Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 29 December 1 >

November 30[edit]

Category:Cartagena FC managers[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: speedy merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category only had a single entry (Luis Belló), all of the other managers for this football club were in Category:FC Cartagena managers. I went ahead and recategorized the article. I then decided to nominate the category for deletion now, instead of trying to remember to speedy it next week.  ★  Bigr Tex 22:26, 30 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.

Non-Christian religious places names in Britain[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Non-Christian religious placenames in Britain
  • Nominator's rationale This category has all sorts of problems. First off we do not categorize things by shared name. Secondly, the articles are in almost all cases about the place, not about the name of the place. This leads to the claim often not being sourced in the article. Lastly, we generally avoid categories that are "not x", if this was Category:Germanic pagan place names in Brtian it would at least be grouping things by a common trait instead of lack of some partcular trait, but it would still have the other problems.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very similar grouping to "eponymous cities", etc. which we deleted long ago. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – it is precisely categorisation of places by a characteristic of the name of the place, which is a bizarre way to group places together. Oculi (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if this category is deleted then the information should be listified. 22:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. per Carlossuarez. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep or listify, probably renamed to Category:English placenames derived from pagan gods -- Placename studies are a significnat academic topic in Britain, particularly England. The appearance of an Anglo-Saxon god in a placename may have historical or archaeological significance as to the origins of a place. In some parts of England, the origin will be Anglo-Saxon; in other parts Norse; in a few areas such names are absent, which is also significant, as indicating that the area was never (or hardly) ruled by pagan kings. English placenames are far less random that those in the new world. accordingly this is not a trival intersection. There should be a similar category for placenames of Celtic origin (such as Walton). These are significant as indicating the persistence of speakers of a British (later Welsh) language in England. The category may need to be purged of non-English entries, which I am willing to undertake if the closing admin will notify me to do so. At the very least it should be renamed to "pre-Christian": relatively few names are specifically Christian, probably only places taking theri name from their parish church. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • are any of these articles about place names as opposed to places? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aside from the fact that cats usually need a WP:RS mention in the article this has the wonderful joy of proving a negative. MarnetteD | Talk 06:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep or listify per Peterkingiron. Its unreasonable to expect to split out the place from the placename. The pages in question should describe the etymology. Ephebi (talk) 15:15, 5 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.

Dansband[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 4#Category:Swedish dansband albums. Dansband is a Swedish genre. – Fayenatic London 19:28, 30 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.

Category:Requests for uninvolved help[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:11, 11 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:Mary Tyler Moore[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The MTM companies may be reasonable to include in this category, but by including each series that had her name on it, this becomes just a performer's list of works. Why include those but not The Dick Van Dyke Show, Annie McGuire (TV series), and Mary and Rhoda? The TV series should not be here and without those, there is not enough content to warrant an eponymous category here. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Putting performances into categories for performers is worse than putting performers into categories of things they perfromed in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 30 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.

Actresses[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 all. I am aware that such categories have been routinely deleted in the past. I am also aware that actor gender classification is given as a negative example in the well known guideline. Still it clear that the question whether actors need to be divided by gender has never been seriously discussed in the past. The events in 2012 changed all this. A new consensus seems to have emerged or at least is in the process of emerging. This consensus is that actors should be divided by gender because acting is a gendered profession and will remain so in the foreseeable future. (and that the example given in the guideline is a bad one) This new development is reflected in the present discussion where those who think that actress categories should be kept are in a majority. So, it is clear that there is a rough consensus to keep those categories. I am less sure about specific name for them. Should they be called "actresses" or " female actors"? This question has not been seriously discussed as all discussions have heavily focused on the very right of these categories to exist. Therefore, I think there is no consensus on the naming issue. Ruslik_Zero 19:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Expand for full list
Nominator's rationale: Based on the previous discussion for American actresses which resulted in delete, the same rationle should be applied to the other actresses categories. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominators reasons and all the ones expressed in the previous discussion. MarnetteD | Talk 19:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Acting is a gendered profession. The careers are determined by the gender of those involved. It makes total sense to split it by gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the previous discussion and my old rationale. Nymf hideliho! 22:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per all the reasons in the prior discussion; as for "acting" being a gendered profession (as posited by JPL above); some here would have us believe that nearly all professions are "gendered", "raced", and "sexualed"...not going that far. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. It is simply astonishing that some editors post such easily falsifiable assertions in XfD discussions. We are not discussing race or sexuality, and we are nor discussing other professions; we are discussing actors, so let's look at actors. Take for example the five most recent winners of the Academy Award for Best Actress: Marion Cotillard, Kate Winslet, Sandra Bullock, Meryl Streep, and Natalie Portman. Between them, they have played hundreds of roles, and I don't see a single male role in the lists. Look also at the awards for actors: the major awards separate men from women.
