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, except for Template:Domesticated-pigeon-breed-stub, which needs to be discussed at TfD. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Domesticated pigeon breeds by country of origin to Category:Pigeon breeds by country of origin
• Propose renaming Category:Domesticated pigeon breeds originating in Australia‎ to Category:Pigeon breeds originating in Australia‎

• Propose renaming Category:Domesticated pigeon breed stubs to Category:Pigeon breed stubs‎
• Propose renaming Template:Domesticated-pigeon-breed-stub to Template:Pigeon-breed-stub

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match parent Category:Pigeon breeds, as all pigeon breeds are the domestic pigeon species. This nomination was requested by user:SMcCandlish at WT:CFD stating to match all the other breed categories, and because the current name is silly and redundant; "breed" only applies to domesticates, otherwise you're talking about subspecies or some other categorization. – Fayenatic London 21:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (i.e., I agree with Fayenatic london's listing, and quote of me; was from a thread about whether we have tools for automating multi-category listings).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:05, 5 November 2017 (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: merge and delete. ℯxplicit 04:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:490s works‎ to Category:5th-century works and Category:490s
• Propose merging Category:590s works to Category:6th-century works
• Propose merging Category:610s works to Category:7th-century works
• Propose merging Category:630s works to Category:7th-century works

• Propose merging Category:50s books to Category:50s
• Propose merging Category:458 books to Category:5th-century books and Category:458
• Propose merging Category:499 books to Category:5th-century books and Category:499
• Propose merging Category:800s books to Category:9th-century books
• Propose merging Category:810s books to Category:9th-century books

