Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 29 October 31 >

October 30[edit]

Category:Kuwaiti 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: no consensus. This is an issue for which it might be a good idea to have a broader nomination, or a broader request for comment/input. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was created as a subcategory of the target. However, there is very little precedent for splitting acting-related categories by sex. Unless this case is a special one, I believe that the contents of this category should be up-merged. SuperMarioMan 02:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Acting is a rigidly gendered profession, in which men and women work in the same settings but have roles defined by their gender. Unless a casting director is trying to make a counterfactual point, women don't get to play Hamlet and men don't get to play Ophelia. This gendered split is acknowledged in the major awards in the profession, which have separate awards for men and women.
    The relevant guidance at WP:CATGRS stresses the principle that "A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic", and that is clearly the case here. We have gendered categories for singers Category:Female singers and Category:Male singers) for similar reasons, and in both cases there are specific exemptions in the UK's Sex Discrimination laws to permit differentiation by gender. (I presume that the same applies in other jurisdictions such as the USA, or women would be suing Hollywood for not being cast in the lucrative and more plentiful male roles).
    Note that the guidance also says that "separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed", but offers no reason for this breach of the general principle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. Note also that we have a well-populated Category:Actors by ethnicity‎. It is absurd that acting categories should distinguish actors by ethnicity, but not by gender. Ethnicity had much less impact on an actor's career path than their gender. For example, Antony Sher was raised in South-Africa, has Jewish-Lithuanian ancestry, yet has played plenty of major characters who share none of those characteristics. However, his article offers no suggestion of him ever having been cast as a woman ... so why omit his gender from the categorisation when we categorise him on factors that are much less relevant to his career and notability? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only functional difference between an actor and an actress is what kind of sexy bits happen to be located between the person's legs while they're doing the job. And just for a few examples of people acting in cross-gender roles, rent The Year of Living Dangerously and look for Linda Hunt, or go see one of the considerable number of productions of The Importance of Being Earnest in which Lady Bracknell is played by a man, or watch The Kids in the Hall (who've specifically said in interviews that the point of doing drag wasn't to go for "look, it's a man in a dress!" but to realistically and credibly play actual three-dimensional women characters.) Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is such a bizarre misrepresentation of the reality that is hard to believe that it could be made in good faith by a WP:COMPETENT editor. The overwhelming majority of contemporary dramatic performances (whether for stage or screen) are cast according so that characters are portrayed by actors of the same gender. By far the largest exception to that in some art forms or cultures where there is a convention that some or all of the parts are played by actors of the opposite gender (as in pantomime, with its tradition of cross-dressing, or when women were excluded from medieval theatre).
There are some rare and notable exceptions to this, but they are notable precisely because of their rarity. The overwhelming convention of theatre is rigidly gendered, either by actors playing characters of their own gender, or by them playing opposite-gender chraacters who are customarily portrayed in that way.
Look at the careers of some leading contemporary actresses. Of the top of my head, I took Judy Dench, Reese Witherspoon, Meryl Streep, Kate Winslet, Julia Roberts ... and in those 5 articles have found not one single example of these women playing a male part. These care not porn stars; these are women who act with their clothes except for a few sex scenes, so what's between their legs is irrelevant. The clear fact is that being female overwhelmingly restricts them to female roles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per policy. The guidelines on categorizing by gender specifically state "As another example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed".John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The guideline (not a policy) offers no reason for the specific deprecation of actresses, so this category should be assessed against the general principles set out in the guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline (the fact that it's not a "policy" is irrelevant; guidelines are binding in the absence of compellingreasons to make exceptions) specifically points out that such categories need to pay heed to the issue of ghettoization. Singer categories can be gendered without running afoul of that problem, as a non-gendered "Singers" category can have male and female subcategories alongside singers-by-genre subcategories -- filing Adele in Category:British female singers andRobbie Williams in Category:British male singers doesn't prevent them from sitting next to each other in a non-genderedCategory:British pop singers category as well (and since that category exists, neither of them would otherwise be sitting directly in Category:British singers anyway.) But there's no gender-neutral category that can parent separate categories for male and female actors; the "male" Category:Kuwaiti actors is the only possible parent of Category:Kuwaiti actresses, such that the only thing the gendered category does is to preclude the women from being categorized alongside the men in any gender-neutral grouping. If there were a gender-neutral term that could serve as a parent to "male" actors and actresses categories, then perhaps things would be different -- but if the "male" category is itself the only logical parent of the "female" one, then the ghettoization issue renders it untenable. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that we can have gendered categories for singers without ghettoisation, but cannot do so for actors, is nonsense. If ghettoisation is a concern, we can quite easily adopt exactly the same solution as we have had for years with singers: have parallel categories for "male actors" and "female actors". Simple.
In any case, ghettoisation can be avoided without creating parallel categories simply by not making a a gender-divide in the bottom layer of the category tree, as is done with countless other intersections between occupation and ethnicity/gender/sexuality. In a close parallel, we do it with Category:American actors by ethnic or national origin, as well as squillions of other subcats of Category:People by occupation and ethnicity. We do it wit Category:LGBT people by occupation ... and we do it with scores of other subcats of Category:Women by occupation. We can just as easily do it with actors.
Why does experienced editors who know the category tree well try to deny this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the whole argument has been that we needed to use the specific terminology "actresses". Nobody ever saidd that we can't have gendered "male actors" vs. "female actors" categories at all -- that wasn't the debate that was happening. The reason the specific terminology "actresses" is problematic is that it doesn't have a clean opposite-gender equivalent; the same term, "actors" is both the gender-specific term for men who act and the gender-neutral term for all people of both genders who act. "Singers" categories are different because the base term has no gender-specific connotations at all -- since singers are already subdivided by genre, nationality and even genre-and-nationality, no singer ever needs to sit directly in "Nationality singers" at all anyway, so male vs. female is just an extra grouping within a category that's already fully diffused. "Actors" categories, however, are not necessarily fully diffused under current circumstances; although some countries diffuse actors by ethnic origin, others do not. Some countries diffuse actors by medium, others do not. Which means that as things currently stand some actors are forced to sit directly in "Nationality actors" with no subcategory, and that's why the specific terminology "actresses" is a problem -- it doesn't have a male-specific equivalent which can sit next to it as a subcategory of the gender-neutral one so that all actors can be diffused out of the main category, because the gender-neutral term is also the male-specific term. Until all actors categories can be completely and systematically diffused so that no actor of either gender ever needs to sit directly in "Nationality actors" at all, "Nationality actresses" is a gender ghetto precisely because some actors will still be sitting directly in "Nationality actors". Bearcat (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More nonsense, and a blatant straw man. It has never been part of my argument that we have to use "actresses", and nobody else in this discussion has argued that. Please stop inventing stuff.
I still see absolutely no reason why a Category:actresses cannot be a subset of Category:actors or paired against Category:male actors. This work just fine for politicians, swimmers etc ... and (rightly or wrongly) it is common in the English languages for a generic term to be used for a group of both genders, with a gender-specific term only for women. If it was the case that the problem is with the term "actress", then the solution is simply to use different terminology. Rename the category rather than deleting it ... but instead, Bearcat just denounced it as inherently bad idea and sneakily deleted it out-of-process. — BrownHairedGirl (01:35, 31 October 2012), — (continues after insertion below.)
interruption
Closing an expired discussion in process != sneakily deleting it out of process. You're certainly allowed to disagree with my decision, and you're certainly allowed to have it revisited if you feel strongly about it -- but you are not allowed to accuse me of acting in bad faith. Bearcat (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) You did not close the discussion. 2) you were WP:INVOLVED and should not have tried to close the discussion. 3) None of your edits emptying the category under discussion referenced that discussion. 4) Your emptying of two other categories did not cite any speedy deletion criteria, nor did they comply with the requirement at WP:CSD to notify the editors who created the categories.
None of your actions and any of the characteristics of someone acting in good faith, and you continue to defend them all. Then you post here, chopping up my comment and breaking attribution without noting that fact, contrary to WP:TPO. So either you don't know what you are doing, or you are wilfully ignoring several long-standing polices and guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But that paragraph above is yet another piece of shifting the ground. Up above, Bearcat claimed that the problem was a lack that "the only functional difference between an actor and an actress is what kind of sexy bits happen to be located between the person's legs while they're doing the job". That has been challenged, so Bearcat sets aside and claims that he meant something else all along. — BrownHairedGirl (01:35, 31 October 2012), — (continues after insertion below.)
2nd interruption
Again, nope. Responding to different points as they're made != shifting the ground. Bearcat (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense again. You wrote abovethe whole argument has been that we needed to use the specific terminology "actresses". That is demonstrably untrue. Please stop this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly is not untrue. The argument that we needed the gendered category specifically because women who act are commonly called "actresses" rather than "actors" has come up repeatedly in all of these recent discussions -- see also the "Lesbian actors" --> "Lesbian actresses" discussion, which hinged entirely on using the specifically gendered term because the category specifically contained women. Nobody in this discussion ever proposed that we could use a different name to sidestep the ghettoization problem posed by "actresses" until about an hour ago. Bearcat (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, your repeated untruths become no more truthful by repetition. Please stop.
