< February 10 February 12 >

February 11

Category:Mansions in fiction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think this is a valid category which would demonstrate the view of the rich as seen in fiction. The category would presumably include a lot of gothic fiction like Batman, the Adams Family, The Munsters and Dark Shadows. However as I am wrong about categories; this means this category should be deleted for being trivial. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Martial arts tournament films

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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Martial arts tournament is not a page; and martial arts tournament anime and manga is being deleted. No sources actually say that the tournament aspect is defining of any of these works; only the martial arts aspect is defining. Martial arts tournament is not a wikipedia page; it just a redirect to martial arts. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Atlantic Ocean in fiction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Foo Ocean in fiction" could include articles about fictional works in which the ocean is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. After renaming the categories may need to be purged. DexDor (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question—do you really mean "in" or maybe "on" or both? 20,000 Leagues under the Sea would belong in an "in" category, but Moby Dick would not. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed new category names are aligned with the existing subcats ("Films set in the Foo Ocean"), which I think means set in the area of the ocean (i.e. under, on and/or over the ocean) - it probably should be clarified in the category text. DexDor (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Set "in the Indian Ocean" is like "set in France". In functions the same way, the ocean is a geographical area, it does not mean you have to be under the water. Anyway, ships are partially under the water, so to say they are not in the ocean seems an extreme example of hair-splitting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ice in fiction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Reason: It's a category for one film and a subcategory. And what is it's purpose? 108.216.20.135 (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:English copyists

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) 23:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category created for a single article about an English painter. However, according to the Copyist article, the term is more commonly applied to the profession of someone who copies music by hand. In my view it will be confusing to have a category which can contain articles about completely different people/professions. Neither are there any higher level 'Copyist' categories at the moment. Sionk (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I suggest amend to English copyists (painters) & amend existing cat above to Copyists (music). A higher level cat to include both could be created if desired. There are several painters who have produced no well-known artistic work of their own creation, but are best known for their skill in copying the works of others, but are not forgers. Can such people really be put into the same category as "real" creative artists like Picasso? (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Actually there is a higher level category Category:Art copyists, so the content can be merged there. Not much need to resort to English nationalism when there's only a handful of candidates for the category. Sionk (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American musicians of Korean descent

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 19#Categories:American actors by ethnicity. R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Magical card anime and manga

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another unnecessary division of anime and manga. They all feature card games, but this isn't a necessary qualifier. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is no distinguishing article about magical cards used in anime and manga, plus an unnecessary intersection. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename It should Category:Card anime and manga which would include regular card games like poker as well as series which heavily features the tarot. Hitomi from Vision of Escaphlowne uses tarot cards but it's for divination not really a game. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename and limit to only those anime that feature card games as their main subject (the name should reflect that narrower focus). Card games are the main focus of a few anime and manga, and while this subgenre isn't large I think it is large enough to support a category. Examples of anime and manga where card games are the main focus include Yu-Gi-Oh! (other than the first TV series and beginning chapters of the manga), Duel Masters, Cardfight!! Vanguard, and Weiß Survive. Card games are the main defining feature of those works, so categorizing them in that way seems reasonable. Note, however, that I disagree strongly with CensoredScribe's suggestion that the category be expanded to include even those anime and manga that feature cards in a non-defining way . . . I would rather see the category deleted than have it expanded in that way, as that would make it just a trivial grouping of any anime and manga that happen to include cards in them. Calathan (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Card games in anime and manga then? This would include card collecting stories Cardcaptor Sakura and Negima (or more so Negima Neo, but exclude references to the characters that employ magic cards as with Heaven's Lost Property, Cana in Fairy Tail or Fool in Kaleido Star unless there's an article about that specific character? -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of the series you mention would be in the category that I'm suggesting. Basically, I think Yu-Gi-Oh! and shows imitating Yu-Gi-Oh! form a distinct subgenre of anime and manga, and I'm suggesting that we repurpose this category to be the category for that subgenre (since a bunch of the stuff that would be in the category I'm suggesting is already in this category). I'm opposed to keeping the category as it is now, as it seems to group things that aren't really similar. If other people disagree that the subgenre I'm referring to is something we should have a category for, then I think the category should be deleted. Even if the category were to be kept as it currently is (which again, I oppose), I don't think things like Heaven's Lost Property and Kaleido Star (I haven't watched Fairy Tail) should be in the category, as they only incidentally involve cards, and don't have cards as a main defining characteristic. Calathan (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Category:Collectible card games so perhaps it should be subcategorized there? Then you don't have to worry about cards that come to life in situations outside of games. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Martial arts tournament anime and manga

