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 This category is already a child category of Category:People of New Sweden and all the articles in it are of people who were governors of New Sweden. There is no reason to have this be a general xcategory when it is currently functioning as a category for a specific place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom This is reasonable as the facts stated in the nomination appear to be correct. I was puzzling about this category a little earlier today. Hmains (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- unless some one can point to Sweden having had another colonies. There was a Swedish East India Company that operated from Gothenburg. It presumably had factories in the East, but perhaps these do not count as colonies. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 26 November 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:keep. Individual categories can be renominated if they solely contain Minor League Baseball content.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast. I think there needs to be some consideration of this before the change because there is a difference between Minor League Baseball the organization and simply being a minor league baseball team. For example, the Allentown team was a minor league team but it existed before the Minor League Baseball organization was started and many of these lists consider players from different eras. Spanneraol (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now per the evidence provided by Spanneraol. AutomaticStrikeout 02:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Spanneraol. You should instead subcategorize. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not all teams in these categories are from the leagues that make up Minor League Baseball. And there is a subtle but important difference in the capitalization. -DJSasso (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That makes more sense. However, I think some of them do need changed because they deal with the organization.--Astros4477 (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply just create a subcategory using "Minor League Baseball (MiLB)" 'MiLB' is the league's abbreviation, so seems like a good disambiguator, and move what content is necessary over to those. After moving, we can see what's left, and if we can find other articles to fill empty categories. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Minor League Baseball is not a league, but rather a governing body for several leagues. Even as such, it has never had oversight of every minor league, and it's only had its current name for a couple of decades. I think it would be counterproductive to subdivide categories by which teams happen to fall under the governing body, especially since most users will not be aware of the distinction. MisfitToys (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Spanneraol. Rlendog (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Spanneraol. MisfitToys (talk) 23:32, 6 December 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:National Historic Persons of Canada[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.
It's preferable to have category names that minimizes confusion. A reader who sees "Persons of National Historic Significance" but reads "Persons of national historic significance" (a mistake I have to assume would be rather common) will get the wrong idea. I'm happy with a somewhat redundant name if it helps resolve that potential problem. Pichpich (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify I am unconvinced that this is a worthwhile way to categorize people. We generally try to avoid award cats, and after death designation categories strike me as just as bad. A list of these people seems useful, but a category does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since a list exists. I think in general we should avoid categories that reflect designations given to people long after their death.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Persons of National Historic Significance (Canada) - After consideration, I think this is category-worthy, but one of the Perthlike cases where the category needs disambiguation beyond that of the article. Many of the articles do not mention their presence on the list. Even being on a Canadian person, it is not clear seeing a category like "Persons of National Historic Significance" that this is specifically a Canadian gov't thing (my first thought might be "I wonder who's on that list for my nation"). --Qetuth (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The two terms are used interchangibly by Parks Canada, the agency that maintains ther register. See 12 (although note it is "People" not "Persons"). "National Historic People of Canada" is probably where the category should be, as it is the WP:COMMONNAME as well. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 21:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The propsed target would have to be heavily watched to make sure people do not put those from other countries in the category because its name makes it sound like a general category for "Persons of national historic interest".John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make sure all are represented in the existing list. This is just grouping of important people, according to just one view of merit (Parks Canada). Others also exist, such as the Canadian Dictionary of National Biography. If this was to be retained, then rename it as Category:Persons of National Historic Significance (Parks Canada)Ephebi (talk) 19:16, 10 December 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:Rename. Rename to match the parent, Category:Athletics (track and field) venues which was created after a CfD discussion in 2005 hence this probably is not a simple speedy. If supported, the others can be done at speedy. I ran into this tree by accident and almost requested an upmerge to another category since the parenting of this tree does not always include Category:Sports venues in Foo. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:55, 22 November 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: Not all of the content is films. There is currently no parent category for just the franchise, but there should be. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming/rescoping, and note related category is under discussion here for those who haven't seen it. --Qetuth (talk) 01:07, 24 November 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:Keep all. I find the arguments presented by BrownHairedGirl and Alansohn the most convincing from the common sense point of view as well as from the point view of Wikipedia policy. Ruslik_Zero 18:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that directive makes absolutely no sense for actors. Acting is a gendered profession, roles in acting are almost always based on gender. It totally makes sense to divide the category by gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with limited exceptions the gender is usually relevant to their work as much so as with sports people who are usually split between male and female categories.