating the flesh of Solomon Grundy (comics) be a cannibal? There is a question of whether that character is "human". How about if the character eats a humanoid alien?) And such determinations would simply be original research. They require sources to define the term, the circumstances, and the application of the term. All of which can't be done in a category, and is another reason that this should be deleted. - jc37 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm taking your argument too far, but your interpretation of literary present tense would effectively prevent any categorization of fictional characters apart from their species. Batman could not be categorized as a superhero, detective, or vigilante, because Bruce Wayne as a child and young adult was none of those things. Is that what you're trying to say here? As that would prevent categorization of fictional characters by things that are defining (i.e., what the character is about), such an absolutist interpretation of what literary present tense requires in terms of categories does not seem very constructive. I think your concern about the definition of cannibalism is overly pedantic; it seems clear that it refers to an individual eating members of its own species. You may have a point about this category not separating those who are cannibals by nature (Hannibal Lecter) from those who are forced to commit cannibalism for survival or other reasons, but is that really a problem here? Are there a lot of characters in the latter category, and why or why wouldn't it be a problem to include them in this category? Postdlf (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...your interpretation of literary present tense would effectively prevent any categorization of fictional characters apart from their species."

Not quite, but fairly close to that, yes. I'm affirming that categorising characters by some "in-universe" choice, opinion, or preference is inappropriate.

We not only have the problem of literary present tense, but also variant circumstance, variant application of a term/label/name, variant interpretations of a term/label/name, and subjective inclusion into a category by editors, without actual sources (WP:OR). And if you don't think that the last is a problem, go look at the subcats of Category:Stock characters. Do you think that every member, or even 10% of the articles in those cats actually have sources indicating that those characters are actually those stock characters? Or do you think that editors simply added articles based on their presumption of what they felt the character was? As I've said elsewhere, if a character dresses like Sheena, Queen of the Jungle, does that make them a jungle girl? And what if they change their clothes? Or what if they "come to civilization"? Should they still be categorised? Why or why not?

The whole problem of time when dealing with a question of choice, opinion, and preference is simply a problem. And note that we've repeatedly deleted similar cats related to real people (WP:OC#OPINION). With the literary present tense issue, all choices of fictional character become problematic. And further, since those choices are a matter of whim by one or more authors, this is even more problematic (see also retcon). Want a big example? Is Superman, Superboy? Since he may have been at one time, but apparently isn't considered so now, how should we categorise based upon that information? Wikipedia editor choice? Obviously not. Such information needs clarification and explanations and (most important) verifiable reliable sources. And since we can't do that in categories... - jc37 17:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not a character fits a generic archetype is a rather different question of whether they are depicted as eating the flesh of their own species; what does or does not constitute cannibalism is not so open to interpretation. I also find the reduction of this to character "choice" rather absurd in this context; the category is not narrowed to "fictional characters who want to eat human flesh" any more than Category:Fictional detectives is for characters who merely want to be detectives. The characters are or aren't depicted as such things, and we can easily identify if a character is depicted as committing cannibalism. Knowing the depicted circumstances of that cannibalism is not necessary to explain why they are included in a category that just requires that it was depicted. Note that the Category:Cannibals by nationality schema for real people includes those who ate human flesh on one occasion or many, for purposes of survival or for anthropological curiosity, for serial killer muderous intent or for sexual arousal. Why they did it does not matter, just that they did. You can argue that a fictional character depicted as committing cannibalism is not significant to that character as a rule (which I would disagree with absent examples to the contrary), but I think your other criticisms just don't apply to this category. Perhaps if you could point out a character who was only a cannibal prior to a retcon we could better evaluate those consequences in this context. Postdlf (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we set aside the question of choice (or lack thereof), an event is an event. And we shouldn't be categorising characters by some event in their lives. Consider Characters who swam the English Channel, or Characters who circumnavigated the Earth. These should be lists, if anything.

And personally, it sounds to me that Category:Cannibals by nationality perhaps should be listified if its so broad as to include anyone who's consumed human flesh under a myriad of circumstances. But that's just a personal aside, since, "real life" events and fictional events are simply not comparable. - jc37 18:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - I'd like to avoid further copy-pasting comments to nearly every discussion on this page. I request that you please read and take into account all my comments concerning these fiction-related categories. Thank you. - jc37 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer Please review the rebuttal to Jc37's arguments listed under "Fictional Holocaust survivors", most notably the argument that sources cannot be trusted because quoting them constitutes original research. The arguments Jc37 has put forth are simply nonviable in terms of Wikipedia, and the rebuttal to the "Fictional Holocaust survivors" argument makes it clearest why. Alansohn (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: DELETE. Postdlf (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional communists

Another example of opinion about a question or issue. And most of the category members should be merged to Category:Fictional Soviets (one of its subcats). - jc37 20:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Fictional Soviets as appropriate, and Delete the rest. - jc37 20:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A defining characteristic for the individual included in this category, which is already well populated. Some of the articles should be upmerged, as appropriate Alansohn (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can see no evidence that this is defining. What defines a fictional character is not something for a Wikipedian to choose and then "summarise". We have policies against that. What defines a fictional character is a matter for research. If people feel this is a defining characteristic of some works of fiction, for after all these characters are not real, so cannot be defined in the manner some people insist, I humbly suggest, in the manner of long-standing tradition, that they publish their resource in a reliable source that we may then summarise. Hiding T 20:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment so are you saying that all categorizations of fictional characters other than "fictional character" should be removed? 70.51.8.75 (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not necessarily, although I can understand why you would think so. I'd just rather we categorised from an encyclopedic approach based on appropriate sources rather than by made up intersections. There's no thought going into the creation of these categories beyond that looks to be an interesting distinction to make. Take the hunchback example further up the page. Because we have Quasimodo, we instantly think this means we need a category. It isn;t that simple. I'm never really one for hard and fast rules, though, I tend to approach it on a case by case basis. Hiding T 12:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to fictional Soviets as appropriate per nom, although I disagree with the notion that deciding what is defining for a fictional character constitutes original research. Rather, it constitutes forming consensus under WP:CAT and WP:CFD. Otto4711 (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The main problem with this category is the problem of Wikipedia's guideines which state that fiction must be presented in literary present tense. So we simply can't categorise a fictional character based upon some choice or preference. Since every event is "now", a character is what they were before they chose to be (or perhaps were forced or tricked into being) a communist, at the same time as being who they are after becoming a comunist. So by its very nature the category is inaccurate. And that doesn't go into the fact that the category doesn't explain the circumstances of the conversion. And such determinations would simply be original research. They require sources to define the term, the circumstances, and the application of the term. All of which can't be done in a category, and is another reason that this should be deleted. - jc37 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Klein zach 03:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - I'd like to avoid further copy-pasting comments to nearly every discussion on this page. I request that you please read and take into account all my comments concerning these fiction-related categories. Thank you. - jc37 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer Please review the rebuttal to Jc37's arguments listed under "Fictional Holocaust survivors", most notably the argument that sources cannot be trusted because quoting them constitutes original research. The arguments Jc37 has put forth are simply nonviable in terms of Wikipedia, and the rebuttal to the "Fictional Holocaust survivors" argument makes it clearest why. Alansohn (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The fact that Category:Nineteen Eighty-Four characters is included as a subcategory should be a tip-off here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since Fictional socialists is deleted, why keep this one? The same argument applies. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional socialists

Three members: 2 of which are actually anarchists, according to their articles, and the third is a citizen of a socialist country. This is a clear example of why to not categorise by opinion about a question or issue.

(This nom does not include the subcat Category:Fictional communists, which is discussed above.) - jc37 20:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. - jc37 20:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments at debate regarding Category:Fictional communists. Hiding T 20:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The main problem with this category is the problem of Wikipedia's guideines which state that fiction must be presented in literary present tense. So we simply can't categorise a fictional character based upon some choice or preference. Since every event is "now", a character is what they were before they chose to be (or perhaps were forced or tricked into being) a socialist, at the same time as being who they are after becoming a socialist. So by its very nature the category is inaccurate. And that doesn't go into the fact that the category doesn't explain the circumstances of the conversion. And such determinations would simply be original research. They require sources to define the term, the circumstances, and the application of the term. All of which can't be done in a category, and is another reason that this should be deleted. - jc37 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Klein zach 03:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - I'd like to avoid further copy-pasting comments to nearly every discussion on this page. I request that you please read and take into account all my comments concerning these fiction-related categories. Thank you. - jc37 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer Please review the rebuttal to Jc37's arguments listed under "Fictional Holocaust survivors", most notably the argument that sources cannot be trusted because quoting them constitutes original research. The arguments Jc37 has put forth are simply nonviable in terms of Wikipedia, and the rebuttal to the "Fictional Holocaust survivors" argument makes it clearest why. Alansohn (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Those advocating keeping did not refute the claim that this category was not a violation of WP:OC#Opinion about a question or issue. Also this the nomination was not simply based on the existence of a list. Lists and categories can exist when appropriate. WP:CLN does not mandate that we always need both. The need for the category to be 'cross-maintained' further argues against the need for both. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify Category:Fictional anarchists to List of fictional anarchists

