Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template[edit]
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 for now. – FayenaticLondon 14:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is there a purpose to this category anymore? I think there was a bot adding this in but I think there's been a view that draftspace allows for drafts without the AFC template at all. A bot generated report at User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report of Draft pages without an AFC submission template that haven't been edited in six months (and without the AFC template, they don't qualify for G13) shows quite a number of pages so it could be useful if people support it. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No vote, just a comment: I notified WP:AFC, the relevant wikiproject. Nyttend (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - In theory, this operates in Articles for creation/* still, so until all pages have been moved, it could well be of use. Mdann52 (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How is this being used? It was manually populated before and it's not anymore. If draftspace doesn't mandate AFC banners, then this could only be if there was some AFC project that doesn't have any banner and I don't know how that would be. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the exact reason listed in the nominator's rationalle. Just because the category hasn't been populated in a while doesn't mean that it should be deleted. Untill all pages that are in the prefix Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/ are either permanantly deleted or moved over to the Draft prefix, we can't delete the category. I would also note that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 5 deliberately puts these categories in when it does find these types of pages. I need to rewrite the driver so that it finds pages on it's own, but I could start populating the category again. Hasteur (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2015 (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. – FayenaticLondon 14:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, both the nominated and the target category are very small, they can easily be merged. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or reverse merge -- It is difficult to determine where a dialect stops and a new language begins. There is not enough content to need both, but perhaps the target should be Category:Extremaduran languages and dialects. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if a longer category name is really needed, I would expect that dialects are in a language category anyway, without having the dialects included in the category name. Also, one minor detail: it should be language in singular without -s. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. No need to create an unusually named category in this instance, since "dialects" are encompassed within the "language". Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:36, 16 November 2015 (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:Languages of Spain by autonomous community[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, too few autonomous communities here (just one). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2015 (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; there is no decision here on other categories. – FayenaticLondon 15:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Pub" is not commonly used as a synonym for "bar" in the United States, although various derivatives are common: pub crawl, gastropub, etc.(source) In the American context, pub doesn't have a distinct meaning as compared to other drinking establishments. - RevelationDirect (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Note that there are only seven articles in the entire tree, including the gastropubs. Most of my encounters with the term "pub" in the USA, aside from derivatives such as the pub crawl that RD mentions, are European-related: either bars that self-describe as pubs (example) as part of their attempt to produce a European ambiance, or normal US bars that are being described by UKians who don't know that the term isn't much used by USAians. Nyttend (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge I'm dubious that even the US gastropub categories are valid; they seem more like a shared-branding-name thing to me. But "pub" doesn't have a distinct US meaning: it can suggest a Brit-themed bar, or it can simple mean a casual restaurant with a bar area. Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both is a restaurant that serves alcohol, or a club (golf club, comedy club, etc.), or a casino, or a stadium, etc. a "drinking establishment". If not, why not - using objective rationale? Does it matter if they have a separate "bar" which is somehow a part of, but apart from, the eating, laughing, gambling, or watching area? Again, what is the objective rationale for a decision one way or another. Either the category becomes a very subjective one or it is rather meaningless as I would imagine that liquor licenses in the US in most states run to the tens or hundreds of thousands. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would not oppose this. Mangoe (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we might need a "bar" or "saloon" category (equivalent to the British pub category) to capture articles like Iron Door Saloon and Dixie Chicken (bar) that don't fit neatly into the restaurant/nightclub/concert venue categories. But fundamentally, I agree that "drinking establishment" is too broad. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2015 (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.
