Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 15 November 17 >

November 16[edit]

Category:Countries bordering <ocean>[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) 23:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing countries by what oceans/seas they border is not good categorization as (1) a country could be in many such categories (e.g. France could be in at least 4 such categories even without its overseas territories), (2) we don't (for good reasons) have other "bordering" categories (countries-bordering-country, seas-bordering-country etc), (3) country categories (e.g. Category:United States) get put under these categories (so for example Death Valley is categorized under Category:Pacific Ocean which is incorrect per WP:SUBCAT). This sort of thing is better covered by lists. For info: Another "Countries bordering <ocean>" was recently deleted - see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_6#Category:Countries_bordering_the_Atlantic_Ocean. DexDor (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment 1) the number of resulting category connections is not relevant in a discussion of whether to keep a category--there is no limit or target number. 2) what are the unstated 'good reasons'? 3) The Death Valley example demonstrates a misunderstanding of the category system which is a web not a hierarchy. Hmains (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arctic_Ocean#Extent_and_major_ports is not a list of bordering countries. It skips Iceland which has no listed port. Hmains (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1) If a categorization scheme means that an article can be in many such categories then it's unlikely that they are all WP:DEFINING characteristics of that topic. Lots of categories on articles makes categorization harder to use and maintain. 2) For example, it would cause circular categorization (see comment at previous CFD). Does Iceland border the Arctic Ocean ? (see 2nd list I've linked in the note in the nom). DexDor (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per previous consensus on the Atlantic ocean. A list is a better way to capture this, this isn't defining of the countries in question in most cases.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The use of Category:United States in the example above happens all of the time when editors think that are helping by including a category as a subcategory when only the article (United States) should be in the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Only articles must be in these categories. Need to remove the subcategories. NickSt (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Categorising countries by geographical features would lead to massive category clutter, as well as being misleading in cases such as France. Access to the sea is a crucial factor in the geopolitical and economic standing of a country, but the issue is too complex to be accommodated by the category system. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- There might be a case for Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian ocean categories (also Arctic), but to take this to a lower level of seas is going to create undesirable clutter, certainly if it is to be applies to seas of ratfher vague extent: Mediterranean, Black Sea, Red Sea, and Persian Gulf might be acceptable, as they are nearly enclosed with access via narrow straits. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2013 (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:History of Galicia (central Europe)[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 (merge to Category:History of Galicia (Eastern Europe), but category has remained empty, so nothing to merge). Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Doesn't meet naming convention. Category was created without consensus from Category:History of Galicia (Eastern Europe). Chris Troutman (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The edit has been done in good faith. I thought it is right to do so, because the articles on wikipedia seemed to be falling in two directions - Galicia as "central Europe" and as "eastern Europe", so I made it compatible with other versions of Wikipedia (Arabic, Asturian, Danish, Croatian, Indonesian, Italian, Dutch, Norwegian, Occitan, Polish, Portuguese, Sicilian, Serbian, Turkish and Chinese), all of which tag it as central European. This designation is justified by the geography, culture, religious situation, history and other characteristics that the region of Galicia resembles--Martina Moreau (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion and Support research. Martina Moreau is on a correct path according to the following quote from Ukrainian scholar Andriy Zayarnyuk:

The distinctive feature of the discourse of Galician regionalism is "Central Europe." In terms of the political criticism of the Ukrainian state expressed by Galician regionalism, this state as a whole is too slow, or not at all eager to enter this particular space, in which Galicia shares while the rest of Ukraine does not. I would argue that "Central Europe" in this case covers Galicia's longing for the modern nation-state that contemporary Ukraine is failing to consolidate (in the address cited at the beginning of the paper Central Europe is imagined as a circle of free nations). [1]

