Category talk:Harry Potter
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Mglovesfun in topic Category:Harry Potter
Deletion debate
[edit]
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.
"The following is a list of terms used in context of the Harry Potter franchise." We don't allow words only used in such context ([[WT:CFI#Fictional universes]]), so this category and its entries (if they truly belong in it) should be deleted.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see what's wrong with categorizing appendices, but this could be restated to include words that arose from that franchise, which is probably what was meant in the first place. DAVilla 20:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. It will also probably serve to house terms which were invented for that franchise but were since adopted into the lexicon e.g. (deprecated template usage) Muggle and I am guessing eventually (deprecated template usage) Voldemort. - [The]DaveRoss 18:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- But then it should be a "derivations"- or "derived from"- or what-have-you-named category, no?—msh210℠ (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- There already is a Category:Harry Potter derivations... --Yair rand (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Care needs to be taken with terms from fiction such as these. Fans may use and hear them often, but such terms may rarely be found outside the fandom. (deprecated template usage) Muggle may indeed be relevant; as evidenced by the quotations, some people have found it useful to fill a gap in the lexicon, and its meaning is fairly widely understood amongst those who enjoy the franchise casually (thanks to its relatively large popularity). However, terms like (deprecated template usage) Snapefic seem to be practically exclusive to smaller communities of people whom find themselves mutually invested in the fiction much more than the average audience. These are probably not in significant use to be kept -- not currently so, at the very least. 76.184.230.142 14:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- There already is a Category:Harry Potter derivations... --Yair rand (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- But then it should be a "derivations"- or "derived from"- or what-have-you-named category, no?—msh210℠ (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. It will also probably serve to house terms which were invented for that franchise but were since adopted into the lexicon e.g. (deprecated template usage) Muggle and I am guessing eventually (deprecated template usage) Voldemort. - [The]DaveRoss 18:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- No consensus, or keep consensus to keep, kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)