Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 18 September 20 >

September 19[edit]

Category:Emmy Award winners[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: divide per nom. Otto, do you want to handle this? (I don't have the knowledge of the Emmys to do it myself) I removed the cfd tag from the category, as it's most likely going to stay as a container category. Kbdank71 14:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Emmy Award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Discuss - the category is currently being used to capture any person who's won an Emmy. Other awards category of this type split the winners up by award category (best actor, best supporting actress, etc.). If this is seen as desirable it will require some work to sort through the articles to separate them, which I'm willing to help with. Otto4711 (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Divide into subcategories, as it is more organized and has a greater level of specificness. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 22:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I thought the usual solution for award categories was to listify and delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not automatically. If the award is considered sufficiently notable or prestigious the category is usually kept. The Emmy is the most prestigious television award in the US. Otto4711 (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are only wanting it to divide it into sub-categories, and keep the current one as a parent category for them, there is no need to open a cfd (and in doing so you introduce the undesired risk that it will be deleted). Withdraw, please. — CharlotteWebb 16:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Divide per nom There is nothing wrong with opening a disacussion; has the project been notified? Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Divide per nom. I actually applaud the opening of a CfD for this purpose. It's probably more effective than asking on the talk page, where it will likely get little attention. This is categories for discussion, after all. It's refreshing to see one nominated for general discussion, rather than renaming/deleting/merging/listifying. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2008 (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 programs based on British programs[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. Kbdank71 16:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American programs based on British programs to Category:American television series based on British television series
Nominator's rationale: Rename - to remove ambiguity as to the types of "programs" involved (TV? Computer? Social?) and in line with naming conventions. Normally "programmes" might be used instead of "series" for the British side of the name but I believe that mixing US and UK English within a category name should be avoided and since the category is for American series the American terminology should be used. