Category talk:Fictional planets
Add topicLatest comment: 11 years ago by ElisaVan
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
This does not seem like a useful topic to categorize entries into. There is only one member of the category—an appendix page—and not a whole lot of potential for more. Dominic·t 07:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- (Well, outside of sci-fi, there's Tiamat.) I can't see any compelling use for this outside of the rather contentious and specialist appendix space. Equinox ◑ 10:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- What about Pluto? (Yeah, delete.)—msh210℠ (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- There is Nibiru as well. — Ungoliant (Falai) 15:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Vulcan. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Planet X, although there is likely some distinction to be made between a "fictional" planet and a "hypothetical" planet. Note, however, that "Planet X" is used in fiction from time to time. bd2412 T 21:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Kolob. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Is that a planet? Our definition doesn't say so. And anyway, we had a debate in the past about calling things from various religions "fictional" and decided (IIRC) against it.—msh210℠ (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Joseph Smith implied it to be a planet when he wrote, captioning an image in The Book of Abraham, "Stands next to Kolob, called by the Egyptians Oliblish, which is the next grand governing creation near to the celestial or the place where God resides; holding the key of power also, pertaining to other planets; as revealed from God to Abraham, as he offered sacrifice upon an altar, which he had built unto the Lord." But some Mormons think it may be a star instead. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Is that a planet? Our definition doesn't say so. And anyway, we had a debate in the past about calling things from various religions "fictional" and decided (IIRC) against it.—msh210℠ (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- If Appendix pages are fair game, I could whip up a few for famous SFnal planets like Pern, Riverworld, Solaris, etc. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, Appendix pages are always fair game. Well, not always, but often. Come to think of it, do we even have guidelines for what should go into appendices? bd2412 T 01:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- (On a side note, I have just created Appendix:Appendices, because it's about time we had some kind of directory of what is in these pages). bd2412 T 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think the issue here is not so much whether we can think of more fictional planets, but whether this is a useful topic with which to categorize words in a dictionary. I can (barely) see the linguistic merit of a category to designate words whose referents are fictional, but I'm not sure what the purpose is of calling out the fictional planets, of all things. Dominic·t 01:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Kolob. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Planet X, although there is likely some distinction to be made between a "fictional" planet and a "hypothetical" planet. Note, however, that "Planet X" is used in fiction from time to time. bd2412 T 21:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Vulcan. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. But I propose renaming it to something more inclusive, like Category:en:Fictional and theoretical celestial bodies. — Ungoliant (Falai) 04:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep, and I also support Ungoliant's renaming proposal, except I think it should be "hypothetical" rather than "theoretical". ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete Fictional is an attribute of the referrent, not a lexical quality. Let’s make an excellent dictionary instead of a crappy Wikipedia clone. —Michael Z. 2013-02-02 18:53 z
- Nor is any other topical category. — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Topical categories are 1. a search tool, 2. a way to learn new words about a topic. They don't make the project encyclopedic. Lmaltier (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- So let’s better integrate topical wiki projects. For example, add wiktionary links to Wikipedia articles and categories, which will serve both of these purposes, while promoting our dictionary to people who could use it. —Michael Z. 2013-02-20 15:43 z
- That would not work for all topical categories. Frex, not every occupational term in Category:en:Occupations will have a Wikipedia article. Also, Wikipedia article titles tend to be nouns, while our topical categories may include other parts of speech. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- So let’s better integrate topical wiki projects. For example, add wiktionary links to Wikipedia articles and categories, which will serve both of these purposes, while promoting our dictionary to people who could use it. —Michael Z. 2013-02-20 15:43 z
- Topical categories are 1. a search tool, 2. a way to learn new words about a topic. They don't make the project encyclopedic. Lmaltier (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Kept per lack of consensus. --ElisaVan (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)