No alternative was suggested because nobody said that the name was the problem. When you posted twice in the discussion before sneakily emptying-it out-of-process, you didn't mention the name as a problem ... and nor did anybody else. Your unilateral sneak-deletion was done without any mention by you or anyone else of what you now claim was "the whole argument"; in fact it was not even a part of the argument. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly was the core of the argument -- the arguments have repeatedly hinged on competing assertions about the gender terminology. It may not have been the crux of your position, but the argument has been made by more than one other editor. And if you call me a liar or accuse me of "unilateral sneak deletion" one more time, then say hello to an WP:RFC. You don't have to agree with my decision -- but you do have to assume good faith. You're allowed to have my decisions reviewed and revisited -- but you're not allowed to decide that I must be lying just because my explanation of the situation doesn't match your assumptions. If you were putting half as much energy into making a coherent case for why the category should be allowed as you are into throwing ad hominem attacks at me for simply making an admin decision that you didn't agree with, you might even have already gotten the new consensus you're looking for. Bearcat (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can produce the diffs to show how terminology was raised as an issue in this discussion before your [sneaky out-of-process emptying/failed-atempt-close-a-discussion in which you-were involved] then I will continue to assert that your repeated claim that the issue in this CFD was one of terminology is yet another falsehood. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination rationale for Category:Lesbian actors: Actresses is the term for female actors, and lesbians are female. The current category names just jars for me. The only support arguments in that discussion: the claim that actress is obsolete is just hogwash, and the change seems better wording. Plus the fact that before today you were the only other person besides those three commenters to support any of these at all, and until JohnPackLambert proposed "female actors" as an alternative just a couple of hours ago, you too seemed much more hung up on the name than on whether actors could be subdivided by gender at all. I'm willing to acknowledge that that may have been a misreading of your actual intention, but it was a wholly understandable reading of what you were actually saying. The potential ghettoization problem with "actresses" was actually made quite clear quite early on in the process -- but you still didn't consider or propose any other approach until one was suggested by somebody else today.
And just for the record, I also see no evidence that you ever asked anybody for clarification of why WP:CATGRS might say what it says -- which, again, was the fact that it's ghettoizing women to hive them off into a subcategory of the men instead of having sibling male and female categories within a common ungendered parent. You simply decreed it invalid without even attempting to understand why CFD had come to the consensus it had, or attempting to propose any alternative that might actually resolve the concerns that led people to that consensus. If you've got an idea for how the categories can be gendered without running into the ghettoization problem, then please, by all means, propose it instead of attacking other people for simply having that concern. And furthermore, I also see that it was suggested to you in the DRV discussion that a full RFC around whether we should consider allowing gendered actor categories would be a better approach than simply recreating deleted categories just to take them back to CFD again. (And, incidentally, if you actually want to build consensus for a new approach, it is generally a good idea to at least try to understand why the old one was implemented the way it was. You don't have to agree with it, but you'll get a lot farther in changing it if you at least understand where the people who made that decision were coming from.) Bearcat (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, your sustained and blatant dishonesty is staggering.
I ask for diffs from this discussion; you respond with quotes from a different discussion.
You say that I "seemed much more hung up on the name than on whether actors could be subdivided by gender at all". That is a barefaced lie: I repeatedly posted about the fact that gender is a defining characteristic of someone whose profession is acting, and none of my comments were about the name other than in response to you, in a separate discussion. Why do you continually post things which are demonstrably untrue?
In the discussion on the naming of Category:Lesbian actors, you posted that "no particularly meaningful or encyclopedic distinction between being an "actor" and being an "actress" beyond what type of sexy bits happen to be sitting between your legs", to which I replied [1] was about the fact that it is a gendered profession ... and you replied about the name. Please try to find the honesty to stop trying to attribute to me an obsession which you have pursued.
As to your complaint, that I should have "asked somebody" what CATGRS says, there is no oracle on these matters. I have read the guideline and its talk page archives for many years, and discussed it in many discussions; I have also read every one of about a dozen CFD discussions about actress categories going back to 2005 or 2006. The dominant issue which have arisen time and time again in regard to these categories has been the assertion by some editors that gender is not a defining characteristic of an actor's career, with a secondary concern about the ghettoisation risked by any gendered category. It is dishonest of you to claim that I misunderstood this. The notion that the problem is is the word actress seems to be a particular fixation of yours; try to learn to distinguish between your own view and what was actually discussed at previous CFDs of actress categories.
Now, on the DRV: I created the Portuguese category as a test case because it was suggested at DRV that I do so. Once again, if you read the DRV, you would have seen that discussed there.
Your repeated claim that it is "ghettoizing women to hive them off into a subcategory of the men instead of having sibling male and female categories within a common ungendered parent" is also nonsense. Please look at the section in WP:CATGRS which describes how ghettoisation can be avoided while having a common category and one-gendered subcats. It has been there in CATGRS for years, and it describes a solution which works fine across thousands of occupational categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like singers, actors are also divided by branch of the profession. Jazz singers, rick singers; film actors, stage actors. If the categories are not being systematically diffused, then WP:SOFIXIT by doing the diffusion, rather than by systematically deleting categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Get the consensus to do so, and I'd be more happy to help fix it. (Do recall, for instance, that I was one of the ones who helped to argue for the validity of gender categorization back when it was an unresolved issue, so I'm hardly the enemy here.) But until that new consensus is actually in place, the existing consensus is what it is, and closing a discussion in full accordance with what the existing consensus is does not constitute evidence of bad faith editing. Bearcat (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why should anyone believe that, when you have argued both here and [2] against categorising actors by gender?
Why you repeatedly assert the nonsense that "The only functional difference between an actor and an actress is what kind of sexy bits happen to be located between the person's legs while they're doing the job" (here, [3]) .. and then claim you would be happy to fix it.
Also, please try to learn the difference between a) closing a discussion as an uninvolved admin (what should happen); b) closing a discussion in which you have posted your own opinions in two separate places in that discussion (which is what you claimed to have tried to do); and c) what you actually and did, which was sneakily emptying a category without any explanation anywhere of what you were doing and why. None of your edits emptying actress categories mentions the CFD or any speedy deletion criteria. --06:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice.
For the record, the category was not emptied out of process. At the time it was redirected, this was a stale discussion which was already just short of a full month overdue for closure, and was no longer being contributed to at all -- and furthermore, since past CFDs regarding "actresses" categories have already established a clear and unambiguous consensus against them, such a category is allowed to be speedy redirected on sight without actually requiring a new discussion to be held at all. If somebody wants to try to overturn the existing consensus in favour of a new one that favours gender-segregating the actor categories, then that's certainly within their right -- but the onus is on them to build a new consensus position, not on me or any other editor to seek a special dispensation just to uphold the existing one. Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I have just noted in a long reply on Bearcat's talkpage, this defence is such nonsense that it is clear evidence of bad faith.
  1. Bearcat was quite entitled to ask for an overdue discussion to be closed, but not to proceed to empty the category himself while the discussion was open. As an admin, Bearcat should know that; this is basic XFD process.
  2. If Bearcat thought that it was appropriate to use his admin powers to close the discussion himself, he could done so. But instead he posted in the discussion, and then took it upon himself to empty the category. That's a blatant beach of WP:INVOLVED.
  3. If Bearcat somehow had such a poor grasp of basic XFD processes that he thought it was appropriate to unilaterally empty a category under discussion after participating in that discussion, then he should have been disclosed at the CFD what he was doing. He didn't do that,; he just sneakily emptied the category without notifying anyone.
It is disgraceful that an admin should abuse the consensus-building process in such a sneaky and underhand way. I hope that Bearcat will apologise and give an assurance that he will never repeat this conduct, because otherwise his position as an admin is untenable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an administrator, I'm allowed to close a discussion -- and I'm allowed to explain my reasoning for making the closure decision that I did. In fact, explaining one's reasoning in depth is especially important in a case such as this one, where an administrator could potentially rule either way because the "vote" wasn't absolutely clear cut. You'll note, in fact, that in the comments I posted above, I did not actually "vote" either way; I simply explained the reasoning for my decision without a keep or delete notation. And as I've already further noted, I did make a good faith attempt to close the discussion properly, and cannot honestly explain why that final edit might not have saved properly. And again, at any rate, the consensus against "actresses" categories has already been quite well established by past CFDs -- meaning that until a new consensus is established in its place, an administrator is not acting out of process or in bad faith by simply respecting and upholding the existing consensus. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bearcat, as an administrator, you are not allowed to close a discussion in which you have participated, as you did in this one ... by making two separate partisan comments.