Nominator's rationale: merge/delete from year and decade to century level per WP:SMALLCAT, mostly just one article in a category. In many cases a merge to a general year or decade category is not needed because the article is already in a year/decade by continent category. In some cases a merge to a century books category is not needed because the article is already in a subcat (e.g. Latin, Arabic xth-century books). Marcocapelle (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. We don't need pointless micro-categories with little room for expansion (it's not likely we're going to discover a huge pile of lost books, and that after we do a whole lot of them will be notable and generate articles here).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  17:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You are overlooking the fact that we have several articles that have never been categorized in a year, decade, or century category. I have been trying to place relevant articles an ancient and medieval books to whatever date is indicated in the sources for the last couple of years. Same for our underpopulated categories for archaeological discoveries. We have the articles stating the date of a discovery, but few editors bother to populate the categories. Dimadick (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • While that may be the case in some instances, it is not realistic to expect that we can reach e.g. 5 articles per decade, also because, as mentioned by Hugo999 below, many books and works from this period can't be dated accurately anyway. . Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Keep up the good work of pruning off these twigs from cat-trees. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support abolition/upmerge of "books" categories but doubtful about "works" categories as they will have more content eg manuscripts and art works (although most of these may not have an exact year or even decade of creation). Hugo999 (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With some medieval manuscripts, we can pinpoint the decade or decades thanks to references to contemporary figures or events, or because of what we know about the writers. The Carmina Burana manuscript has been dated to the 1230s, because it makes a reference to a Heinrich, provost of Maria Saal. This figure is known from medieval sources and his term of office is estimated to have lasted from 1232 to 1243. Some of the 13th-century works of Snorri Sturluson, can safely be dated prior to the 1240s. Because we know that Snorri was assassinated in 1241, by order of Haakon IV of Norway. The 6th-century history of Agathias (which is incomplete) has been dated to the late 570s or early 580s. It makes mention of the death of Khosrow I (who died in 579), but the author never mentions the emperor Maurice (who rose to the throne in 582). Agathias is thought to have died in the intervening period between 579 and 582, leaving his work incomplete. The more complex situation is what to do with works that obviously had several writers and dates of compositions. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle started being composed in the year 891 (the date recorded in the earliest surviving manuscript) but kept being updated and edited by a series of anonymous scribes for more than 200 years. The latest update has been dated to 1154. Dimadick (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I can't speak of other cultures, but for imperial China we only have articles for at the most 1% of the notable extant books. And I'm only talking about books, not prose pieces and poems. I'll give you an example: the 1978 bilingual (French/English) encyclopedic dictionary A Sung Bibliography/Bibliographie des Sung contains more than 2000 entries of notable books from the Song dynasty (only 1 of many medieval Chinese dynasties). Keep in mind in the 1950s/60s/70s China was like North Korea today (completely closed to foreigners) so western sinologists could only write about books they had access to, which is only a fraction. So the previous comment "it's not likely we're going to discover a huge pile of lost books, and that after we do a whole lot of them will be notable and generate articles here" is off the mark: I will argue every one of the 2000+ entries in A Sung Bibliography is notable, since the project took European/American/Japanese sinologists over 20 years (1954–1978) to complete and the contributors personally checked every book they wrote about. More recently, the 360-volume Quan Song Wen published in China contains more than 170,000 works from the Song dynasty, so 2000 is indeed only a fraction. Timmyshin (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Song may be out of scope in this discussion, as most of their reign coincides with the High Middle Ages (11th-13th century), not the Early Middle Ages (5th-10th century). In any case, we have a category for Category:Song dynasty literature, as well as preceeding categories about Category:Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms literature, Category:Tang dynasty literature, Category:Sui dynasty literature, Category:Southern and Northern Dynasties literature, Category:Jin dynasty (265–420) literature, Category:Three Kingdoms literature, and Category:Han dynasty literature. Dimadick (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with no oppisition to recreation if we get a lot more articles on works that can be put in these categories. Having several one entry categories, and none of the nominated categories at 10 or above entries, is just not a worthwhile way to organize things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2017 (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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 27#Category:Songs written by D.O.E.. ℯxplicit 04:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Songs written by D.O.E. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Seems weird to have a category about a subject whose article has been deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D.O.E. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Nominator mistakes the different purposes of an article and a category. An article contains text relating to something that is notable. A category groups together items by significant similarities. The songwriters of a song would be a significant similarity, whether the songwriter is notable or not. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support renaming as per Starcheer below. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename to Category:Songs written by John Maultsby since D.O.E. isn't notable enough for an article and the person mentioned in these articles is a songwriter named John Maultsby. Should Maultsby be notable enough for an article someday and the article is called D.O.E. per WP:COMMONNAME, the category can be renamed. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, don't rename, since John Maultsby was merely one of many co-writers of the songs. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2017 (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} 23:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Honey and Clover (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: With only three articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t | c) 14:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the live-action and other drama articles are not separate from the main, so this categorization is not needed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:12, 15 November 2017 (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. ℯxplicit 04:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• propose renaming a bunch of categories relating to countries where the term is alternative fiction:

Category:British alternate history → Category:British alternative history

Category:British alternate history films → Category:British alternative history films

Category:British alternate history novels → Category:British alternative history novels

Category:British alternate history writers → Category:British alternative history writers

Category:Irish alternate history → Category:Irish alternative history

Category:Irish alternate history novels → Category:Irish alternative history novels

Category:Malaysian alternate history → Category:Malaysian alternative history

Category:Malaysian alternate history films → Category:Malaysian alternative history films

Category:New Zealand alternate history → Category:New Zealand alternative history

Category:New Zealand alternate history films → Category:New Zealand alternative history films

Category:South African alternate history → Category:South African alternative history

Category:South African alternate history films → Category:South African alternative history films

Category:South African alternate history novels → Category:South African alternative history novels

Category:Australian alternate history → Category:Australian alternative history

Category:Australian alternate history novels → Category:Australian alternative history novels

Category:Australian alternate history films → Category:Australian alternative history films

Category:Australian alternate history writers → Category:Australian alternative history writers

Category:Canadian alternate history → Category:Canadian alternative history

Category:Canadian alternate history novels → Category:Canadian alternative history novels

