Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 2 November 4 >

November 3

[edit]

Category:Wikipedian of Earth

[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. BencherliteTalk 19:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I make new category. --B767-500 (talk) 23:23, 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.

Deaths from neurodegenerative disease

[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/delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Deaths are not categorised by location e.g see Category:Deaths from Alzheimer's disease, so two categories should be upmerged to the main category. The container category should be deleted. Tassedethe (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete per nom. There is nothing to indicate that these two states have a particularly high or low death rate associated with the neurodegenerative diseases, in comparison with other states (or indeed with the rest of the world). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:20, 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:Fans of San Francisco Giants

[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: nothing to see here, move along please. BencherliteTalk 22:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I creating this kinds of category? Other editors is fan, can add those category to [[User:]] page. --B767-500 (talk) 19:53, 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:Luxembourgian sport stubs

[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: procedural close as category page had not been tagged. To be re-listed in the top-level nomination on Nov 12. – Fayenatic London 14:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I've proposed this category for re-naming to bring it into line with the guide on Wikipedia:WikiProject Luxembourg#Spelling and usage. Brigade Piron (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surely changing them all would be a good bet? If this is changed, it would set a useful precendent for the others...--Brigade Piron (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it's an oddly obscure place to start.
And secondly, I'm still hoping for refs to reliable sources which support this renaming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Luxembourgish ---Brigade Piron (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary is clearly not a reliable source. See WP:USERGENERATED. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) •

(contribs) 02:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/3601/whose-usage-determines-correctness - not the best source, but it does illustrate that that is what people call it there, natural considering the etymology "Luxembourgeois". I'd also add, that the reason why many dictionaries will list "Luxembourg" as the adjective itself is that the terminology has changed significantly in recent years in English, from when the country was "Luxemburg". Brigade Piron (talk) 07:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the precident should be a category directly in Category:Luxembourg - one of Category:Luxembourgian culture, Category:Luxembourgian law, Category:Luxembourgian society and Category:Luxembourgian people. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you're coming from, but surely Oppose for Now would be better? I assume you support the eventual move of the category, after a precedent has been found? --Brigade Piron (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Boggle! What a bizarre comment.
It amounts to "I have no evidence to justify this change, but expect you to support it in the hope that I will eventually find some scrap of evidence somewhere to justify it". How about you produce the evidence to justify the proposal, and let editors make up their minds on the strength of that evidence?
BTW, I hope that other editors will agree that Jimbo Wales is a vandal/sockpuppet/extraterrestrial/talking-chimpanzee/ninja-turtle (or whatever). I have offered no evidnence whatsoever to support any of these claims, but obviously you will all agree that we should convict him now, and then look for some evidence to justify the decision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely expect that this discussion will be closed by a human being who will look at the comments and not just count the votes - the "for now" is clear from my comment about "the precident". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:33, 12 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:African journalists by type

[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) 15:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This level is no longer needed after the deletion of Category:African photojournalists at CFD Oct 26, leaving only one sub-cat. A special sort key can sort the sub-cat to the top, apart from the national categories. – Fayenatic London 16:18, 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:Murdered American mobsters