This is another case of WP:OC#Opinion about a question or issue. And the list already exists. - jc37 20:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 20:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A defining characteristic for the individuals included in this category. As per WP:CLN, the relevant Wikipedia guideline on the subject, the list and category are intended to work together, not to be misleadingly presented as an either/or binary choice. The category should be populated with articles from the list that are not yet included here and cross-maintained. Alansohn (talk) 03:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename to Category:Anarchism in fiction to better define the scope and keep consistent with the manual of style which suggests an out of universe approach. It is the way anarchism is treated in fiction that is of note and it is the fact that the characters represent anarchism within a fictive work which has been commented upon, not the fact that these characters have been referred to as anarchist by other characters within that fiction. Hiding T 20:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename, unsure about keeping - Foo in fiction or Foo literature should not be used as dumping grounds for articles about fictional characters. They should be maintained for articles about the actual literary concepts. If it's important to keep the fictional characters within the related in fiction structure, then keep the characters subcat. Otto4711 (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't understand your thinking at all. Foo in fiction or Foo literature would not be used as dumping grounds. Also, I'd rather do what's best for the encyclopedia rather than an in fiction structure, whatever that is. Hiding T 12:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they'd become dumping grounds. Renaming as you suggest tells editors to dump them there, because you've given them nowhere else to put them. But hey, I do appreciate the implication that I don't want what's best for the encyclopedia. Nice assumption of good faith there. Otto4711 (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't follow your logic on either point. Any category would be a dumping ground on the logic of the first point. Hiding T 15:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The existance of a list is not a reason to delete the category covering its subjects. Dimadick (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've presented no argument to keep. the existence of a list is often a valid reason to delete. Hiding T 13:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Often, but not always. If so, Category:Presidents of the United States would be deleted due to the existence of List of Presidents of the United States.--Cast (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The main problem with this category is the problem of Wikipedia's guideines which state that fiction must be presented in literary present tense. So we simply can't categorise a fictional character based upon some choice or preference. Since every event is "now", a character is what they were before they chose to be (or perhaps were forced or tricked into being) an anarchist, at the same time as being who they are after becoming an anarchist. So by its very nature the category is inaccurate. And that doesn't go into the fact that the category doesn't explain the circumstances of the conversion. And such determinations would simply be original research. They require sources to define the term, the circumstances, and the application of the term. All of which can't be done in a category, and is another reason that this should be deleted. - jc37 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before voting, I should like to know, in light of the nominator's comment above, why Category:Fictional characters by politics is not being deleted in its entirety. The sub-categories for fascists, socialists, and communists have already been deleted. Why aren't the sub-categories for fictional United States Democrats and Republicans being nominated for deletion as well? They also already have lists, and the same description for why they should be deleted per WP:OC#Opinion about a question or issue. Especially since those categories do not include the same contextual information the category of fictional anarchists lacks. I would also like to take a moment to remind editors who nominate categories related to anarchism that there is a Task Force which should be alerted when such nominations are made. --Cast (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, it was acknowledged that contextual information of defining "anarchism" and "anarchist" is necessary. This was determined in a previous nomination for the category to be deleted. As the list satisfies the need for context, and is included in the category of fictional anarchists, that point would seem moot.--Cast (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion.

Delete per nom. --Klein zach 03:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - I'd like to avoid further copy-pasting comments to nearly every discussion on this page. I request that you please read and take into account all my comments concerning these fiction-related categories. Thank you. - jc37 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer Please review the rebuttal to Jc37's arguments listed under "Fictional Holocaust survivors", most notably the argument that sources cannot be trusted because quoting them constitutes original research. The arguments Jc37 has put forth are simply nonviable in terms of Wikipedia, and the rebuttal to the "Fictional Holocaust survivors" argument makes it clearest why. Alansohn (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion below. No reason for repeations. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional fascists

According to who? Does hyperbole count? Should we include any and every wannabe dictator?

That aside, this violates WP:OC#Opinion about a question or issue.

(Note that this nom does not include the subcat Category:Fictional Nazis, which should be upmerged.) - jc37 20:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 20:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename to fascism in fiction. I'm thinking there's a good basis for an article there, films which explore the nature of fascism include a reading of Richard the Third, which reviews would support, whilst it would be inappropriate to categorise the character itself so. Hiding T 20:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename, unsure about keeping - Foo in fiction or Foo literature should not be used as dumping grounds for articles about fictional characters. They should be maintained for articles about the actual literary concepts. If it's important to keep the fictional characters within the related in fiction structure, then keep the characters subcat. Otto4711 (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't understand your thinking at all. Foo in fiction or Foo literature would not be used as dumping grounds. Also, I'd rather do what's best for the encyclopedia rather than an in fiction structure, whatever that is. Also, I'll point out the onus is on those who wish to keep to show sources for the significance of these categories. However, you seem to be contradicting yourself here and in the cannibal debate. Hiding T 12:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment About Nazis, what do you mean upmerged? You're suggesting the deletion of the parent category... 70.51.8.75 (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To a parent category "higher" up the tree/structure. - jc37 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The main problem with this category is the problem of Wikipedia's guideines which state that fiction must be presented in literary present tense. So we simply can't categorise a fictional character based upon some choice or preference. Since every event is "now", a character is what they were before they chose to be (or perhaps were forced or tricked into being) a fascist, at the same time as being who they are after becoming a fascist. So by its very nature the category is inaccurate. And that doesn't go into the fact that the category doesn't explain the circumstances of the conversion. And such determinations would simply be original research. They require sources to define the term, the circumstances, and the application of the term. All of which can't be done in a category, and is another reason that this should be deleted. - jc37 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom. --Klein zach 03:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - I'd like to avoid further copy-pasting comments to nearly every discussion on this page. I request that you please read and take into account all my comments concerning these fiction-related categories. Thank you. - jc37 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer Please review the rebuttal to Jc37's arguments listed under "Fictional Holocaust survivors", most notably the argument that sources cannot be trusted because quoting them constitutes original research. The arguments Jc37 has put forth are simply nonviable in terms of Wikipedia, and the rebuttal to the "Fictional Holocaust survivors" argument makes it clearest why. Alansohn (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete both; I haven't seen any convincing arguments as to why this defining for a fictional character, even in the "Fictional Holocaust survivor" CfD that was referred to. I also don't see a consensus for list creation, but this close certainly does not preclude someone from creating one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify Category:Fictional vegetarians to List of fictional vegetarians

Merge Category:Fictional vegans to the list target above.

Another category based on what a character may choose to eat. More problems with literary present tense. What if the person changes their mind? This should be a list.

