Category talk:Dragons

Category:Dragons and Category:Merpeople and their subcategories
These are way too specific. Category:Mythological creatures is enough. --WikiTiki89 16:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There's 12 entries in Category:en:Dragons and 23 in Category:en:Merpeople. The first is maybe questionable, but I don't see any need to merge a category with 23 entries into a larger category.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that 2 of the 12 Dragons are currently at RfD Pur ple back pack 89  18:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that Category:English words prefixed with mer- is a better category for the merpeople. (I didn't even know it existed, and it turns out it has more entries than Category:en:Merpeople!) --WikiTiki89 11:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't use the categories much, but I don't see the advantage in dumping 23 more entries into an already full Mythological creatures. Splitting out groups of 20 for subcategorization is usually a good thing in my experience from other Wikis.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the principle of splitting out scores of entries into subcategories, but perhaps a more general category for aquatic mythological creatures would be preferable, which could also encompass naiads and nixies and kelpies and kappas and so forth. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Abstain. Looking at Category:en:Dragons, it now has 16 entries while its immediately larger broader category Category:en:Mythological creatures has 127 entries. Looking at Category:en:Leprosy, it now has 15 entries. I deemed Leprosy too specific or granular and Diseases the appropriate granularity but I was outvoted in Category talk:en:Leprosy. As for granularity, the relationship dragons :: mythological creatures seems very much like leprosy :: diseases. Category:en:Merpeople has 33 entries. I would vote delete but I do not want to go against a broad trend of keeping highly granular category if there is such a trend; the leprosy discussion suggests there is such a trend. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Abstain. Conceptually, these seem too specific... and yet the "mer" category has 33 entries in it, and the "mer- prefix" category has enough more to bring the total to almost 50 entries. It seems tolerable, though not necessary, to split 50 entries off from a broader ~150-entry category. - -sche (discuss) 03:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Closed as no consensus to delete: This thing has been open for almost two years. There's two votes for abstain, a soft keep by Prosfilaes, and the nomination to delete it.  There's been enough time for additional people to come forward to support deletion, but none have. Pur ple back pack 89   19:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)