[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. Might fare worse if nominated for upmerging, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the nominator want to do this?
Why does this nomination seek to remove Category:Murdered American mobsters when it is the parent to six by-ethnicity categories of murdered American mobster?
Why does the nominator want to delete the category of murdered American mobsters, but not the wider Category:Murdered mobsters or any of the nine other sub-cats of Category:Murdered mobsters by nationality?
Either the nominator has some undisclosed reason for proposing this deletion, or this is an exceptionally ill-considered nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, the nominator nominated the category he saw and was unaware of the existence of the remainder of the ethnicity tree. Why do so many people in these discussions feel the need to ascribe sinister motives to others?
    Regardless, the category can simply be merged to the first two of its parents, but not the third since individual articles shouldn't go into the "by ethnicity" category. Buck Winston (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just don't see "there are a few other other categories in the tree" as a valid reason to keep a category. If this discussion shows that there is consensus for deleting one category in the tree then another nomination can address the other categories. Yes, it would have been nice if the nomination covered all of the categories at one time but it's hardly fatal. Buck Winston (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. No reason is given for removing this category which could not also be applied to the other subcats of Category:Murdered mobsters by nationality. Unless there is some exceptional difficulty with this American category, all the subcats of Category:Murdered mobsters by nationality should be considered together.
    Additionally, the nominator proposes deleting this category rather than upmerging it, which would have several ill-effects as described above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar The isses of notability of the intersection may varry from country to country. Anyway, it is tedious to nominate multiple categories, so I think in general we should consider categories on their own merits and treat sister categories as "other stuff exists". If there is a reason to have a category, it should be able to be argued specifically, without appeal to other categories existing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not that tedious to add a few extra categories to a nomination, but it is very tedious to repeat the same discussion for the other categories.
    The category tree works as collection of sets, and a lot of work is put into trying to achieve consistency where possible. So unless this category is so me sort of exception to other Murdered mobsters categories, they shoukd either all stay or all go. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    PS If your concern is the notability of this intersection, then the solution is to upmerge to all parents. Instead your proposal would remove the article sin this category from all parents.
    In any case you offer no evidence (or even speficic rationale) for the idea that this intersection is different from from the other by-nationality categories under Category:Murdered mobsters. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That only makes sense if this was a normal cat. In reality this is treated as a non-diffusing cat, so there is no reason to upmerge.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Directly or indicatly this is the top level category for 217 articles. It really makes no WP navigation sense to delete this. Hmains (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American 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: merge to Category:American actors. I carefully read this discussion and also kept a tally of the various opinions and weighed up the strengths of the various arguments. Assuming the category is to exist, the discussion clearly results in a "no consensus" with regards to whether it should be named "American actresses" or "American female actors". However, I do see a consensus on the issue of whether or not the category should exist at all. Yes, I realise that this result is different than that in two previous discussions for other nationalities here and here, but participation in this discussion was much wider and this discussion successfully reached a consensus, which the other ones did not. This discussion does not have to be the final word on the issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have been asked to require further details about my rationale in closing this discussion. I initially posted such further detail on my talk page. For convenience, I include a copy of it here: — Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination started out as a proposal to rename the category to Category:American female actresses. In the end, this was not the focus of most of the discussion, but some users did comment on it. For those that did, it was fairly evenly split, with three being explicitly in favour of it, and two being explicitly opposed to it. Those in favour highlighted the fact that singer categories are named, eg, "American female singers", and the actors category should correspond. Those opposed highlighted the fact that "actress" was a commonly used word in sources and was more commonly used than "female actors". I did not see a consensus from those discussions, and in any case it was rendered somewhat moot by the consensus identified in the "merge" vs. "do not merge" debate which dominated the overall discussion.
On this latter issue, the "vote-count" split was not as even. There were 10 users explicitly in favour of merging the category to Category:American actors. On the other side, there were five who opposed such a merge. Clearly, those who were opposed to such a merge bore a greater onus to prove their case, given (1) what is currently explicitly written in category guidelines, and (2) past CFD consensus. Regarding (1), the relevant guideline, found at Wikipedia:CATEGRS#Gender, states: "As another example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed ...". This guideline was referred to a number of times by those in favour of the merge, and in my view it constituted a strong, guideline-based argument. Those opposed to the merge argued that this example should not be one that is used in the guideline, arguing that gender has a specific relation to the topic of acting, and, as the guideline states, "A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic." Nevertheless, the example of an actresses category is given in the guidelines as a category that is not needed, so those opposed to the merge have a difficult argument to make. Ultimately, their arguments would be more appropriate in the context of a discussion that attempts to change the wording of the guideline. Here, the gender-specific category was created before such a change was made, which makes the argument a little more difficult to make.