Category:Canadian alternate history films → Category:Canadian alternative history films

Category:Canadian alternate history writers → Category:Canadian alternative history writers

(note - I'm not 100% certain of the spelling used in Canada, so that may need to be checked first). Grutness...wha? 12:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Alternate history states that "alternative history" is "Commonwealth English" so I suppose it should be renamed, too. My Gsearch for the two terms + Canadian seems to yield marginally better results for "alternative." "Alternate" sounds more familiar to me, as a lifelong Montrealer, but that's WP:OR. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • as you're no doubt aware, Canada uses its own mix of US and Commonwealth spellings, which is why I wasn't sure. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's true. I sort of forgot that. Right of course ours is blend. Again, alternate history sounds more right to me, but that may be just because my own vocabulary is more Americanized, as an English Montrealer of Jewish descent. I've read that that can be the case. So my own experience is really besides the point and again the Gsearch results seemed a wee bit better for "alternative" -- but not much. Support Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. As an American, I dispute the alleged ENGVAR claim people make in support of "alternate". It's not a standard in American usage, just fairly common. Many of us use "alternative" because it's more precise and is actually the correct word. "Alternate" in this sense borders on slang, and is definitely informal, like "15 items or less".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not mind renaming, but most famouse science fiction critics have a different opinion http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/alternate_history & most famouse fan-site http://www.uchronia.net/ too, therefore British alternate history — correctly, but perhaps British alternative history films makes sense.
  I suggest also discuss the possibility to rename New Zealand to New Zealandian films.--Yasnodark (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a New Zealander, I'll point out that there is no such word as "Zealandian". The correct term is "New Zealand". Also, as former president of the country's national association for science fiction, I can assure you that the correct term here is "alternative fiction". It's also shown as being correct according to both Merrian-Webster and Collins Dictionaries, the latter listing "Alternate history" as the US equivalent. Grutness...wha? 01:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for New Zealand, I will not argue with you - you better see, I just asked. As for the alternative history of the answer - below

• That SF Encyclopedia ref is pretty impressive, for the other side. Neutral. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Unless I'm not understanding, that appears to be a 12-author wiki/blog thing [1]. Even if it were a reliable source, it's an RS for facts about sci-fi stories and authors, not an RS for how to best to write, in encyclopedic English for a general audience, about genres. Don't fall for a WP:Specialized-style fallacy, and follow MOS:COMMONALITY. Absent proof that "alternative" is no longer used in American English in this sense, there's no MOS:ENGVAR case to make here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  17:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• N-gram data: alternative history is just far more common [2]. Not only that, the gulf by which it is dwarfing alternate history widened quite markedly in the 1980s, and stayed that way since then. This is an open and shut case, for moving the article, too.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  17:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "alternative history" is the correct term. If this were including academic discussions, they would be called "counter factual". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for alternative history, one must base itself on genre sources. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction have 6 six editions for more 30 years. Here they talk about American influence, but the authors of the science fiction encyclopedia are outstanding critics from Australia (Peter Nicholls), Canada (John Clute) and England (David Langford) . Among them there is not a single American. Uchronia also a very authoritative source. We should not be guided by the number of links, but by their quality and authoritativeness in the world of science fiction.

Other: *https://www.alternatehistory.com

• http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
• http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlternateHistory
• https://www.thesunmagazine.org/issues/492/alternate-history
• https://www.goodreads.com/genres/alternate-history
• https://www.amazon.com/Alternate-History-Science-Fiction-Books/b?ie=UTF8&node=16275
• http://www.clockworksky.net/alternate_history_top.html
• http://mentalfloss.com/article/54464/what-if-19-alternate-histories-imagining-very-different-world
• https://www.youtube.com/user/AlternateHistoryHub
• https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-most-unusual-alternate-history-novels-ever-publishe-1518395336
• http://thisdayinalternatehistory.blogspot.com/
• http://bestsciencefictionbooks.com/best-alternate-history-books.php
• https://www.guernicamag.com/an-alternate-history/
• https://best-sci-fi-books.com/23-best-alternate-history-books/
• http://shannonselin.com/2016/05/alternate-history-books-women/
• https://www.residentadvisor.net/features/1927
• https://www.wired.com/2011/05/alternate-histories/
• https://www.standoutbooks.com/writing-alternate-history-fiction/
• https://www.theguardian.com/double-take/ng-interactive/2016/dec/19/alternate-history-cultures-merge-war-japanese-occupation
• http://www.yourdictionary.com/alternate-history
• https://www.thefreedictionary.com/alternate+history
• http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195305678.001.0001/acref-9780195305678-e-8
• http://strangehorizons.com/non-fiction/articles/the-time-of-the-other-alternate-history-and-the-conquest-of-america/--Yasnodark (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some of these sources may be authoritative about science fiction. But The Guardian is just a newspaper, not a science fiction resource. And the reference concerns an attempt at alternate history by a specific art historian. Dimadick (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know. So I put them in "others", just had to run and there was no time to explain.--Yasnodark (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a run-of-the-mill WP:Specialized-style fallacy, of the kind we reject over and over again, in every venue. The most reliable sources for facts pertaining to a topic (e.g. sci-fi and fantasy) are not the most reliable sources for how to write about that subject in fairly formal English for a global encyclopedia audience. The "write like genre sources" idea is right out the window, or our articles on pop music would all be in the slang-laden and bombastic style of entertainment journalism, and our articles on physics would all read exactly like the near-impenetrable material submitted to peer review in a science journal. We just don't do that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've met both Nicholls and Langford and can vouch for their credentials - but I wonder whether either of them was deliberately aiming at anyone other than the world's biggest science fiction market - i.e., the United States? Langford does regularly use the term "alternative history" in his own publications, for example. I'd also point out that many major chroniclers of the history of science fiction use the latter term, notably Brian Aldiss, whose essay "Future & Alternative Histories" forms a major chapter in "The Visual History of Science Fiction" (ed. B. Ash). I'll also point you at this reference list (ironically titled "Alternate History Reference Material" - well, it is a US website) which lists many non-aAmerican references using the term "alternative history".

As for the online references, many of those online sources have US origins, so are bound to use the US spelling. One, interestingly, cites the BBC's use of the term (they don't - they use the term "counterfactual fiction"). Goodreads carries a handy list of tags on the page you point to: "Tags contributing to this page include: alternate-history, alternate_history, alternate-historical, alternate-historical-fiction, alternative_history, alternative-history, uchronia, and uchronie". The dictiponary sources quoted (such as thefreedictionary and oxfordreference) also have entries for "alternative history", indicating that some places use one term and others use another. Thefreedictionary is telling in this regard - it cites an American dictionary as its source for the term "alternate history" and a British dictionary as its source for "alternative history". Grutness...wha? 00:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aldiss's opinion is authoritative for me, but not predominant, if you personally know Nicholls and other authors of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, then I ask you to ask them what is the reason for spelling.

I do not use social networks for some reason and I give you links:

• https: //twitter.com/john_clute
• https: //twitter.com/ansiblemag
• https: //twitter.com/sfencyclopedia
• https: //www.facebook.com/pg/sfencyclopedia/about/? ref = page_internal
• https: //twitter.com/noircyclopedia
• https: //uk.linkedin.com/in/brian-stableford-95616136
• dammassa@ix.netcom.com

Additionally:

• https: //twitter.com/heedtheherd
• https: //twitter.com/retroscifiart/status/865703710889877504
• https: //m.facebook.com/note.php? note_id = 425351694199524
• https: //m.facebook.com/note.php? note_id = 425351694199524