    If that was your idea of a "good faith" effort to close a discussion, you are unfit to be an admin ... but you invented this tried-to-close excuse only on your third reply to me after I challenged your conduct. If you were really trying to close it, you would have said so upfront; but instead you raised this claim only when other explanations failed. As discussed on your talk page, it is simply not credible. Either you were "trying" to close a discussion in which you were WP:INVOLVED, or you sneakily deleted a category out-of-process and are now lying. Those are the only two possible explanations, and your repeated defence of either of them is unacceptable in an admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an administrator who is acting to close a discussion that's already overdue for closure, I am allowed (indeed required) to explain my reasoning for making the closure decision that I'm making. Explaining and clarifying the standing CFD consensus in the process of closing an expired debate, in accordance with that standing consensus, is a very different thing from participating in the debate and then imposing a closure that goes against consensus. And furthermore, my explanation has not changed throughout this discussion -- the fact that I may have used different terminology to express the same basic point at different times does not mean that my argument has changed. It means that I'm trying to use different wording to make my point more clear in the face of evidence that it's not getting across adequately. And again, the accusations of bad faith are highly unwelcome and inappropriate. Bearcat (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, "this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary".
Your contributions to the discussion did not amount to "explaining and clarifying the standing CFD consensus". this contribution: it was not a "clarification", it was a substantive contribution to the debate. It was also a pile of nonsense, which I easily refuted when the CFD was relisted here. After that, you were a WP:INVOLVED editor, and you should not have attempted to close a debate in which you were WP:INVOLVED.
In any case, all the rest of the evidence points to this claim of an attempted closure being a post-facto fabrication. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're selectively ignoring an awful lot of that guideline if you think "the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary" is the salient point in this discussion. There isn't, in fact, any evidence that I've acted in bad faith -- I'm simply going to point out to you that my responses to you have been consistent (just because I choose different words to rephrase the same point in the face of evidence that my point isn't getting across does not mean I'm "changing my argument") and WP:CIVIL (I've not once in this discussion called you names or accused you of bad faith, while you've repeatedly done both to me) and leave it at that. You know perfectly well that I've been around here for long enough to have established a reputation as a person who (a) does not lie about stuff, (b) generally knows what I'm doing, and (c) is not generally averse to admitting that I make just as many mistakes as anyone else around here. I made a closure decision, which I'm allowed to do -- and you disagree with it, which you're also allowed to do. But we can quite easily have this discussion without namecalling and mudflinging -- so if you're not willing to accept my explanation at face value then there's not much more I can say, because I'm most certainly not a liar. Bearcat (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your responses have not been consistent. See your talk page for the chronology of how you changed your story.
You are not allowed to close a discussion in which you have participated. That's WP:INVOLVED.
Your emptying of the category did not reference the discussion which you claim to have been trying to close, and your speedy emptying of other categories was done without either any indication in edit summaries of a WP:CSD justification or a notification to editors as required at WP:CSD#Criteria.
After all of this, at no point have you acknowledged that any of this was wrong. In the substantive discussion you have repeatedly attributed to me views which I do not hold and have not expressed, and have neither retracted those falsehoods nor produced diffs to support them. That's all adds up to clear evidence of bad faith, and WP:CIVIL does not prevent me from drawing attention to this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like singers, actors are also divided by branch of the profession. Jazz singers, rick singers; film actors, stage actors. If the categories are not being systematically diffused, then WP:SOFIXIT by doing the diffusion, rather than by systematically deleting categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for the record I am unconvinced that if we actually followed guidelines we would have most of the actors by ethnicity cats we have either. It takes a lot more effort to upmerge categories than it does to create them, so we end up with lots of categories that are not in-line with policy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that most of the actors-by-ethnicity categories aren't warranted either. But getting them taken to CFD would take far more work than I'm prepared to put in. Bearcat (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Something odd about that. You claim that you aren't prepared to do the work to take those cats to CFD, even tho that can be done with WP:TWINKLE in one edit. Yet when one or two actresses categories appear, you were prepared to do over 50 edits to manually empty them yourself, and after your bogus claim that you "tried to close" the discussion, you chose manual editing rather than making one edit to [WP:CFD/W]] to let the bots do it. Doesn't add up, Bearcat: what ever this is about for you, it's not about the work involved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see here: I'm willing to take 20 minutes to clean up 50 articles that are categorized in a way that explicitly goes against an established CSD consensus, but not willing to take several hours to deal with a couple of thousand articles that are categorized in a way that I may not like, but which has no clear consensus against it? Doesn't seem that inconsistent to me, somehow. Bearcat (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, that's not how CFD works. You don't have to edit those thousands of articles: you nominate the category, and if there is consensus to delete or merge it, a bot does the work.
You were willing to pursue a whole load of manual edits to empty a category which was under discussion, and which would have been emptied by the bots had there been a consensus to do so. Those edits were entirely unneccessary. But you are not willing to do a few edits to list categories at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Vote: reanme to Category:Kuwaiti female actors. There is enough claims that "no one uses the term actress anymore" (which I can disprove, at least if you accept 2011 statments as conterporary enough with a very easy search, and probably could disprove with more recent newspaper articles if I cared to) that "actress" is going to be too controversial. However, I have been persuaded by BHG that gender is a controlling factor in the casting of the overwhelming majority of actors. I figure if we divide singers by gender, there is no reason why we should not divide actors by gender as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would similarly support this proposal. I'm not fundamentally opposed to the idea that actors can be subdivided by gender; it simply has to be done in a way that doesn't prevent male and female actors from sitting alongside each other in gender-neutral groupings in addition to any gender-specific ones (which categorizing them as "actresses" would do.) Bearcat (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So (I'm trying to understand) your issue with "actress" is that it doesn't allow for reciprocal LGBT-specific actor categories? - jc37 14:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I know that actresses like to use a gender neutral (actually male) term. As some one said at the beginning Hamlet is normally played by an actor and Ophelia by an actress. Gender is a fundamental issue in deciding who to cast for a part in a play (film, TV drama, etc). The "guideline" is wrong and should be changed. In most professions (lawyer, accountant, politician, motor mechanic, builder) gender is irrelevant. This is a blatant exception. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If actor (one who acts) is an "actually male" term, then what about administrator, animator, conductor, coordinator, decorator, director, editor, elector, inspector, inventor, navigator, operator, professor? (Just to name a few.)
    How is your assertion that actor is solely an "actually male" term not just subjective opinion (and for that matter, biased)?
    (And Actor#Terminology would seem to disagree with your assertion.)
    We have other antiquated words in English, which use the -ess ending (stewardess for example), or which use the (greek) -ix/-ices ending, such as aviatrix. But should that mean we should need to split categorisation merely because those suffixes may be used? - jc37 21:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Two issues have become conflated in this discussion:
    1. Should we have a categories for women in acting separate from general categories of actors?
      The consensus so far seems to support my view that we should have.
    2. If we have a category for women in acting, what should it be called?
      (Note that I am not at this point proposing "women in acting" as a category title. I just use it to avoid repeating any of the other apparently contentious terms)
    I suggest that we would do better to separate out those two issues. If there is a decision to keep this category, then we can have another discussion on the naming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was responding to PK's comments above, but to respond to yours: This is no different than in any other CFD (Categories for discussion): Should the category in question be kept; renamed (such as to female actors); merged (such as to actors), or deleted? (Amongst other options like "keep but prune", etc.) So I'm not sure why this category should require more than the typical single CFD discussion to determine that... - jc37 01:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In most cases that's true, and I'd love to be able to agree with you in this case. But we have currently have three simultaneous discussions on actress categories (which is bad of itself), and in each case the discussions are repeatedly becoming confused between arguments on terminology and arguments about the existence of the category. Combining the two is not working. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per guideline. There is nothing here that is a basis for making this category an exception. Whether the guideline itself needs to be changed is a separate discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewaskew (talk • contribs) 22:48, 5 November 2012‎
    As noted above by me and by several other editors, the relevant guidance at WP:CATGRS stresses the principle that "A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic". That is clearly the case with acting, where both male and female actors are restricted by gender in which roles they can be considered for. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - categories for actors should not be split by gender. Robofish (talk) 13:24, 8 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:People associated with Aberdeen F.C.[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#People associated with. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: To line up with the other subcategories of Category:Football clubs in Scotland. Andrewaskew (talk) 21:27, 6 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.

More Falkirk categories[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/D. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Rationalle: To be consistant with the ther categories about Falkirk (council area), per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 5#Category:Falkirk. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:07, 30 October 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:Operator topologies[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: Upmerge. Salix (talk): 07:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 18 - jc37 20:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Has only 1 article, Weak operator topology; I see no reason why we need a special category just for it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of topologies used on spaces of operators, however. A better question is whether the category could be populated. Charles Matthews (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 20:55, 30 October 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:Presidents of the Autonomous Regional Government of the Azores[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--Salix (talk): 10:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 18 - jc37 20:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The use of the "Autonomous Regional" government is too formal for this category, and would easily make this category more inclusive with its elimination. ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 20:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The presnet form may be technically correct, but the official title does not need to appear in the category name. If should instead appear in a headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 2 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:Business Districts of the Philippines[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 to Category:Central business districts in the Philippines. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Moved to Category:Central business districts in the Philippines for uniformity. --RioHondo (talk) 19:58, 30 October 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:Portuguese 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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the rationales raised at The Village Pump, there's no need to have categories for actresses. The only other actress category was merged. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as category creator). First of all, it's a pity to open a CFD while a related RFC is still open. I have a lot to say on this topic, including noting how the previous discussion was systematically sabotaged by Bearcat (talk · contribs), who depopulated a categ and removed the CFD tag while the CFD discussion was still open ... but it would be better to wait until the RFC has closed. Otherwise we end up with the same issue being discussed in two places.
