The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:I Am Weasel images ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Contains only 2 files, and is unlikely to gain more. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 21:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Jazz compositions in C major ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The underlying problem with this category is we are writing "composition articles" and not "performance articles." a piece of music can and is often played in different keys by different performers. The category therefore cannot define which performance, or indeed cannot confirm what key the song was actually composed in as claimed, (as an example I note Irving Berlin who reputedly had a special piano built so he could compose in different keys, but always play in the key of C). I would applaud the editor if this information was added direct to song articles and specifying which performance. Much needed and ignored information, but a category is woolly and nondescript which makes it useless. Richhoncho ( talk) 11:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep I disagree. All pieces were originally composed in a main key. Somebody proposed to delete Category:Compositions by key with the same rationale and they were kept. As an aspiring jazz musician I find it useful to find compositions by original key and to try to find pieces in a given key so I can develop an understanding and steal licks and chords from several pieces into my "jazz vocabulary". Yes, especially in jazz, many pieces are played in all sorts of keys, but it is a fact that the original key of most is often played and referred to.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your response as creator of the category. You are comparing apples and pears, comparison between classical music and jazz is not relevant, For instance, as an example, I note Symphony No. 31 (Mozart) opens with the words, "The Symphony No. 31 in D major, K. 297/300a." which confirms the key the piece will always be played in a classical music setting. Whereas jazz is improvised and keys will change - especially when vocals are involved. Doubt there has ever been a jazz musician who has chosen which music to play by key. Also you cannot also assume that each each member of the category refers to the "original" version. This is a nightmare category. Which version, say of April in Paris is in the Key of C,? the 1932, 1933 or 1952? Any of them? All of them? None of them? Finally, with the exception of C Jam Blues, all of the articles are silent regarding which key the performance is, so fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. AS I say, the idea is good, but a category is not the correct execution of that idea. Cheers. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 13:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

April in Paris is mostly played in the key of C. My books and http://www.ralphpatt.com/VB/a19.html, all in the key of C.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Good day to you, Good Doctor. Just taking your post above which clearly says "April in Paris is mostly played in the key of C" is one of the reasons for my nomination of the category - the key is neither fixed nor definative (unlike say, "Symphony in D major") and further more, there is no reference in the article to what key it should be - which again confirms non-defining. Please add the information to the article, by all means, (ensuring you state which version is in which key) but a category of unverified and, ultimately, changeable attributes do not make a Wikipedia category. Your comment below about Stella By Starlight also confirms my view. If a song can be played in any key then the key must be non-defining. Cheers. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 13:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

You're confusing compositions with performances. The pieces were composed in a given key, that doesn't vary. The only variation is pieces which since have become by far more played in a different key but the same key repeatedly to make it identifiable. Any classical composition can be played in a given key, but the categories identify the key they were composed in or most commonly performed in. You're simply asking for a slap if you respond to this with a smart alec comment!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Then show me the references, which should be added to the articles, that say a song was composed in a particular key and I will withdraw this nomination. You are welcome to ask your second cousin removed to Melbourne too. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 19:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I agree that all articles on jazz standards should state original key or most popular key of performance and sourced and that we should also have a sourced list organizing the list of jazz standards I'm steadily building up to a List of jazz standards by key or something but it's a lot of work and things are getting there gradually..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

My objection to this and similar categories remains implacable, you cannot confirm which key a song was composed in, rarely is any song played only in one key and only specific versions have specific keys - and you, yourself, have confirmed this in your comments here! I hope your List of jazz standards by key goes well, I'd be more than happy to help with such a list - providing it actually acknowledges which version is in which key! -- Richhoncho ( talk) 19:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Well, you're wrong because my second cousin is currently a jazz student in Melbourne and aspiring saxophonist and he told me that he has studied pieces taking note of the given key to develop an understanding of improvising and chordal changes. I understand your concern, but most jazz compositions were originally played in a given key or are very well known or most commonly performed in a given key, Georgia on my Mind in the key of F major for instance. I honestly can't see the harm having the categories if we set a strict criteria to follow. Some are difficult, Stella by Starlight was originally written in G but is most commonly performed in B flat, as they are both very common I'd say dual categories would apply, but the most I think have an easily identifiable key which is played like that by most. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Response. What your second cousin says is only partially correct, what he would really be interested in is chord progressions. Only Satin Doll has anything whatsoever about the music, and that talks about the chord progression without mentioning the key because the key is not really that relevant. Until you find a way of defining "original version" as opposed to "notable version" this cannot work as a category. Cheers. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 14:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep The category of notable jazz-compositions in reality is huge, and Wikipedia's category should also be sufficiently large that subcategories are suggested by our categorization policy. Stating the key of a tonal composition is one of the first steps in harmonic analysis, which makes partitioning by key an excellent refinement. Sufficiently many articles document that particular jazz-compositions were written in a particular key that there is no challenge in populating this useful category. That a composition can be transposed to a different key does not negate its being written in an original key, which provides useful information. (For comparison, the ideal of even numbers is "somewhat" arbitrary/wooly, since adding one to an even number makes it odd.) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 12:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep – part of the more general Category:Compositions by key which was resoundingly kept very recently. In any case what has C Major done to deserve being singled out from Category:Jazz compositions by key? Oculi ( talk) 14:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