Regarding (2), several users referred vaguely to past precedent on this issue. I was aware of such past precedents as well and for convenience can include some of them here. Categories in general that have referred to "actresses" or "male actors" or "female actors" have been deleted in the following discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. Some of these go back a fair way in time, and of course many of them are tempered by this recent DRV, which opened to door to reconsideration of the issue, but nevertheless as a body they remain a persuasive piece of evidence, especially when combined with the specified guideline.
What the "do not merge" side countered with, in summary, was the argument that the guideline, if interpreted correctly, would not prohibit the creation of "actresses" (or "female actors") categories, given that gender does have a specific relation to the topic of acting. Some users doubted this premise on which the argument was based, but if we accept the controversial point as being true, this is a decent argument, and it was pursued at length. Ultimately, however, it is an argument better suited to an attempt to change the wording of the underlying relevant guideline. In any case, a clear majority of users who participated in the discussion were not convinced by this argument.
These factors led me to believe that the users in favour of merging had a much stronger argument overall. This—combined with the fact that the users who participated in the discussion favoured merging by a 2:1 margin—led me to conclude that there was a fairly robust consensus to merge the category to Category:American actors.
In the close, I noted that this result was different than the "no consensus" closes that had recently been completed with respect to discussions for "Kuwaiti actresses" and "Portuguese actresses", but I evaluated each of the three discussions based solely on the arguments made in each individual discussion. I could well have closed those other two discussions as "merge to the appropriate 'actors' category", but I felt that given the actual contents of the Kuwaiti and Portuguese discussions, that approach could have been viewed as inappropriate in isolation.
In conclusion, I noted that "This discussion does not have to be the final word on the issue", which acknowledged that those opposed to merging had made decent arguments that the guideline itself—which was a strong factor in the merge taking place—could be open to future discussion and possible amendment.
If the close of this discussion proceeds to DRV, please include the text of this explanation in the discussion. Thank you, — Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename Category:American actresses to Category:American female actors
  • Nominator's rationale Despite the fact that the current form is more common, I think we do need to rename this. The only case where we use a clearly different term is in the case of monarchs, and that is a very different case. In modern speech it is clear people will use the term actor in general neutral ways, so it is clear "female actor" is an acceptable term. It is also clear that this is one of the most seperated by gender professions, so it makes sense to seperate it thus. Since we have Category:American female singers it makes sense that we have this category as well, especially since there is a very high overlap in these two categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming as proposed. However, I am not inclined to agree that everyone will use the gender neutral term. Today it is becoming a more prevalent preference. But those who prefer e.g. 'actress' and 'waitress' are still significant in numbers, if yet a minority. The bottom line is that it is controversial on Wikipedia. I have seen silly edit wars over changing "actress" to "actor" and back again. The proposal is the best idea for neutrality. Elizium23 (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not rename 'Actress' is the common English term and is the term used in the articles which this category navigates to. 'Female actor' looks like a WP invention for pushing some point or another, hard to tell which. In any case, the entire 'Actress' category tree was deleted in the recent past and I have seen nothing about why that deletion decision should now be overturned just because some deleted categories have now been re-created and very thinly populated. Hmains (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Löschen As Hmains states, the actress category tree was deleted before. The creation of this category is WP:POINTY, as the others in the current tree are also up for deletion/discussion. There is no need to have a split of actor/actress. A female actress is infact an actor. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Lugnuts says "a female actress is infact an actor". Not so: a "female actress" is a tautology, because the the word actress is itself female-gendered.
    If Lugnuts intended to say that "an actress is infact an actor", then that statement would be a a misleading half-truth, because a an actress is a specific type of an actor, viz. a female one.
    The bald statement that "there is no need to have a split of actor/actress" is simply an assertion of a point-of-view as an axiom, without explanation of why such a split is not needed. It is a calssic WP:JUSTAVOTE. There is a long-standing principle on how to assess such categories as set out at WP:CATGRS, which provides that such a gendered category may be made where gender has a specific relation to the topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:American actors. This is not a profession where women are seen as outliers, so I see no need to split by gender.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the issue seems to be that gender is a controlling factor in casting in the vast majority of cases. How and in what roles a person is cast is to a large extent determined by whether they are male or female, which seems to suggest it is a determining factor, and that acotrs and actresses are inherently different.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose deletion, neutral on name. My main concern here is that this category does not get deleted. As the nominator notes, acting is a rigidly-gendered profession, and actors should be categorised by gender. Mike Selinker's remark that "not a profession where women are seen as outliers" is true but irrelevant; that has never been the main test of whether we should have such a category. WP:CATGRS says "Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic". It specifically says that "a gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic", and this is just such a case: 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.
    Look at the careers of some leading contemporary actresses. 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: there are separate Academy Award for Best Actress/Actor, and the same applies at the Golden Globe Awards, the Screen Actors Guild Award and countless others.
    AFAICS, the real world out there divides systematically actors by into male and female categories. Is Mike or anyone else seriously trying to argue that they not divided in this way?
    As to the choice between "actress" and "female actor" (or alternatively "woman actor"), I don't think that there is going to be any easy answer; there is a case to be made for each of them. I note, for example, that the major awards ceremonies use "actress", and most of the Wikipedia articles I have read on actresses describe them in the lead as "an actress".