    Would the nominator be kind enough to withdraw this CfD until the RFC has closed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC looks dead to me TBH. I think its run its course. Don't see any mileage in suspending this only to re-open it in a few days time. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RFCs normally run for 30 days, and that one has run for only 13, so in the normal run of things it would remain open for a further 17 days. Additionally, I intend to open a DRV of the deliberately-sabotaged CFd which you linked to in the nomination, unless the closer changes his mind. So we will end up with 3 related discussions running in parallel. Per WP:CENT, that is not a good way to do things; nor is it great that you did not notify that category creator that you had brought this categ to CFD. What's the rush? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no requirement to notify category creators of CfDs. And you found it easily enough, so what's the problem? None. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I encourage the nominator to resubmit for CFD after the RFC is finished. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the category was not emptied out of process or "sabotaged". Since past CFDs regarding "actresses" categories have already established a clear and unambiguous consensus against them, such a category is allowed to be speedy redirected on sight without actually requiring a new discussion to be held at all. If somebody wants to try to overturn the existing consensus in favour of a new one that favours gender-segregating the actor categories, then that's certainly within their right -- but the onus is on them to build a new consensus position, not on me or any other editor to seek a special dispensation just to uphold the existing one. And the "Kuwaiti category" above was a stale discussion which was already well past its closure date, and which I was in fact attempting to close in accordance with the existing consensus -- I cannot speak to why the final closure might not have saved properly, but a technical snafu is hardly something I should be punished or reprimanded for. Bearcat (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed at User talk:Bearcat#Your_unilateral_emptying_of_actress_categories, that explanation in nonsense.
Bearcat did not "attempt to close" the CFD. He commented twice in the body of the discussion in a partisan way, and thereby made himself WP:INVOLVED and ineligible to close the CFD ... and then he sneakily emptied the category manually rather than listing it at WP:CFD/W. Neither of those last two steps are the conduct of a decent admin.
At no point in any of the related edits to the CFD or to the category or to the article so categorised did Bearcat mention closing the CFD ... and when challenged about this misconduct he invented the "attempt to close" story as his second or third account of events.
As to the claim about a legitimate speedy deletion, that's phony too. Speedy deletion does not apply when a category is under discussion at CFD, if such deletion is opposed (because speedies are supposed to be uncontroversial). Bearcat should stop trying to justify his sabotage of a consensus-building process, and apologise for his misconduct rather than inventing patently false post-hoc justifications. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, Bearcat explained his reasoning, without casting a vote, in the process of applying a closure which was wholly consistent with an established CFD consensus that has not been overturned. That is not the same thing as "participating" in a debate -- and if there was a technical snafu and my final closure edit didn't actually save for some reason, that's a different story which speaks to "sometimes the Internet is broken" rather than to "Bearcat is a bad editor".
Secondly, there was no active discussion at CFD about either category: the Kuwaiti one was an expired discussion which was over three weeks overdue for closure (and accordingly needed to be closed), and this one hadn't been nominated for a CFD discussion at all (and accordingly was perfectly eligible for speedy if there was a legitimate reason to speedy it -- which, in the absence of any new consensus to overturn the old one against separate categories for actors and actresses, there was.)
And finally, you really need to stop accusing me of acting in bad faith. You're free to disagree with a decision, and to express your disagreement in a fair, calm, rational and respectful way -- but not to call the decision itself misconduct or me a liar. Bearcat (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is demonstrably untrue, and I am not required to continue to AGF when an editors is repeatedly stating things which are demonstrably false.
This comment that you made to the CFD was neither a neutral summary of the debate nor an explanation of the existing consensus. It was a partisan contribution, which was easily rebutted once the debate was relisted above. You are quite entitled to make that sort of a substantive argument in a debate ... but not to then close the debate. As above, the evidence is overwhelming that this claim is false.
If Beract doesn't understand the difference between the role of a closer and that of a participant in a debate, then he may not be a bad editor ... but he is an a very bad admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Portuguese female actors. This despite the fact that a basic google search, that I used because it was the female role that came to mind the quickest of "Actress playeing Lois Lane" came up with over 10,000 hits while "Actor playing Lois Lane" came up with 4. However other things tend to suggest that actor is used as a gender-neutral holding term, and will often be used to describe females who only ever play female roles. Actress is not dead, but it is loosing ground, and the system will work better if we avoid specific female forms. On the other hand, while people playing the opposite gender is not unheard of even in mainstream American films made decades ago, the majority of actors spent their entire careers playing roles that corresponded with their genders, and gender is clearly used in determining the roles people are cast in, so I think it is justified to divide by gender, despite guidelines that discorage it. Basically if we are going to divide singers by gender I figure we should divide actors by gender as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- as I have argued for the Kuwaiti category. In England, the feminine of "actor" is actress". Equal rights campaigners have sought to argue that the are female actors, with equal rights to them. In theatre, normally actresses play female role and actors maale roles. This is a profession where gender is fundamentally significant. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I noted I the discussion above, acting is a rigidly gendered profession, in which men and women work in the same settings but have roles defined by their gender. Unless a casting director is trying to make a counterfactual point, women don't get to play Hamlet and men don't get to play Ophelia. Off the top of my head, I took Judy Dench, Reese Witherspoon, Meryl Streep, Kate Winslet, Julia Roberts ... and in those 5 articles I found not one single example of these women playing a male part.
    This gendered split is acknowledged in the major awards in the profession, which have separate awards for men and women.
    Look at the careers of some leading contemporary actresses.
    The relevant guidance at WP:CATGRS stresses the principle that "A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic", and that is clearly the case here. We have gendered categories for singers (Category:Female singers and Category:Male singers) for similar reasons, and in both cases there are specific exemptions in the UK's Sex Discrimination laws to permit differentiation by gender. (I presume that the same applies in other jurisdictions such as the USA, or women would be suing Hollywood for not being cast in the lucrative and more plentiful male roles).