      So what on earth is going here??? How can a good faith editor with a shred of WP:COMPETENCE deny that this is a gendered profession? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – acting is obviously a gendered profession. Some professions are, some are not (eg the gender of a lawyer or politician is immaterial). I was quite surprised by the recent 'delete' close as my impression over the last few months was that consensus had changed on this matter. Oculi (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge - The reason they split acting awards by gender is so that they can give out more awards. It's a self serving goal, decided in the long past. As for acting being gendered, It seems to me that whether a role is male or female is generally about as important as whether the role has brown or blonde hair, or is thin or overweight, or short or tall, or of some particular body shape or build, or of a certain age group, or of some ethnicity. All subjective physical determinations by a writer and/or casting director. An easy example: Starbuck from Battlestar Galactica (male in one series, female in another). And there are many more examples. Look in the book version of some film, and see the changes on screen. For a slightly more complex example, the female character Arwen in the film The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring subsumed the character Glorfindel (a male character). The filmmakers stated clearly that this was to beef up the role. And this type of thing is becoming more and more prevalent as stage and screen productions are trying to add diversity for economic reasons (more viewers identifying with characters, means more money, typically). - jc37 22:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a magnificent example of cherry-picking, or the or the fallacy of incomplete evidence. Yes, there are indeed examples of men portraying female characters, and of women portraying male characters; but such cross-gender roles are exceedingly rare other than in the specific circumstances of cross-gender genres (such as pantomime or the single-sex theatres of medieval Europe). I posted above about the example of Oscar-winning actresses, and I could cite many more such examples; but if Jc37 is seriously claiming that acting is not overwhelmingly gendered, let's see some statistical evidence rather than a few cherry-picked exceptions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Cherry picking? Roles are commonly re-written/re-designed to meet the wants/needs of the production, the casting director, etc etc etc. And gender is just one of many ways it is done. Want more examples of changes of physical elements in a role? James Earl Jones as Admiral Greer in Hunt for Red October. In the book Greer isn't black. The engineer character from the Broadway production of Miss Saigon, played by Jonathan Pryce, someone clearly not Half-Asian (his article says he is Welsh). Look at several Eddie Murphy films where he plays all sorts of characters - even playing a Jewish man in a barbershop in Coming to America. Some sitcom producer likes a certain girl, and the casting director can't find the right boy for the role? Suddenly it's a kid sister instead of a kid brother. etc etc etc. These are common situations. - jc37 19:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an interesting set of anecdotal instances, although most of them are unrelated to gender. There are plenty of cases of British actors portraying Irish characters, and Irish actors portraying Americans, and Americans playing Germans, etc ... but it remains exceedingly rare for a man to play a woman (or vice-versa) except in genres whicxh specifically cross genders, such as pantomime ... and in that case, gender is still a determinant. Women don't get to be pantomime dames.
    However, because those are anecdotes, they are still cherry-picking, or the or the fallacy of incomplete evidence. Selecting individual instances may make for an interesting discussion, but it offers no evidence of statistical correlations or patterns or trends. That's why in this and other discussions, I didn't select individual cases to suit my view: I took a pre-existing set. In my reply above to Carlossuarez46, I took the example of the 5 most recent winners of the Academy Award for Best Actress, and found not a single male role between them. In every other such check I have done, I have found that it is astonishingly rare for a woman actor to play a male part ... so if you have concerns about that set of women actors, please suggest other pre-existing sets we could analyse.
    That is, for me, the crucial issue here. The roles available to actors are determined by their gender, with very few exceptions. 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I seem to recall you saying in other discussions that we shouldn't split category trees like this to prevent "ghettoizing" categories.[1] This is not any different, except that it seems to me you are in IWANTIT mode concerning this for some reason.
    If there is something you think I am missing, explain it. convince me. I'd like to think I am fairly open minded. - jc37 19:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the most relevant principle here is that we categorise by defining characteristics, and as noted above there is overwhelming evidence that gender is the defining characteristic of an actor. I want the category system to allow me to find actors by gender, just as I can find politicians by party, or footballers by team, or musicians by instrument. This fits perfectly with the general principle at WP:CATGRS that we categorise by gender only when we have a specific relation to the topic, and it is puzzling that those opposed to categorisng actors by gender seem reluctant to follow that guideline.
    You are quite right that we need to avoid ghettoisation. It is a long-standing principle of WP:CATGRS, and as you noted, it is one which I try to uphold. In this case, there are two ways of doing it:
    1. Splitting all actor categories by gender, as we have done with Category:Pornographic film actors. In that case, Category:Norwegian pornographic film actors is purely a {{container category}}, with male and female sub-cats. There is a good case for doing the same with all actor categories, but while I think it's probably the best approach, I reckon it needs discussion.
    2. Alternatively, follow the principle that we apply with categories by sexuality and ethnicity: avoid ghettoisation by ensuring that gendered categories are not the lowest run of the category tree. That is what I did I created Category:Portuguese actresses; I did not divide Category:Portuguese film actors or Category:Portuguese television actors.
