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:Delete. Ran into this one and... If someone is added to the category, do they stay in it for life? Exactly what does being in the category mean? That you have a test? Or is it that you passed and that the person is a virgin? Are we going to have reliable sources to prove this fact to meet WP:BLP concerns? Is there a standard accepted test? Is everyone who has an article subjected to this test? Does in only apply to people arrested? Bottom line, seems way to problematic to keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that the heading says "pages discussing virginity tests" shows this is not a good criteria. I think they are going for "people given virginity tests", but I am not convinced this is a defining characteristic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A very nebulous category with uncertain meaning, as noted by John. Prior to the start of this nomination, I had removed some articles from this category because the individuals that were categorized in it are not virginity tests. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my problem was that there was a person in the category. Never put two and two together to see that the name excluded people. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that is a big problem for the category. I had assumed that the category would categorize tests that are virginity tests. No, the category seems to have originally categorized any page that included the phrase "virginity test". Shall I restore the previous contents so everyone could have a look at what was in there? Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that as needed, but if you wish go ahead. I think the case for not including people is well covered in the discussion so far leaving the category with only the main article. If someone really needs to see those articles, they can ping you. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a single articel category with no room for expansion. Individual bio-articles would need to be in a category for Category:Women subjected to virginity tests, but this would cuase difficulties on finding reliable sources. Yes there will be some notorious cases of victims. If kept it should be renamed to that name. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems unlikely to ever have more than one article legitimately assigned to this category. Kaldari (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2012 (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:American female pornographic film actors[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. Although we do not generally differentiate actors by gender, there is consensus in this case that gender is a defining characteristic of pornographic actors, and that this is a case where "gender has a specific relation to the topic" per WP:Cat gender. Also, please may I make a plea to nominators of CfD discussions to specify what action they propose be taken with the categories which they have nominated. In this case, the nominator appears to have intended to upmerge the category to its parent categories, and it would have been helpful to have that spelled out at the start. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per the many discussions surrounding Category:American female actors, where the consensus was that we should not divide actors by gender. Nymfhideliho! 16:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The female pornographic film actors category contains over 1,000 people and is in desperate need of diffusion. Furthermore, other entertainment occupation categories are divided by gender and nationality, such as Category:Male singers by nationality, Category:Female singers by nationality, so why not this? Furthermore, isn't one's gender an especially salient aspect of work in pornography? Asarelah (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the criteria for categories specifically says "do not divide actors by gender". We have never gotten this logically applied anywhere else no matter how close to actors, but since we have a specific rule to not subdivide actors by gender, we should not subdivide actors by gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the reasoning behind the specific rule not to subdivide actors by gender, anyway? Asarelah (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Singers can be divided by gender because gender typically has a very specific effect on the vocal range that a singer is capable of expressing, and therefore on the particular type of material that the singer can or cannot perform; for example, with extremely rare exceptions men cannot sing as high into the soprano range as Mariah Carey does, and women can't sing as low into the baritone range as Paul Robeson. (Which is still not to suggest that I necessarily agree that we need gendered singers categories rather than voice types categories, but that's another story which is outside the scope of this discussion.) Men and women do not, however, act in different ways; gender has no effect on the type of performance that an actor is capable or incapable of giving. Bearcat (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:Cat gender says that a "gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic." While that may not apply to most forms of acting, I think it's quite relevant in this instance. - Eureka Lott 01:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the "do not divide by gender" but we divide all sorts of categories by race, ethnicity, religion, ancestry, and (yes) gender. While I find it hard to believe that female chemists do chemistry different than male chemists; it takes little imagination to figure that female porn actresses do porn differently than their male counterparts. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but do they do porn differently because they are from America? Nymfhideliho! 05:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have already made multiple female pornographic actor categories by nationality, and I had planned to do the same for the males when this discussion for deletion came up came up. I figured I'd do the female perfomers first since that category is much bigger (over 1,000 people). Asarelah (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What makes female chemists distinct isn't that they do chemistry different than male chemists do; it's that the science professions are historically so overwhelmingly male-dominated that female chemists are still noteworthy specifically for their gender alone. Bearcat (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually Wp:Cat gender says "Seperate categories for actors and actresses are not needed" This wording was removed in May 2009 with no discussion and no explanation. I just returned it. It also explicitly states that male and female categories should not ever be created both for the same position.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that wording was never removed from the guideline; all you did was to shift the parenthetical clause that referred to it as an example. And as well, the clause about male and female categories "for the same position" is referring to the notion that we would need separate categories for a specific grouping by role, such as Category:Male Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom vs. Category:Female Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, and has absolutely no bearing on the validity or invalidity of gendering a general occupational category like "actors" or "politicians". Bearcat (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously, gender is a pretty big deal in pornography so this exception is reasonable. Pichpich (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but does it need to be coupled with nationality? Nymfhideliho! 15:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response Like I said before, I was going to create various nationality/gender categories for the porn actor articles, but I decided to wait until this discussion was resolved. And I wanted to diffuse the female pornographic film actors category a bit, since it has well over 1,000 people. Asarelah (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- In acting, gender is obviously important: men do not usually play female parts or vice versa. There are of course exceptions involving cross-dressing, but that is soemthing differnet again. This must be even more important in Porn than in the normal film/theatre. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When it comes to porn, gender is a defining characteristic. __meco (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the purposes of the encyclopedia, I don't see the importance of distinguishing porn actors by gender. Kaldari (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Kaldari makes a good point. Just because people do slightly different things does not mean the difference is worth categorizing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've watched enough pornography to know that female actresses do things MUCH differently than the male ones. Asarelah (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2012 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Following the successful upmerge of Category:Works about creative works to Category:Works about the arts, I'd like to move on to another of Stefanomione's recent creations, Category:Works about creators. This has been bothering me for some time, as there is no parent Category:Creators and Creator is a disambiguation page that would seem to open the category up to several unintended meanings (including gods!). Using the previous CfD as precedent, would there be support for a rename as suggested? Admittedly, we don't have a category for Category:People in the arts, in that people and their professions are under Category:Arts occupations, but Works about arts occupations seems to miss the mark, imo. I also realize this might open the category up to people who have been portrayed "in the arts." Is that a problem? As long as we have clear subcategories, I think not. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we could avoid all this bother if we repurposed Category:Artists to the broadest meaning of the parent article Artist, moving painters and the like to Category:Visual artists (which was quietly (re?)created this past December. We'll need to address that!). Anyway, I know we've discussed this before and I fear I am only going to further try Johnbod's patience. But given a choice between the oddly phrased Category:Works about creators and Category:Works about artists as a catch all for biographical works about people who make creative works, I'd prefer the latter option. Just asking. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with applying "artist" in its broader sense for creating parent cats. And though "visual artists" sounds odd, Category:Visual arts occupations does exist. Is there a different way to phrase it? ("Practitioners of visual arts" lol : ) - How about Visual arts artists? That actually seems better. jc37 03:50, 2 April 2012 (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 container categories, upmerge the date-specific ones. There's a slight majority here for delete/upmerge, but what really puts that over the top is the amount of work it would require to make similar categories for other major cities. Should there be a consensus to make lots of city categories, this can be revisited.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete allUpmerge all. Newly created breakout hierarchy from Category:Establishments by country and year. Populating the by-country hierarchy is still in full progress. In my opinion, starting out another hugely work-intensive by-cities hierarchy on top of that is not a constructive allocation of contributor resources at this time. The by-country hierarchy was begun a year and a half ago. I suggest we wait at least another year before moving ahead with this, possibly. Obviously all articles should go back in the England establishment categories where they were originally, if we decide to delete. __meco (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC) corrected nomination per BrownHairedGirl's comment. I meant upmerge, I'm just a bit rusty on the technicalities. __meco (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no agreement to move down to second level sub-national units. We already have the UK, and then the primariy subdivisions of it (England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales). I have started a few sub-national divisions for the US, primarily in Category:1958 establishments in the United States. However in that case the combined total of the category and sub-cats exceeds 200. There is no good reason to go to cities, and I have avoided subdividing out Washington D.C. in the US cats. The median country category at present probably has 1 entry, and there are some countries that only have a category in 1 year. The main issues here right now are 1- a huge number of articles on things established list the year of establishment in the article but are not categorized by that, 2- an even larger number of articles on educational institutions, government agencies, populated places, religious institutions and many other things exist that do not list the year of establishment. In some cases this information could be obtained without too much trouble. 