And while there may be a difference between a vegetarian and a "vegan", that can be noted in a list. - jc37 20:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify as nominator. - jc37 20:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A defining characteristic for the individuals included in these categories. I fully support the creation of corresponding lists to match these categories, as recommended in WP:CLN. No policy justification has been offered for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original research, neutral point of view and verifiability. Take your pick. IF this intersection is more significant that fictional blondes, source it and show that it is fictional vegans and vegetarians rather than the way vegetarianism and veganism is portrayed in foction which is the important thing. No objection to a change in scope for the category or listification providing sources exist. Hiding T 20:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the character is described in the associated fiction as vegetarian or vegan, then this does not constitute a violation of OR, NPOV or V. Otto4711 (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. Talk me through the process. Show me how you determine whether a character is described in the associated fiction as vegetarian or vegan. I'll point out exactly where you breach the thrust of the core principle of Wikipedia, that we do not make assertions of our own, since our assertions cannot be trusted. Hiding T 12:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read a book called Mary the Vegetarian. In it, Mary the Vegetarian says on page 3, "I am a vegetarian." Boom, fictional vegetarian. Quote the text from the book in Mary's article and plop her in the category. No original research required unless you're suggesting that reading a book and reporting on what's written in it rises to the level of original research (in which case all quotes from books will need to be removed from all book and book character articles, which is clearly absurd). No NPOV problem since the character is clearly and unambiguously identified as a vegetarian. No V problem because anyone who cares to may verify that on page 3 Mary does indeed say that she's a vegetarian. Writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source, per WP:WAF. Otto4711 (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, to start, we haven't got an article on the character Mary the vegetarian, because we don't have any reliable secondary sources discussing the character. I also think we've loaded the debate here by starting with an example in which the title of the work just miraculously contains the magic term we want. But here's where it is original research and giving undue weight to one sentence in a published book, Mary the Vegetarian, a book which contains seven million, three hundred and twenty seven thousand and forty-two sentences. None of which mention she is a vegetarian, but a number of which read "I wear blue shoes.", specifically on pages 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, and so on. The book also contains a number of chapters, titled variously things like "Mary Wears Blue Shoes on Monday" and "Mary Wears Blue Shoes on Thursday". So either we create the category "fictional blue shoe wearers", or you are asserting that being described in a book as a vegetarian is of more importance than wearing blue shoes, in clear breach of the thrust of the three content policies, specifically: not giving undue weight; not interpreting primary source; and the reliance on third party sources for claims. Hope that clarifies. Hiding T 15:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I'd also point out we're discussing category space here, not article space. There is no need to remove quotes from articles as long as they comply with our policies. You seem to be confusing category creation with writing an article. Hiding T 15:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who says there are no reliable sources that discuss Mary independent of the book itself? For all you know, there's an entire Maryana out there that rivals the scholarly discourse on the Buffyverse. Otto4711 (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But anyway, I really don't care if these cats get deleted or not so I'm not going to focus any more time on this discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivia. I disagree that this is typically a defining trait of a character. How many of the included entries mention the character's vegetarianism or veganism in the introductory paragraphs? For how many of the included entries is it a recurring and/or significant theme in that character's depictions? Postdlf (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Vegetarianism is not a trivial practice. Dimadick (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense isn't it? Hiding T 13:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it is or isn't for real people is a different matter from whether it is or isn't for fictional characters. Postdlf (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The main problem with this category is the problem of Wikipedia's guideines which state that fiction must be presented in literary present tense. So we simply can't categorise a fictional character based upon some choice or preference. Since every event is "now", a character is what they were before they chose to be (or perhaps were forced or tricked into being) a vegetarian or vegan, at the same time as being who they are after becoming a vegetarian or vegan. So by its very nature the category is inaccurate. And that doesn't go into the fact that the category doesn't explain the circumstances of the conversion. (For example, plant-creatures who live on a planet of no fauna would be (presumably) vegetarians due to circumstance.) And such determinations would simply be original research. They require sources to define the term, the circumstances, and the application of the term. All of which can't be done in a category, and is another reason that this should be deleted. - jc37 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hiding. --Klein zach 03:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - I'd like to avoid further copy-pasting comments to nearly every discussion on this page. I request that you please read and take into account all my comments concerning these fiction-related categories. Thank you. - jc37 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer Please review the rebuttal to Jc37's arguments listed under "Fictional Holocaust survivors", most notably the argument that sources cannot be trusted because quoting them constitutes original research. The arguments Jc37 has put forth are simply nonviable in terms of Wikipedia, and the rebuttal to the "Fictional Holocaust survivors" argument makes it clearest why. Alansohn (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia. No reason to listify. Why a list would be useful? Again it's trivia. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a practice is not a reason that screams that we need to use that to classify fictional characters by it. Likewise evoking WP:CLN is not a reason to keep, in and of itself, since that does not require lists and categories, it just says that the existence of one does not mean you have to delete the other. It allows consensus to determine the need for one or the other or even both. Finally it is hard to show that for fictional characters this is defining. To what extend does this really affect the character? When you have to ask that question, clearly this becomes a POV and subjective category. While advocating a delete, if someone wishes to create a properly cited list go for it. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Planet devourers

No, no, no, no, no.

Three members: Galactus, an Amalgam version of Galactus, and an Homage to Galactus. All that is required is to note that each is a "planet devourer" in each article. This should not be a category.

(Do we really want to be categorising fictional characters by what they eat? : ) - jc37 20:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 20:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning to delete This seems to be an exceedingly narrow category. I will change to delete unless there is some evidence provided that this category goes much beyond the three articles already included there. Alansohn (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – this was discussed at cfd in July. If a non-fictional person occasionally devoured worlds I would expect it would not be classed merely as a 'dietary preference'. Occuli (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, limited categorisation. Can be covered in one article, Galactus. Hiding T 20:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the same reasons I nominated it previously. Otto4711 (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If kept (I don't care), should be renamed to Category:Fictional planet devourers. I'm totally serious. Postdlf (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True. There are examples of Planet Devourers in mythology. Fenric from Norse mythology for example wanted to devour the world I believe, as did The Leviathan from Judeo Christianity. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, I agree with the rename. - jc37 01:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If renamed, that's not the right name. Does it mean "(Fictional) (planet devourers)" as in "fictional characters who devour planets? Or "(Fictional planet) (devourers)" as in "beings that devour fictional planets"? Sorry, a confusing title from a grammatical/English standpoint. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Klein zach 03:22, 10 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional parents who killed their children

Only 2 members to the category. And it's another category categorising a fictional character by some action they decided to choose to do. How is this different than "Fictional characters who killed someone"? Crime fiction, and Mystery fiction is filled with such characters.

Note that other such examples are often homages or based on the story of Medea (one of the two characters listed). - jc37 20:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 20:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the category as Medea was previously in Category:Parents who killed their children, which seemed to be mixing fiction with non-fiction. Does the nominator think that that category should be deleted as well? With regards to the size of the category, it's only 2 weeks old, so it's unsurprising that it's underpopulated. Andjam (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the strong feelings about infanticide, there is ample justification to consider such individuals differently from other fictional killers. Are there enough articles to meaningfully expand this category? Alansohn (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A defining characteristic, and to mirror the real world cat of Category:Parents who killed their children. Lugnuts (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since it was created solely to house one article, and currently holds two. It's also very hard to pin-point, given we are referring to something from the age of myth here, whether Medea is in any way a real or fictional person with any degree of certainty. I'm struggling to understand on what basis we can claim there is justification to consider some possible fictional characters differently from others based on strong feelings. I think there are clear lines drawn by Wikipedia policy which get crossed when we do that. Hiding T 20:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The main problem with this category is the problem of Wikipedia's guideines which state that fiction must be presented in literary present tense. So we simply can't categorise a fictional character based upon some choice or preference. Since every event is "now", a character is what they were before they chose to be (or perhaps were forced or tricked into being) a "child-killer", at the same time as being who they are after becoming a "child-killer". So by its very nature the category is inaccurate. And that doesn't go into the fact that the category doesn't explain the circumstances of the events. And such determinations would simply be original research. They require sources to define the term, the circumstances, and the application of the term. (Is it an editor, the primary source, other sources, or who, who apply such a label to the character?) All of which can't be done in a category, and is another reason that this should be deleted. - jc37 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. NorthernThunder (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Klein zach 03:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - I'd like to avoid further copy-pasting comments to nearly every discussion on this page. I request that you please read and take into account all my comments concerning these fiction-related categories. Thank you. - jc37 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer Please review the rebuttal to Jc37's arguments listed under "Fictional Holocaust survivors", most notably the argument that sources cannot be trusted because quoting them constitutes original research. The arguments Jc37 has put forth are simply nonviable in terms of Wikipedia, and the rebuttal to the "Fictional Holocaust survivors" argument makes it clearest why. Alansohn (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional lovers

Not only does this have similar problems to "fictional duos" below, but really, fictional lovers? Romance in fiction is a large genre, encompassing romantic comedy, through Romantic tragedy, and everything in between. - jc37 20:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 20:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still unsure what this category is supposed to include. Articles about pairs of lovers or all articles about any character who was in love? Alansohn (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as far too broad in scope. Hiding T 20:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, meaninglessly vague/overbroad. Postdlf (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-defining characteristic. Should we include any character who has had a love interest or two? Dimadick (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The main problem with this category is the problem of Wikipedia's guideines which state that fiction must be presented in literary present tense. So we simply can't categorise a fictional character based upon some choice or preference. Since every event is "now", a character is what they were before they chose to be (or perhaps were forced or tricked into being) lovers, at the same time as being who they are after becoming lovers. So by its very nature the category is inaccurate. And that doesn't go into the fact that the category doesn't explain the circumstances thereof. And such determinations would simply be original research. They require sources to define the term, the circumstances, and the application of the term. All of which can't be done in a category, and is another reason that this should be deleted. - jc37 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Klein zach 03:23, 10 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional duos

Categorising because they have a pal? And what if the duo becomes a trio?

Pairs (both heroes and villains) is just incredibly common in fiction.

This is so common, that vaudeville (and radio, and television, and film, and, and and...) performers would use the "duo" for "double billing". "You get two for the price of one".