Blue-eyed soul is an often derogatory term (source) for white performers who sing "black" (source) and is tied to concepts of cultural appropriation (source). For example, it's referenced as an example in the Wikipedia Wigger article. Hall & Oates considers the term "racist" (source), Lewis Taylor rejects the label (source), and most other white artists don't use the term to describe themselves (source). WP:ETHNICRACECAT reads "Ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people; however, race is not" and WP:CATEGRS #2 reads "Terminology must be neutral, derogatory terms are not to be tolerated in a category name under any circumstances." (Alternatively, if we really think the intersection of race and musical genre is defining, we could rename the category to Category:White soul singers.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consider renaming even if we reject RD's argument. No opinion on whether we should follow RevelationDirect's suggestions, but if we decide not to follow them, we should still rename these. It's vaguely comparable to the recent proposal to move Category:Bacon scholars — the category names can unintentionally prompt editors to include articles about people who study bacon (not just Francis Bacon) and soul singers of all classifications who happen to have blue eyes. Perhaps "Singers performing blue-eyed soul" and similar for the other two? Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is a recognized genre/subgenre of music here that is distinct from soul musically. I just think the performers have to be white. Brown-eyed soul is a similar construct. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not addressing that; I'm just suggesting that if we keep the category itself, we still make it clear that this isn't for soul singers with blue eyes. But your intro made it sound like this was the race record chunk of soul music, as opposed to music sung by whites that sounds like music sounds by whites. If non-(blue-eyed soul) music sung by whites isn't a recognised genre/subgenre, I'm rather confused somewhere. And I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the name "White soul singers", too, since it sounds like people who sing "white soul" music. Nyttend (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should just rename this "Wigger singers" and stop having any pretense of avoiding racist and derogatory terms. OK, I am being faciscious.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom and because it's not defining; it amuses me to see Anouk, Andy Grammer, and Boy George in the same category at all. (I'm also surprised Frank Sinatra isn't a member, as he's where I first encountered the term.) —烏Γ(kaw) │ 09:13, 08 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, rewrite the category description entirely. —烏Γ(kaw) │ 04:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I recognise the sensitivities and contentiousness of the term. But, the term "blue-eyed soul" is a well-attested and widely used term in reliable sources. It was a term first used in the US in the 1960s, and reflects society at that time - no more than that. The categorization needs to be based on reliable sources - I've no doubt that some people in the category have never been described in sources as "blue-eyed soul". Some people included in the category may well dislike the term, while some others accept it. It should be limited to those musicians who have been classified as "blue-eyed soul" in reliable sources - mainly, from the 1960s-1980s. Renaming it as "white soul singers" is quite unacceptable - that seems to me to be more, not less, offensive, and more importantly is a term that is rarely if ever used. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghmyrtle: Sure this term can be reliably sourced, but that source is just saying "this is a white artist in a traditionally African-American genre". The Righteous Brothers did accept the term, but they acknowledged that the term is racial (source). Whatever the connotations, "blue-eyed soul" is highly idiomatic since the performers can have any eye color as long as they are white and the term can describe other genres like R&B or hip hop per the article. If this is really what we want to do, lets follow the lead of Category:African-American classical musicians and describe the contents clearly. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have very little time for categories in general - I use them under protest. But, where people have been described in reliable sources as "blue-eyed soul", it is more useful to classify them that way rather than seeking to come up with a new form of words to describe them. Of course the people can have any eye colour, just as black musicians have a wide variety of skin tones (none of which are, in reality, black). But, if good sources describe (or described) musicians as performing "blue-eyed soul" - using that specific phrase - let us categorise them that way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to categorize based on 1960s sources then we should put Martin Luther King, Jr. in the category Prominent Negroes. This is a term steeped in racism that's inclusion in the encyclopedia perpetuates racial stereotypes, racial misunderstanding and racial discord.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ghmyrtle pretty much summed it up, but...also keep the {{SCD}} template at the top of the category. Reason being, there are a lot of artists listed there who don't even make "standard" soul music, much less blue-eyed soul. If no sources exist that any artist there qualifies as blue-eyed soul, simply remove said artist(s) from the category; don't delete the entire category. (In addition, just because some artists reject the label doesn't mean that all artists do—and that isn't a good rationale for deleting the entire cat either.) Erpertblah, blah, blah... 04:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on nom's rationale. I wonder though if the categories shouldn't beupmerged in the soul tree, instead of plainly deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The ones I looked at were already in the artists by soul or blues artists by country trees, but I didn't check them all. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category Cleanup@Marcocapelle: I went through the 200+ articles and made sure they are all in a musical genre by nationality category, e.g. Category:English jazz singers; this involved changes to several dozen articles but none were removed from these categories. Note that a large majority of these artists are not soul but jazz, blues, R&B, hip hop, funk, gospel or other historically black genres. There were a dozen articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) that either had non-white artists or non-black genres so I think they were added in error but I didn't remove any from the category. None of these changes pre-suppose the outcome of this nomination; if this nomination is successful though, there is no need for a partial upmerge. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a race category. We do not do race categories. Just because racist music critics do race categorization does not mean we need to follow suit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of the above justifications for keep would lead to us including other derogatory terms in Wikipedia as well. This is a term steeped in racism that should have no place in an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the above "just as black musicians can have any skin color" is the most ill-informed defense of this category that I have ever seen. None of my students in Detroit, going to a school that is 98.5% African-American in a section of the city where neighborhood after neighborhood is over 95%, so the most steeped in not understanding the nuances of whiteness, have ever called me "blue eyed." They have called me "light skinned" but not blue eyed. Beyond that we do not have Category:Black musicians we have Category:African-American musicians. I also have to point out that the above discussion is too binary. What of Latino soul-singers? What of Asian-American R&B singers? What of half-African-American, half-Filipino singers? What of half-African-American, half-German singers who did not learn English until they were 10 two years after their German mother who spoke no English had married an African-American man who was not the same one who had fathered them? OK, I don't know of any singers in the later category, but I do know a person who is. We need to do a better job of categorizing by ethnicity and not by race, and deleting this horrible category would be a good first step.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and Johnpacklambert. BMK (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2015 (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.