    If the are going to make a change from this widely-used term, we should do so on the basis of some evidence of common usage in reliable sources, per WP:COMMONNAME, and the discussion should be widely-notified to all relevant wikiprojects. The more input we have to this discussion, the more stable the outcome is likely to be. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    PS Before anyone points out that WP:CATGRS specifically says we don't need separate categories for actors, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 September 11. We have been locked into a double-bind where the guidelines are remain as they are because CFDs on actresses are repeatedly closed as "delete", but the CFDs get closed as "delete" because the guidelines say so. The Deletion Review specifically allowed relisting these categories, so please can we discuss the merits of this category against the general principle in the guidelines? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict with BHG’s PS) -- I support BHG on this. The answer is to get a proper discussion on whether the guideline is right and place a moratorium on these discussions. Presumably, Procedural close. (AND a second edit conflict) with JPL. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the third discussion like this in a few days. If we are to abandon traditional English in which the female of Actor is Actress, it should be the subject to a general nomination for all relevant categories. There is apparently a guideline on this that supports the nom, but the guideline is wrong: normally only actors play Hamlet and only actresses play Ophelia. Acting is one profession where gender is highly relevant. The position has been muddied by feminists who (to claim equal pay with actors) have preferred to assert taht there are only actors. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support although Merge to Category:American actors would be better. First we already have precedence for moving away from gender specific categories for actors at wikipedia as can be seen here from last May [1]. Next, we operate on WP:RSs so here are a few. The Merriam-Webster definition of actor is here [2] and its 1st example of usage in a sentence is "my sister went to drama school to become an actor". Other dictionaries here [3], here [4] and here [5] all of which use gender neutral definitions. We also have this writing style guide [6]. As to awards we have the Screen Actors Guild [7] has uses gender neutral terminology. Although other acting awards retain the term actress the associations that present them have moved away towards gender neutrality as can be seen in the In Memorium segment of this last February's Academy Awards [8]. You will note that all of the women, including Jane Russell and Elizabeth Taylor, profession is listed as actor. Acting is acting no matter the gender. Women don't have different acting classes from men. This assertion that gender specificity needs to be kept as men and women have different roles does not hold water. First, those in the profession, on both sides of the Atlantic, have moved to using the term actor. Next, cross gender productions occur all the time. Lastly, as has been stated before, in my lifetime the terms poetess, aviatrix, authoress, comedienne were all in general use. The same arguments as presented here for their retention were used yet you rarely see their use anymore. MarnetteD | Talk 21:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Marnette, the question of keeping the category is a different one to what name to put to it if kept. You make a good case against using using "actress", but a less persuasive case against merging the category.
    Women may not have different acting classes, but they certainly do have different roles. Cross gender productions do indeed occur all the time, but still they represent a tiny fraction of all productions. If you disagree, let's see the evidence: how about any three award-winning women who have acted more than say 25% of their parts in a male role? Or 10%? Or try the any particular random chunk, such as the first few women under any random letter of the alphabet in a category such as Category:English stage actors or Category:American film actors. What proportion of their roles are male? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This "different role" stuff has a few problems for me. First and foremost you keep assuming that actor only means male - in the same way that poet or author only meant male - but it doesn't. Actor means one who acts regardless of gender. Next, if your classification were the case why are so many people within the acting industry perfectly happy with using the term actor for both genders. Please watch the opening of any of the Screen Actors Guild award shows. All of the women introduce themselves as actors. All of them are still working after labeling themselves as this and none seem to have trouble finding new roles nor is there any confusion over who they are within the film/TV/stage industries. Second, the idea smacks too much of pigeonholing for me. To put it another way there was a time that black men and women would only be allowed certain roles - all of your percentages could as easily have applied when they could only get cast as pimps or whores. Or in Shakespeare a black man could only play Othello. Yet if you look at the recent production The Hollow Crown (TV series) or TV shows like Merlin (TV series) you will see black men and women in various roles none of which have to do with their race. Let me say right off that this might weem like I am putting words in your mouth which is not my intent. I most certainly apologize if you are offended in any way. I suspect that you will disagree with my comparison of the two situations. I am only using this as an illustration of claiming that we need to determine a persons category based on some percentage of roles that they portray. Finally documentaries like The Celluloid Closet and programs on The Biography Channel and TruTV identify men and women as actors. None of them cause any confusion or use any percentages as a basis for using the gender neutral term. I don't expect any of this to change your mind but I would be interested whether you can find a WP:RS that the distinction that you keep making is supported by anyone who works in the film/TV/stage industry in the performing or the production end of the business. I also apologize for taking up so much room in this thread with this post. MarnetteD | Talk 02:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One last thing and then whatever the consensus is will be fine with me. Elizabeth Taylor's roles were all as women (except for Cleopatra of course - heehee just kidding) but if AMPAS is okay with calling her an actor in their tribute to here passing away then I would say that illustrates the continuing move to use of the term actor as gender neutral and I would doubt that they are going to change back based on the argument that none of her roles could have been played by a man. MarnetteD | Talk 02:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marnette, please do not put words in my mouth. I am absolutely definitely not "assuming that actor only means male", and I don't think I have said anything which could be misread to imply that, even at a stretch. (Further down you try to avoid putting words in my mouth, but you start off by doing it to me on terminology).