    So if we keep gendered categories for actors, we have a decision to make on whether to make a complete split, or whether to follow the don't-split-the-lowest-rung principle. But that's an implementation decision, to which durable solutions have been found with 64 women-by-occupation categories (including Category:Women writers, Category:Women in politics, Category:Women writers & Category:Women scientists‎), so actors present no special problem. It is strange that some editors with lots of experience of the category tree seem to be unaware of long-standing solutions already in place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actors are not actresses, and vice-versa. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the corresponding "actors" categories per outcome of previous discussion. Buck Winston (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some professions divide men from women. Acting is not one of them. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. This is blatant, arrant nonsense. How many male roles have been performed by the most notable actresses of our time? In most cases, none at all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge actress redirects to actor and it seems that actor can be used for both men and women. Tim! (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- actresses are female and generally play female roles. Actors are male and normally play male roles. There are of course cases of cross-dressing, but they are essentiually different. If not kept, Merge to the equivalent actor categories, rather than delete. Plain deletion would be highly destructive, as their inclusion in the acting profession would disappear. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think being a gender specific profession is a reason to have this category. In fact, because it is so gender specific, nearly every production (whether for stage, film, or television) will have roles for both men and women (all of whom make up the whole cast - and they are not split up by female cast members and male cast members), so I don't see a need to split the category. On the other hand, there is Category:Female film directors, a non-gendered profession, because I assume the lack of female directors makes it a defining quality to the women who do direct. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is weird. The long-standing principle at WP:CATGRS has been that "a gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic" ... but the argument above seeks to place some upper bound on relevance as well as a lower bound. Starcheer seems to reckon that when a characteristic is highly relevant, we should not categorise by it. What next? Do we take Paris out of Category:Capitals in Europe because it's just too relevant?
    As to the statement that actors "are not split up by female cast members and male cast members", that's simply untrue. In the overwhelming majority of cases, men portray male characters and women portray female characters. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course men play male characters and women play female characters in most cases. It's not about the roles they play. Sports specifically divide up men and women athletes, but performance venues don't - there's no difference whether Dustin Hoffman stars opposite Meryl Streep or Tom Cruise in a movie (they may win awards based on gender, but there are articles, lists, categories identifying those), they are the actors in a film. No one is splitting up the male actors vs. the female actors when the credits roll. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 10:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic" - Nod, and that is where your arguement seems to me to fall apart. Women have no more special relationship to acting than men do. And for that matter, no more a special relationship than black, hispanic, asian, lgbt, british, australian, indian, israeli people do (just for example). As someone else noted, we no longer live in the time of Shakespeare when most acting was typically only done by men or "women of ill repute". - jc37 19:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, some misunderstanding here. I quite agree that women have no more special relationship to acting than men do, and vice versa.
    My point throughout has been that for both men and women, gender is a defining characteristic of their acting careers. It restricts their choice of roles much more than race, nationality, or ethnicity, or age; and it determines how they portray those roles. To take your list, Ophelia or Linda Loman or Martha are frequently played by actors who are black, hispanic, asian, lgbt, british, australian, indian, israeli ... but they are almost never played by men. Similarly George, Macbeth, and Lear are portrayed all over the world by actors who are black, hispanic, asian, lgbt, british, australian, indian, israeli ... but it is very rare for them to be portrayed by a woman. Take a look too at the films in list of film remakes; it is very rare for a remake to change the gender of the principal characters, or the gender of the actor portraying them. A remake of Tootsie or Some Like It Hot, would be pointless without the cross-gender roles. So even tho some of the parts are cross-gender, an actor will be selected for those parts with gender as the primary characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question why isn't Category:Actresses by nationality being considered in this nomination?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge as needed. I do not believe splitting by gender helps these performer categories. Pretty much every production has men and women playing alongside each other and doing roughly equal work.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. The question of equality might be disputed, but it is irrelevant to the issue at hand (see WP:CATGRS). Actors and actors do indeed work alongside each other, but in separate roles. There are many other occupations where people work alongside each other, but we categorise them separately because their roles are different: for example Category:Male singers and Category:Female singers, Category:Drummers and Category:Guitarists. The same situation applies with actors: there are some drummers who also play guitar, and some guitarists who also play drums, but by-and-large the two occupations follow separate but parallel career paths. The deletion of Category:American actresses was a bizarre closure which I will take to DRV, and should not be used as a precedent until DRV is settled. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Someone must speak now that other editors are being insulted. Here, once again are numerous WP:RSs that are easy to understand and quite clearly meet the standards for WP:COMPETENCE. First we already have precedence for moving away from gender specific categories for actors at wikipedia as can be seen here from last May [2]. Next the Merriam-Webster definition of actor is here [3] and its 1st example of usage in a sentence is "my sister went to drama school to become an actor". Other dictionaries here [4], here [5] and here [6] all of which use gender neutral definitions. We also have this writing style guide [7]. As to awards we have the Screen Actors Guild [8] has uses gender neutral terminology. Although other acting awards retain the term actress the associations that present them have moved away towards gender neutrality as can be seen in the In Memorium segment of this last February's Academy Awards [9]. You will note that all of the women, including Jane Russell and Elizabeth Taylor, profession is listed as actor. Through the various discussions you have yet to provide an outside reliable source that supports the theory that women must be called an actress because the play female characters. Having been accused of WP:CIVILITY by you I think that you should not now be violating that in your replies to the other editors that have posted here. MarnetteD | Talk 05:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply Marnette, you continue to conflate two separate issues: a) whether to split our acting categories by gender, and b) whether gender-specific references to women in acting should use "female actor" or "actress" or "woman actor" (or some other term). As I repeatedly pointed out to you in previous discussions, those two issues do not need to be conflated, so your dictionary ref is irrelevant. Neither I nor anyone else in this discussion disputes that the term "actor" can be applied to a woman.
