Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 20 March 22 >

March 21[edit]

Category:Vegan bodybuilders[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 26#Category:Vegan bodybuilders

Category:Vassal city-state & miscellaneous Amarna letters[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: rename to Category:Amarna letters by city-state. No opposition to the merge since original listing in Feb. Kbdank71 14:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename and diffuse, rename to a more usual category name. In addition, remove articles and redirects, as they are already in the subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 23:31, 21 March 2022 (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.

Nightclubs[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: merge/delete all. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently one article in each of these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 23:29, 21 March 2022 (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:Songs about bubbles[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: delete. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only two articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This contains one novelty song come football chant and a Japanese nursery rhyme. You have have chosen to suggest to merge with serious subjects like Eötvös number? Like nearly every songs about category it's trivia, let it fade away. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Agree with the nom's rationale. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The target is not really reasonable to group these soungs, but this content is just plain trivial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JPL and SMALLCAT. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:12, 12 April 2022 (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.

Cayman Islands stubs[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: Rename per discussion. Kbdank71 14:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Standard naming within Category:Cayman Islands sportspeople stubs (which is being speedily renamed over the new Category:Caymanian sportspeople stubs). – Fayenatic London 21:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging User:Pegship who often participates in stub category discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency, as these are the only two templates using CaymanIslands (out of 8 templates). Her Pegship (?) 17:45, 3 April 2022 (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:North American Football League players[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: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Does not appear the league ever played a game. In fact, the chairman and his wife was arrested for defrauding the league's investors in 2017. JTtheOG (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 20:22, 21 March 2022 (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:Songs about religion[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 11#Category:Songs about religion

Category:English anti-fascists[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. The "heavily purge" option can be WP:BOLD-ly performed by editors, but all and all, it doesn't directly relate to the existence of this category. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Similarly to the English Anti-Communists category, this is another subjective WP:OPINIONCAT/WP:NONDEF category. Most English people are anti-fascists in the sense that they do not like fascism, and this seems to be how this category has been applied. No objections to recreating/renaming it so that it's limited to actual anti-fascist activists (e.g., members of Anti-Fascist Action) but no suitable category name occurs to me. FOARP (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, was Winston Churchill an "anti-fascist activist"? Seems something less obviously subjective, requiring membership of actual anti-fascist groups is needed. FOARP (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes down purely to WP:OPINIONCATs, it is. Let's chose every tenth article on the list and see what we get:
This is an opinioncat pure and simple. It appears that every single English person who fought in WW2, criticised communism at any point, or has been on the far left could be included here regardless of whether they were ever actually activists against fascism. FOARP (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this is an issue of the whole tree of Category:Anti-fascists. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At best Heavily purge and see what is left. Perhaps delete (as we have done with conservative and liberal categories, not defined by party membership. Every democratic or communist politician could be said to be included. Unless the criterion is membership of an organisation (e.g. political party) that was explicitly anti-fascist or a person actively campaigned against fascism and the article says so, they should not be included. I think Churchill could in the 1930s be properly described as an anti-Nazi activist. I found another person who was recorded to have spoken at anti-fascist rallies. My personal observation is that fascists and communists are liable to behave in much the same way and are as bad as each other. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - largely per FOARP. Categories can always be purged if they become too broad, no need for outright deletion. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's IMHO about attitude and values, not about activism! Completely wrong approach of FOARP. --Just N. (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC related to these categories can be found here.

-- Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consider the result of the RfC linked above by Marcocapelle. I'm shocked at how long this took to get relisted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The RFC has been closed and leaves only one conclusion about this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per RfC outcome? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm staying neutral on the discussions, I'm merely attempting to puzzle out the RFC closure. That linked RFC would appear to prohibit people being added to an Anti-fascism category. Or in other words, it pertains to -ism categories. I don't see where it applies to an -ist category. Marcocapelle, am I missing something? - jc37 09:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jc37: the (original) RfC was upheld and clarified, specifically "Bias categories must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly so biased.". There is no distinction made between -ism and -ist categories, it just applies to all categories. @GRuban: pinging closer of the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors are invited to comment in light of this RfC.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 20:18, 21 March 2022 (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:Iranian clerics[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 10#Category:Iranian clerics