Poeticbent talk 01:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion POV push. Please see the nominator's contributions. Aside from the fact that it is presumptuous to overwrite existing categories with newly created categories, it is essentially WP:NOR. The fact that one scholar has drawn certain conclusions does not tally with the mainstream view. Taking the nomenclature of centuries and reinterpreting it as an emotionally-based geographic region is based on wish list politics rather than scholarly and historically recognised conventions. The same Western mentality could just as easily be applied to Japan. Does that mean we should create a category for "Japan: US/EU Asia"? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment There does seem to be a bit of POV push here; especially with long-standing article title and classifications of this as Eastern Europe then tweaked in many places. Also, next time please don't create a duplicate category - the correct path is to come here and ask for a rename. In any case, CFD probably isn't the place to have this discussion - I'd suggest putting this nomination on procedural hold, and then start a discussion with wikiproject europe editors around how to best classify Galacia - categories follow article titles, so ultimately this comes down to the article titles and relevant MOS.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I have standardised the naming on English Wikipedia (before that it was referring to Galicia as a part of either central Europe, or eastern Europe). Now it is standardised to one. I did it in good faith because the current situation gave an impression that there are 3 Galicias (1 in Spain, one in central Europe and one in eastern Europe) to suit all other Wikipedias. Geoographically Galicia is in central Europe and I thought it is the most neutral POV, hence the changes made. I am not aware of any "western mentality". I have studied about Central Europe for a few years, hence my interest and this is why I felt confident what I was doing. It is true centre of Europe cannot be unilaterally declared, but all calculations lead to the locations in or close to Lithuania/Belarus. Galicia is too far from Ural to be classified as eastern Europe, and all other Wikipedias, as I already mentioned, classify it as central Europe. I didn't expect such a technical and obvious change will need consultation--Martina Moreau (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Confusion identified? Judging by the comment left by Martina Moreau on my own user talk page, I think I could have established where any good faith confusion may be emanating from on Martina Moreau's behalf. Being a native German speaker, she's possibly misunderstood that, according to the widely accepted name in the English language, the multiple instances of Galacia's (with variations on the spelling including Galicia's) are correct (as well as a further instance of a Galatia). Each refers to a distinctly different region (per the DAB page), etc. Just checking on the corresponding German common names for the relevant articles, Galicien is the German common name for Galicia, Spain and Galizien is the German common name for Galacia which should, at the least, be demarcated as central AND eastern Europe as it was an historical area crossing the borders of Poland and Ukraine (now defunct except for use in Slavic vernacular).
Add to this the fact that she is probably unfamiliar with the use of these naming conventions in the English language as historical and political descriptors, not simply geographical descriptors, and we've ended up with a mess. Is this a literal translation of definitions from other languages which have evolved their own nomenclature? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This issue should be determined in an RfC and in consultation with relevant WikiProjects, not at CfD. Revert back to original classifications until consensus changes. Liz Read! Talk! 15:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RfC discussion if it is considered that there are genuine grounds for standardizing these categories (although I would argue that they are not, and have never been, based on geographical absolutes and there is no evidence to support such classifications outside of WP:OR). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion. Mispelled, and the proper way to rename a category is to submit a new CfD, not to create a fork. Editors interested in the topic of whether Galicia is in Central or Eastern Europe are welcome to stop by Talk:Galicia_(Eastern_Europe). (CC User:Poeticbent). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to Category:History of Galicia (Eastern Europe), no problem with recreating but discussion should happen at Talk:Galicia_(Eastern_Europe). Article titles should lede, categories should follow. We need to merge because things may end up in this duplicate category by mistake.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the central and eastern European categories. I have no strong view as to which should be the target. The term "central Europe" disappeared during the Cold War, when Galicia was certainly in the east. There is a POV issue as to where the east in a tripartite division, east, central, and west should be. I would suggest that the eastern boundary of USSR would be a good one to identify to split east and central, with France at the beginning of the west. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2013 (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:Locations in County Dublin[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 (C2C). The Bushranger One ping only 00:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other "Places in <place>" categories. For info: Example previous similar CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_17#Category:Locations_in_the_Tees_Valley. DexDor (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2013 (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.