    Note that the guidance also says that "separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed", but offers no reason for this breach of the general principle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary category and also sexist, as it is a subcat of Category:Portuguese actors. Either that or move that parent into Category:Portuguese male actors and move all cats from above. Elizium23 (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Sexism" is not grounds in any policy or guidelines for deleting a category. The criterion for allowing gendered categories is whether the intersection itself is an encyclopic topic. That test is met in this case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as I've just commented at the RFC, I oppose splitting actor categories by gender. If the consensus is to keep this one, it should at least be renamed to Category:Portuguese female actors, as 'actresses' may be considered by some to be derogatory. Robofish (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "I oppose" is WP:JUSTAVOTE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then why does virtually every article on a female involved in acting use the term "actress". When refering to specifically female people in acting the overwhelming tendency is to use the term "actress". It is clearly not nearly as dead as some claim. While wikipedia is not a reliable source, it is a useful source to show how people actually write the English language. People still use the term "actress" all over the place, despite the declaration of some that it is a dead term. I will grant that people will use the term "actor" to refer to females, but it is much rarer. "Actress who played Lois Lane" shows up way more in a google search than "actor who played Lois Lane".John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have yet to see anyone offer any explanation of why we should not seperate actors by gender when we seperate singers by gender. Until someone presents some sort of argument for this I will find it very hard to believe we should have one system for actors and a different one for singers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This https://www.google.com/#q=Actress&hl=en&tbo=u&source=univ&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=giatUMLWGqqV0QGP2ICQCg&ved=0CHMQqAI&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=db0dad5452b41f3b&bpcl=38897761&biw=1024&bih=623 google news search shows that actress is still a term used by all sorts of publications, including the Washington Post and the San Francisco Chronicle.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 21 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:Emilie Autumn[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) 20:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marginal keep, now has 3 sub-cats + 2 articles + 1 template. – Fayenatic London 20:31, 4 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:Wherryman's Way[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 (Article is already in both parent categories.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Don't see any need for this category - other trail articles similar to Wherryman's Way don't have their own categories and are simply placed in Category:Long-distance footpaths in England. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:48, 30 October 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:A. C. Newman albums[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: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 21:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per A. C. Newman/Carl Newman. He sometimes releases material under either name, but we only have one article. Speedy-rename per c2b/c2d was declined. (Also, I created this category.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of Speedy discussion
  • Category:A. C. Newman albums to Category:Carl Newman albums – c2d —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that this one should be speedied. The main article is located at Carl Newman, but it notes that he performs under the name "A. C. Newman". -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Right But why would the article and category not match? Are you suggesting changing the article? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The category contains Newman's solo albums, the covers of which show his name as "A C Newman", and also two sub-cats for albums by bands in which he participated; I checked one and it mentions his name as "Carl Newman". This points in the direction of renaming, and I think C2D justifies a speedy outcome. However, I don't think it matters which name is used, so long as we keep a category redirect at the other name. – Fayenatic London 20:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm not suggesting a change of the article title. I'm not sure, however, how we approach the titles of categories for artists who perform under a different name, and I think this one might be worth taking to a full discussion. Further, as this is a set category, I'm wary of invoking C2.D. That criterion is uncontroversial when applied to eponymous topic categories; however, it is more controversial and prone to errors when applied to set categories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a bit of a tricky one. He goes by the name "Carl Newman" in band work, but his solo albums are credited to "A.C. Newman" instead -- which means that "A.C. Newman" is the name that would be most expected and least surprising for a category dedicated specifically to his solo albums, yet "Carl Newman" is the name that would be most expected and least surprising for the article since his band stuff is more widely known to a general audience. I don't know what the right answer is here, because either way there's a standard principle of category naming to defend the choice and another one that has to be devalued -- but I do agree that for that reason, it should probably go to a full CFR rather than a speedy. Bearcat (talk) 14:36, 26 October 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:McLoughlin Brothers games[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) 03:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: After several mergers and redirects into American board games, 1843–1935, this category no longer contains any McLoughlin Brothers games.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This category has outlived its purpose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional keep Why can't you just categorize the redirects there...? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do so? They're not games deemed worthy of articles.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why not? Redirects should be categorized and categories are used for navigation. Readers can gain something from finding all of the games in a certain year even if there aren't articles for each individual game listed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, but these are very obscure games. None of them are even listed on the McLoughlin Brothers page.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Response But redirects are cheap and potentially useful. I'll grant that some things are too obscure and if they need improbable disambiguations then they shouldn't exist, but in principle, this is still useful. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • In principle, yes. In this particular case, I don't see much utility. YMMV.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete categorizing games by maker is not a universal scheme, so unless we have enough articles to justify the category we should delete it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 7 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:Gay men by nationality[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: upmerge the national subcategories to the respective LGBT national subcategories. BencherliteTalk 08:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per numerous past discussions, the LGBT Wikiproject does not want overcategorization of this type. Category:LGBT people by nationality is an entirely sufficient layer of categorization at the nationality level, and does not need to be split out into separate subcategories for L, G, B and T people -- that level of subcategorization is warranted only in a very few specialized cases where a single merged LGBT category becomes extremely large and unwieldy, and the subcategories have already been created in every single case where that applies. In this case, however, it's just an unnecessary and unwanted triple intersection which is generating a lot of unnecessarily small categories with just two, three or four entries each. Delete all. Bearcat (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm split on this. I see a category with only 5 or less entries as being possibly over-categorized, but the second one I looked at has 69 entries. And in looking to find the L, the G, the B, and the T in a very large group - of even 20 articles - is arguably taxing to those seeking this information. Perhaps there could be a cut-off if there are only 2-4 entries the category is upmerged but leave the rest? Over time various factions of L's, G's, B's and T's, etc., have sought to find identity and culture within the larger LGBTQIXYZ umbrella so it would seem to be a benefit to have these categories as the numbers are only likely to grow. Insomesia (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are certainly a few categories where it's appropriate to separate the gay men and the lesbians and the bisexuals and the transfolk into distinct subcategories instead of keeping them together in a single merged category -- but there are many more where it's not a particularly useful or helpful thing for us to do. "LGBT people by nationality" categories are of the latter type, not the former. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gay men by country is just valid a categorization as gay men by occupation etc.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except that we don't do it for most occupations either. There are only three or four occupations for which we allow the splitout (and even then only due to sheer raw size, not because it's actually a useful distinction for an encyclopedia to make); for the remainder we have merged "LGBT" cats and specifically disallow separating them into distinct subcategories for each individual quadrant. In other words, it's an invalid categorization in most cases, so if this one's "just as valid" then that ain't saying much for its validity. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we have lgbt people by country why not split it further into the likes of these. If anything they are more accurate as the cat wording is what the contained people are most commonly and specificly described as.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the splitout introduces gender segregation into the category system in a place where it isn't needed -- we don't do gendered categories for the sake of gendered categories, but rather restrict them to cases where the gender category is itself a genuinely encyclopedic phenomenon (e.g. the extensive volume of academic and social research into the evolving role of Category:Women in politics). This, however, is a case where the gender distinction isn't the salient point of the category -- there's no meaningful difference between being a "gay man from England" and being a "lesbian from England" beyond that which is already inherent in the distinction between male and female (which is, again, not a distinction that we categorize on for its own sake.) What we care about for the purposes of the "LGBT people by nationality" tree is cultural identification with the broadly-constituted LGBT community as a whole, and not about the gender distinction. And secondly, it predominantly results in subcategories that are too small to be legitimate as per WP:OCAT#SMALL. We only allow the splitout in a few specific cases where a merged "LGBT" cat would be populated in the thousands; it is not acceptable (or needed) in cases where the parent category has only seven or eight or 15 articles total. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These categories however do not fit that definition - Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme - they are only going to get larger. I can see upmerging the categories that only have a handful but even the parent categories have large numbers in many cases. I say selectively upmerge only the smallest and allow recreation.
  • Delete per nom, WP:OVERCAT. Brandmeistertalk 23:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the largest/Upmerge the smallest (for now), separating out which of the LGBT individuals is actually G, L, B and T, etc is a recurring facet of the LGBT experience, in a communities of minority communities searching for identity and culture. Yes, some of these are small categories but some are certainly not. And it is useful for those looking for the information to know which of hundreds of LGBT people are L, G, B and T for a variety of reasons. And logically these groups are all going to increase in size. Insomesia (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no good level to split out LGBT at the national level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course there is, by nation and by the subgroup of being gay rather than lesbian, bisexual and transgender. This is noted in each article. Insomesia (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question why do we not name these categories Category:Cuban gay men and such like every other by nationality category that uses that form. Why is this the one place where we change it from Fooian bars to bars from foo?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Several reasons are presented above for deletion, and none of them stand up to scrutiny:
  1. The LGBT WikiProject doesn't want it ... which isn't a reason. It's just an opinion. If the LGBT project cares to offer an explanation of why it thinks these categories are inappropriate, then the wider community can assess those reasons. But assertion is not an argument, and the project does not WP:OWN the articles.
  2. It predominantly results in categories that are too small. I checked the first 12 of the categories nominated above, and it was easy to add a few more articles to the smaller ones. The result is that only none of those 12 categories have less than 5 articles, which is my usual minimum.
  3. there's no meaningful difference between being a "gay man from England" and being a "lesbian from England" beyond that which is already inherent in the distinction between male and female. That is an argument for merging the whole of Category:Gay men to Category:LGBT people, rather than against having national sub-categories.
  4. the splitout introduces gender segregation into the category system in a place where it isn't needed. Again, this this an assertion rather than a reason. Why is it not needed?
There are many reasons to categorise gay men and lesbians separately, while including them both in broader LGBT categories. One is that despite the similarity of having sex with a person of the same sex, there are huge and defining differences in the significance in societies of the two groups, many of which are set out in detail in the article lesbian. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has ever suggested that distinct categories for gay men and lesbians are always disallowed; there are numerous cases where they are in fact permitted and encouraged (e.g. Category:Gay writers vs. Category:Lesbian writers, Category:Gay politicians vs. Category:Lesbian politicians, etc.) Those are situations where the gender distinction is relevant -- lesbian writing and gay male writing have very real and encyclopedic differences despite their commonalities, just as the distinct context of Category:Women in politics makes being a lesbian politician a legitimately different thing from being a gay male politician. However, the gender distinction is not particularly relevant in the specific context of nationality -- for instance, there's no place on earth that permits same-sex marriage between gay men but disallows it between lesbians. In the particular context of nationality, it serves only as "gender for the sake of gender", and does not represent an encyclopedic distinction -- but that is not incompatible with the fact that there are numerous other cases (such as the ones I noted above) where the gender distinction is relevant and categorizable. The "gay man" vs. "lesbian" distinction can be and often is meaningful and relevant in conjunction with occupation -- but in conjunction with nationality, membership in the LGBT community as a whole is relevant while the gender distinction is not.
