User Talk: (Oinkers42)

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{Archives|bot=ClueBot III}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
| age=2160
| archiveprefix=User talk:(Oinkers42)/Archive
| numberstart=1
| maxarchsize=75000
| header={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minkeepthreads=5
| minarchthreads=2
| format= %%i
}}

:Category:Pete's Dragon ↗ has been nominated for deletion

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>:Category:Pete's Dragon ↗ has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization ↗ guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''the category's entry ↗''' on the categories for discussion ↗ page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Super Mario navbox

Hi, I noticed you reverted an edit made from a talk page discussion. I'd recommend taking part in the discussion first before doing this. ''Signed, SleepyRedHair.'' (talk - contribs ↗) 18:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

AlwaysBlaze moving unfinished drafts to mainspace

Looks like {{user|AlwaysBlaze}} moved Draft:Glossary of Fortnite terms ↗ to mainspace before it was even close to completion, similar to Draft:Hero (Dragon Quest series) ↗ but was not warned for it (or at least, the warning did not mention the Fortnite draft by name). Pinging {{ping|Rockfighterz M|Hurricanemaster089|p=}} here as well so they're aware; Rockfighterz stated they are currently working on the Fortnite draft, and Hurricane reverted Blaze's move ↗ of Draft:Minecraft (Movie franchise) ↗ to mainspace for the same reason. I should note however, that Blaze does not appear to have done this again since they were warned. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 17:50, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|User:Gommeh}} I was personally thinking of waiting until they take action again before making the next move. See if they see and respect the warning (though I wish that it properly placed it in a new section). (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Why?

Did you remove this ↗ category and similar? Redirects can be categorized in this fashion, AFAIK. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:01, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

:I am reverting that edit since you never provided a valid rationale. Please don't do this again (don't remove this or similar categories), and please restore all fictional planets categories you removed from redirects. TIA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:31, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
::You can find the list of edits to undo here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/(Oinkers42)&target=%28Oinkers42%29&offset=20260619132147 Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
:I will add that there may be a reason to create a category for fictional planets redirected somewhere, or such, but until it is done, such a categorization is perfectly valid for that entry. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:35, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
:I will also add that I agree with removing this category from some other places you did, for example it was an OVERCAT at Rocheworld ↗, given it has :Category:Novels set on fictional planets ↗, that was fine. However, note that that wasn't an OVERVAT until I fixed it right now with diff ↗. If you are cleaning categories, it is good to make sure to check for this type of problem as well. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:38, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
::I will say that I was incorrect on removing the redirects from that category. However, :Category:Fictional planets ↗ is an inappropriate category for :Category:Works set on fictional planets ↗, as the later is about works and not about fictional elements. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Hmmm, it seems for me quite obvious that these categories should be connected, no? Works set on Foo is a reasonable subcategory of Foo. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
:::I'll add that I don't follow the logic of your argument above. For, example, :Category:Works set in outer space ↗ is subcat to :Category:Outer space ↗, twice removed through intermediary more nuanced categories, but a connection needs to be made, with said more nuanced categories created sooner or later. Look at :Category:Works by location of setting ↗. :Category:Works set in the United States ↗, to take a basic example, is (few categories) under :Category:United States ↗. When no nuanced categories exist, direct connection is the norm. :Category:Works set in Mesopotamia ↗ is a subcategory of :Category:Mesopotamia ↗, :Category:Works set in elevators ↗ is subcat of :Category:Elevators ↗ etc. (Amusing what we can find sometimes, right :P). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:56, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Re: :Category:Anthropomorphic plants ↗

No, all anthropomorphic plants are not fictional. See Talking tree ↗ which contains numerous mythical examples, Trees of the Sun and the Moon ↗ are legendary and should probably be added to the category, I'm sure there are others. It was miscategorized as a subcategory of fictional when it really should not be. Please give the benefit of the doubt and discuss before reverting, thanks. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:26, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Creeper (Minecraft).png

35px|text-top|left|⚠|link= ↗ Thanks for uploading ''':File:Creeper (Minecraft).png ↗'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use ↗. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media ↗).

Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2026 (UTC)