Actors from boroughs of New York City[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: This division of actors by small geographical areas is absurd.. I defy anyone to provide persuasive evidence that "actors from the Bronx" (or from Queens or Brooklyn) is an encyclopedic topic distinct from "actors from New York City", and unless such evidence is forthcoming, the categories should be upmerged to the city category.
In general, geographic categorisation of actors should be broad. Professional actors have always been mobile people, migrating to work in the urban centers where theatres clustered, or joining groups of travelling actors. Then in the the age of cinema, actors migrated to the film studios, which in the US were clustered in California. Television led a to slightly more dispersed set of work opportunities, and video accelerated that process ... but drama is still expensive to produce, and most aspiring actors need to migrate to train and find work. Now in the age of aeroplanes and cars, screen actors can and do travel long distances between jobs, just as medieval players did. Their home may be a long way from any of their workplaces.
Stage actors are still more geographically bound, but they can commute like anyone else.
So in the case of these categories, even stage actors from the various boroughs will still be competing for the same pool of roles, whichever subway line or road they use to get there. That means that in terms of their acting career, which borough of New York they come from is simply irrelevant.
AFAIK, these are the only city subdivision actor categories. Depending on the outcome of this discussion, I may follow up with a proposal to merge other categories of actors from subdivsions of US states. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • support per nom, we don't need this fine grained a division.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I actually proposed this before, but then we were going to do an RFC on people by occupation by place that seems to have never materialized. Going below the city level is too much. Although this is not the only case of such, we have Category:Actors from Hollywood, California and Hollywood is just a section of Los Angeles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2013 (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.

Space program[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 to rename all. As several editors pointed out, WP:ENGVAR permitrs variations by local usage. Some editors asserted that there was a particular reason to adopt the word "program" for some of the countries involved, and there might have been a different outcome if the discussion had focused on each particular proposal. Editors may wish in future to renominate some of these categories individually. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Opposed speedy. The categories should follow the standard spelling of Category:Space programs by country. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nomination
  • Comment is there a dialect-neutral alternative to "program(me)" which can be used for the entire category tree? --W. D. Graham 16:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both the European cases: unless there is clear evidence to the contrary European articles normally use British English, not American English. It is perfectly normal for a parent category to have sub-cats varying according to national usages. No view on Argentina. Program in British English is only used for computer program. Anotehr attempt at American Imperialism! Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:AGF! Forcing the incorrect British spellings all over the place it the real problem. Why is it that the British don't respect Americans? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed: Peterkingiron, please refrain from making further comments like that, as it's a stunning failure of good faith if not also WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment surely there must be written materials in English by those charged with running these, and surely they must use either "program" or "programme"; without evidence to the contrary, Argentina usually uses American English, while the Europeans use British English. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    English is not an official language in any of these countries, so that doesn't hold. As a second language it would depend on the individuals/organisations rather than the country as a whole, and usage could vary programme-to-programme or even within different branches of the same programme. --W. D. Graham 09:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Argentina. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you are an administrator I am sure I do not need to remind you that this is a discussion not a vote. Please can you provide rationale beyond not liking British spellings, as you stated above, to back up your position. --W. D. Graham 09:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. To me, this looks like a fairly clear case of a situation where there is no preferred variety of English for the topics in question. Because of that, WP:ENGVAR can apply, and it's OK to just stick with what we have. If there was only one category out of many using a different variety, it may be worthwhile changing it for consistency' sake, but here we have three, plus the ones that have a variety of English that uses "programme", so I think it's OK. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Argentina, weak rename Germany and Sweden. The website of CONAE, Argentina's national space agency, consistently uses "program". The websites of the German Aerospace Center (link) and the Swedish National Space Board (link) refer to the "German space programme" and "Swedish space programme", respectively. In general, I think that we should match the spelling of the parent category (Category:Space programs) whenever WP:ENGVAR does not apply—as in this case. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. WP:ENGVAR is weaker in the cases of countries in which English isn't generally in use and isn't an official language. It's one thing to use ENGVAR as an argument for the name of an article or an eponymous category (e.g., when there's no clear WP:COMMONNAME spelling for a Japanese subject, we need to consider using the spelling that the manufacturer's English website uses), but ENGVAR isn't a good reason to prevent the harmonisation of names for categories related to non-English countries. It's a good reason not to rename Category:Space programme of the United Kingdom, for example, but it's not particularly relevant to the Argentines, Germans, or Swedes. Nyttend (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename mainly because the end result is shorter, and short category names are a good thing. Also, I am tired of accusations of "American imperialism".John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    By that logic we shouldn't we just name all categories using textspeak. Your "!"vote seems to have no basis in policy, just that you don't like the non-US spellings. --W. D. Graham 11:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who will edit for pay[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) 18:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category groups users by participation and interest in receipt of money outside Wikipedia, which is not relevant to encyclopedia-building. In addition, the category name and description is used to call attention to one's service to encourage sales, which brings up WP:NOTADVERTISING. It appears that this would be a subcategory of Wikipedians who edit, which goes against Wikipedia:User categories#all-inclusive, and would be a contrasting category of Wikipedians who edit for free, which is the beginnings of setting up opposing groups of those who edit Wikipedia for free and the not-based those who do not edit Wikipedia for free. In the collective, the category may groups users on the basis of a characteristic that triggers a negative emotional reaction in others, is detrimental to an environment of constructive collaboration, or brings Wikipedia into disrepute. If not deleted, the category should be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who edit for pay and its description revised to comply with WP:USERCAT. -- Jreferee (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nomination says "It appears that this would be a subcategory of Wikipedians who edit, which goes against Wikipedia:User categories#all-inclusive". This is faulty logic; that a parent category would be all-inclusive does not make this category all-inclusive. The nomination also says "[This] would be a contrasting category of Wikipedians who edit for free, which is the beginnings of setting up opposing groups of those who edit Wikipedia for free and the not-based those who do not edit Wikipedia for free.". This is faulty logic because one could both edit for free and edit for payment. I suggest the nominator (unless they can substantiate these parts of the argument) strike them out. The main reason for proposing deletion would remain. I'm not sure a rename would be appropriate for a user category. DexDor (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Basically the category advertises services for pay or WP:SPAM. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:31, 23 November 2013 (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.

Musicians/singers by century, nationality and gender[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. It looks like there could probably be a consensus to also upmerge the target categories, but a new nomination is required for those since they were not tagged for discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's rationale: Merge. Categorizing a singer by their nationality and gender, in addition to the century they were active in, just seems a bit silly to me. Do we remember Kurt Cobain and Jim Morrison as "20th-century American male singers"? I don't think so. I believe these categories would work better to define singers by their century and nationality only. BizarreLoveTriangle (talk) 07:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge - a triple intersection, this goes a step too far. The gendering at the national level suffices, and if desired category intersects can be created to show just the 21st century women.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all or Merge musicians, keep singers. It has long been agreed that gender is a defining characteristic of a singer (tho not of other musicians), and most other singer categories are split by gender for that reason. There is no reason not to apply it to the century categories if we are going to keep them; but why are we keeping them?
The overwhelming majority of Wikipedia biographical articles related to the 20th and 21st century, and splitting them in this way makes no sense. That's particularly the case for popular culture, because the era of recorded music has vastly increased the number of professional singers and musicians. Splitting them into two overlapping groups just adds pointless category clutter; it many cases it is just a crude and incomplete current/former split.
The categories for 20th- and 21st-century people were deleted at CFD 20 June 2009, and I am not sure why they were re-created. Many sub-categories have been deleted at other CFDs, such as the sportspeople, actors, photographers, businesspeople, journalists, and all sportspeople.