          The reason that I have not provided "an outside reliable source that supports the theory that women must be called an actress" is because i) I don't believe that they have to be called actress; ii) I have never argued that they have to be called actress; iii) I have repeatedly told you in another discussion that I don't care which of the alternative terminologies should be used to indicate the gender of a woman actor, yet you persist in accusing me of preferring one of them. I have no idea why you consider it WP:CIVIL to repeatedly try to pin this is straw man onto me, but is tediously disruptive that you continue to do so, as well as very rude. I have no idea why find it so astonishingly difficult to separate the the concept of a gender divide from the terminology used to describe it, and am unable to help you further with your comprehension difficulty.
          Once again you point to an edit to the Helen Mirren article, which is irrelevant to this discussion for two reasons: 1) Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so any action here is just an reflection of consensus at that time 2) that was a speedy merge of a category, not a consensus decision. The previous consensus deletions of actress categories took place many years ago, and a deletion review reached a clear consensus to reconsider that decision.
          As pointed out to you many times before when you referred to the screen actors guild awards, they have separate awards for "male actors" and "female actors". I make no apology at all for questioning the WP:COMPETENCE of an editor who cites that link as evidence for opposing a gender split in categories of actors, when it provides clear evidence of existence of a gender divide. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not conflating two different issues - no matter how many times you state that I am. So please do not put words in my mouth. I have no problem with competence as I can read the dictionaries, style guides, labels on documentaries like The Celluloid Closet, all of which use the gender neutral term actor for both sexes, and I comprehend what that means. In spite of all of these and more you continues to insist that Wikipedia must have two categories to describe those that are in the same profession. I have seen and heard numerous interviews and DVD commentaries where women describe themselves as actors. I do not link to the Helen Mirren article as a RS for her calling herself an actor - which she does - I link to a specific edit to show that wikipedia policy has previously moved/merged a category, in this case "Actresses awarded British damehoods" to "Actors awarded British damehoods" in line with the "Gender Neutral language policy". I fully endorse that precedent. I have provided numerous other sources all of which you continue to ignore. The only straw man arguments that I can see are the ones that aren't backed up by outside reliable sources. Your belabor the point that there is a gender divide in this one profession that requires two words to describe those that work in it. Others do not agree with that. Your lack of civility to those that do not agree with you belie your contention that you do not care what they are called. I have always contended that we should use the term "Actor" for our categories. There is no need for adding the terms female or woman. In that I am in line with all of the people that introduce themselves at the beginning of every SAG Awards presentation [10]. Your lack of civility towards me is noted and will be ignored. Your lack of civility towards others who commented here days ago and may no longer have this discussion on their watchlist is unbecoming. MarnetteD | Talk 07:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Marnette, you are indeed conflating two the issues. I quite agree that many sources use a gender neutral term for both sexes, and nobody in these discussions disputes that.
I have not, and do not ignore the sources which you provide. I simply point out that they relate to the naming of a category of women actors, rather than to the question of whether such a category should exist. Your insistence that I have some particular concern about what these categories are called is either a deliberate misrepresentation of my views, or an inability to read plain English. As you can see at the American actresses CFD (which was a proposal to rename), I specifically said "Strong oppose deletion, neutral on name". What part of those 6 words is unclear to you?
Many many other occupations use a gender neutral term for both sexes: for example singers and politicians. We have gendered categories for both those occupations not because there is some separate terminology for women in those occupations, but because gender has a specific importance in those occupations. This applies to most occupations: the use of a gender-specific word for women in a particular occupation is becoming increasingly rare, but that is a different issue to the question of whether gender has a specific relation to the topic. Another example of this is golf, where male and female players are both called "golfers", but women compete in a different set of competitions, so we have a Category:Female golfers. We could have called that category "Women golfers" or the old-fashioned "Lady golfers", or we could have used some gendered single word if it existed, and we could also have used some random alpahanumeric code if that was how we named categories... but the reason we have a gendered category is not because of the terminology. We have a gendered category because gender has a specific relation to the topic.