It is also important to know the opinions of other well-known critics: Damien Broderick, Don D'Ammassa, John Grant, Brian Stableford, Damon Knight, Sam J. Lundwall, David Pringle, Jack Williamson from his works. --Yasnodark (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the difference between "I have met" and "I personally know well enough to ask". In any case, the reasons should be obvious - "alternative fiction" is the predominant term in Commonwealth countries. After all, in Commonwealth English, the term "alternate" is a verb meaning to swap between two alternatives. I would avoid Twitter as a source - trying to fit a message into 140 characters means you use the shorter alternative where possible. I have myself used the appalling term "thru" to keep a message to 140 characters - that doesn't mean I use it in any other context. And, as I lined earlier, the web version of Ansible uses "alternative". I could also point out that the BSFA and Locus both use the term "alternative fiction". Not that it makes much difference - it's easy to pull individual examples which use either spelling, but the predominant usage, as already pointed out by others, is "alternative". Grutness...wha? 23:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS - of the other authors you mention, D'Ammassa, Knight, and Williamson are American, so will very likely use "alternate". Lundwall is Swedish, so may have learnt his English from US or British sources, so his opinion is unbreliable. Of the others, Stebleford uses "alternative history", Pringle uses ""alternative world", and Broderick wrote an essay on the subject called "Alternatives to the Main Trajectory ". I haven't managed to find any source which confirms Grant's views one way or the other. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are pointing to another context of use. Ian Watson - english writer & editor

https://www.fantasticfiction.com/w/ian-watson/mammoth-book-of-alternate-histories.htm . *http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/nonfiction/separation.htm

• http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/nonfiction/intpmca.htm- british site.

• Other:
• https://www.lwcurrey.com/pages/books/92899/brian-m-stableford/the-empire-of-fear
• https://www.sfsite.com/lists/pjm.htm
• https://www.risingshadow.net/library/book/17516-fairyland
• https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Paul_McAuley.html
• http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/tag_author.cgi?1+2434
• https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-688-14154-7
• http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlternateHistory

--Yasnodark (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The three British sources you list: one is for a book edited by Ian Watson but written for and published by an American publishing company (Running press, based in Philadelphia) - hardly conclusive proof. The other two (both from the same website) are from a publisher which, though based in Britain, largely sells to the US market - again, hardly conclusive. Oyher than those, all you keep doing is confirming my original point. I keep showing you British and other Commonwealth examples which use "alternative", and you keep throwing back American ones which use "alternate". There's no conflict in what we're saying - we're both simply providing more evidence that a rename is the right decision. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let someone decide the third, independent participant in the discussion.--Yasnodark (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2017 (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. ℯxplicit 04:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Film scores by Richard Addinsell to Category:Films scored by Richard Addinsell

Nominator's rationale: This scheme of "film scores by" should be changed to "films scored by" since the articles added to these categories are about the films themselves not the film scores. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Your proposal makes sense considering the films themselves are the things being categorized. Also, are there articles on specific film scores, and if so, what's the categorization scheme for that? VegaDark (talk) 05:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for the same reason. Slightlymad 06:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support makes total sense. I'd noticed this, too, but was too lazy to do anything about it. Good for you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: How about their parent categories Category:Film scores by composer and Category:Film scores by Indian composer? 175.177.5.65 (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Trivialist (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the nominator's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:36, 9 November 2017 (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: merge to Category:Nintendo emulators and Category:Wii U. ℯxplicit 04:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wii U emulators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The GameCube was released in 2001, and that only has 1 emulator. So this category won't grow over 1 any time soon. Vaypertrail (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As the nom mentions, Category:GameCube emulators only has 1 member, and Category:Wii emulators has only 1 as well. I would assume whatever happens here should apply to those as well for consistency. No opinion on the nom itself. VegaDark (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @Vaypertrail: What is the reason you propose deleting, instead of merging to the parents Category:Nintendo emulators and Category:Wii U? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - only one entry in a category. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:01, 20 November 2017 (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.