For all the reasons set out in that long series of discussions, we should delete all 20th- and 21st-century categories of performers: actors, singers, musicians, comedians etc. They are all just pointless clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you suppose that one can locate the relevant articles, if we keep only pre-20th century categories? Why are they less notable or why should they be more difficult to locate than their predecessors? Dimadick (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all or rather merge back to their non-century equivalents. As BHG reminds us we culled almost all 20th/21st century distinctions a few years back. Salt the subjects. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the musicians, Keep the singers. Gender is more relevant to performers. I'd disagree with any "salt" deletion, because I find the century categories more useful in locating articles than their parents. Dimadick (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2013 (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:Male actors from the Bronx[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 by nominator BHG makes some good points re: interface, so I'm withdrawing for now pending more work on the category intersection interface. If someone wants to nominate the smaller regions to merge they can do so in a separate nom for clarity. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Note: this is a test nomination - if it passes, I will nominate all of the other states/cities in the US and Canada to start, and then move to other countries. I started a discussion here but there wasn't much participation, and I think it's time to bring this to the denizens of CFD for a decision. I've been dismayed by the complexity of the category tree engendered by the male actor/actress split. For example, just look at this:
Actors from New York City
Actors from Brooklyn
Actresses from New York City
Actors from the Bronx
Male actors from New York City
Actors from Manhattan
Actors from Queens, New York
Actors from Staten Island
study the complexity of the nesting relationships; each child category must belong to multiple parent categories, in order to allow three interlocking trees - a tree of actors, a tree of actresses, and a tree of male actors. I've seen this scheme elsewhere, in Category:Ireland, and the result is a mess and a nightmare to maintain, especially once you start nesting. It's also very confusing to the user, who see Actor categories as siblings of "male actor" and "actress" categories, because this is the structure this engenders. I think we should simplify our approach vastly, through the following - keep "male actor" and "actress" categories only at the national level - not at sub-national or city levels. Then, use simple category intersection to generate the separate lists of male/female at any level desired - see Category:Albanian_film_actors for a live example of how this might look. When we're designing a categorization system, we need to think first about the other editors who are, willy nilly, categorizing things bit by bit - this gendering down to the tiniest geographical division into male and female results in a vastly more complicated category structure, opens up opportunities for lots of weird things to happen (as you see all over the Ireland tree). I will consider and nominate separately other actor/actress divisions, such as within different genres/domains, but for now I'm focused on eliminating this distinction down to all levels of geography. We don't have this scheme for writers, even though we have male and female writers categories, and I don't think we need it for actors. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the result is a mess and a nightmare to maintain" Everything on Wikipedia is a mess and nightmare to maintain. Just because it's difficult doesn't make it a valid reason for deletion. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. In the last year has been repeatedly agreed that gender is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of an actor (see for example this RFC), so the logical result of that is that each set of actors should be split by gender. It is wrong to say that "actor" categs are siblings of "male actor" and "actress" categs; they are clearly parents. Why is Obi trying to overturn the RFC?
The result of Obi's proposed merge, if followed through for other such categs, would be to create a huge Category:American actresses and Category:American male actors, each containing about 10,000 articles. That would be completely useless for navigation, so aprt from the lingering category clutter, it would effectively remove gender from the acting categories.
Note that I have just completed a huge exercise of gendering the actor categories for North America, so I have a lot of familiarity with that part of the category. Having also done a lot of work on the Irish categories, where I disagreed with Obi, I wonder why he brings that topic in here; there is no relevant parallel. Ireland is a very different situation, where the island and historical country is split into two states, and many things (sport, religion, culture) are organised on all-Ireland basis. That has been accommodated by the simple device of ensuring that all topics have a Category:Foo in Ireland parenting Category:Foo in Northern Ireland and Category:Foo in the Republic of Ireland. Unlike gender, it doesn't affect the categorisation of individual articles. Furthermore, the existing structure was described by Obi himself in WP:IRE-CATS, and unanimously upheld at an RFC in June/July 2013. When it comes to Irland, Obi seems to have a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
In the case of actors, Obi's comcerns about gender are misplaced. The problem here is not the gendering of the categories; the problem is the absurd division of actors by small geographical areas. I defy anyone to provide persuasive evidence that "actors from the Bronx" is an encyclopedic topic distinct from "actors from New York City", and unless such evidence is forthcoming, the solution is to merge to Category:Actors from New York City and Category:Actresses from New York City.