    Second thing: I really don't care much whether the category is called "actresses", "female actors", or "women actors", or "women in the acting profession" or whatever. (I have some views on that, but to my mind they come a distant second to the question of whether to keep the category, so I'm not going off down that path). So please stop addressing with me arguments about terminology: I'm not going there.
    Thirdly, we are are not discussing race here, nor are we discussing class, disability, marital status, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, or any of the other factors which may relevant in a person's career. We are discussing gender. So please leave the stuff about black and white people for another time and place.
    I was hoping that you might have some evidence to support your opposition to categorising actors by gender, other than the terminology, but I don't see it. AFAICS, the crucial issue is that for most women actors, the proportion of male roles they play is zero, or near-zero. We may disagree about how to interpret that, but for starters do you that it is the case? (BTW, the space is no problem. People flooding a page with screenfuls is disruptive, but a few tightly-argued paragraphs is just what discussion pages are for.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I read it you are saying that men must be called actors because they play male roles and women must be called actress because they play female roles. The arguments to use to use gender to justify are little different then the ones race or any of the other things that you list. Actually I have supplied several sources showing that the term actor is gender neutral and can be used for both men and women what I haven't seen is any sourcing that supports you assertion that women must be called actress because they play female roles. According to the entomology of the term that is not why the term actress started being used in the first place. And again why are those within the profession not following your assertions. MarnetteD | Talk 05:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not the case. Please re-read what I wrote.
As I have repeatedly written in this thread and elsewhere: I really don't care much whether the category is called "actresses", "female actors", or "women actors", or "women in the acting profession" or whatever. Why is that so hard to understand?
My concern is that since gender is a defining characteristic of an actor, actors should be categorised by gender. The question of how we name such categories is a secondary issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you have provided no evidence that gender is the defining characteristic of an actor. I have provided dictionary definitions, a writing style guide, programs and films that label men and women as actors and sources within the acting profession (the Screen Actors Guild and AMPAS) that do not adhere to the criteria you set. I full well know that none of these will persuade you so lets leave it at this. If you can convince the SAG or any of these sources that your theory is a reason they should change their gender neutral usage back to gender specific then I will consider changing my support of this motion. MarnetteD | Talk 17:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Marnette, what on earth makes you think that I have any interest in trying to persuade the Screen Actors Guild to change their terminology, or that I have any objection to their terminology? Your repeated assertions that I am trying to achieve something wrt the terminology are starting to look like a sustained exercise in misrepresentation. Please stop it; it is tendentious and uncivil.
I am quite happy to use the terminology which the Screen Actors Guild uses. Take a look at the 18th SAG Awards.They have awards for
  • "outstanding performance by a male actor in a leading role"
  • "outstanding performance by a female actor in a leading role"
  • "outstanding performance by a male actor in a supporting role"
  • "outstanding performance by a female actor in a supporting role"
As you can see, the SAG regards gender as such critical factor in acting that it segregates its awards by gender ... and the terms it uses are "male actor" and "female actor". You approve of the SAG's terminology, and I have no objection to it.
The AMPAS also divides actors by gender in its award ceremony. At the 84th Academy wards, its categories were "Actor in a Leading Role", "Actor in a Supporting Role", "Actress in a Leading Role" and "Actress in a Supporting Role". I'm fine with that terminology too.
As you can see, both AMPAS and the Screen Actors Guild do treat gender as a defining characteristic. What more evidence do you want? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{od}As you can see SAG does not consider the word actress as needed to denote a persons gender. While AMPAS has not yet changed the wording for the awards they have changed the way that they label the the women in the Im Memorium segment of their show. These are "evidence" that they consider actor as a gender neutral term and they do not see the need to have two different words to describe the same profession. Actors like Helen Mirren and Vanessa Redgrave (to name but two) prefer to be referred to as actors, they see no threat from it and both have excelled in their profession. I do not understand what you think I am accusing you of. I have asked that you provide a source that gender is the defining characteristic of an actor and that the term actress is necessary to denote females in the profession. I have not yet seen any. I have presented WP:RSs that the term actress - while still in use - is no longer the only way to describe a woman in the acting profession. I have even presented a link (here it is again [9]) that shows that at least one other wikipedia category has replaced the word actress with actor so a precedent has been set that this can occur. I have also said that all of this is unlikely to convince you that actor is becoming the accepted term for both genders, but, as so many in the profession are happy to accept that fact then I will concur with that situation. Your accusations of tendentious and uncivil are unfounded - and also chilling considering that they are coming from an admin. I will be happy to have an uninvolved outside party examine this discussion to determine the validity of the claim. We have each presented our case and our support or lack of it far this particular change and/or merge. I see no need to respond further to your posts. Especially as they now come with accusations of policy violations. MarnetteD | Talk 20:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marnette, this is about the fifth time that you have trued to claim that I am promoting a particular terminology, despite repeated my denials and explanations. That's way beyond a misunderstanding, and it's a pity that you can desist only by withdrawing from the discussion.
Your ref to Wikipedia is irrelevant, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Previous discussion did indeed delete such categories, but approval for their relisting was given at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 September 11. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, if it did exist, it would redirect to actor. It's not rocket science. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read WP:CATGRS#Special_subcategories. The test is not whether a head article does exist, but whether it could exist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 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.