And incidentally, Category:Gay men and Category:Lesbians were never intended to directly contain individual people at all; they were only ever supposed to be containers for those cases where an LGBT occupational subcategory has been broken down into separate L, G, B and T subcategories, and were supposed to be kept empty of individual articles. So on the point that That is an argument for merging the whole of Category:Gay men to Category:LGBT people, rather than against having national sub-categories., please be aware that I actually agree with you and would favour that result -- because all of this is straying from the categories' originally intended purpose. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the relevant WikiProject has decided to sub-categorise specific sexualities (e.g. gay men) by occupation but not by nationality, then that is good enough for me. In most cases, these articles already have another category for gay men, e.g. Category:Gay actors, so no information would be lost, and WP:Category intersection tools are available if anyone needs to navigate gay men by nationality. It's generally helpful to have a specialist discussion somewhere on where to stop making intersection categories. It would however be helpful and respectful to Category work if the nominator or someone else familiar with past discussions would add links to at least one or two persuasive examples of those discussions. This would help to address BHG's first objection above. – Fayenatic London 19:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:LGBT people from Foo, rather than simply delete, because I checked a few cases and although in some cases this category had been added, in others an existing category "LGBT people in Foo" had been changed to "Gay men in Foo". – Fayenatic London 19:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Per Fayenatic. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Vote: Upmerge per Fayentic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And on the question of ownership, nobody ever said that the WikiProject had special ownership rights over the categories. However, LGBT categories present a very special WP:BLP issue above and beyond most other categories for people -- the LGBT Wikiproject ends up having to take on a much greater burden of maintenance, well above and beyond what most other WikiProjects ever have to take responsibility for, to ensure that inappropriate and/or unsourced entries are not being added to them, precisely because LGBT categories are frequently used as a form of vandalism or attack editing. Adding a person to Category:People from Massachusetts who's never actually lived in Massachusetts is just an error; adding a person to Category:Gay men who does not identify as gay (or who doesn't identify as male) can be still claimed as defamation. Accordingly, we've always tried to find a balance in the LGBT category tree between useful and maintanable -- we don't want there to be so few categories that relevant LGBT topics can't be found at all, but we also don't want there to be so many categories that it becomes impossible for us to maintain them properly. So while it's true that the WikiProject may not own the categories, as such, if we have a special burden of WP:BLP maintenance that goes so far beyond what most other WikiProjects have to face, then we do get to have a rather large say in what levels of granularity we are and aren't willing to put in the time and effort to maintain, and thus where the WikiProject wants to draw the line should be respected and honoured as much as possible. Wanting to have a say in how much work is thrust upon us is not the same thing as claiming "ownership". Bearcat (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Up merge to Category:LGBT people by nationality per User:Fayenatic london and the arguments put forward by WikiProject GLBT. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Up merge to Category:LGBT people by nationality and the various country cats. No need to separate men from women like most categories; we don't have Category:Atheist men by nationality, Category:Male writers by nationality, or the such like. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:03, 2 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:Spoken word soul[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete; neologism (WP:NOTNEO). Parent article has been PRODded. The artists mentioned in the deleted article have all combined spoken word with musical accompaniment. However, someone seems to have retroactively applied "spoken word soul" to what are actually diverse styles of music, possibly based on a quote by Shades of J (who released an album called Spoken World Soul). Gyrofrog (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The main article Spoken word soul has now been deleted. Its uncited closing quotation by Shades of J guitarist Dee M, "Spoken Word Soul has been around for years & will always be relevant," seems only to confirm that the notion is a vague synthesis rather than a specific genre. If I thought there was any chance of justifying Wikipedia content on the topic, I'd paste some of the deleted page onto the category talk page for improvement, but really it's a goner. – Fayenatic London 18:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a poorly defined neologism at best. Ridernyc (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since this is not a clear enough concept to have its own article, it is more clear we do not need to categorize by it. I worded this carefully because in many cases generes that have their own articles are just not prevalent enough to neeed categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 7 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.

Olympic roque players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Olympic roque players. Roque seems to specifically not be croquet in this context, since roque replaced croquet in the Olympics.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Roque is a variant of croquet which was only played once at the Olympics. Each nominated category has one sub-cat, and these intermediate categories are not a necessary part of any hierarchy. These categories were previously not within Category:Roque, otherwise they would have been picked up in the recent CFD Oct 9. – Fayenatic London 13:41, 30 October 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:Ring roads in the United States[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Previous CfD was inconclusive, but this should not have been moved to this title when "beltways" is more common in American usage. Imzadi 1979 → 12:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename: the previous CfD is here, and included a good level of support for this local variation. – Fayenatic London 17:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I'll join in on the above that there was no specific support for this name, but the proposed name did have support and no objections. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As closer of the previous CFD, I thought that since it was hard to disentengle the US-specific comments from the broader discussion, it was better to proceed with renaming to common format, and leave an opening for a separate discussion on this one if editors felt that was appropriate. Sorry to drag ppl through it again, but it seemed like the least-worst way to close the previous discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the comments here, are you willing to close this early as a clarification of the other close being an error for this one? No reason to wait and drag people through this discussion after the other one. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I had spotted your post sooner, I would have said "yes". But JPL's dissenting voice below means that there is a a debate to be had, which should run its course unless things get WP:SNOWy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose some places and people in the US use "Ring Road". In actually American speech "The Beltway" is as likely to refer to Washington DC as it is to ring roads.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the category membership I found exactly one, Kentucky Route 3005, which states that anyone calls it a "ring road". The article on the Billy Graham Parkway calls the state route it forms part of a "ring road", but I don't know that anyone from Charlotte calls it that. All the rest are "loops" or "beltways" except those which aren't identified as such at all and a couple of "circles". I think "loop" may be more common than "beltway" but "ring road" seems to be quite rare. Mangoe (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - Per nom. Dough4872 14:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom to match the article content that is contained in this category. Reading content should first be done by anyone nominating or commenting on categories. 'Beltway' is used a little more than 'loop' but sometimes both are used 'beltway loop'; 'ring' is not used. Hmains (talk) 20:54, 2 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:1906 San Francisco Earthquake survivors[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. There's no consensus for deletion or listification, though the new category can be brought up for deletion if folks want.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: capitalization: Earthquake should be earthquake. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining and all-inclusive. The population of San Francisco in 1906 was just under 400,000 and the 1906 earthquake claimed 3,000 lives. Hence, about 397,000 San Franciscans, along with the rest of the world's population at the time, survived the earthquake. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you point me to the biographies on Wikipedia for the 397,000 people you mention? By definition, the category is for notable people. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and as being defining to the people who were there at the time. Most of the biographies I checked in the category mention the fact they were in San Francicso at the time. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you explain the significance of defining vs. a significant life event? While being there may have been stressful, how is this defining? Did the quake cause these people to modify their lives or motivate them to some greatness? As I kind of asked below, how close did one need to be to be included in this category? Technically every one on the east coast survived. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no one thinks about any of the people in this category and comes up with "oh hey, he survived the 1906 San Francisco earthquake!" It's not going to be in the top ten or even top 100 things that come to mind. A list of notable survivors (and victims, if any) would be an interesting addition to the earthquake article but the category is not necessary. Buck Winston (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Surviving an earthwuake is the general outcome of those who expeirence it, and does not require much effort or lead to much interaction with it. The earthwauke does not proactively try to destroy you, thus this does not work as a parralel to our main survivor cat, Holocaust survivors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While it is nice that the articles mention this event, are the individuals defined for surviving the earthquake or for something else? I'll bet the latter. Also what does surviving the quake mean. Were you at the epicenter? Within 50 miles? In the area most damaged? How about having survived the fire which did the most damage. Bottom line too many problems to keep this. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment i hadnt considered deletion. People should know that for the last 50 years or so, the city and bay have celebrated anyone who survived the quake. it wasnt really survival, it was simply experiencing it, that mattered. like losing civil war veterans, and other war veterans. its a locally notable subject. i need to think about whether its inclusion criteria or name/description are encyclopedic, though.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A war veteran has been in some way proactively involved in the military. The American Civil War Veteran category would be more relevant if it included evryone who lived in Atlanta, Chambersburg and other directly effected areas at the time. However it does not. War Veterans are in the military, earthwuake survivors happen to be in some area that in theory means they somehow experienced the earthquake, which is a very short event. The analogy does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No disrespect intended towards war veterans. This may not be strictly speaking analogous, but Im simply trying to explain why these people are celebrated. maybe its a silly thing to point out, but we do, so that may make it a notable category. It is noted in each persons article their connection to the event, some prominently (like military men who helped with the relief efforts, or Caruso who refused to return to SF afterwards). Interestingly enough, i can find few mentions of survivors of natural events on WP. the Johnstown Flood has some mention, one of whom is in the List of last survivors of historical events, almost all of which are human created events.(merc)50.193.19.66 (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom This is simply a case correction, nothing more. Hmains (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom This is a closer call than Hmains seems to think, but we have lots of "survivors" categories, everything from shootings to various concentration camps, to more generalized things like "genocide" or "stroke". This event may or may not be defining for each of the people here, but it seems much closer to the various single incident categories like Category:Alamo survivors, Category: Halifax Explosion survivors‎; surprising that we don't a Titanic survivors cat.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is one of proximity. As noted above, everyone who didn't die in San Francisco during the earthquake "survived" it, whether they were at the epicenter or miles from it, whether they were in any danger from the quake or not. There is a big difference between surviving a specific incident like being shot or an event or location that is strictly geographically defined like a battle or a fort or a concentration camp and an event like an earthquake which is geographically widespread. Buck Winston (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That interpretation is a bit extreme and conflicts with various categories - anyone not in Halifax survived that explosion, not at the Alamo, survived that one, and various genocides, etc. I've never considered Harry Truman to be among the Category:Holocaust survivors, and I'd guess your view on that is an extreme minority one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from Cfd 2012 October 23 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: The renaming is an uncontroversial capitalisation fix which could have been C2A speedied, but the discussion has largely focused on deletion. This needs more input to reach a clearer consensus. The relevant guideline is WP:DEFINING, and it would be helpful if editors assessed the category against the tests set out there.