Your comment about "two categories to describe those that are in the same profession" again presses the point that you are concerned about description. The function of categories is not descriptive: they are a navigational tool "to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics". The terminology used to describe that shared characteristic is a separate issue from the question of whether it is an essential or defining characteristic.
Your belaboured Helen Mirren example actually illustrates this point rather well, because "Actresses awarded British damehoods" and "Actors awarded British damehoods" are both gendered categories: under the British honours system men cannot receive damehoods, and women cannot receive knighthoods. So Category:Actors awarded British damehoods is a category exclusively for female actors; we changed the terminology, but retained a gendered category.
My point is not, and has never been, that this profession "requires two words to describe those that work in it", or that it requires any one particular word. On the contrary, my point is and remains that acting is an occupation "where gender has a specific relation to the topic", because roles are allocated on the basis of gendered. Please can you set aside for a moment your concerns about the language, and clarify whether or not you agree that gender has a specific relation to the occupation of acting? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One last time "Actor" is not a gendered term. The shared characteristic is that men and women both act and I, for one, have no problem determining their sex when they are listed in the same category. I have been in many of these discussions over the years. No matter how things worked out I have not felt the need to violate WP:NPA as you have done in this thread and others. I will go with the case that I have presented, thus, there is no need to take up my editing time in going round and round on this subject. MarnetteD | Talk 17:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, we agree that actor is not a gendered term. We also agree that actors act.
However, you still have not said whether you agree that gender has a specific relation to the occupation of acting, which is the test applied by the long-standing guideline at WP:Cat gender. Please can you clarify your view on this? Do you agree that gender has a specific relation to the occupation of acting? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge to "actor" per prior discussion and Tim. I know a few female actors who cringe at the term "actress". They use the term "actor" to describe all actors, regardless of gender, including themselves. --Kbdank71 16:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet another delete !vote based on the current name of the categories, rather than on the question of whether it is appropriate to split by gender. If editors find the term "actress" inappropriate, then they should be supporting a renaming of the categories to "female actors", as used by the Screen Actors Guild in its gendered awards. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm pretty sure I cleared it up by saying actors who are female prefer the term actor. Not actress. Not female actor. Nor do I give a rip what the SAG uses for their awards. --Kbdank71 19:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect to your friends, the Screen Actors Guild is a more reliable source than personal anecdotes. Your point is also somewhat irrelevant, because I have no reason to believe that people in general refer to themselves by gender. Singers call themselves singers, writers call themselves writers, and so on; the adjectives are added by others who want to define subsets in various ways.
    In any case, your argument still relates to terminology, rather to the question of whether gender is a defining characteristic of an actor, which is the primary criterion for whether we categorise on the basis of that characteristic. The test you apparently want to apply (of whether women in an occupation like to be referred to as "women X"/"female X") has never formed any part of WP:Cat gender, and runs counter to the basic principle that categories are a navigational device; in this case, you appear to be treating them as a form of tagging. The points you raise may be relevant as a WP:MOS issue for descriptions in the body text of articles, but they are not relevant to the creation of sets of articles for navigational purposes.
    Regardless of the preferences of your actor friends, the fact remains that gender is a determining factor in the career of any actor. See my comments above about how rare it is for actors to play roles outside their own gender, a fact which you can verify for yourself by scanning the careers of those who have won major awards.
    If you regard that as original research, then look instead at the extent to which awards for actors are gendered. See for example the 199 awards listed in Category:Awards for actresses ... and note that the Screen Actors Guild (a trade union composed of actors) issues separate awards to "male actors" and "female actors". The gender divide in awards is not something imposed from outside the profession; it is how the profession views itself, even if your friends choose not to give prominence to that fact in their self-descriptions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    rather to the question of whether gender is a defining characteristic of an actor Sorry, male or female actor? See, if you're pointing to SAG for direction, they do in fact make a distinction between male and female actors. So are you arguing to change the actress categories to "female actor" and the actor categories to "male actor"? Personally, I'd be against that as well, I'm just asking your stance, since you keep bringing up the SAG awards. Although since these aren't awards categories, can we dispense with what the SAG calls their awards? These are people categories. And as is pointed out at WP:Cat gender, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed. Or... To answer your original question is it appropriate to split by gender, personally I say no, but consensus here is that sometimes yes sometimes no, and I'm ok with sticking with that. --Kbdank71 22:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is about female actors, so I was referring to female actors. But exactly the same applies to male actors. And no, I'm not in favour of changing the actor categories to "male actor"; both should be subcategories of Category:Actors, just as we have done with other occupations where there is a gender split, such as Category:Singers or Category:Golfers.
    I brought up the SAG awards not because of their names, but because along with hundreds of other awards, they separate men from women. We're not talking about random names for a prize; the relevance is that they demonstrate the fact that gender is how the profession categorises itself. They don't group actors by age, nationality, height, body weight, hair colour, religion, ethnicity, or disability status; but in common with pretty much every other major acting award, their awards acknowledge that gender is the fundamental divide in the profession.
