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 deleted. Jujutacular (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Vandalism ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch. Nice to know that you think we should spend 7 days discussing this first. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, ha. Actually at 00:01, 23 February 2014 Jujutacular deleted the category as G10. Quis separabit? 00:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale These categories are for people who acted in Marathi theatre as is explained in the lead to the main category. They thus can contain those who do not qualify as Marathi people who acted in this form of theatre, and at the same time exclude people who were stage actors and Marathi who only acted in other theatres. This is very similar to such categories as Category:Actors in Hindi cinema.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename but whats with this non-uniformity of "Male actors" and "Actresses" in proposal. Shouldn't the pairing be "Actor-Actress" or "Male actor-Female actor"? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The non-uniformity is the result of complex and never really agreed upon discussion that ranged primarily from August 2012-February 2013 in both CfD and RfC. The facts of the matter are 1-actress is still a widely used term, 2-actors is generally used in a gender-neutral way, 3-we need to make it clear our gender specific actor categories are for males only. I actually at one point proposed to get Category:American actresses renamed to Category:American female actors, but that just resulted in the category getting deleted (at almost the same time that two other nationality specific actress categories were kept intact, and while the RfC was still in process, which eventually closed to split acting categories by gender). The current unevenness is probably justifiable by common name rules. In actual speech people are not gender-neutral. We reflect actual speech, and so use actress, but also need to make the male category clearly male and so use male actor. It might be worth renaming the actress categories to female actor categories, but no one has yet felt up to nominating all 100+ categories for consideration of renaming, which is what would need to be done. There was at one point Category:Swedish female actors but that got renamed, but more just because everything else was than due to a broad discussion of the matter. The male actor categories survived another debate in July and August of 2013.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. No criteria for inclusion, perhaps not a defining characteristic, even if there were a characteristic. No description. This one probably could be remedied, at the expense of making it completely different from what the single editor who created the category and added the books. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 05:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. No characterization or description given. Appears to be one literary critic's description. (Spelling and capitalization is wrong.) Possibly a defining characteristic of a work, not of the writer. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 05:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one of these people is so described in their article, and there is no evidence that it is a widely accepted description even for her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2014 (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:Historiography of specific subject matter[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.
Nominator's rationale: The current name is overly-wordy and a bit idiosyncratic, whereas the proposed rename is both simpler and in line with standard category names. (Notified Category creator using {{cfd-notify}}) Cgingold (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as an improvement. – FayenaticLondon 16:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agreed, definitely an improvement. LizRead!Talk! 00:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- much better title. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:speedy delete, G7. --BDD (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as the category creator): I see BDD's point and have no objection to its deletion. Fair is fair. Quis separabit? 00:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an award category, that does not meet the rules for such a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator now advocates deletion and specifically requested speedy deletion on my talk page, this appears to be a straightforward G7 case. I'll handle it as such. --BDD (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2014 (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.
