The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content; eponymous categories are discouraged —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content, eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nom. It is also confusing with the categories about Girl Scouts and Girl Guides. --Bduke(Discussion) 01:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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: Overcategorization, just upmerge —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The term Academic librarian is more commonly used, and it also allows using the category for Academic librarians working in college and other academic-level libraries. DGtal (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename also the term "university librarian" often is a designation of the head of the library, while there will in most universities be many people who count as academic librarians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is this for librarians and library administrators working at a tertiary education institution's library, or researchers working in the field of library science ? -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The former, which is very evident from what the subcats are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. Qetuth's advice on how to build a stub category could avoid such issues in future. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously Moronic gun jumping. I created all the county stub categories - as approved in the stub categories for creation. And have been diligently populating them since. In a few short weeks this will have to be recreated in any event, now it's just a frustration that no one can plan and build ahead without some busybody trying to tear things down before it can be populated. A waste of everyone's time and effort. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No longer underpopulated, was approved at proposals. For future reference, this is why we often create upmerged stub templates first then the category later after much of the tagging has been done: Populating a template takes at least 60 edits and sometimes some searching or other work. Once that's done, populating a category takes only 1 edit, so this saves leaving an empty category sitting around for more than a few seconds. --Qetuth (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redlink artist —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content--eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 gender-neutral term "actors". – FayenaticLondon 19:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Actresses is the term for female actors, and lesbians are female. The current category names just jars for me. Also fits with hight level cat Category:Actresses. --Salix (talk): 08:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The term actress is as antique today as poetess. It is only used where necessary to make a distnction as it most certainly is not in these instances. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which probably explains why all featured articles on female thespians use the term actress in their bios. WP:FA#Media biographies --Salix (talk): 19:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they don't see Helen Mirren among others. You will also want to note last February's Acadamy Awards telecast where, during the In Memorium segment, the women, including Elizabeth Taylor, who had passed away were labelled as Actor when their pictures were shown. MarnetteD | Talk 19:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the use of the word lesbian already denotes gender. MarnetteD | Talk 19:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same with comedienne. Gender neutral terminology is covered by wikipolicy. Also as this edit [1] shows there is precedent for moving away from the term actress for categories. MarnetteD | Talk 15:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Actresses shouldn't exist at all, actually. This is not a case where gender segregation is useful or warranted, as there's no particularly meaningful or encyclopedic distinction between being an "actor" and being an "actress" beyond what type of sexy bits happen to be sitting between your legs while you're doing it. There might be a case for renaming the whole tree to "Actors and actresses" (though I'd certainly rather we didn't), but there's no valid case to be made for having separate categories for male "actors" and female "actresses". Oppose. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Men and women have separate careers in acting: the vast majority of roles are open only to people of one sex. This is recognised in all the major cinematic awards, which offer separate prizes for men and women. Categorising separately recognises the reality of a gendered profession, just as we do in gendered sports. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out in a previous discussion, the problem is that while "singers" and "hockey players" and the like can easily be divided into distinct gender categories because there's a natural ungendered parent for them (ungendered "singers" parenting "male singers" and "female singers", etc.), there's no ungendered category that can parent distinct male "actors" and female "actresses" categories -- because "actors" itself is simultaneously both the ungendered parent term and the "gendered" one for men, the female category can only ever be a child of the "male" one rather than the two being sibling children of a common parent, which means that the categories cannot be gendered because there's no way to do so without ghettoizing the women. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a very solid argument. "Singers" is indeed a natural ungendered parent, so and is "actors". The same solution can work for both. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NB Category:Actresses is a category redirect, so there's no validity in the argument that these categories should be renamed to match the top-level category. BencherliteTalk 16:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a redirect at the time the initial nomination was made with that as a rationale -- it got speedy redirected afterward, in accordance with WP:CATGRS and past CFD consensus. Bearcat (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support the claim that actress is obsolete is just hogwash.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support the change seems better wording .MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm unconvinced that this gender segregation helps the reader.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment However either way we have gender segregation. If you want to end this being a gender-specific category you should urge it be merged to Category:LGBT actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mean specifically the use of "actresses." "Lesbian" is of course gender segregated.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:42, 15 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Very little content, eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename to Category:The Dirty Mac members and discard the non-members (which I'll leave to editorial discretion) - jc37 00:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Just a collection of the musicians in this one-off supergroup. The main article can be subcategorized by those musicians if anything. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's not "Just a collection of the musicians"; it also contains the main article and other related articles. It's a nice way of grouping the articles together. What's the point of deleting it? McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:The Dirty Mac members and discard the non-members. (Standard procedure is to subcat members, songs, albums etc. The album present does not seem to be a 'Dirty Mac album' however.) Oculi (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Also per past CFD consensus, actors are not one of the categories for which the LGBT Wikiproject desires by-nationality subcategorization (as witness the fact that most of the comparable categories for other countries don't even exist); there's no substantive or encyclopedic difference between being an "LGBT actor from England" or an "LGBT actor from Germany". Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actor cats have less justification for this type of subdivision than do comedian cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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: Per numerous past discussions, the LGBT Wikiproject does not want overcategorization of this type. Category:LGBT people by nationality is an entirely sufficient layer of categorization at the nationality level, and does not need to be split out into separate subcategories for L, G, B and T people -- that level of subcategorization is warranted only in a very few specialized cases where a single merged LGBT category becomes extremely large and unwieldy, and the subcategories have already been created in every single case where that applies. In this case, however, it's just an unnecessary and unwanted triple intersection which is generating a lot of unnecessarily small categories with just two, three or four entries each. Delete all. Bearcat (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm split on this. I see a category with only 5 or less entries as being possibly over-categorized, but the second one I looked at has 69 entries. And in looking to find the L, the G, the B, and the T in a very large group - of even 20 articles - is arguably taxing to those seeking this information. Perhaps there could be a cut-off if there are only 2-4 entries the category is upmerged but leave the rest? Over time various factions of L's, G's, B's and T's, etc., have sought to find identity and culture within the larger LGBTQIXYZ umbrella so it would seem to be a benefit to have these categories as the numbers are only likely to grow. Insomesia (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are certainly a few categories where it's appropriate to separate the gay men and the lesbians and the bisexuals and the transfolk into distinct subcategories instead of keeping them together in a single merged category -- but there are many more where it's not a particularly useful or helpful thing for us to do. "LGBT people by nationality" categories are of the latter type, not the former. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gay men by country is just valid a categorization as gay men by occupation etc.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except that we don't do it for most occupations either. There are only three or four occupations for which we allow the splitout (and even then only due to sheer raw size, not because it's actually a useful distinction for an encyclopedia to make); for the remainder we have merged "LGBT" cats and specifically disallow separating them into distinct subcategories for each individual quadrant. In other words, it's an invalid categorization in most cases, so if this one's "just as valid" then that ain't saying much for its validity. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we have lgbt people by country why not split it further into the likes of these. If anything they are more accurate as the cat wording is what the contained people are most commonly and specificly described as.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the splitout introduces gender segregation into the category system in a place where it isn't needed -- we don't do gendered categories for the sake of gendered categories, but rather restrict them to cases where the gender category is itself a genuinely encyclopedic phenomenon (e.g. the extensive volume of academic and social research into the evolving role of Category:Women in politics). This, however, is a case where the gender distinction isn't the salient point of the category -- there's no meaningful difference between being a "gay man from England" and being a "lesbian from England" beyond that which is already inherent in the distinction between male and female (which is, again, not a distinction that we categorize on for its own sake.) What we care about for the purposes of the "LGBT people by nationality" tree is cultural identification with the broadly-constituted LGBT community as a whole, and not about the gender distinction. And secondly, it predominantly results in subcategories that are too small to be legitimate as per WP:OCAT#SMALL. We only allow the splitout in a few specific cases where a merged "LGBT" cat would be populated in the thousands; it is not acceptable (or needed) in cases where the parent category has only seven or eight or 15 articles total. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These categories however do not fit that definition - Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme - they are only going to get larger. I can see upmerging the categories that only have a handful but even the parent categories have large numbers in many cases. I say selectively upmerge only the smallest and allow recreation.
Keep the largest/Upmerge the smallest (for now), separating out which of the LGBT individuals is actually G, L, B and T, etc is a recurring facet of the LGBT experience, in a communities of minority communities searching for identity and culture. Yes, some of these are small categories but some are certainly not. And it is useful for those looking for the information to know which of hundreds of LGBT people are L, G, B and T for a variety of reasons. And logically these groups are all going to increase in size. Insomesia (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no good level to split out LGBT at the national level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is, by nation and by the subgroup of being gay rather than lesbian, bisexual and transgender. This is noted in each article. Insomesia (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question why do we not name these categories Category:Cuban gay men and such like every other by nationality category that uses that form. Why is this the one place where we change it from Fooian bars to bars from foo?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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: Per other musicians categories and the fact that these are basically redundant as "works" —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 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:Ma, Meyer, O'Connor is a redlink--these are just collaborative albums and can be recategorized by the three individual artists. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 due to mountains of precedents.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC#PERF, we do not categorize people in this way. This is particularly true given that, while their roles in Harry Potter may be defining for some of the actors, especially ones still near the beginning of their careers, for others they range from utterly trivial to simply another role in a great career. (This has probably been created and deleted before.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Film and television categories like this were deprecated several years ago. Once you start down this road you can wind up with articles with more categories than main article info. MarnetteD | Talk 03:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per OVERCAT and long-standing precedent not to have these type of categories. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 17:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