Category:Songs by key[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: Delete all Timrollpickering (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The key a song is composed in is rarely documented, often changed during writing, especially when the writer and singer are different people. Entries in these categories can only be WP:OR, an assumption that songs are automatically recorded in the key they were written. This is not correct, the key will also change according to the range of the singer, which is why I have not proposed a change of name for this category. Besides the argument that there are no reliable sources, there is a strong argument that key signatures of performance are not defining of a song.
For reference, there have been a couple of recent discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs here and here and this nomination follows the advice given there.

. Richhoncho (talk) 10:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, there is no reason to deviate from consensus at the wikiproject page. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Key is not defining for recorded songs, and in fact most of these articles do not mention the key anywhere, failing WP:V. And some arrangements or covers of the same song might have a different key than the original composition — for example, the original version of "Shake, Rattle and Roll" recorded by Big Joe Turner is in E-flat major, while the Elvis Presley cover is in F major. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Also, the additional nominations bundled with the first one have been standardized. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination + LaundryPizza03's rationale. QuietHere (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Delete Keys often change from composition/sketch to first recording to subsequent renditions. For example, when John Lee Hooker re-recorded his popular "Boogie Chillen'" over the years, the key dropped from B to B♭ to A (he says he learned it from his stepfather and sources do not identify what key it was "composed" in). So, it is not possible to identify one key as the song's overall defining characteristic. This is often true of songs with renditions by multiple artists. Also, reliable sources are sometimes difficult to find; a small sampling of songs in the categories listed above shows that most make no mention of a key and the categories may be OR or taken from a UGC/SPS website. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is not clear if the song has been composed for example in D minor but recorded in C minor. It is not also clear if the recording is in F-sharp major or G-flat major, D-sharp minor or E-flat minor, G-sharp minor or A-flat minor et cetera. For example here is song Nobody's Wife that had been marked in key of F-sharp major, but really it is D-sharp minor. And we do not really know if that song has been composed in F-sharp major/D-sharp minor. And one problem is also that some songs in minor (for example D# minor) has been marked as its relative major (F# major). Those categories have problem with the word "Compose", because we do not know the real composition key. And as I said, is it Abm or G#m, D#m or Ebm, Gb or F#, C# or Db so on? For example Ab minor and G# minor are practically the same key although they are different in theory (Abm has 7 flats, G#m has 5 sharps, but Ab and G# are enharmonically the same tone).--Sentree (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way that same point with subcategories Jazz songs and National anthems. They have also this kind of lists.--Sentree (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. sjh (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2022 (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:Songs with double entendres[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: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:TRIVIALCAT, the songs do not really have anything in common. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too disparate to have any value. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too many ways to make a double entendre to be defining. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. QuietHere (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2022 (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:Songs about diseases and disorders[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 10#Category:Songs about diseases and disorders

Category:South Korean idol rappers[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: delete. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think this kind of category is needed. It's not like you'll see the term idol rapper mentioned on any articles. They are simply rappers. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 04:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Btspurplegalaxy: Oppose. The term "idol rapper" does not need to be mentioned in articles for the category to be absolutely useful. And the distinction between idol rappers and non-idol rappers should be made: in an K-pop idol group, an idol that raps only does so as it is part of their position; whereas non-idol rappers do not have to have the extra hassle of training, dancing or stifling of their creativity in the name of "concepts", they simply can just be rappers. Why is it that Vice12, XXL, Bustle, The Ringer, Billboard (in an article that quotes San E using the term) are pointing this distinction out? This should be pointed out in enwiki. The category also does users who like K-pop and care about categories a massive favour as the subject's position is stated, setting apart idol rappers from idol singers. —lIl-†V!wanna talk?` 09:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Nowhere else is is necessary to categorise by route to success and type of performer. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2022 (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/2022_March_21&oldid=1087451270"