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, upmerging Category:Martial arts tournament anime and manga to Category:Martial arts anime and manga. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an arbitrary division made by an editor who has a history of creating poorly thought out categories that do not exactly act as defining aspects of the work of fiction. There's no doubt that these works of fiction do include martial arts tournaments, but they are not the focus. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Trivial intersection with manga and anime, and no supporting article on the topic. WP:OC#TRIVIAL -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no page for the concept of an actual martial arts tournament. Category:Martial arts tournament films should also be deleted for the same reason. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Anime News Network considers "tournament" to be a genre of anime and manga [1], placing it on the same level as things like "romance" and "science fiction". This lends support to the notion that it is a valid way of classifying anime and manga. Note, however, while the staff of ANN decides what genres to have in their classification system, actually placing anime into those genres in ANN's encyclopedia is up to users (i.e., I would consider the classification of anime in this way as being supported by a reliable source, but the encyclopedia is of no use in saying which individual anime and manga actually should be placed in this category. Also, so there isn't any confusion, only the 16 genres on the page I linked to are decided by ANN staff. The "themes" section is entirely user submitted, both in terms of what themes exist and what gets categorized as those themes). I think that it should be easy to find sources that indicate individual anime and manga feature tournaments, so placing anime and manga into those categories shouldn't be a problem. Also, I think that tournaments are a defining characteristic of many anime and manga, and that categorizing them in that way is completely reasonable. Also, as CensoredScribe points out in a way that I think is sarcastic and POINTY (based on his disagreements with Ryulong that have been coming up on WP:ANI), non-anime works are categorized in this way. While that doesn't mean that such categorization is necessary correct (per WP:OTHERSTUFF), I think the point is valid that if this is a reasonable way to categorize other works, then it is a reasonable way to categorize anime. I disagree that this categorization is "arbitrary" or "trivial". Calathan (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained above, the genres available on the ANN encyclopedia are chosen by professional staff (i.e., the existence of the tournament genre is not user generated content, but a choice made by the site's staff . . . which anime are placed in that genre is user generated content though). I think it would be entirely reasonable to upmerge Category:Martial arts tournament anime and manga to Category:Martial arts anime and manga if there is a consensus that the tournament part isn't supported by reliable sources. The parent category Category:Tournament anime and manga isn't just about martial arts anime, so I don't think it should be merged with a category dealing with martial arts. Calathan (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Los Angeles Blues