You are half correct, I should have nominated Category:Jazz compositions by key and all sub-cats. This is totally separate issue from from the classical by key where different rules of playing are applied so the outcome at that discussion is not applicable -- Richhoncho ( talk) 14:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep As per all above. - SchroCat ( talk) 16:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep The arguments put forward by Dr. Blofeld are convincing. Schwede 66 18:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Do not delete maybe we should upmerge to the compositions by key and the jazz compositions categories, but this seems a reasonably large category so I see no problem with it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep However, it does seem to me that there are very few songs actually sorted by the correct key. Maybe it would be beneficial if we went through and added more to the categories? -- dominiktesla -talk- 21:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Dapper Dan award winners ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Local award. Winners already listed in article Dapper Dan Charities. Mayumashu ( talk) 11:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete we generally avoid awards categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:J. Williams (singer) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too little content — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 10:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom and more importantly WP:EPONCAT says, which, I think we should all refresh our minds with :-

In certain very notable cases, an individual's name can be used to categorize the person itself, for example Category:Abraham Lincoln. However, this should not be done simply to reduce the number of categories displayed in an article.
Categories using the name of a person hold articles directly related to that person. Remember this when placing the article in larger categories. If the person is a member of a category, put the article about the person in the larger category. If articles directly related to the person are also members of the larger category, put the category with the person's name in the larger category. This often results in the article and category being categorized differently. For an example of this see George W. Bush and Category:George W. Bush.

I do note that a number of editors have been creating these in music - including for individual members of bands! Cheers. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 10:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep – the quote is irrelevant as only 2 articles have been placed directly in Category:J. Williams (singer). Category:J. Williams (singer) is in effect a container category for 3 individually valid subcats and should be retained as such. Oculi ( talk) 14:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Excuse me, the quote reads, "In certain very notable cases, an individual's name can be used to categorize the person itself, for example Category:Abraham Lincoln. However, this should not be done simply to reduce the number of categories displayed in an article." At what point is this J. Williams (singer) very notable? Cheers. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 14:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• And how does this reduce the number of categories displayed in J. Williams (singer)? The category is being used primarily to parent the 3 subcats; whether J. Williams (singer) is in it or not is immaterial. Oculi ( talk) 14:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• If you feel, as an editor, that Wikipedia guidelines are free to be ignored when it suits and irrespective of any counter-argument and any question raised (i.e. "how notable is this singer?) can and should be ignored then there is not much point in trying to have a rational discussion. Sorry I bothered you. Cheers. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 14:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Response The three subcats include one just for non-free media, which should basically be ignored and two for actual content which are interlinked (note also that one of those links to the media category anyway.) This container category serves no function. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Content is minimal - really only albums and songs which are typically interlinked. If we're going to start accepting image files, album covers, etc. as a reason to keep eponymous categories, then every music artist with at least one album and song article should have an eponymous category. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ^{Talk to me} 18:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete Eponymous categories need more than just songs, albums and albums covers categories to be justified. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted at CfD 2013 January 30#. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:University of California, Los Angeles School of Law alumni to Category:UCLA School of Law alumni

Nominator's rationale: To match the article, which is at UCLA School of Law per WP:COMMONNAME. –  Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 07:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Category:University of California, Los Angeles, Category:University of California, Los Angeles people, Category:University of California, Los Angeles alumni etc. Oculi ( talk) 17:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Sure, but is it better to match the category structure or the article name? Both are in the guidelines, but I think matching the article title is more important here. –  Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 18:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Support Rename The standard is to append the word "alumni" after the name of the school and this should be a speedy rename. The name of the associated category is irrelevant here and avoids the utter illogic of having the category name not match the title of the parent article, though when it comes to Los Angeles and categories it seems that all logic is out the window. Alansohn ( talk) 19:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep we generally discorage the use of acrynyms in category names, and I see no reason to do so here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • We also follow WP:COMMONNAME and per the school's website, the name is "UCLA School of Law", which is why the title of the parent article is UCLA School of Law, matching the real-world usage. "University of California, Los Angeles School of Law" is a manufactured title with no legitimacy or provenance. It does not correspond to any reality and we should discourage such inconsistency. Alansohn ( talk) 04:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Support per nom. There are conflicting "conventions", but I think here matching to the article name about the specific school trumps consistency with the other categories/article names. We do not discourage acronyms in category names if the article name uses acronyms: eg, Category:NATO, Category:OPEC, and many others. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom, C2D, and WP:COMMONAME. "UCLA" is widely recognised and also used in other alumni subcats. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:NZHPT Category I listings to Category:New Zealand Historic Places Trust Category I listings
• Propose renaming Category:NZHPT Category II listings to Category:New Zealand Historic Places Trust Category II listings

