Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 20

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< January 19 January 21 >

January 20

Category:I Am Weasel images

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]
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.

Category:Jazz compositions in C major

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]
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
    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. Schwede66 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.

Category:Dapper Dan award winners

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

Category:J. Williams (singer)

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]
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
    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
    Oculi (talk) 14:19, 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. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk 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.

Category:University of California, Los Angeles School of Law alumni

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]
Nominator's rationale: To match the article, which is at
WP:COMMONNAME. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:57, 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.

New Zealand Historic Places Trust

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]
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. Schwede66 04:57, 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.

Category:Polymaths

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]
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.

Category:Poets who committed suicide

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]
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]
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]
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.

Category:Television programs based on A Nightmare on Elm Street franchise

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]
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
]
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.

Category:19th-century in photography

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 London 22:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_20&oldid=1138398020"