And categorising merely because there are 2 of something violates WP:OC#Arbitrary inclusion criterion. (As I said above, why not trios? Quartets? etc.) - jc37 20:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 20:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Good grief, jc -- didn't you even look at the titles of the articles? This category isn't for characters who happen to "have a pal", as you suggest. It's clearly for duos who are noted as such in the titles of the articles -- which are joint bios, as it were. If you really can't see why it's entirely valid for such articles to be grouped together in a category, then I truly fear that your case of categoritis antagonisticus has reached such a stage of severity that you may be beyond the remedies of modern medical science. (I truly hope not, you poor dear!) Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A strong defining characteristic for the couples included in this category. There are already dozens of articles in the parent and subcategories all of which seem to clearly fit the double bill. Alansohn (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep articles in the category do not characterize a single character, but a pair of them. 70.51.8.75 (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a subcategory of category "Duos" which contains combined bios. Should be kept for consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We seriously are suggesting to "keep" a category because the category members are articles about 2 characters? WP:OC#Arbitrary inclusion criterion comes to mind. Why 2, and not 3? or 4? The Fantastic Four come to mind. And should we categorise the Avengers under fictional sextets? I understand that this may be well-meant, but this is just a bad idea. - jc37 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a bad idea, because the category is serving only to capture those articles that are specifically written about a unit of two characters because they are notable only as a unit and not as individuals. It's a convenient way of tracking fictional character units of two that are written about only as units of two, not unlike how Category:Multiple people captures actual people who are written about as a whole rather than as individuals. Keep, by the way. Otto4711 (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find these comments odd considering your comments at: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_3#Category:Country_quartets and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_3#Category:Country_trios. - jc37 18:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why. I would support the deletion of Category:Fictional country music quartets just as readily as its real-life counterpart and I supported keeping and renaming Category:Country music duos during its CFD. My position is perfectly internally consistent. Otto4711 (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you clarify the distinction of your "perfectly internally consistent" position.? - jc37 18:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you clarify where you believe the internal inconsistency lies? You brought it up. Otto4711 (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I hadn't commented on this one, but I think this is doing a different job to the other categories. I wouldn't mind renaming to Duos in fiction to match the in fiction standard, but that may be a debate for another day. Hiding T 19:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as it contains articles about duos eg. Batman and Robin but not Batman and Robin. Tim! (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: Already Deleted by User:Anthony Appleyard. - jc37 16:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional drug users

This could be anything from Hourman and his Miraclo pills, to Bane (comics) and his use of Venom. The problems are several, including listerary present tense. Even though Bane (last I read) no longer uses venom, he did at one time, and so would belong in this category. This one of the many problems with categorising characters by something they may "currently" choose to do or to not do. - jc37 20:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 20:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category could only be meaningful if it explained what the inclusion criteria were. A number of characters from TV programs and cartoons who used drugs in one episode or a brief story arc are included, as are some where the drug use seems to be a more defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - re-creation of previously deleted content. Otherwise delete as overly broad and in most cases non-defining. Otto4711 (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as re-creation or delete as too broad. Hiding T 20:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete blatant recreation of deleted cat. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:15, 5 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters who are their own ancestors

There are several books in science fiction involving time travel, and temporal paradoxes. And every case is different.

Even if deletion is opposed, this should be a list to explain each set of circumstances. - jc37 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. (Listify, if no consensus to delete.) - jc37 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A defining characteristic, but further evidence that this is a broader fictional device would be needed to better justify a category. Alansohn (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A defining characteristic, certainly in the case of Fry and Lister. Lugnuts (talk) 08:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete certainly not defining characteristics of either Fry or Lister in my opinion, and if we now argue about opinion we've passed through into original research. Hiding T 20:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a common time travel paradox, similar to the grandfather paradox. Not unique or defining to any characters where it applies. Dimadick (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Klein zach 03:25, 10 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: No consensus. I don't think that relisting to continue this discussion would arrive at a consensus. So if anyone wants to peruse a change to something, they are free to relist. If anyone chooses to do so, they should consider the concerns raised in this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional cryonically preserved characters

Han Solo, Captain America, Philip J. Fry - what do these all have in common? They were frozen "somehow". If kept, this should seriously be a list, in order to indicate how and under what circumstances they were "frozen". - jc37 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Listify, if no consensus to delete.) - jc37 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the category is pretty much self-explanatory. If you notice, every character listed underwent some form of cryopreservation or hypersleep during some period(s) of their lives. What I'm trying to figure out is whether InuYasha should belong here, given that he was put under a spell which caused him to "sleep" for half a century, and did not age or anything. Is there a better name that could be suited for this category? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A strong defining characteristic for the individuals included in this category that is already well populated. A corresponding list should be created per Jc37's suggestion, in keeping with WP:CLN's guideline on lists and categories working together in synergistic fashion. Alansohn (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Cryonics in fiction since this category invites speculation and in-universe thinking. These characters are not real. Things which happen to them are likewise not real. Hiding T 21:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose upmerge, unsure about keeping - Foo in fiction or Foo literature should not be used as dumping grounds for articles about fictional characters. They should be maintained for articles about the actual literary concepts. If it's important to keep the fictional characters within the related in fiction structure, then keep the characters subcat. Otto4711 (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I;ve responded to this comment from Otto further up the page, I can't see any value in cutting and pasting it ad nauseum. Hiding T 12:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Defining characteristic for either of the three, common fictional trope. Dimadick (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The main problem with this category is the problem of Wikipedia's guideines which state that fiction must be presented in literary present tense. So we simply can't categorise a fictional character based upon some choice or preference. Since every event is "now", a character is what they were before they chose to be (or perhaps were forced or tricked into being) cryonically preserved, at the same time as being who they are after becoming cryonically preserved. So by its very nature the category is inaccurate. And that doesn't go into the fact that the category doesn't explain the circumstances of the cryogenic preservation. And such determinations would simply be original research. They require sources to define the term, the circumstances, and the application of the term. All of which can't be done in a category, and is another reason that this should be deleted. - jc37 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - I'd like to avoid further copy-pasting comments to nearly every discussion on this page. I request that you please read and take into account all my comments concerning these fiction-related categories. Thank you. - jc37 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer Please review the rebuttal to Jc37's arguments listed under "Fictional Holocaust survivors", most notably the argument that sources cannot be trusted because quoting them constitutes original research. The arguments Jc37 has put forth are simply nonviable in terms of Wikipedia, and the rebuttal to the "Fictional Holocaust survivors" argument makes it clearest why. Alansohn (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not inclined to see this as a "common fictional trope" without some evidence of that statement. I would argue that hibernation is a common fictional trope and that THIS category in particular makes a false connection between Futurama and Star Wars where the connection should really be between Futurama and Rip Van Winkle. Protonk (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. A part of a plot that a fictional character may be involved should not qualify for a category. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Executed fictional characters

Right. The number of characters executed in fiction is voluminous. It's a common occurence at the end of a novel, or serial. And in the case of comic book deaths, it may not even mean much. If no consensus to delete, this should be a list, at the very least, so that the characters may be grouped by type of execution, and potentially, how long they "stayed dead" before their resusitation. - jc37 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. (Listify, if no consensus to delete.) - jc37 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant cat. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as requiring bias, speculation or original research to so categorise. Hiding T 21:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good grief. I don't care if this category stays or goes but I must note that whether or not a fictional character is executed within that character's fiction is not subject to bias, speculation or original research. Taking just one example, Fagin, a simple Google book search turns up, amongst innumerable other independent reliable sources, this one, which includes the sentence "Yet because Dickens had Fagin hanged and die a most miserable death, thereby providing that the wages of sin must inevitably be death and punishment, his book is never censored." Boom, reliable secondary source that Fagin is an executed fictional character. No bias, no speculation, no original research, not even dependence on the original fiction as a source. Otto4711 (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good grief, see the conversations elsewhere on the page. You're demonstrating things about articles, not categories. That Fagin was executed is a fact that should be in article space, it doesn't justify it being in category space. Show why we need the category, not why we add things to an article. Oh, and let's not make the blanket assertion that "whether or not a fictional character is executed within that character's fiction is not subject to bias, speculation or original research." It's a basic principle of fiction that it is open to interpretation, so suggesting otherwise is unproductive. Hiding T 08:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The main problem with this category is the problem of Wikipedia's guideines which state that fiction must be presented in literary present tense. So we simply can't categorise a fictional character based upon some choice or preference. Since every event is "now", a character is what they were before they chose to be (or perhaps were forced or tricked into being) executed, at the same time as being who they are after becoming executed. (Presumably dead : ) - So by its very nature the category is inaccurate. And that doesn't go into the fact that the category doesn't explain the circumstances of the execution. And such determinations would simply be original research. They require sources to define the term, the circumstances, and the application of the term. All of which can't be done in a category, and is another reason that this should be deleted. - jc37 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - I'd like to avoid further copy-pasting comments to nearly every discussion on this page. I request that you please read and take into account all my comments concerning these fiction-related categories. Thank you. - jc37 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer Please review the rebuttal to Jc37's arguments listed under "Fictional Holocaust survivors", most notably the argument that sources cannot be trusted because quoting them constitutes original research. The arguments Jc37 has put forth are simply nonviable in terms of Wikipedia, and the rebuttal to the "Fictional Holocaust survivors" argument makes it clearest why. Alansohn (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional refugees

"...a refugee is a person who: 'owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of that country.'"

From where, to where? And "fear" is in the eye of the beholder. How often is a fictional character (due to story conflict needs) "afraid", and flees their home? This should clearly be a list. (Though I'm not opposed to deletion for the same reasons.) - jc37 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Listify, if no consensus to delete.) - as nominator. - jc37 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A defining characteristic of the individuals included. As with every single category in existence, reliable sources need to be provided showing that the character is described accurately, in this case as a "refugee" in the source material or in a secondary source about the material. A corresponding list should be created to assist readers in navigation, per WP:CLN. Alansohn (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it is impossible to categorise so without bias, speculation or original research, unless we intend to categorise based on every plot point point and primary source description. If this is defining, show sources where reliable secondary sources make that claim. Show reliable secondary sources which would allow an article to be written on the use of refugees in fiction. Hiding T 21:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Defining characteristic. Not convinced there is any bias in following fictional representations of an all too common reality. Dimadick (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The main problem with this category is the problem of Wikipedia's guideines which state that fiction must be presented in literary present tense. So we simply can't categorise a fictional character based upon some choice or preference. Since every event is "now", a character is what they were before they chose to be (or perhaps were forced or tricked into being) a refugee, at the same time as being who they are after becoming a refugee. So by its very nature the category is inaccurate. And that doesn't go into the fact that the category doesn't explain the circumstances of the events. And such determinations would simply be original research. They require sources to define the term, the circumstances, and the application of the term. All of which can't be done in a category, and is another reason that this should be deleted. - jc37 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Klein zach 03:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - I'd like to avoid further copy-pasting comments to nearly every discussion on this page. I request that you please read and take into account all my comments concerning these fiction-related categories. Thank you. - jc37 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer Please review the rebuttal to Jc37's arguments listed under "Fictional Holocaust survivors", most notably the argument that sources cannot be trusted because quoting them constitutes original research. The arguments Jc37 has put forth are simply nonviable in terms of Wikipedia, and the rebuttal to the "Fictional Holocaust survivors" argument makes it clearest why. Alansohn (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: keep-ish, although the nominator presents some good reasons to at least give listification some serious consideration. As a side note on the lists vs. categories topic, I can't help but think that if the list already existed, it might be a lot easier for those who oppose the merging of a category to a list to compare the advantages of both and to decide if we want to delete the category or keep both. Therefore, I don't think a future discussion on this same category should be proscribed if the re-nomination is made once a corresponding list exists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify Category:Fictional Holocaust survivors to List of fictional Holocaust survivors

Categorising based on a character's past is probably not a good idea. Often a character's past is merely one of many tools in which the author uses to add conflict and/or tension to a story. And fiction is malleable based on the whims of an author. (See also Retcon.) This should be a list. - jc37 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify - as nominator. - jc37 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify or Upmerge to Category:Holocaust literature, I'm not sure how you have a fictional Holocaust survivor, nor what makes one fictional holocaust greater than another. Certainly some creators will have created fictive holocausts to deal with issues regarding the actual Holocaust. Look at Maus. Look even at Dhalgren, thought to be in part allegorical on the Jewish Holocaust. Do characters which survive that holocaust become survivors of the Jewish Holocaust, despite not even fictively being a part? Hiding T 21:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose upmerge, unsure about keeping - Foo in fiction or Foo literature should not be used as dumping grounds for articles about fictional characters. They should be maintained for articles about the actual literary concepts. If it's important to keep the fictional characters within the related in fiction structure, then keep the characters subcat. Otto4711 (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See comments further up page. Hiding T 12:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If not categorizing by a character's past, categorizations itself seems meaningless. This little detail of their past is usually intended as a defining trait. Dimadick (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The main problem with this category is the problem of Wikipedia's guideines which state that fiction must be presented in literary present tense. So we simply can't categorise a fictional character based upon some choice or preference. Since every event is "now", a character is what they were before they chose to be (or perhaps were forced or tricked into being) a victim of the Holocaust, at the same time as being who they are after becoming a survivor of the Holocaust. So by its very nature the category is inaccurate. And that doesn't go into the fact that the category doesn't explain the circumstances of the victimisation or survival. And such determinations would simply be original research. They require sources to define the terms, the circumstances, and the application of the terms. All of which can't be done in a category, and is another reason that this should be deleted. - jc37 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I thought the argument was ludicrous before, framing it terms of Fictional Holocaust survivors only adds an element of grotesque to the mix. While maintaining a fictive present tense about a work of fiction in articles written about the work, the characters in these works are defined by their author and creator, they are not endowed with some sort of bizarre free will of the kind believed by those moviegoers who are convinced that yelling "watch out" at the top of their lungs will help the slasher's next victim avoid their predestined fate. The characteristics their creators have given them were fashioned specifically for them and certain characteristics will be strongly defining for the character. While, say, a character's hair color might be subject for debate on definingness, notable characters laid out as a Holocaust survivor are not given that trait as a MacGuffin. The argument that Jc37 has cut-and-pasted here and modified to describe that a character "chose to be (or perhaps were forced or tricked into being) a victim of the Holocaust" exhibits a strong misunderstanding of the creative process in general. In this case, it comes across to me as a gross trivialization of The Holocaust and the literature used to describe it. Alansohn (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with the topic of the Holocaust. Appeals to emotion are a bit of a red herring, among other logical fallacies in your arguments above.

This nom has to do with (among other things) the fact that a character may potentially have innumerable events during their life. I've read fiction which discussed the destruction of all life on earth. Should every one of those characters be categorised based upon that event? There are innumerable events in a person's life. And even more events possible in a fictional character's life, all at the whim of the author. There are no "real life" repercussions of assigning these events to a character, and at any time, these events could be changed due to a retcon, especially in the case of characters written by more than a single author with a single vision. - jc37 18:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is solely an appeal to recognize an incredibly bad argument. Tossing it into a category on Fictional Holocaust survivors only demonstrates how untenable it is to base category structures for fictional characters on the basis that the characters exercise free will and make their own choices or are thrust by arbitrary circumstances that take place around them, and are not characters designed by an author/creator who has endowed them with a certain number of characteristics that have been intentionally assigned to them as defining. The further argument based on Retroactive continuity, is just another version of the oft-repeated "what about this hypothetical situation that might be a borderline case..." which might be a valid argument for omitting a particular entry from a category, but is a rather weak rationalization for deleting the entire category. If anything, the "retcon" argument is an appeal to eliminate the fiction-based category structure in its entirety, which seems to be taking place as part of a piecemeal effort here at CfD, one category at a time. Alansohn (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The effect of retcons on the instability of fictional characters should not be underestimated, and categories for fictional characters should focus on characteristics or traits that are more likely to be integral to characters and that define who they are as characters regardless of what writer takes them over. At least in this case it doesn't appear that this story element is casually or arbitrarily introduced to a character's backstory, so I think I'm at weak keep. Postdlf (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I count 24 noms on this page alone. So somehow I don't think your accusation of "piecemeal effort" flies. This is simply part of a cleanup of the Category:Fictional category tree. They're being nominated as we find them (and not wholly by me, either). Also, "pruning" does not equal elimination. And accusing others of bad faith, especially without clear evidence, isn't productive, and is contrary to the collegial intent of WP:CIVIL and WP:EQ.

You're of course welcome to your opinion, but it's just that: an opinion. Back it up with verifiable reliable sources. Support it with reasoned argument related to policy and guidelines. Do more than just say "IWANTIT" or "IThinkIt'sDefining". If it is defining, prove it. But merely giving your opinion, without that, and becoming indignant in the meantime, isn't helpful, and is actually a great way to have your comments discounted by the closer. - jc37 01:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see. An article about Rebecca Kaplan (" 'One Life to Live' axes popular actor of unpopular character") describes the character exclusively as a "Holocaust survivor" ("A role that is being recast is Brad Carlton's mother, Rebecca Kaplan, on The Young and the Restless. Millie Perkins had recently played the Holocaust survivor, and it appeared her storyline was over.") As a side note, Millie Perkins' first major role was as the title character in The Diary of Anne Frank, a real-life Holocaust victim. MTV.com described Magneto (comics) in similar terms, ("'X-Men: The Last Stand': Mutant Strain, By Kurt Loder"), stating that "Magneto, on the other hand, isn't worried — he's furious. A Holocaust survivor, he believes that the cure will be used on the mutant community for what he calls an 'inevitable genocide'." In both of these cases, reliable sources describe the characters as "Holocaust survivors" to define the characters. I can provide more sources if you want them, and there are plenty of other fictional characters that should be included in this category. And as an aside, simply stating that a trait is not defining should also be discounted by the closer. Alansohn (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great!

Now let's look at the content of the sources.

I don't think anyone was necessarily arguing that at least a few of these characters are noted in their respective fictional works as "Holocaust survivors". And those references, merely note information from the primary source material, the same as we might.

But we don't necessarily categorise every character by every feature, skill, experience, ability, power, etc. To do so would be simply prohibitive to navigation. And that's the goal of the category structure: navigation - not to note what may be "defining" about a character. Instead, we note that in mainspace in an article, or by inclusion in a list, etc. That's actually stated several times in several ways in WP:CAT (among other places).

And "Holocaust survivor" is simply an experience.