    I hoped you would do better than to simply point to the example cited in WP:Cat gender, which reflects past consensus. But consensus can change, and the examples can change ... and I note that you offer absolutely no counter-argument to the evidence that the profession is split by gender.
    WP:Cat gender says that "A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic". Do you claim that gender has no specific relation to this topic? If you think it is hasn't, please explain why the the five most recent winners of the Academy Award for Best Actress (Cotillard, Winslet, Bullock, Streep, and Portman) appear to have not a single male role in any of their long careers?
    BTW, next time you talk to your female actor friends, don't forget to ask them what proportion of their career has spent portraying men, and how often they have applied to play the part of a man. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others and my rationale at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Actresses_categorization. Gender has a defining encyclopedic value when it comes to film and TV acting. Brandmeistertalk 23:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, but possibly rename, per my many comments above and per the evidence that the acting profession itself systematically divides actors by gender. WP:Cat gender says that "a gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic", and that is definitely the case here.
    There are many hundreds of awards for actors, and most of them offer separate awards for men and women: there are 199 such awards listed in Category:Awards for actresses, and that list is unlikely to be complete. This reflects the fact that actors overwhelmingly portray characters of their own gender: I have now checked the 15 most recent winners of the Academy Award for Best Actress (i.e. McDormand onwards), who appear to have played not one single male character between them.
    As above, the use of the term "actress" is controversial, and it may be appropriate to rename these categories to "female actors" or some other terminology. However, objections to the term "actress", however well-founded, are arguments for renaming the categories rather than deleting them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin Categories in general that have referred to "actresses" or "male actors" or "female actors" have been deleted at least 26 times in the past: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugnuts (talk • contribs) 10:25, 8 December 2012‎
    I'm sure that the closing admin will do some research, and will note that most of the previous discussions were extremely cursory and did not examine the category against the long-standing principles set out in WP:CATGRS.
    The closing admin will be aware that consensus can change, and that WP:NOTAVOTE.
    The closing admin should also note that this is one of several discussions on these catregories opened by Lugnuts while an RFC on the subject is still open Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Actresses_categorization. Two of the categories nominated here have been the subject of recent discussions closed as "no consensus" (1, 2), and the recent closure of one such discussion as "delete" was made by an admin who was WP:INVOLVED, having himself !voted "delete" at a similar discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the administrator who closed the American actress cat nomination (which made very little sense since it had never been dagged as a deletion nomination, so people opposed to deletion were not neccesarily fully notified what was up), had elsewhere revered to the splitting of actor cats by gender as "an abomination". I am not sure why people with such biased views are able to impose their wills on the rest of us, especially while the RfC is still open (and the majority of people there favor splitting these cats by gender).John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what the closing admin said, at all. Nymf hideliho! 09:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Mymf, JPL's comment was pretty close to what was said. Good Olfactory (talk · contribs), who closed the discussion on Category:American actresses had just !voted in the discussion on male actors: Delete/merge to applicable "actors" category. Simply abominable from a need and practicality standpoint
    This admin was blatantly WP:INVOLVED, and should not have closed such a closely-related discussion. I have been discussing the matter on his talk page, and I still hope that he will have the integrity to rescind the closure ... but if not, I will take it to DRV.
    JPL is also right to point to the still-open RFC, which should have been allowed to finish before related CFDs were opened, let alone before they were closed in a way which contradicts the balance of opinion at RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of wikihounding BHG does is quite disturbing. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lugnuts, if you want to make a complaint about WP:HOUNDing, them you know where WP:ANI is. But before doing that, I'd suggest that you actually read WP:HOUND.
I'm quite happy for ANI to review what's being on here, such as Good Olfactory's closure of 3 discussions on a topic in which he is WP:INVOLVED, and Lugnuts's opening of two CFDs on a topic under discussion in a still-open RFC. If so, please don't forget to notify me of the ANI complaint. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Pester" is probably a better description. Like an eye twitch. Won't stop. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts - No, though I can see how it could appear that way. In my experience, BHG merely has a few "push button" issues (if that's the right term). And things related to women would seem to be one of them. There's nothing wrong with full throated advocacy of a POV, as long as we stay within the bounds of CIVIL/AGF/etc. And as long as it doesn't become overly disruptive.
Do I think she may have crossed those bounds? Possibly. But perhaps a polite note on her talk page explaining the behavioural concerns will help. I don't think we're to AN/I level quite yet, but YMMV. - jc37 01:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the categories themselves that pushes my buttons; it's the fact that some editors appear set on opposing such categories on the basis of axiomatic assertions instead of evidence, and of cherry-picked anecdotes rather than assessing an overall picture, whilst refusing to assess such categories against long-standing principles.
My buttons have also been pressed by the procedural chicanery used by a few editors and admins to ensure that a procedural lockdown on such categories is retained.