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Actors. In this case in my view simply "actors" would suffice as a less wordy alternative, given that Category:Actresses has been fleshed out from soft redirect (unless consensus goes some other way). As such actors and actresses-styled categorization may be better than the male/female one. Brandmeistertalk 18:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For males there is actually Category:Actors by nationality. I think Category:Male actors by nationality is redundant to that and if it contains something not already in Actors by nationality, it should be merged (or otherwise deleted if it wholly repeats the latter category). Brandmeistertalk 18:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge to applicable "actors" category. Simply abominable from a need and practicality standpoint. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to the policy where "Simply abominable" is a valid argument for deletion, especially in the face of the real-wold categorization within the field and about the field of acting that differentiates practitioners based on their sex? Alansohn (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete and merge back to the actors categories where all the contents here were recently moved from. The underlying articles say 'actors' not 'male actors' and categories are simply supposed to be navigation tools to articles, not a method of pushing editors' personal agendas and making points. Hmains (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I set out at length below, gender is a defining characteristic of any actor, and categories group topics by defining characteristics. I see no evidence of any editor pushing a personal agenda or making points; if you have any evidence of that you share it so that the closing can admin can assess it. Making a vague wave at some unspecified POV-pushing doesn't help anyone. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You talk about "personal agendas" but the underlying issue that is offered for retention is that organizations of actors themselves distinguish their craft based on sex, as do all organizations that bestow awards. The "agenda" of actors themselves and those who grant awards may differ from yours, but this real-world distinction is what is relevant here, not your personal opinion of why editors support the real-world distinction. Alansohn (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Hmains and nom. Nymfhideliho! 20:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge as needed. As with the actresses category, I see no reason to differentiate here by gender. Most productions have male and female actors doing the same job alongside each other.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy argument for deletion here. How should we deal with the fact that the real world makes a rather clear distinction based on sex? Alansohn (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Gender is a defining characteristic of an actor, because actors overwhelmingly portray characters of their own gender. This not only imposes a divide in the types of role they can play, but also regulates their eligibility for particular roles. Other than in a few exceptional and experimental productions, women don't get to play Hamlet or Macbeth, and men don't get to play Ophelia ... so gender is the central defining characteristic which determines what roles an actor can be considered for. Sherlock Holmes can be fat or thin, tall or short, and played by an Irish or American or Australian or British actor ... but the List of actors who have played Sherlock Holmes consists of 74 men and not one woman. This does not just apply to parts in established plays such as the work of Shakespeare; it is also inherent in much new drama. A script based on a heterosexual relationship, such as the popular genre of romantic comedy, unavoidably requires a man for one role and a woman for the other. Even less overtly gender-based scripts, such as that of Groundhog Day, would require very substantial reworking if the gender of the lead character was changed. Similar, cross-gender films such as Tootsie or Some Like It Hot are based on one specific gender impersonating another; neither of those two films would have made sense with a woman in the lead role. Gender is less significant in minor parts, whose status may be radically altered without significantly changing the plot, but actors aspiring to major parts will in most cases be looking at roles where the gender of the actor was determined before casting begun. Mike notes above that "most productions have male and female actors doing the same job alongside each other", which is only partially true. Male and female actors do work alongside each other, and both portray people, but with only very rare exceptions, men portray men and women portray women. A male surgeon and a female surgeon can swap jobs without issue; so long as they are both competent, they should be interchangeable. But the woman playing Ophelia cannot portray King Claudius unless the director wants to radically change the emphasis of the play. This gender divide in career paths and roles is recognised throughout the profession, both by theatrical agents and by the gender divide in nearly every major award. For examples of theatrical agencies, see Amber, Elinor Hilton, A&J, Shepperd Fox, MBA, Nelson Browne, McLean Williams. They offer selection by a range of attributes, but all of them divide their talent lists by gender. For examples of gendered awards, the Critics' Choice Television Award, the Academy Awards, the Emmys, the Golden Globe Award, the Screen Actors Guild Award, the Satellite Award, the Dora Mavor Moore Award, the Drama Desk Award; all have separate prizes for best actor and best actress, with the gender divide being carried across a wide of categories. In fact, so far I have not identified any major acting award which doesn't split by gender. Categorising actors by gender therefore matches the gendered reality of a rigidly gendered profession. As such it meets all the criteria set out in the long-standing guideline at WP:Cat gender, where the basic principle is that "A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic". With slight variations in wording, that principle has been the stable core of the guideline for more that 6 years, and has been applied to all sorts of topics. These principles have led us to keep some categories such as Category:Women in politics, because politics