But let's take a wider look at the geography. What exactly is the defining difference between an actor from Iowa and an actor from Idaho? In each case, a notable actor from those areas is overwhelmingly likely to pursue their career either in the big cities where theatres cluster, or in the areas such as Hollywood where screen actors cluster. Is there an "Idaho school of acting" distinct from an "Iowa school of acting"? Not that I know of.
It gets even sillier when we look at the by-city categories. Why on earth do we have a Category:Actors from Cleveland, Ohio and Category:Actors from Cincinnati, Ohio? Are any of the actors in those categories notable for their work in one city rather than the other? Or for bringing a style of acting peculiar to on of those cities?
So if we want to simplify the actor categories, let's start with the folly of categorising them by irrelevant attributes of sub-national geography. In this case, the solution would be to merge
  1. Category:Actors from the Bronx to Category:Actors from New York City and Category:People from the Bronx
  2. Category:Male actors from the Bronx to Category:Male actors from New York City and Category:People from the Bronx
  3. Category:Actresses from the Bronx to Category:Actresses from New York City and Category:People from the Bronx
Beyond that, why do we even categorise actors by US State? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on intersection. Looking again at the nomination, it seems that this is part of some sort of wider effort by Obi to introduce dynamic category intersection by the back door. Any such step needs much wider discussion (through at least one RFC), and should not be sneaked in piecemeal.
The basic principle of reader-created dynamic intersection has been discussed for years, and some of the issues are set out at WP:Category intersection. Implementing requires software changes which have not been made (despite occasional hints that it us imminent), allegedly due to server load.
I would love to see such a scheme in place, because it would a) radically simplify category maintenance, and b) massively increase the utility of the category tree for readers.
The German Wikipedia doesn't do any form of intersection, and uses only primary" categories. The result is a much simpler category tree; compare the categ lists for Clark Gable on the German wiki and English wiki. The German approach is much easier for editors to apply, and avoids of the work of manual category diffusion which takes place under the en.wp system.
However, the German system has a serious limitation, because it creates huge categories: see for example (actors), with over 30,000 articles. That's no use for navigation.
Reader-created dynamic intersection would make the German system useful, by allowing the reader to build more useful sets for their own needs. For example, a reader could use this to easily find silent film actresses from New York City who won Oscars. Similar intersection systems are widely used on E-commerce sites, such as Amazon.
However, doing this properly requires software changes, so that dynamic intersection is integrated into the user interface. That is not straightforward: many of he issues are discussed in WP:Category intersection.
What Obi is trying to do here is to ignore the user interface issues and the underlying software, to create an ugly hybrid of static and dynamic intersection. His example at Category:Albanian film actors seems simple, but he overlooks the huge problems:
  1. It makes navigation dependant on an external tool, which is not always available.
  2. It leads the reader away from Wikipedia, to a different site with a different interface. Every Wikipedia page has a consistent layout with access to site functions, but look at the results of Obi's Albanian example. No Wikipedia layout, no indication of what categories are being intersected, lots of technical info (file size, date, page ID) which is irrelevant to the reader. It's a usability disaster.
  3. Look at the Albanian example, and you see an excessively bulky box at the top of the page, with only 2 links. Ugly, but it seems simple.
    However, consider that with Obi's proposal for American actresses. At present, there are subcategories for child actresses, actresses by media, by ethnicity, and by state. Under Obi's proposal, every one of those (and their sub-cats) would need to be replicated in his box, which would have about 200 manually-created entries in a flat list. That is a usability disaster, and a maintenance nightmare on every such category.
Much as I would like too see Wikipedia using dynamic category intersection, this is not the way to implement it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely strong oppose I am not sure we need to subdivide down to NYC boroughs, but at whatever level we do subdivide people in acting, we should split them by gender. Roles in acting, awards in acting, in fact everything in acting is very, very, very controlled by gender. Those who act in ways where they deliberately cross gender roles are treated as a distinct group. Acting is very heavily influenced by gender and should be split in almost all cases by such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2013 (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/2013_November_16&oldid=1136102676"