That's why Hiding keeps suggesting that categories have related articles like: "The Holocaust in fiction". An article discussing the topic, and which can place it's usage in fiction in the proper context. Lists of characters, while interesting, would still require sources, and further, would also require noting how this event was contextually applied to each character.

To give the example of Magneto, Your source discussing genocide would seem to be a decent source. (I've actually seem some journals discussing the metaphors and allegories in play in the X-Men, and that includes Magneto.) But the context of the character is the important thing here. Calling a character a Holocaust survivor is merely words, if we don't have the contextual relationship to explain what those words mean. And to presume what they mean, based upon our own personal experience or belief, would be WP:OR. (That's what Hiding was attempting to get across about the various other uses of the term in fiction.) So we need to know how this is presented in the work of fiction. And that will require some interpretation among other things, which means more sourcing. (Because "interpretation" is disallowed per WP:OR.)

I agree with Hiding, there's some great potential for an article here, but there are simply too many presumptions that we must make in order to allow this to remain as a category. There is simply too much WP:OR involved.

I sincerely hope this clarifies, and helps you understand. - jc37 09:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can say with complete certainty, that your argument is not only not clarified or understandable, but that it has no useful meaning whatsoever in terms of Wikipedia. Previously, you simply insisted that being a "Holocaust survivor" is not a defining characteristic. Then your stance is that a character has free will to choose their experiences, and these characters picked "experience the Holocaust" as their career choice. Next we were told that the character may not have always been a Holocaust survivor, so they cannot be so labeled, regardless of how the character is represented, because at some period in their life they were not a Holocaust survivor. Then we have the retroactive continuity angle (as if all fiction is comic book-based), which insists that the mere possibility of a future re-envisioning of a character could eliminate the characteristic of being a Holocaust survivor and that this hypothetical is an excuse to delete an entire category, not just specific borderline cases. You most recently demanded sources showing the fact that a fictional character is a defining characteristic and I have provided those sources. Now the games really begin. WP:RS demands that we provide information referenced to "reliable, third-party, published sources", which is the standard that I have met. But, now all of these sources, no matter how reliable, "merely note information from the primary source material" and their content cannot possibly be interpreted by us mere humans, because we "presume what they mean". After all, according to your extreme view of reality, the description in a reliable source that "Millie Perkins had recently played the Holocaust survivor" Rebecca Kaplan cannot be accepted at face value because "interpretation is disallowed per WP:OR", and "Calling a character a Holocaust survivor is merely words". One has to be truly disturbed by your off-hand aside that "And Holocaust survivor is simply an experience", say, like riding on that exciting new roller coaster. Wikipedia just doesn't work your way, where semantic games can be used to toss out the most explicit sources describing characters as "Holocaust survivors" because reading words in these sources is original research. Alansohn (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think both of you go too far. There are certainly categories to which jc37's criticisms apply. However, I don't think this is one of them, regardless of how it is presented, because this is not something treated casually or something that could fail to otherwise leave a mark on a character (unlike an aside in dialogue that a character happens to be a vegetarian). If it's an element of character backstory it is going to be significant in defining that character, and it will still be defining if it is a story element that the character "experiences", i.e., the stories in which they are featured depicts it in the course of the narrative presented to the reader or viewer. In the latter case, yes, there is a portion of the story in which they have not yet survived the Holocaust (I know that is a strange way to phrase it), but I would expect that the depiction of their survival is going to be a significant part of what that character is about. It's not going to be a casual plot element along the lines of, "remember that Seinfeld episode when Kramer survived the Holocaust?" Postdlf (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: I have decided at this point, for reasons outlined here, to refrain from further debate/discussion with User:Alansohn. So my apologies in advance for not rebutting his claims - several of which I feel are false, or at best mischaracterising my comments.)

One thing that I think should be clarified: I have stated on this page in several nominations ""...they chose to be (or perhaps were forced or tricked into being)..." - That applies here as well.

And postdlf, all of those things you mention in your comments are things which I suppose we may determine, based on our own interpretation, expectation, and opinion. But just because we would like something to be true, doesn't make it true. (I won't paste the quote again, but merely lnk to it: Wikipedia:Verifiability/Introduction.) Hiding notes this when he uses the examples of non-Jewish Holocausts and the survivors thereof. Perhaps you may feel that I am taking a rather tight view of WP:V here. But when it comes to categories (per WP:CAT), I believe that thhat's what we're supposed to be doing. That said, I welcome your thoughts/response. - jc37 00:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally that's why I'd like to see this upmerged to Category:Holocaust literature, because what is important is how the holocaust is treated in fiction, not that these characters survived the Holocaust. Magneto's status as a survivor of Aushwitz speaks to the way the Holocaust is used in superhero comics as much as it does the character itself. I think by categorising this way we're placing the character first in the minds of the reader and the editor, rather than the literary concept. That, to me, is not an encyclopedic approach. Hiding T 19:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a category about characters, not books. The Category:Fictional Holocaust survivors is already within Category:Holocaust literature, as well as other character-based categories. An up-merge loses that entire branch structure. Alansohn (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - I'd like to avoid further copy-pasting comments to nearly every discussion on this page. I request that you please read and take into account all my comments concerning these fiction-related categories. Thank you. - jc37 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, any and every category used for historical people should be able to be used for fictional characters, so long as we keep them as two cats. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. A list is more appropriate than a category. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Don't both lists and categories have their valid uses? Nominator writes as if it was obvious and well established that categories should be deprecated. Well, it is not obvious. I have observed two distinct mobs -- with diametrically opposed views -- the Lists Sux! Categories Roc! Down with lists! and the Categories Sux! Lists Roc! Down with Categories!. GRBerry gave me some advice when I was new to categories, on how to form new categories that would survive challenges. His advice was that the categories that were best able to survive challenges were those that had a corresponding article. Geo Swan (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments of Alansohn, and per my own arguments for keeping Category:Fictional cannibals and Category:Fictional hunchbacks. It's hardly an authorial whim to make a character a Holocaust survivor. Cgingold (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify Category:HIV-positive fictional characters to List of fictional characters who are HIV-positive

While we really shouldn't be categorising characters based upon physical conditions, a list of such characters can should help provide references which indicate notability of this intersection. (Such characters have been written about in the news.) - jc37 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify as nominator. - jc37 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify, Minded to suggest renaming to Category:HIV in fiction based on the number of sources available to write an article on HIV in fiction. Hiding T 21:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very defining of the characters included. *Oppose suggested rename - Foo in fiction or Foo literature should not be used as dumping grounds for articles about fictional characters. They should be maintained for articles about the actual literary concepts. If it's important to keep the fictional characters within the related in fiction structure, then keep the characters subcat. Otto4711 (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think its degining for several characters included. Again fictional representation of an all too common reality. Dimadick (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The main problem with this category is the problem of Wikipedia's guideines which state that fiction must be presented in literary present tense. So we simply can't categorise a fictional character based upon some choice or preference. Since every event is "now", a character is what they were before they chose to be (or perhaps were forced or tricked into being) HIV positive, at the same time as being who they are after becoming HIV positive. So by its very nature the category is inaccurate. And that doesn't go into the fact that the category doesn't explain the circumstances of the afffliction. And such determinations would simply be original research. They require sources to define the term, the circumstances, and the application of the term. All of which can't be done in a category, and is another reason that this should be deleted. - jc37 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That the category doesn't explain how they acquired the virus is irrelevant. Anyone interested in how a particular character or characters became infected may read the article. As noted aaaaalll the way up at the top of the day's CFD, the problem with your extreme interpretation of the literary present-tense is that it would allow for no categorization of fictional characters by any trait whatsoever because there was some point in the character's backstory when they didn't have the trait. Anything that isn't established on page one of the very first published material is off-limits forever. The excellent example of Batman was given above. Under your interpretation Batman could not be categorized as a superhero or a detective because he was neither a superhero nor a detective as a child. Otto4711 (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to that post "aaaaalll the way up at the top".