3- of those things that are categorized, they are only in rare cases categorized by both place and year of establishment. Thus there is plenty of work to do along any of these lines. There are also a huge number of potential articles on organizations, populated places, educational institutions and other such things that are notable that do not exist. Until this tree gets more developed we should probably mainly focus on the establishment by country by year x and not worry about subdividing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the size of category lends itself to splitting. Unfortunately both Meco and John pack Lambert are only viewing this as a subcategory of establishments by year instead of also as a subcategory of the already well established Category:Years in London which does not exist for other cities. Frankly establishments in London will be more populated than most of the U.S. state establishments recently crated by John. Meco's argument that is a year too early totally weakens his nomination as I populated the vast majority of the Category:Establishments in England by year tree after his rather timid and haphazard start. As I am not asking him to undertake the work to populate Category:Establishments in London by year the argument is is irrelevant. Also I have no intention at this time of going back very far, hence only recent years have been created unlike some of the isolated catgeories such as Category:1080 establishments in Norway. Tim! (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless articles are categorized in both the London and England categories, I think these make it harder, not easier to find content. The England categories are small enough to navigate easily. Pichpich (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to both parents (i.e. Category:YYYY establishments in LondonCategory:YYYY in LondonandCategory:YYYY establishments in England). I have checked the parent categories for each of these cases, and have find none of them where the parent categories are overlarge (most have only about 30 entries), so there is no need to split either parent category tree. But please do not simply delete these new categories, when the solution is upmerger. The nominator acknowledges this in the nomination that "all articles should go back in the England establishment categories where they were originally", so why propose deletion if you want merger??? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. It's just me being a little nebulous on the terminology. I'm unclear on what you mean by both parents. Surely, the first redlinked category you mention equates to the nomination itself? Did you mean Category:Years in London? __meco (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! The nominator's question is pertinent, and JPL's explanation is correct: I goofed. Have now fixed my !vote. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge annual categories. WE might keep the decade categories (and upmerge to them). DElete (or perhpas upmerge) the century ones. These are in principle only be useful where there are a significnat number of decades covered. If there are only decade categories for (perhaps) 150 years. They are often an attempt to create a currnet/former distinction which WP policy now disparages. They are liable to be a hindrance to navigation, rather than an aid, by imposing an extra generation in the cat-tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most are fairly well populated.RafikiSykes (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...and would have been more populated if not for this nomination. Tim! (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the nominator's statement: "starting out another hugely work-intensive by-cities hierarchy on top of that is not a constructive allocation of contributor resources at this time", however, you could say that about tens of thousands of our dafter category trees (Category:Pokémon must be one of the biggest wastes of time in the history of human time-wasting). If the User who created them wants to do it, let them. I personally would not waste my time on it, but it is very hard to see how on earth it could be a damaging or negative development. All the major "world cities" could easily support such a category tree. If anybody ever started Category:1843 in Auchtermuchty, then I might hae ma doots.--Mais oui! (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2012 (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:No rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale the fuller reference to the team is almost universal. "Detroit" X is reserved for teams associated with the city, not the private Jesuit university.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we do for Boston University Terriers, and we do for several colleges. Also we have BYU, UCLA and many other abbreviations where we are including the U from University in the name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. By this logic we would have to have "University of Kentucky Wildcats," "Northwestern University Wildcats," etc. Just because Boston U is an outlier (they are distinguished from the Boston College Eagles) is no reason to slap "University" on random categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2012 (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.
Nominator's rationale: I created a new category "Indian Naval Air Stations" to fix capitalization. I should have followed the process for renaming - that was a mistake on my part in not checking the process beforehand; my apologies. Skcpublic (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2012 (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.
