Category talk:Walt Disney derivations

Category:Walt Disney derivations
Really? < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 15:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Otherwise, please give reasons to delete it along with Category:Star Wars derivations, Category:Harry Potter derivations, etc. --Daniel. 15:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, what is the reason to delete this? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * They're not "derivations" of anything -- they're not even words, they're just the names of people in Walt Disney films. I mean Wendy was invented by JM Barrie, that doesn't make it a "Word derived from Peter Pan". Does it? I just see no point in this ridiculous mania for putting everything in its own category. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 16:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (I never knew Wendy was invented by Barrie. Thanks for that info.) This is a lexical category, not a topical one, and we should have something like it: but considering how few words are in it, and also how few are in the other two mentioned in this discussion (Star Wars and Harry Potter derivations), I think we should merge into one category: Words first used in fiction, or something like that. (Any particular large category similar to Walt Disney derivations can be a subcategory thereof then instead of merging it in. But Walt Disney derivations itself is too small IMO.) &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 16:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see any lexicographical value in this categorization. But otherwise Msh's cleanup proposal is a good start. —Michael Z. 2010-03-11 17:36 z 
 * Delete. I like Msh210's idea. DCDuring TALK 17:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Disney (or Star Wars, Star Trek, or Barrie) derivations should be obtainable by searching for those words unless our etymologies are deficient. The use of categories for is frivolously wasteful. DCDuring TALK 17:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The title Category:Terms coined in fiction seems better to me for the merged category than Category:Words first used in fiction. DCDuring, I've recently searched for "Star Wars" and found cool one's jets, throwaway line, science fiction and big screen because the franchise name was on their quotations, among other terms not directly related to the series; including vampirish, because both "star" and "war" were found separately. The actual terms derived from Star Wars were not sorted by language or any other user-friendly system in my search. I don't see how we could reduce deficiency in etymologies to improve findability of the discussed entries. In addition, I'd like to know why some people here suggested that a category shouldn't exist if it contains few members. For instance, if Category:Days of the week is supposed to contain seven entries, should it, and their subcategories, be deleted too? --Daniel. 19:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind. In fact, I'd say yes, delete it. It has seven measly members. If someone wants to know what the Hungarian names for the days of the week are, he doesn't need to check the category: he can look at the translation tables of seven pages. Is that so hard? Having a category for what will never be more than seven members (well, perhaps a few more in some languages, but whatever), and is topical rather than lexical, is over the top. &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 21:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can remember at least sixty Japanese and twenty Portuguese days of the week. Anyway, if we generally want lexical categories, I prefer to keep the ones of days of the week. They are likely to help organization of these entries. Upon seeing them, I roughly know how incomplete is our coverage currently. I don't think that looking for seven translation tables is hard, nor necessary. --Daniel. 04:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: msh210 - If you wish to propose eliminating topical categories on Wiktionary, then that is a separate issue, and you can start that discussion or vote elsewhere. Please don't bury it within another discussion. --EncycloPetey
 * I don't want to eliminate them but I do want better rules about which ones we should have. But, yes, that's an issue for another forum (the BP, actually). I was merely responding to Daniel's question about the days of the week. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 19:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, preferably under the current name. This should really be subcategorised under the same category as similar categories, though. --Yair rand 05:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as a potentially interesting etymology category. The name could be changed though. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 10:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To what? —Michael Z. 2010-03-19 16:10 z 


 * kept --Rising Sun talk? contributions 13:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)