But yes, these should be lists for the reasons you name. And for one other: Should we categorise characters by every virus or disease or affliction that may have not or have had in the past, present, or future? Cancer springs immediately to mind. Alzheimer's, MS, and MD are a few others. There are just innumerable events that may happen in a character's lifespan which are all at the whim of one or more authors, and which may change at the same whim (see retcon). I understand the want to have such information. And I suppose I should now note that no information is lost by making this a list, and in fact much more may be gained. - jc37 18:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional characters certainly can be defined by being people with cancer or Alzheimer's or whatever. I'm not going to delve any further into the hypothetical than that. Regarding your interpretation of the literary present-tense, I am quite comfortable with taking a Tralfamadorian approach to fictional characters. Otto4711 (talk) 07:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A defining characteristic of the fictional characters involved. If the character is described in the work as HIV-positive and this is a relevant characteristic, the fact that we don't know whether the character acquired the disease at birth, by sexual contact, a contaminated blood transfusion or an infected toilet seat or door knob is irrelevant, other than as potential candidates for subcategories. Should we categorize by other diseases? Absolutely, but only if the disease is a defining trait, as it is here. The argument from retroactive continuity is simply an argument to undermine the entire fictional attribute category structure, as anything can change, and has no specific relevance to this particular category. Playing the hypothetical retcon game might be an appropriate point in discussing the use of this category for a very limited number of articles, and is no excuse to toss out the baby with the bathwater. The objection that the category can't work because they did not have the disease before they "chose to be (or perhaps were forced or tricked into being) HIV positive" only makes the argument sound even more ludicrous. Alansohn (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments at the "Holocaust survivor" discussion above. - jc37 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - I'd like to avoid further copy-pasting comments to nearly every discussion on this page. I request that you please read and take into account all my comments concerning these fiction-related categories. Thank you. - jc37 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer Please review the rebuttal to Jc37's arguments listed under "Fictional Holocaust survivors", most notably the argument that sources cannot be trusted because quoting them constitutes original research. The arguments Jc37 has put forth are simply nonviable in terms of Wikipedia, and the rebuttal to the "Fictional Holocaust survivors" argument makes it clearest why. Alansohn (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn for the most part. Postdlf (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per clear arguments of Otto and Alansohn. It's hardly an authorial whim to make a character HIV-positive. Cgingold (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional burn victims

"Fictional characters who have suffered burns through heat (i.e. fire) and as a result, have the physical scars to prove it."

Right. Does anyone really need an explanation why this is bad? : ) - jc37 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - as nominator. - jc37 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - re-creation of previously deleted content (I believe it was under something like "burn sufferers" but I'm not finding the old CFD). Otherwise delete as non-defining. Otto4711 (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources assert this to be defining, and it is therefore possible to write a few sourced paragraphs or more on the subject, explaining it. Hiding T 21:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely to be trivial for most entries. Though burns may be significant for some characters, most fictional characters important enough to merit their own stand-alone articles (those that are the subject of ongoing print or television series or media franchises) will probably suffer many different types of injuries across the works in which they appear, none of which will leave any lasting effect on them. This category cannot distinguish between the former and the latter groups. Narrowing it to Category:Fictional characters with burn scars might help, but that would be a different category than this one, notwithstanding the futile attempt of the current category's description to impose inclusion criteria that is not reflected in the category's name. Incidentally, Two-Face is only a victim of a burn by fire/heat in the film The Dark Knight; in the comics, it was acid. Postdlf (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The main problem with this category is the problem of Wikipedia's guideines which state that fiction must be presented in literary present tense. So we simply can't categorise a fictional character based upon some choice or preference. Since every event is "now", a character is what they were before they chose to be (or perhaps were forced or tricked into being) a burn victim, at the same time as being who they are after becoming a burn victim. So by its very nature the category is inaccurate. And that doesn't go into the fact that the category doesn't explain the circumstances of the affliction. And such determinations would simply be original research. They require sources to define the term, the circumstances, and the application of the term. All of which can't be done in a category, and is another reason that this should be deleted. - jc37 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you maybe only spam the CFDs that aren't going your way? It's extremely tiresome to scroll past the same comment copy-and-pasted into so many CFDs, and it's made even more so when it's pasted into the ones where everyone's agreeing with you. Otto4711 (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was explained to me that often closers will not read every nom on a page, so I'm including the information in each nomination. And I had thought about not posting it here, but then half-expecting to receive arguements based on the lack of posting here. But it looks like I'm going to receive grief ether way : ) - jc37 18:12, 7 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with heart problems

Do we really want to subcategorise based upon any and every physical condition or trauma of a character? Unlike "real life" such conditions can be ascribed to a character based upon the whims of an author. - jc37 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources assert this to be defining, and it is therefore possible to write a few sourced paragraphs or more on the subject, explaining it. Hiding T 21:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Klein zach 03:27, 10 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Fictional characters with dissociative identity disorder to Category:Fictional characters with multiple personalities

I found the merge tag already on the category page. And honestly, who was the fictional doctor who diagnosed this? The talk page of Dissociative identity disorder in fiction has similar concerns, and the page has a related cleanup tag. So if there are no references in the associated articles, there shoudn't be a category.

If the merge is opposed, this should be a list at the very least, to provide for references. - jc37 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (Listify, if no consensus to merge.) - as nominator. - jc37 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, Delete or rename to Multiple personality disorders in fiction. Hiding T 21:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this cat serves a purpose. If I'm interpreting it correctly, it's for characters who only have two different personalities. Characters like the Green Goblin and Ichigo Kurosaki should have been categorized here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge Real life individuals with multiple personalities may or not be a defining characteristic of the individual (or is it individuals), but where used in fiction as a plot device it is almost always a defining characteristic. I do know that the terminology is at issue, but the larger and more common title of Category:Fictional characters with multiple personalities is probably clearest. It's not up to a doctor to make a diagnosis, but the author of the fictional work and those writing about these works that define those with multiple personalities. Alansohn (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Alansohn. As this is for categorizing subjects of fiction, not real people, this grouping is really less about a clinical diagnosis than it is about a significant and easily identifiable character element. As such, it is likely to be fanciful rather than a realistic depiction of a real psychiatric disorder; Blitzwing on Transformers: Animated certainly has multiple personalities, but it would be rather ridiculous to clinically diagnose a robot as having dissociative disorder. I doubt Gollum's magic-driven madness would necessarily fit DSM criteria either. Postdlf (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with that we're not looking at DSM IV definitions and diagnoses, but rather a common fictional plot device. I'm not sure of the exact ratios, but fictional occurrence of multiple personalities (and for that matter, amnesia) is probably several orders of magnitude more frequent than in real life. From what I see in books, movies and television, this is a fictional "multiple personality" disorder that we all recognize as a standard plot device that has little to do with any clinical characterization of dissociative identity disorder. Merging the two categories would eliminate the Category:Fictional characters with dissociative identity disorder which misleadingly implies that the fictional disorder matches the real-life one Alansohn (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No hard distinction between the two categories. They each depict the same common trope of fiction. Dimadick (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Personally I find that most of the applications of this category constitute original research, as its inclusion criteria are vague (DID as defined by whom? Diagnosed by whom? In the context of the fiction itself or in a real-world context? I don't think these issues can be reasonably resolved) and encourage editors to engage in such OR. However, since there are 2 categories that essentially are the same thing the first order of business may be merging them to see if anything can be salvaged. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional obsessive-compulsives

They "display some symptoms"? This is clearly WP:OR, directly in violation of usage of primary sources. - jc37 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as inclusion criteria is clarified for what is usually a defining characteristic of the individuals. Alansohn (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources assert this to be defining, and it is therefore possible to write a few sourced paragraphs or more on the subject, explaining it. Hiding T 21:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inclusion criteria are impossibly vague and rely primarily on original research. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To elaborate on my keep, there is ample evidence of character's being described as Obsessive-compulsive in reliable sources, which addresses the nominator's justification for the deletion, as well as all of the subsequent "per noms". The article "TV cop fights crime, own tics: Shalhoub is outstanding as obsessive-compulsive S.F. officer" describes Adrian Monk by his defining characteristic. "Actor Tony Randall, 84, 'Odd Couple' neatnik" describes Randall as achieving his "... most enduring fame on television as Felix Unger, the obsessive-compulsive neat-freak photographer..." Frasier character Niles Crane is "diagnosed" by a professional interviewed by a newspaper as having OCD (see "Local professionals weigh in on 'Frasier'"). The article "Desperate measures", categorizes Desperate Housewives character Bree Van de Kamp as fitting in this category, noting "Sure, Bree is obsessive-compulsive." These are just a handful of the reliable and verifiable independent sources that are defining the characters included in this category as "Obsessive-compulsive". Sure, there's cleanup necessry, but that is never an excuse for deleting an entire category. No original research is needed to come to the conclusion that this is a defining characteristic that belongs as a category. Alansohn (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments at the "Holocause survivor" nom above. - jc37 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - I'd like to avoid further copy-pasting comments to nearly every discussion on this page. I request that you please read and take into account all my comments concerning these fiction-related categories. Thank you. - jc37 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer Please review the rebuttal to Jc37's arguments listed under "Fictional Holocaust survivors", most notably the argument that sources cannot be trusted because quoting them constitutes original research. The arguments Jc37 has put forth are simply nonviable in terms of Wikipedia, and the rebuttal to the "Fictional Holocaust survivors" argument makes it clearest why. Alansohn (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with mental illness