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to remove abbreviation and to match the parent, Category:New Zealand Historic Places Trust. If this nomination gains consensus, the rest of the subcategories will need to be speedy nominated and renamed to match. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but I would like to shed a bit of light on some reasonable substantial background discussions. Most of that has happened on the NZHPT talk page. One of the aims was to have the category system consistent between Wikipedia and Commons, and there is further discussion on the relevant Commons talk page. I would definitely like to keep consistency between WP and Commons, but have never seen a category discussion across these two platforms and don't know whether a process even exists for this. If there isn't a way of ensuring consistency between WP and Commons, then on balance I would prefer the continued use of the abbreviation. Whilst I'm sympathetic towards the avoidance of abbreviations, I would suggest that NZHPT is well understood throughout New Zealand, and if somebody from outside the country wanted to find out what it stands for, or a New Zealander doesn't know, then it's also not too hard to go about finding out. I guess one of the reasons for using the abbreviation is to avoid rather long category names. The longest subcategory name would become Category:New Zealand Historic Places Trust Category II listings in the Manawatu-Wanganui Region, which is rather a mouthful in anybody's books. Schwede 66 04:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • If you look at what is probably the larger and better known NRHP in the US, you will find that the name is spelled out in all subcategories starting above Category:Buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places. So while other stuffs exists, is not a reason to rename, avoiding abbreviations is and clearly it has been applied to other categories having to do with historic places. I agree that having similar names here and on commons is a nice thing, nothing prevents them from also renaming to follow a bigger pattern. Note that commons follows our naming for National Register of Historic Places. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Rename—despite being a New Zealander who has lived in various places throughout the country I have never come across this abbreviation. Admittedly I am not a member of the Trust, but I do read widely (including several newspapers) and I have only seen it spelled out. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 03:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Rename to match parent and as per WP:ACRONYMTITLE. 'NZHPT' fails the abbreviations.com test. 'New Zealand Historic Places Trust' beats 'NZHPT' on the Google test, 2,070,000 to 32,600. No one piece of evidence is sufficient, but altogether I find them persuasive. Andrewaskew ( talk) 22:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete all. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Polymaths ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:African polymaths ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:American polymaths ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Arab polymaths ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Austrian polymaths ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:British polymaths ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Chinese polymaths ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:French polymaths ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:German polymaths ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Greek polymaths ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Indian polymaths ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Iranian polymaths ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Italian polymaths ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Jewish polymaths ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Polish polymaths ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Russian polymaths ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. An oft-deleted category which has been re-created again and now broken down into nationality subcategories. That most recent discussion was here. As always, the category is left undefined, which allows almost anyone to be included in it if they have demonstrated any sort of ability in more than one discipline or area of life. Hence, it's an overly subjective way of categorizing articles. We already have List of people who have been called a polymath, which was created because having a category was so problematic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Vote yes to all. If this is allowed, why not Category:People who have parked illegally and Category:Common Cold Sufferers next? -- Dfeuer ( talk) 01:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete too poorly defined to be used asa category. -- Qetuth ( talk) 02:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete as argued above. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is an at best vaguely defined term with no clear yes or not critera. We categorize people by the specific fields they were involved in, such as scientists, geographers etc. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete as an ill-definable category. While the question of who qualifies as a polymath is an intriguing one, the list uses sources to answer this in a way that categories cannot. Andrewaskew ( talk) 23:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete purely subjective. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Poets who committed suicide to Category:Poets who died by suicide

