Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 26

< February 25	February 27 >

February 26

Hip hop song stubs

Propose renaming Template:2000s-hiphop-single-stub to Template:2000s-hiphop-song-stub
Propose renaming Template:2010s-hiphop-single-stub to Template:2010s-hiphop-song-stub

Nominator's rationale: For stub-sorting purposes, I don't see much of a need to distinguish between song stubs and single stubs, unless there is a significant difference between the number of songs that aren't released as singles and songs that are. For the most part, I would think most hip hop songs from the 2000s and 2010s are going to be singles but the more logical initial diffusion from Category:Hip hop song stubs would be by decade with the same parameter ("song" rather than "single"). For example, Category:2000s rock song stubs was created a year before Category:2000s rock single stubs (and I'm not sure there's really much difference between how those are being used). Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish activists

Propose deleting Category:Jewish activists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The term "activist" is so vague and the category so broad that it is neither meaningful, nor helpful to anyone. Many of the more narrow sub-categories are fine. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - unless Category:Activists is also addressed. Oculi (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a well populated category. It might be better if it were containerised, but that would involve recategorizing a lot of articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "Well populated", perhaps, in the sense that there are many things in it, but not, I think, populated well, as the contents are still neither meaningful nor helpful (and, I would argue, filled with inappropriate entries too). Jayjg ^(talk)
Keep The term activist is not too broad and vague to be useful. For example, I created an article about Erica Garner. The term "activist" has been used throughout to indicate her nature, including the following categories: category:21st-century African-American activists; category:Activists from New York City; category:American women activists; category:Anti-corruption activists. While the article has had plenty of attention, nobody has challenged or changed these descriptions and classifications, which are widely used in numerous other articles. Note also that this nomination seems to be a spinoff from a similar nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American activists. Andrew D. (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew, your example really proves my point; Erica Garner belongs in various meaningful sub-categories of "activists". Are you arguing that "Jewish activists" should be a container category? That would certainly be a more defensible argument. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator has failed to properly give reasons for deletion, and we actually have a main article on activism. Dimadick (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saturday Night Live players

Propose deleting Category:Saturday Night Live players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT. Has been deleted before. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G4. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1962 Border Conference football season

Propose deleting Category:1962 Border Conference football season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: empty category; the Border Conference folded before the 1962 football season, so this is a non-existent entity. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I created the category as found on Special:WantedCategories Gjs238 (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Social problem films

Propose deleting Category:Social problem films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Awfully vague... —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 17:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I considered "social problem film" to be a genre (why else does it have an article?), that is why I created a category for it. But if it shouldn't stay, perhaps merge it with Category:Films about social issues. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move article to existing Category:Films about social issues. Gjs238 (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islamic dress

Propose renaming Category:Islamic dress to Category:Islamic clothing
Propose renaming Category:Islamic female dress to Category:Islamic female clothing (added upon relisting)
Propose renaming Category:Islamic male dress to Category:Islamic male clothing (added upon relisting)

Nominator's rationale: Per the main article, Islamic clothing, which was moved to the present title following a move discussion. This was previously declined at speedy, so I am bringing it here. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. PPEMES (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - obvious. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sub-categories were named "Islamic [gender] dress" following discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_26#Category:Islamic_dress_(male) and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_21#Category:Islamic_dress_(female). They should be tagged and added into this nomination. – Fayenatic London 15:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support To match the main article. Dimadick (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Relisting comment, the subcategories have been added to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per nom. Oculi (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian denominations active in Germany

Propose merging Category:Christian denominations active in Germany to Category:Christian denominations in Germany

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, the scope of this category largely overlaps with its parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. Brandmeister^talk 20:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both I just do not see a justification of categorizing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by every country it has a presence in. This is the type of thing that can be handled by a list, but not an article. Even more so because categories always apply. So for example The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article would have to be put in categories where it once operated but does not currently. This is just a headache causing mess as a category, but manageable and doable with by country list articles, that can specify things like times of operation, number and percentage of adherents, number of congregations and related useful statistics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you mean further upmerge, don't you? Without merging, all subcategories become orphaned, and that is probably not the intention. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both and upmerge to Category:Christianity in Germany. This whole Christian denominations in <country> category is bogus. It has in it faiths or churches that are not denominations (e.g. Catholicism, Eastern Christianity) while other very similar categories are found at a different category level, sometimes at the root category, such as Category:Protestantism in Germany. I think that Category:Catholicism in Germany, Category:Eastern Christianity in Germany, Category:Protestantism in Germany and maybe Category:Anglicanism in Germany should be placed at the root of Category:Christianity in Germany, and the other categories placed within these. Place Clichy (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consensus this category shouldn't remain, but no clear consensus on where it should be merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom for now. The question of merging both to something else ought to be left for a separate discussion. One of these has a LDS article. While I have no time for their beliefs, I see no reason why the article should not exist and be in the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African-American football quarterbacks

Propose deleting Category:African-American football quarterbacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic per WP:CATDEF; non-notable intersection of race and football position Natureium (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ per nom, per WP:EGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:African-American players of American football per comment below. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the ERGS rules say avoid the lowest level intersection. This is especially true of ethnicity categories often applied more as race categories. Unless you can convince me that men like Ezekiel Ansah who never set foot in the US before college are being excluded from African-American categories I am unconvinced they are anything other than race categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and make it a sub-category of Category:African-American players of American football. Aside from that category, we also have similar categories (e.g., Category:Jewish golfers, Category:Female bullfighters). I know, WP:OSE, but the quarterback position in the NFL has historically (and to this day) had very few AA players. AA QBs, and their rarity, are often discussed by reliable sources, and cited as an example of systemic racism. When an individual AA QB is written about in the media, it's often noted that they are one of the few AA QBs. I think in this case, AA QB is a notable sub-category of AA football players, per RSes. For example: [1] [2] [3] [4] Levivich (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify. Per WP:OCEGRS, there needs to be potential for a substantial article (not just a list) for the topic to be made an ethnic-based subcategory. I don't think it is the case here, however a list would be admissible IMHO. Place Clichy (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consensus here to get rid of this category, both by numbers and by strength of argument. Further discussion should ideally focus on whether it's worth listifying this, since that possibility emerged later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The need of a separate list for quarterbacks is questionable. A more general list of African-American footballers (in which the position may also be mentioned) sounds more natural. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]