This is just too incredibly vague. At best, this should be depopulated and be solely a parent category for more specific subcats. However, I've also nominated the subcats above. If no consensus to delete the subcats, they could optionally be upmerged. - jc37 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator isn't supposed to vote, especially in this case as it makes it look like you're having a conversation with yourself. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess that is a side effect of not using the standard nomination templates. If you read the nomination it says nothing about what should be done with the category. It is only when the nominator casts his opinion that you clearly see what is being requested. Using the normal templates, the nominators recommendation is included removing the need for a second post to add this. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge or Rename, most likely to Category:Mental illness in fiction, although it would be nice to see more work on Mental illness in fiction, especially regarding sources. Hiding T 21:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose upmerge, unsure about keeping - Foo in fiction or Foo literature should not be used as dumping grounds for articles about fictional characters. They should be maintained for articles about the actual literary concepts. If it's important to keep the fictional characters within the related in fiction structure, then keep the characters subcat. Leaning toward delete just because it's so vague. Otto4711 (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otto's opinion here is being rebutted above. Hiding T 12:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turn into parent category I agree with Jc37's analysis regarding the vagueness of this category. In fiction, characters are usually given a characteristic with the deliberate intention of making it defining. If all we can say about the character is that he had a vague uncharacterizable mental illness, it's probably not defining. Any of the entries in this category should be reviewed and recategorized into one of the more specific subcategories, leaving this category a parent-only, except for entries that need to be categorized. There is no justification for deletion of the category in its entirety. Alansohn (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, will unavoidably rely on OR, and will tend towards a sloppy equivocation of those characters authors intended to depict clinical depression, schizophrenia, etc. with those who do not and were not intended to represent any real clinically diagnosable mental illness, such as generically "insane," traumatized, or "megalomaniacal" characters (is that why Davros is included?), which really amount to stock characters/archetypes of mad scientists, supervillains bent on conquering the world, etc., which make for poor subjects of unannotated category classification. Even if this were somehow limited to intentional portrayals of DSM-classified conditions, it's still a pretty damn large catch-all without an obvious threshold for inclusion. It's possible it may function properly as a parent category purely for targeted subcategories, but I'm skeptical. Postdlf (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nearly every instance of this category and its subcats' applications that I've come across has constituted unreferenced original research. The category has vague inclusion criteria and essentially places Wikipedia editors in the role of "psychoanalysts to the fictional stars". As Postdlf says, most are simply stock characters/archetypes with no specific, diagnosed (much less referenced) mental illness. Imposing real-world psychoanalysis and diagnosis on these characters is original research, particularly given the lack of sources in most of the articles in question. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: rename for consistency, question of inclusion is still outstanding, may need wikiproject help. Kbdank71 14:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:London West End musicals to Category:West End musicals

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Similar issue to the proposal here; the categories ought to be consistent. Previously proposed here, in July. That discussion ended with no consensus, though objections interrogated whether category ought to exist at all, rather than its correct/appropriate name. The phrase "London West End xxxxs" is grammatically incorrect and inconsistent with common usage. The equivalent US category is Category:Broadway musicals. DionysosProteus (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sorry to deviate from the main purpose of this discussion, but I'm confused by this category. Shouldn't it include only productions that originated in the West End, such as Evita, Miss Saigon, and Billy Elliot the Musical? Many of the musicals listed opened on Broadway and later were produced in London. Does that qualify them to be called a West End musical? It seems to me a musical should be identified by the location of its original production and not by the many places where it was staged afterwards. For example, Hello, Dolly! was staged in Japan, but I don't think anyone would describe it as a Japanese musical. Thank you for explaining the rationale involved in this. (As to the actual discussion at hand, I agree the category should be renamed to Category:West End musicals to remain consistent with Category:Broadway musicals.) LiteraryMaven (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps we can invite the Wikiproject to put together something that can appear on the Category pages of the London and NY shows that explains the criteria of inclusion. I think there are good arguments for both uses, and it seems to me that the project is the place to establish a consensus on a guideline. DionysosProteus (talk) 10:44, 7 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, as per the discussion here, already covered by Category:West End plays. DionysosProteus (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, per cited cfd. (It is empty.) Occuli (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Organizations based in India to Category:Organisations based in India, along with the following sub-categories:
- Category:Organizations based in India by state to Category:Organisations based in India by state
- Category:Arts organizations based in India to Category:Arts organisations based in India
- Category:Mass organizations of Indian political parties to Category:Mass organisations of Indian political parties
- Category:Men's rights organizations in India to Category:Men's rights organisations based in India
- Category:Non-profit organizations based in India to Category:Non-profit organisations based in India
- Category:Religious organizations based in India to Category:Religious organisations based in India

Merge Category:Non-governmental organizations based in India to Category:Non-governmental organisations based in India.

Rationale: British spelling is standard in India, and is used in related articles and categories. (eg. Category:Environmental organisations based in India and Category:Youth organisations based in India. Notified creators with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Rename perfectly fine by me! (Ekabhishek (talk) 03:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Note: Ekabhishek is one of the category creators (though I forget which category). Cgingold (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support standardise on UK spelling. Alansohn (talk) 05:53, 5 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure this category serves any real purpose. It contains only a single sub-cat, Category:Ships by country of construction, which functions as the real parent category by location for ships. There are sub-cats further down for US states, UK cities, etc. -- but they seem to be doing just fine in the current structure, without any assist from this category. (Category creator has been blocked.) Cgingold (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This cat previously had "Ships built in Africa" (used for a few ships that were built in Africa but the country was unknown), but now serves no purpose. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships has been notified of this discussion. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and, where appropriate, apply its parent cats to the single subcat. Maralia (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Conceivably this rather than Category:Ships by country of construction should be the parent, and that should be deleted, since Africa is not a country but a continent, but that would be liable to encourage inappropriate subcategories to be added, when they ought to be added to theri own country. I therefore just prefer the "country" option for parent. We certainly do not need both. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Defined as people born after 1991. This is an arbitrary date and time-dependent, since these people will presumably not be considered "very young" at some point in the future. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for nominator's reason. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bidgee (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary inclusion criteria. Maralia (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move Move all relevant jumpers to Category for their country. AlwaysOnion (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listing anyone as "very young" or "very old" falls victim to bias. Dimadick (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: upmerge. Kbdank71 14:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Aquarium of Western Australia to Category:Aquaria in Australia

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge and delete. If this category were for the (theoretically) many aquaria in WA, it should be renamed Category:Aquaria in Western Australia. However, if it is for the one aquarium called the Aquarium of Western Australia (which I think was probably the intent since AFAIK there is only one aquarium in WA for which there is currently a WP article), it should be upmerged as overcategorization—there's only one article in it right now, anyway. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norm also I doubt that there is more then 1 Aquarium/Aquaria in Western Australia. Bidgee (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Aquaria in Australia and delete. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency into a category that will include more than one aquarium. Alansohn (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete redirect. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This categoryredirect is likely to be confused for celebrities suffering from PMS and used for bad catgorization. 70.51.8.75 (talk) 07:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL yeah, delete per above. — CharlotteWebb
Delete per nom. Icalanise (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and delete (no need to keep redirect, I think) to Category:pre-main sequence stars, as apparently has been done. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 22:59, 4 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Nationality user templates. Kbdank71 14:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Patriotic user templates to either Category:Nationality user templates or Category:Location user templates

Nominator's rationale: The nominated category duplicates "Nationality user templates" and "Location user templates". There is currently only one userbox in the nominated category. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:53, 4 October 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 14:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lassie films and television productions to Category:Lassie

Nominator's rationale: I think this category should be renamed to simply Lassie to allow the other related articles, such as Lassie and Pal to also fit well into this category. Right now, its limited to just the films and TV series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the rationale, but at the same time I worry that the new title would risk being deleted as "eponymous overcategorization". Round up the usual suspects and ask them to weigh in now rather than later, perhaps . — CharlotteWebb 20:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support By renaming, the category could include the Lassie article itself, its creator Eric Knight, and for the actors and characters from the various fictionalizations. As it stands now, this is a very narrow category. Alansohn (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or perhaps split into categories for Lassie films and Lassie TV series and create a new parent Category:Lassie. Category:Lassie characters could also be created if there is sufficient material. Note that actors associated with Lassie films or TV shows should not be included in either the Lassie category or a Lassie actors subcategory, as this is per long-standing and extensive precedent overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2008 (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.

October 4

Category:Fictional hunchbacks

Category:Fictional cannibals

Category:Fictional communists

Category:Fictional socialists

Category:Fictional anarchists

Category:Fictional fascists

Category:Fictional vegetarians

Category:Fictional vegans

Category:Planet devourers

Category:Fictional parents who killed their children

Category:Fictional lovers

Category:Fictional duos

Category:Fictional drug users

Category:Fictional characters who are their own ancestors

Category:Fictional cryonically preserved characters

Category:Executed fictional characters

Category:Fictional refugees

Category:Fictional Holocaust survivors

Category:HIV-positive fictional characters

Category:Fictional burn victims

Category:Fictional characters with heart problems

Category:Fictional characters with dissociative identity disorder

Category:Fictional obsessive-compulsives

Category:Fictional characters with mental illness

Category:London West End musicals

Category:London West End plays

Category:Organizations based in India

Category:Ships by place of construction

Category:Very young skijumpers

Category:Aquarium of Western Australia

Category:PMS Stars

Category:Patriotic user templates

Category:Lassie films and television productions