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete. A list would explain in each case why in each case, to quote the current category page, "notability arises at least in part from being known as a survivor of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, or whose presence in the area during the earthquake is widely reported as noteworthy". For people in the first part of the quoted criteria, such as Rose Cliver, add a "See also" link to the list, which will enable navigation from such pages to others without needing the category. For people in the second part of the criteria, their presence may have been noteworthy but not defining, hence we should delete. Moreover, survivor categories are not defining in cases where most people present survived the event. – Fayenatic London 19:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment im still not sold on deletion, but this is a very good idea, and takes all the sting away from deletion of the category if created (i tend to like multiple methods of navigation). If this is closed as delete, I would be happy to create a small list.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Listify before deleting. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed that listifying may well be the best solution here. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If listified I would suggest again that it be made a part of the article on the earthquake rather than a small standalone list. Buck Winston (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - generally not defining. I'm not sure a list would be much better (as it would effectively be List of inhabitants of San Francisco in 1906), but the category at least is not justified. Robofish (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How has this not gone away yet? - Clearly "surviving" an event that was spread across multiple states, territories and countries is not defining of the individual. Delete the category and add a list of notable people who were per reliable sources directly affected by the quake but not killed to the article. Buck Winston (talk) 05:31, 20 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:Voodoo Child albums[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 --Salix (talk): 10:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no reason to subcategorize by pseudonym. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:43, 30 October 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:Tommy Heavenly6 albums[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't categorize by every pseudonym, cf. with Category:Garth Brooks albums, not Category:Chris Gaines albums —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:55, 5 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:Pescetarians[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per the comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 29#Category:American pescetarians, this is not a defining characteristic. I am also nominating for deletion Category:Canadian pescetarians and Category:English pescetarians, both of which were created after the nomination of Category:American pescetarians. I note that the creator decided to make more subcats rather than try to defend the first one. BencherliteTalk 08:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nominator makes a fine case for deletion, but doesn't mention the existence of Category:Vegetarians and its subcats, including Category:Vegans. Is the nominator arguing that Pescatarianism is less defining that vegetarianism? If not, then the vegetarian categories should be discussed alongside them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not defining per the first discussion. In addition, I started checking the articles in the categories. This fact is either not mentioned in the article or just mentioned in passing. Either of those qualifies as not defining. If I went through all of these, I suppose I would empty the categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pescetarianism#List_of_pescetarians has the list/sources for those in the categories.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However we only should be categorizing people according to things that are important enough to them that they are actually mentioned in the article. This is a minimum rule to make sure the thing categorized by is at least in some way related to the person. It does not avoid all overly trivial categorizations, but if something is too trivial to be mentioned in the article, the article should not be put in a category related to it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not defining. Also verification issues for BLP. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not a defining characteristic. I would argue the same thing about vegetarians and vegans, and actually believe I have about one or the other in a previous CfD. Eating habits are ephermeral and changing. Are we prepared to categorize as vegans people who were vegans for 2 years and then became full blown meat eaters? Eating habits are too changing to characterize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—The list in the article Pescetarianism says it all for me. "This is a list of notable people who are or were pescetarians." So, diet choice is being worded as a "performer by performance" type of category. And of the people listed there I can't see anyone who was defined by eating fish. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Being a pescatarian is a likestyle choice, as much as being a vegetarian or a vegan. We should either allow all or none. If the closing Admin decides to delete, he should immediately nominate the vegetarian and vegan categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep no more or less defining than the vegetarian and vegan categories. If these are deleted then i think the admin should do as pk suggests. MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 21:27, 2 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:Birds of ICUN Red List least concern[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. Retargeted.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Misspelt category Shyamal (talk) 07:59, 30 October 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:Songs recorded at IBC Studios[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Where a song is recorded at is not a defining aspect of the song. Some albums are categorized this way but not songs, which can be recorded and performed by multiple artists. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 07:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There is an obvious misunderstanding of the words "song" and "recording" in the title of the category as the nominator has clearly pointed out. Not convinced this would work as a list either, there really isn't any notability to be found. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Location of studio recording is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of recording, never mind of a song. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteOoh that is obscure.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I do not think the studio is important. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 2 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:Inhabited places in Skopje Statistical Region[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Skopje Statistical Region.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 2 - jc37 04:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are no other categories by statistical region of the Republic of Macedonia, and both the articles in this category are already categorised under Category:Villages in the Republic of Macedonia. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Skopje Statistical Region describes it as " one of eight arbitrary statistical regions"; see also Republic of Macedonia#Administrative regions. I don't think we should categorise by it if it's not a level of government/local administration. The 84 municipalities are the first-order divisions, not the 8 regions. – Fayenatic London 12:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we do have precedent for using statistical regions as categories; for example: Category:People from the San Francisco Bay Area even though the article San Francisco Bay Area explicitly states that "The nine-county definition of the San Francisco Bay Area is not recognized by the United States Census Bureau; rather, they define a larger 11-county Combined Statistical Area (CSA) designated the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA, including Santa Cruz and San Benito counties to the south; counties that do not have a border on the San Francisco Bay." The question is why one and not the other?? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno about the SF example, but one precedent does not amount to an existing pattern of categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 04:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to weak keep now. I have populated it better; the two villages that were the only contents at the time it was nominated were already in a "villages in Foo municipality" category, which is now a sub-cat along with others. Even if the other regions have not been categorised, this probably has more notability as it includes the capital. – Fayenatic London 19:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply. If kept, wouldn't it be better renamed to Category:Skopje Statistical Region, and converted to a container category? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 21 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:Monobrachium[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 2 - jc37 04:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pointless category which contains only the head article Monobrachium. The three species within this genus are red-linked, so this category should be deleted until there are some species to populate it BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the category be "Monobrachia"? Is this part of some big structure that will be re-created in due course any way and there is no reason to prune this leaf of the tree. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can easily be recreated if and when there something to populate it. Right now it is pointless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Genra categories are covered under the WP:SMALLCAT exemption; species are always categorised by their genra. It appears this needs to be placed under a correct parent, but that's simple maintiance. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would happily withdraw the nomination if there was even one species with which to populate the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no point in having a category that only has its head article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 04:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Bushranger. Is the category well defined? Does the category have stuff that could be put into it? Yes and Yes to both. This is WP:SOFIXIT. Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What currently-extant pages can it include other than the head article? The head article Monobrachium says that there are only three species within this genus, and all are red-linked. So what exactly is the FIXIT you propose? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The obvious one of creating the articles to populate the category? There are no issues with the category per se, it's just elbow grease. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know anything about the topic, and have no interest in learning it, so I will leave the writing of the articles to someone who does.
        By that go-write-the-articles logic, we would never deleted any small category where there could theoretically be coverage of the topic. Someone nominates a whole slew of categories for mountain ranges in area where we have only stubby list of mountains? Tell them to go write the few hundred articles needed to populate the categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment And all the Catholic diocese articles were always there too. ;) Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It shouldn't have the main article in it anyway, and that's clearly the only member it is going to have until the species get written, if they are ever written. Mangoe (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—without prejudice to recreation when the species' articles are written. [I have pruned a couple of other categories on the article as genera are not meant to be listed in the Taxonomy and Paleontology categories.] Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:13, 2 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.

Townlands of County Foo[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/Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 2 -jc37 04:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: rename all these townland categories to a common format. The convention for categories geographical subdivisions is "Foor of Bar". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per advice on similar nomination for Category:Townlands in North Tipperary, these were probably good candidates for spedy renaming. Longford is a merge. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply. I think that the Longford category might be speediable, but all the Northern Ireland categories currently use "in", so I don't think they qualify. I had done some tidying of these categories and drawn up a list of renamings/mergers including the North Tipp category, but you beta me to it on North Tipp. I have no objection to North Tipp being speedied. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Ireland has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 04:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom. Sorry I didn't catch this first time around. Not controversial in the least. Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support and rename some "Lists in" in Category:Townlands of the Republic of Ireland by county to "Lists of" townlands ..... Hugo999 (talk) 04:32, 31 October 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:Original image files[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 2 -jc37 04:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: a very small subset of what is out there, difficult to get anywhere near a complete coverage of the topic and of little use to the project. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment This category is populated by Template:Original which was copied from a similar template in Wikimedia. Its purpose was to mark certain files as protected so that Wikisource could collect them. It is being used only on images from a single work which cannot be moved to WM for another thirteen years due to non-US copyright protection. I don't know how many images are similarly candidates for such future transfer; it seems to me that it would be difficult to identify such works after the fact. But it seems to me that there are two questions to be considered:
  1. Is the template really useful?
  2. Should it populate a category?
If the answer to either is "no", then I would agree that the category can be deleted. Mangoe (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 04:02, 30 October 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:Faculty by university in Ireland[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 2 -jc37 04:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is a clear duplicate of Category:Academics by university in Ireland, probably created without knowledge of WP:ENGVAR-based existence of two naming conventions for academics: "Faculty" in the USA, and "Academics of Foo" in Europe. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Ireland has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 04:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per BHG. Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- A faculty is a division within a university (etc), not a person. This is an inappropriate application of an Americanism. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 2 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.