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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the categories is Orange County Blues FC. Not eligible for speedy because the main article was only recently moved and without discussion. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Transformation in fiction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category essentially duplicates Category:Shapeshifting in fiction. Also, the parent category Category:Transformation (function) does not have anything to do with this category, because it's about mathematical transformations, while this category is about physically changing shape. The category has no suitable other parent category. JIP | Talk 13:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Shapeshifting in fiction is a subcategory of transformation. I removed that math parent category. Transformation goes beyond shape shift. Take for Example Aliens from the Aliens franchise or Henshin and the list goes on.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a distinction. The Power Rangers do not shape shift but they do transform. That's magical means and Physical faculty to specific mythological creatures like therianthrope and the yōkai. As for mechanical I'd ask that you be more specific. I would call it a mistake to say the transformers shapeshift when talking about them shifting from a vehicle into a giant robot. Only in situations such as in the live action movie where bumble bee takes a form of another car does it resemble traditional shapeshifting and that was arguable magical instead of mechanical. I'd be wary of attributing to much Metamorphosis to Shapeshifting especially if that metamorphis takes place over an extended period of time and it is a one tome transformation. Other things that would transformation and not shapeshifting is size changing.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to have two separate categories, the distinction must be carefully defined in the categories' text part. And I would think that would mean neither would be a subcategory of the other, but rather they would be subcategories of "changing into another form". JIP | Talk 17:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But shape shifting is a transformation however not all transformations are shape shifting. Transformation can be independent of shape shifting but shapeshifting is never dependent of transformation. Being that shape shifting is a type of transformation it shouldn't be more than a subcategory. The distinction already exists correctly as it already is.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain in definite terms how shapeshifting and transformation differ from each other and what kind of transformation is not shapeshifting. JIP | Talk 19:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henshin#H is transformation. Mothra can go thru metamorphosis. Robocop went thru a transformation from a man into a cyborb. For Inspector Gadget the same. Shape shifting is limited to shape. The Wonder Twins has Jayna shape shift into various animals while Zan can transforms into any state of water. Humans transformed into demons during possession. There's shadow Mimicry, such as that done by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marvel_Comics_characters:_S#Specter. The list is far longer and I could keep going but there's not a point. Shape shifting is a transformation but it is but one type of transformation.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of get your point. Shapeshifting is a transformation where only the shape is changed, but other types of transformation can change the whole essence. Still, this needs to be clearly written down, especially in the case of my favourite shapeshifting fiction Transformers. The Transformers are robots who shapeshift, but do not change their whole essence, but still they are officially and universally called "Transformers", not "Shapeshifters". JIP | Talk 19:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's even that. The The Incredible Shrinking Woman and Attack of the 50 Foot Woman also aren't considered shape shifter but they both go thru transformations. As for Transformers, Well in very few situations do they actually shape shift. Mostly they just transform. Vehicle mode to Robot mode is essentially a transformation. They unfold from Car mode to robot mode The only situations where they actually shape shift is when in Car mode they change the look of the vehicle they are. For instance in the first live action movie when Bumblee Bee switches his shape from an older Camaro to a newer Camaro. It's not clear how he does this? Is it by mechanical means? Shape shifting is generally considered to come from magic or as a part of what creates mythological creatures to change shape. I'm also unaware of any source material that has the transformers be shape shifters in anyway. Shape shifting and Transformation are both far older than the transformers in fiction.Transformation Scroll down to fiction there. Shape shifting just happens to be more interesting to write about as a whole in a singular article. None the less though transformation is a very interesting subject. Perhaps you can start an article on it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Such an explanation was needed due to the Editors knowledge of the IP transformers being shape shifters causing them confusuion. Transformation in fiction refers to all impossible physical transformation that takes place in fiction including shape shifting. Shape shifting refers only to the very specific transformation defined as shape shifting.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lists of squares and plazas sharing the same title

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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The pages in this category are not lists - they are disambiguation pages. Indications that they are dab pages include: they have a disambiguation tag (and hence category), they don't have references, they are formatted as dab pages ("Foo Square may refer to:..."), the "lists" contain things that are not squares/plazas (e.g. see Queens Plaza or Queen Square), some of them have a name ending "(disambiguation)", this category is itself under the dab category and in most/all cases the talk page is tagged for WP:WPDAB. This is the only "Lists of..." category in Category:Place name disambiguation pages. A rename (e.g. to "Squares and plazas disambiguation pages") would, IMO, be wrong as dab pages do not need such fine article-side categorization and this type of categorization goes against the instructions at Category:Disambiguation pages#Notes. If a particular wikiproject has an interest in these dab pages they could tag the talk pages (e.g. to put them in Category:NA-importance Urban studies and planning articles). For info: there is a related discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_8#Category:Saint_Petersburg_disambiguation_pages. DexDor (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bardolino

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) 03:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. IMHO redundant by now: the category is about an Italian village (Bardolino) with only 2 related pages in the category. Still now the development of categorization by city or town in Italy is focusized to major centres or, at least, to some other places with 8-10 or more pages and/or a subcategory. Dэя-Бøяg 02:40, 11 February 2014 (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.
More