is a historically male occupation in which women remain a minority in nearly all countries; but it has led us to delete others such Category:Female philatelists. Those categories which we have kept fall into two groups: a) topics where the role of one gender is matter of exceptional interest, whereas the role of the other gender is not (such as politicians); b) topics which are divided by gender, where we have gendered categories for both sides. So far, most of the topics where we both have male and female categories relate to sports categories where men and women compete separately (such as male and female tennis players), but we do have a close parallel with male and female singers, where the two genders also perform alongside each other but are not interchangeable. As Jc37 noted back in 2006, it's hard to see the justification for splitting one but not the other. If these categories are kept (as I hope they will be), we need to decide how far down the category we take the gender split. There are various possible solutions. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin That there is an RFC at WP:VPP#Actresses_categorization on whether to categorise actors by gender. That discussion currently shows a majority of participants in favour of categorising actresses separately, and there is certainly no consensus for retaining the current example in the guidelines. It is a great pity that some editors have rushed to open CFDs while the RFC is still open, because it is much more productive to have a centralised discussion than to split the debate across multiple venues, producing inconsistent results. I hope that the closing admin will take that centralised discussion into account when closing this CFD. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – BrownHairedGirl has been arguing for some months on this topic and has been wholly persuasive from the beginning. It seems evident to me that male actors and female actors are indeed in separate competitions for roles (apart from a very few exceptional roles). Oculi (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Keep The delete arguments are not only entirely unconvincing, they are in direct contravention of the real world manner in which there is a clear distinction based on sex. Category:Film awards for lead actor and Category:Film awards for lead actress each list several dozen categories of awards that are bestowed by dozens of film, television, theater and other industry groups that as a matter of course group actors and actresses (or male actors and female actors) separately. I know of no organization that bestows any honor in which male and female actors are lumped together into one category. A search on Google Books finds almost 2 million links to works about "actresses", again demonstrating a strong real world distinction between female and male thespians. There may be some folks here in CfD World who are blind to this distinction, but the real world has no trouble doing so. While "Actress" is unambiguously female, "Actor" needs disambiguation to distinguish by sex. Alansohn (talk) 19:16, 18 December 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 consensus to rename. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All the articles, and all the other subcategories use "churches" rather than church buildings. StAnselm (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: This is the format of all subcats and all but two of the hundreds of articles that populate this tree, and I believe correctly so. Both exceptions are simply a clarification of the names of those articles - "List of largest churches in the world" could be ambiguous, which the other article names are not. --Qetuth (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Church can encompass lots of different things, Church buildings is a much clearer name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose categories should not be ambiguous, these are about buildings not sects/denominations. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- In essence a church is a body of people. They may meet in a church building or someother place. The category is about buildings, not membersor denominations. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the others; if you change per the nominator's statement, you'll get lists of denominations in here, which isn't at all what it's meant to hold. There's nothing ambiguous about this title, and the titles raised by supporters are good candidates for renaming. Nyttend (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not yet convinced to change my vote, if this nom fails I would support a reverse renaming of the others - I think the tree should be consistent, but think that StAnselms suggestion is marginally better. --Qetuth (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doubts removed by Chosters argument. This is comparable to schools or museums. Most of Category:Buildings and structures by type, and in fact most of the religious section of that tree, do not have the word building in their titles, and rightfully so. --Qetuth (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong rename. This rename restores the category to its original name, which it lost in a hasty mass move in 2011. "Church buildings" is not an accurate characterization for many of the articles in the tree, such as List of titular churches in Rome or even List of churches in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York. "Churches" works because the primary usage of "church" in any dictionary is to refer both to a local congregation of worshippers and to their main building of worship— just as "school," "library," "hospital," and so on refer both to organizations and to the buildings they occupy. The British Museum is both an organization and a building; lists of "museums" include it reflecting both senses of the word. It would be nonsensical to suggest separate listings on a "list of museum institutions" and a "list of museum buildings," which is precisely what this scheme implies. The claim that the general public regularly finds "church" ambiguous has never been backed with evidence, simply a suspicion, to which I offer my own suspicion that to 90% of the general public, "church" is either the corner building with the cross on top or the organization whose sign is in front of that building, not the theological confession to which its clergy adhere.- choster (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
oppose buildings are buildings and should be listed as such. All articles and subcats that are about buildings should be named 'buildings'. Why create confusion? Hmains (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't merely buildings any more than Category:Museums is for mere buildings.- choster (talk) 23:40, 29 November 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.