Academics by university in Ireland[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 2 -jc37 04:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename all. per convention of Category:Academics by university in Europe. This is possibly a speedy per C2C, but since there is no Irish convention I'm not sure if it applies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Ireland has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 04:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Per BHG. Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, rename. British English is more likely to apply in Ireland than American English. – Fayenatic London 20:57, 4 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:Alcatraz inmates[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 suggested purging can also be done if a suitable category is created for those inmates.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 2 -jc37 04:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Alcatraz is the island and it existed as a military prison for 60 years prior to becoming the penitentiary. Officially I think my suggested title looks more correct.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. The category was not tagged by the nominator, and the nomination here did not make clear what was proposed. I have now tagged the category [7] and reformatted the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but purge. The renaming clarifies the intended scope of the category, but the ambiguity of the present name may have led to the inclusion of inmates in the earlier military prison. When the nominator suggested this renaming on my talk page, I had some doubts about it ... but on reflection I think that the iconic status of Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary merits a category for that specific period. There may be case for creating a category for inmates of the military prison. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities [8], WikiProject California [9], and the San Francisco Bay Area task force [10]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename notable institution with some notable "alums". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/purge matches other more formally named categories. if there are more than a few of the military prison inmates, they can go in a new category, after removal.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/purge since the current ambiguous name may have caused some incorrect placements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Makes a category title longer than it needs to be. Also, wasn't there more than one prison in the history of Alcatraz? The current title allows for prisoners in any Altracraz prison to be included pbp 04:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment my understanding is that we categorize people by prison they were in, not by general location of the prison, so we should not merge people from multiple prisons into one category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 04:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom And purge any who not then fit into the new category. Create other categories as needed for other prisons at this location. Hmains (talk) 04:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • REanme and purge as Mercurywoodrose, making sure that the purged articles get a better category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and split to appropriately-named sibling category (rather than purge) so that information will not be lost. – Fayenatic London 20:59, 4 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:MLB team templates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. The navboxes can be moved to appropriate navbox categories, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories contain navigational boxes. It would also match other MLB Navigational Box categories. Astros4477 (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The parent category (Category:Major League Baseball team navigational boxes) has one category named as Category:Team navigational boxes and 5 as Category:Team templates. Not sure that matching other cats would be correct when it is the vast minority.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, these categories would contain all types of templates for the team, like infobox, navbox, sidebar, etc. You could also use the navbox categories listed above, but they should be in addition to the present categories, not instead of. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:34, 30 October 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 models of German descent[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: upmerge to Category:American people of German descent and a subcategory of Category:American models, and delete emptied European category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Category:American models of German descent to Category:American people of German descent and Category:American models
  • Upmerge Category:American models of European descent to Category:American models
  • Nominator's rationale according to Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality we are told "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created." These categories both are merely trivial intersections. In the issue of People of European descent, in the US this is clealry a racial and not an ethnic classification, and so we should not use it, because we do not classify people by race.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. Finally. Good to see this nomination JPL. Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • upmerge This isn't a significant intersection. Pichpich (talk) 06:30, 4 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:American mobsters of various ethnic descents[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: upmerge all, with the "murdered" categories also upmerging to Category:Murdered American mobsters, and delete Category:American mobsters of Asian descent after placing in appropriate ethnic categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:43, 21 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:Current foreign ministers[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. These are all in appropriate "foreign ministers of (X)" categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Current foreign ministers
  • Nominator's rationale We avoid current categories for people. Generally we put people in categories that once they are in them, they always apply. The only exception is Category:Living people. I see no reason to have this as another exception. There is a list of this which works just fine. We do not need to make this a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, and per the longstanding convention against "current" categories for people. As the nominator notes, we already have List of current foreign ministers, which is more easily maintained (and which I have just added to Category:Lists of current office-holders). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Category:Foreign ministers-- we do not like current/former distinctions in categories. A list will be much more useable since the people can be arranged by their country, rather than name as is almost inevitable with a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge I am opposed to all instances of categorizing someone or something by present status, except where necessary for collaboration (typically in hidden categories.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:40, 3 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:American models of Italian descent[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: upmerge to Category:American people of Italian descent and a subcategory of Category:American models.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:31, 21 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.

New Categories synonymous with Category:Propaganda[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 Category:Societal engineering. No consensus to delete the other two. - jc37 04:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 18 - jc37 02:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Categories synonymous with Category:Propaganda

Nominator's rationale: Delete. One user has created all of these and made questionable changes to the related Category:Propaganda and is engaging in some sort of personal synthesis of these issues. See more relevant comments in the existing deletion discussion linked above. CarolMooreDC 01:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note Categories have not been properly tagged for discussion. I would do it myself but must run at the moment.- choster (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I forgot. Will do. Did tell the person who originated them, FYI. CarolMooreDC 00:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - These categories are not synonymous with Category:Propaganda. They are parent categories (one above another) that cover broader topics. The argument could be made that Category:Societal engineering violates WP:OR, it is an uncommon term, used in only a few sources. However I believe it is the best name for this useful category. (I authored these categories. I will do the necessary work on the mains, however my recent emphasis has been on categorisation and Template:Media manipulation.) --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also for consideration should be upmerging Category:Media manipulation techniques to Category:Persuasion techniques, upmerging Category:Media manipulation terminology to Category:Terminology, upmerging Category:Media manipulation theorists to Category:Theorists, deleting Category:News media manipulation, deleting Category:Political engineering, upmerging Category:Propaganda examples to Category:Propaganda (this has already been done by nom, but should it have been? See also Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Problematic restructuring Category: Propaganda). I oppose all these changes, but they are logical extensions of nom's suggestion. --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Categorization is something that should be discussed at relevant category talk pages, Wikiprojects or here with people with a lot of experience before major changes made so that those who think about these issues a lot can give the best advice, especially regarding WP:Overcategorization. Making a whole bunch of changes that may duplicate or obviate careful past discussions, or that just LOOK like WP:OR to a number of editors - even if they are reasonable - is better done after discussion with others who can better opine on the whole topic. CarolMooreDC 16:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Agreed. Next time I will do so. On this occasion, however, I think the case can be made that my reforms of the Category:Media manipulation and its sub-categories were extensions of the work done by other editors. When I came upon them the now sub-categories of Category:Media manipulation techniques and Category:Media manipulation theorists were cross linked by a series of "See also" lists. So I promoted and created these categories respectively to be container categories of these interlinked concepts. (Relevant edits are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.) Then created the implied parent category Media manipulation and filled it out with the parents of techniques, and theorists. So while I created these categories, they are not without precedent. --Andrewaskew (talk) 04:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, but manually. These are broad terms with ill-defined boundaries, and this sort of loose concept makes for poor and unstable categories. I recommend manual deletion rather the usual bot-driven deletion so that pages can be returned to any categories from which they were removed to populate these new categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So basically best to empty the category and put all categories back under what they were before?? Thanks. Late note: I see the user who established them is arguing since they have NOT been deleted here things should not be removed. So it's turning a bit circular without definitive response. CarolMooreDC 22:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have patience. They will close this discussion one way or the other. They have alot of Cfd to work through, and many of the cases are more clear than this one. Let them work through the list. --Andrewaskew (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to see in Andrewaskew's contributions list he has been undoing some of the other questionable additions to categories he's done on other topics. It does make me a little worried to see someone with only about 2000 edits doing so many complicated things with categories. Hopefully he has studied policy and discussed these changes with others first. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 00:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 02:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, that may mean some categories will need diffusion, but that can be worked on later. Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about Category:Social engineering (political science) which an editor originally did link to propaganda, but that was a while ago. CarolMooreDC 16:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Societal engineering, Keep Social engineering (political science), Keep Media manipulation. It is not certain what societal engineering is, but the other two have their own Wikipedia articles (Social engineering (political science) and Media manipulation) which differentiate them from propaganda. The other two are broader concepts than propaganda. I do agree with BrownHairedGirl that these terms have ill-defined boundaries. I disagree with the nominator that the propaganda category sufficiently serves the need which the other two categories are serving. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:51, 21 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_October_30&oldid=1087820377"