Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional universes (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. PeaceNT 14:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional universes

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of fictional universes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Loose association, better served as a category. Every time an author writes fiction, they create a fictional universe. Eyrian 23:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep as an organized list that is better than a category. FrozenPurpleCube 23:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Geez, I get tired of that "it's-better-as-a-category" argument. Categories are better than a list of blue links, but categories are, basically, "indiscriminate information" intended to serve as an index. Something that a list can do, that a category cannot, is to offer additional "discriminating" information. Even at that, there is no reason why a list can't co-exist with a category. It's not a choice of one or the other. Mandsford 00:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many of the listings are not universes at all, so I have a problem with the concept. Maybe "Alternate Realities"? I usually don't like lists, but this one has its good points. MarkinBoston 01:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Fictional universe which may explain the apparent discrepancy. FrozenPurpleCube 02:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorrect. The only organizational feature not permitted by a category is ordering. These would be quite well serviced by subcategories. --Eyrian 02:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as an important organized list with research relevance. RandomCritic 02:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is more than an index. Most fiction is written about the present universe, assuming its history and laws. The ones here indicate the distinctiveness and the importance of the group and --since they are limited to those discussed in WP -- the importance of the individual ones. The additional feature provided by a list is contextual information, and most of these have it: "Cthulhu Mythos by H.P. Lovecraft and others" is much more useful and more informative than "Cthulhu Mythos" which is all that a category could hold. DGG (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the anti-list vendetta has gotten a bit overboard. This one is perfectly reasonable (if there's an issue regarding criteria, that can be settled at the article level). 23skidoo 04:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because I do not think an encyclopedia should be the index of everything mentioned in a fictional work. This is trivial information and loosely associated. Corpx 05:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page isn't about everything mentioned in a fictional work, but rather of a different concept. FrozenPurpleCube 16:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is this different from a list of any set of two or more mutually-consistent fictional works? Is there any reason that any series of books shouldn't be included? --Eyrian 18:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I can't imagine why one would include a non-fiction work like the ...for Dummies series here. Or were you asking about fictional works? Because there are novels/stories that aren't in an established fictional universe. Just because something takes place in a work of fiction doesn't mean it is actually a fictional universe. FrozenPurpleCube 18:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's totally ridiculous. Yes, something that is fictional automatically takes place in a fictional universe. Since it's fiction, that means it's different from our universe. Which means it's in a different, fictional universe. And you didn't answer my actual question. list of any set of two or more mutually-consistent fictional works? Is there any such set that shouldn't be included? Why not? --Eyrian 18:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
It takes place in a fictional setting, yes. That doesn't mean it is actually a universe. Sorry, but I guess you're not grasping the concept. Let me try another way. Shakespeare's plays are fiction. They are not, however, a fictional universe, since they each stand on their own and aren't in any other universe. There's no common theme connecting their settings. However, for say, Star Trek, the series do clearly take place in the same setting, which makes it a fictional universe. FrozenPurpleCube 18:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the term self-consistent. So, every trilogy/duology/tetrology... etc. ever should be on this list? --Eyrian 18:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, perhaps you should bring that up on the Talk Page. I could see arguments either way. FrozenPurpleCube 18:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has the potential to turn into a list of all the non-fiction books ever published, as they're all set in their own universe. Corpx 07:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_fictional_universes_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138011334"