As to ANI, don't hold back Jc37. It's all on its way to DRV, but if you or any other editor wants to go to ANI, feel free to do so. Just make sure to include a few links as background: a) one involved admin emptying-out-of-process a categ under discussion at CFD; b) another admin, long-term WP:INVOLVED in this topic ([11] [12]) closes 3 related discussions [13][14][15] "pretty much in isolation" from each other" while taking into account other discussions years old despite a more recent DRV, handily producing a result which is used here as a lever to try again to delete two of the categories on which discussion had just been closed. Meanwhile an open RFC on the topic shows a clear majority of editors in favour of a gendered split, and the same WP:INVOLVED closing admin chose not to take that into account. If this is good faith adminship, I'm a martian banana.
There's a whole lot more relevant evidence which I will try to find time to present if it gets to ANI. So if anyone wants to try to pinning WP:CIVIL/WP:AGF charges on me for pointing out the flagrant abuses of process here, then off you go. Bon voyage!
For your convenience, here's the link to start a new WP:ANI thread. But do read WP:BOOMERANG first. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so much for trying to AGF and give you the opportunity to self-reflect (the opportunity you recently mentioned that you so hoped someone might give you).
I was merely suggesting to someone else that they should presume a bit of good faith that you weren't wikihounding or whatever.
The only suggestion I might offer right now, and it's of course merely a suggestion, but I think you might want to consider disengaging from this for a bit.
If you or anyone else decides to start an AN/I thread over this, please drop me a note. - jc37 05:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The categories are very large. This is a natural way to divide, so as to make navigation by readers easier. Subcategorising by gender is commonly done in the real world. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer to keep the term "Actresses" over "female actors", as "actress" is an established, common and hard-to-misunderstand word. However, the residual actors should be moved to "male actors", leaving only non-biography pages directly under the "actor" categories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many of the delete rationales seem to be along the lines that "classifying people is evil" and "gender classification is the same as race, nationality, &c." Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't; clearly when it comes to acting, gender is important for the rôles one can fill. Maybe the word actress is objectionable (i don't find it such, but some might); go with "Female Actors..." and "Male Actors...". Cheers, LindsayHello 11:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is some more evidence on the importance of gender in the acting profession. I checked the first pageful of results which came up when I google searched for theatrical agents, and found the talent listings for a number of agencies: Amber, Elinor Hilton, A&J, Shepperd Fox, MBA, Nelson Browne, McLean Williams. They offer selection by a range of attributes, but the all of them divide their talent lists by gender. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The word "actress" has a well-known, non-pejorative meaning and use as a category outside the Pedia. It is therefore one way to appropriately categorize for readers on the Pedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: John Pack Lambert and BrownHairedGirl, isn't it WP:POINTY to go ahead and create all these categories, while the Village pump discussion (in which you both have taken part in) is still ongoing, and very much alive? Especially since you so diligently keep pointing out how wrong these AfDs are while that thread is still open. It goes both ways, does it not? Nymf hideliho! 19:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Making a gender-based classification is an obvious absurd (sexism?). I would also delete all ethnicity-based classifications of people, like Category:Russian Jews. My very best wishes (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sexism is "prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women". Noting a difference between the sexes is not the same thing as prejudice or discrimination, any more than noting someone's nationality amounts to prejudice or discrimination. Wikipedia categorises all biographical topics by nationality as a neutral statement of fact; it is up to the reader whether they choose to be prejudiced or discriminatory about that fact that someone is German or Chinese or Iraqi or American or whatever. Categorisation by gender presents the reader with the same choice about what values to apply when presented with that fact.
      If editors want to delete all gender-based categories, they should open a mass CFD for the lot of them, or start an RFC. But the stable consensus for years has been that we categorise by gender where it is particularly relevant to the topic, and unless there is a change to the broader principle, the test of relevance is the one to apply here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Keep (or Rename to Female Actors) / Restore Category:American actresses 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 are lumped together into one category. A search on Google Books finds almost2 million links to works about "actresses", again demonstrating a strong real world distinction between female and male practitioners of the art of acting. 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 the use of "Actress" is most common, the use of the politically correct term "Female Actor" means the same thing, is used by some award-granting organizations and has a far better argument than the rather tenuous one for deletion. Given that Oscars, Emmys and Tonys all distinguish distinctly based on sex, it seems clear that the Category:American actresses should be restored as well. Alansohn (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and overturn deletion of American actresses. Acting is a gendered profession and this is a logical way to split large categories. Gobōnobō + c 16:13, 31 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:Mr. Potato Head[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Mr Potato Head isn't a topic I'd bother to write much about, but someone has and as a result we now have a set of articles on it. They're better categorized than not. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a small category with little or no growth potential. The content can easily be linked through article text and "see also" sections. Buck Winston (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are enough articles grouped here to serve as an effective aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too small to be justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The category currently contains 4 articles and three files, which is in my book is quite sufficient to merit a category. (There are also several redirects, which I don't count). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some of the articles in this category may be overcategorised, but this is a strongly defining category. In this case, overcategorisation is better avoided by removing parent categories. Also, this is of sufficient size not to be affected by WP:SMALLCAT. --Andrewaskew (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The toy has existed for 60 years and has generated exactly four articles, along with a handful of redirects about which articles cannot be written. How does the lead article on the toy not serve to link the four articles together? Buck Winston (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeep A defining category and aid to navigation that merits retention per Wikipedia policy. There were no Wikipedia articles written during the character's first 50 years and growth in the number of articles over the past decade has been spectacular. Alansohn (talk) 06:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mutliple articles, all connected to a respectable parent article, useful search aid, this is a good example of a category, at the smaller end. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 17 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:Macau television[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: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: align to "television in foo" styling followed by category relatives near and far (e.g., Category:Television in China; Category:Television stations in Wisconsin). 96.232.126.27 (talk) 06:42, 30 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.