Nominator's rationale: The terminology "committed suicide" has fallen out of favor and is now considered offensive by some. See here for one explanation. Note also that Commons has Category:People who died by suicide. -- Dfeuer ( talk) 01:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Category:Suicides by occupation contains a heap of categories and they all use the phrasing "...who committed suicide". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Please mentally expand the proposal to cover all of them. -- Dfeuer ( talk) 02:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Well, we could do so for the sake of discussion, but I don't think the categories can actually be renamed unless they are at a minimum tagged with Template:cfr, and preferably listed here. Otherwise, if it is renamed, only one category will be renamed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment that doesn't work. If the act of suicide kills people other than the person committing the act, then you can die by suicide without committing suicide yourself, since you are collateral damage. -- 76.65.128.43 ( talk) 03:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Question. Who exactly looks down upon "committed suicide", and why? Is it because it has been decriminalised in many places now, and so the desire is to avoid language that invokes commission of a crime? Other than the crass "killed him/herself" and the nicer "died by his/her own hand", I'm not sure what the euphemistic options would be for those trying to avoid the phrase in writing or speech. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • That looks like the argument given in the linked document. As far as I know, "committed suicide" is still the common, correct term. –  Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 08:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Gah, how did I miss that link? Thank you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per my reply to Good Ol'factory, above. Also per 76.65.128.43. –  Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 08:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Committed suicide is the correct term, regardless of how "offensive" one external website puts it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Oppose the current term is the normal phrasing. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Oppose as an unecessary WP:EUPHEMISM. Wikipedia should use clear and direct phrasing. The simplest language is often the most neutral. We ought not change every time there is a new trend in political correctness. Andrewaskew ( talk) 23:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Oppose The current name is more precise, and makes sense grammatically. I am not convinced that the website indicates a shift in general use. Dimadick ( talk) 09:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. First, two points of procedural opposition. a) The nominated category has not been tagged. b) The nom offers no reason for singling out writers, so this change should either be applied to all sub-categories of Category:Suicides by occupation, or to none of them. (If it is intended to apply to all of them, they should be tagged and listed here).
  Substantively, I oppose the rename because "committed suicide" is still the common usage. It gets 31 millionj Ghits, versus only 1.58 million for "died by suicide". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Television programs based on A Nightmare on Elm Street franchise ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAT#SMALL. The entries are a.) a Simpsons episode which is a parody of Nightmare on Elm Street and therefore not really "based" in the most literal sense; b.) an actual Nightmare derivation already categorized in Category:Television programs based on films, and c.) the aforementioned derivation's episode list. (There was also a South Park episode in the category, but I removed it since the page made no mention of Nightmare on Elm Street.) In short, I don't see any more possible entries in this category. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 01:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. But first, a comment on the observation I don't see any more possible entries in this category. Never underestimate the ability and eagerness of the US (or other) entertainment industry to recycle the old as the "new". Who knows what dreck will soon be on the teevee? And an observation: The (rather good) short story best known in English has "The Dancing Girl of Izu" has been recycled eleven times at last count; true, only one has (or merits?) its own article, but all eleven are listed and briefly described in the article " The Dancing Girl of Izu" more conveniently than if links had instead been hived off to a category. Well, delete this category as it really seems redundant. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:19th-century photography. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:19th-century in photography to Category:19th century in photography (or something else)

Nominator's rationale: Rename after discussion. Perhaps to "19th century in photography", to "19th-century photography", to "19th century photography". Or to something else again: I'll happily concede that I'm not as fully conversant with the names of arguably analogous categories as I should be, and thus am reluctant to pronounce that the category should be renamed in this or that one way. However, I'm sure that "19th-century in photography" is odd, in one way or another. Hoary ( talk) 00:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment: Yes, please. 19th-century photography would be fine, as there the noun phrase is used descriptively, but 19th-century in photography is grammatically awful. -- Dfeuer ( talk) 01:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Sorry if I appear to be nitpicking, but are you saying that "19th-century photography" would be best, or merely that it would be better? -- Hoary ( talk) 02:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment: There are many categories titled 19th hyphen century noun phrase; see this list. There are also quite a lot of categories titled 19th century in noun phrase; see this list. Most of the latter are geographical/national ( Category:19th century in Bolivia, etc), but there is Category:19th century in film. -- Hoary ( talk) 06:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment: My apologies for my grammar, but there are many categories with and without the hyphen. I am content with either, but it would be good to move towards one standard. -- Nimetapoeg ( talk) 07:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I ignored the first mention of grammar, but as it has reoccurred.... This isn't really a matter of grammar; instead it's one of orthography. Although the orthography is related to grammar. As a standalone noun phrase, "19th century" is I think never hyphenated by "literate" writers of English. ("She lived in the 19th century." "The 19th century was violent.") As an attributive noun phrase (one modifying another noun), "19th century" more often than not is hyphenated. ("I blame 19th-century attitudes.") These days, it doesn't need to be -- though this depends on the particular style guide, individual taste, and sometimes the particular noun phrase. ("Second language acquisition" is far commoner than Wikipedia's MoS-mandated choice of "second-language acquisition".) You might eventually find support for doing away with the hyphen in such compounds anywhere (though you'd first have to do exhausting battle with the MoS people). You won't find support for inserting it in such compounds anywhere. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Rename preferably to Category:19th-century photography - correct hyphenation; alternatively as nom. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:19th-century photography is best. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 06:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.