Web browser engines

[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) 16:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Half of the articles in Category:Web browser engines are already correctly named "XXX (layout engine)". Discussion is here. (There is already a Category:Layout engines, so this is a proposal to merge them). LittleBen (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All but one of the pages in Category:Web browser engine comparisons are already correctly named "layout engine". Discussion is here. LittleBen (talk) 03:46, 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:Siblings of Presidents of 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: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Tenuous, trivial association which is not useful for navigation. Cf. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_30#Category:Parents_of_national_leaders, which deleted Category:Parents of Presidents of the United States —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:42, 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:People associated with The Beatles

[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: Löschen. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per other "People associated with X" categories. cf. Wikipedia:OC#ASSOCIATED —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:13, 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:Artist's books and multiples

[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:Artists' books. This is without prejudice to the creation of Category:Artists' multiples, if necessary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I recommend have the parent cat be Category:Artist's books, with the renamed category here being a subcat of it, along with another sub cat created, Category:Individual artist's books Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would oppose the renaming; very few of the entries are limited editions; Fluxus 1, for instance, was available for 15 or so years until Maciunas' death; Dimanche was printed in an enormous edition; twentysix gasoline stations was reprinted three times, etc etc. This category was started in the hope of collecting together articles on mass-produced modern artworks that referenced book form, or emulated mass production as part of the work's meaning. At the time, the other bookart category included graphic novels, comics and the like, which struck me as belonging to a completely different genre. To use 'limited edition' in this context seems an attempt at a synonym for 'high art'; I'd oppose either reading. As a practioner and historian of book art, I was (and am) interested in improving understanding of what remains an elusive- though hugely influential- genre of modern art. Many works of conceptual art, for instance, are published primarily as mass-produced books, without ever being specifically numbered or limited. I intend to continue writing about these works- such as Weiner's Statements, Warhol's Index and Siegelaub's Zerox book.I think these terms are at best unhelpful and inappropriate, implying exclusivity, which is not the same as poor distribution, disinterest and an absence of marketing. Yves: Peinture, for instance was said to have been published in an edition of 100, sold about 16 copies, and the remaining copies lay under Klein's bed until after his death. There is no reason to assume that he wouldn't have made more if there had been the demand. I also am unaware of what is meant by 'individual artist's books'??? Perhaps you could elucidate?? Franciselliott (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category proposal should probably be read in conjunction with a parallel AfD on the concept of "artist's multiple" which forms part of the category under discussion here: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artist's multiple. AllyD (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Artists' books, split anything not going there to Category:Artists' multiples. As far as I can tell almost everything here belongs there, and the odd formation of the category name links not quite like things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per john pack lambert. since the term "artists multiples" seems to have some validity, my original suggestion can be modified to this new proposal.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:50, 19 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:Failure 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: Speedy rename C2B/2. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Misleading name: I initially thought this category was for albums which were commercial failures, or something like that. In fact it's for albums by Failure (band), and should be renamed to match that title. (It should also be removed from Category:Failure, which is for the general concept, not the band.) Robofish (talk) 00:23, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_3&oldid=1142545882"