Category:German Americans by state[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 all to hyphenated form. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:04, 12 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:Old Smyrniote Levantines[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Old Smyrniote Levantines to Category:Smyrniote Levantines
  • Nominator's rationale The current category is apparently the same as the target, except it somehow differs in a way that is not at all clear. I am of half a mind to rename the whole thing to Category:Ottoman Levantines. However many of these people were actually British, French or American expatriates born in Izmir, so maybe we don't need this category at all. This is part of a whole set of categories of Smyrniote people by ethnicity. However I am not sure that we have any other set of people by ethnicity by city, so maybe a bigger set of articles needs to be deleted. For now though, I am sure this is not at all a good name for a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- As far as I can work out, this refers to an Ottoman millet consisting of Latin Christians, who settled in the Levant, either being descendants of crusaders or European merchants. I cannot see any explanation of the distinction between Old SL and SL. Has the creator been notified? Peterkingiron (talk) 12:47, 1 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:Waka[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. (The category was already speedily renamed at the time of the closure, as the user opposing the speedy nomination forgot to remove it from the processable listing.) (WP:NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 14:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. An opposed speedy. It is a convention that if an article is disambiguated, the corresponding category is also disambiguated in the same way, regardless of whether it "needs" to be under the disambiguation rules that apply to articles. This avoids confusion and the need to change a category name when other categories with similar names are created. However, that's all theoretical, because I disagree with the opposer that there will never be any other categories with the name "Waka" in it—in fact, we already have Category:Māori waka. Thus, Category:Waka needs to be a disambiguation category for the two uses of the term, since most people when referring to Māori waka refer simply to "waka". Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
copy of discussion at WP:CFDS
  • Category:Waka to Category:Waka (poetry) – C2D per Waka (poetry) Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose No need for disambiguation when no other category named "Waka" is likely to ever exist. If Wikipedia ever develops a body of articles on noteworthy works of waka music, or well-known canoes, then we can discuss this, but the reason I built the article at the title Waka (poetry) but the category at the title Category:Waka is that while other noteworthy articles exist with the name "Waka", no other categories under that name are likely to ever exist.Changed vote to Rename as per my comment below. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)elvenscout742 (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did overlook Category:Māori waka, yes. I am not familiar with category discussion, and did not see your above rationale until after posting my above opposition elsewhere. I am also not familiar with the policy regarding categories, so if you could indicate the location of the "convention that if an article is disambiguated, the corresponding category is also disambiguated in the same way" I might withdraw my above opposition. However, even if the current title is wrong, I would prefer a move to Category:Waka poetry. While the article itself generally avoids this wording, it does exist, and parenthesized disambiguators don't look nice in categories (I can only assume that is why it is Category:Māori waka and not Category:Waka (canoe)). It does seem, however, that if the category must be disambiguated "in the same way", the current Category:Māori waka also needs to be moved. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think disambiguating parentheses in categories look nice, so it's all subjective, I suppose. I think the reason that the category uses "Māori waka" rather than the "canoe" disambiguator is because waka are primarily used as genealogical terms. When waka are referred to, people are typically referring to ancient immigrant parties of Māori people, not to the actual physical canoe that carried those parties. "Waka (Māori)" might actually be a better name for the article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Rename I guess I'll withdraw my opposition, then, but I also support moving Waka (canoe) to Waka (Māori), and Category:Māori waka to Category:Waka (Māori) in light of Good Olfactory's informative points above. I admit ignorance of Māori waka, having first come across them on Wikipedia in the process of creating the article on waka (poetry), so what I know about them derives mostly from the title of the Wikipedia article! elvenscout742 (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. We need to disambiguate this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom – as we have Waka and Waka waka, each with several variants, there is clearly scope for ambiguity. Oculi (talk) 10:33, 30 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.

Category:Wikipedians who like Dreamworks Animation[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pointless category created by account with an attack username (since blocked) Orange Mike | Talk 01:09, 30 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_30&oldid=1142498788"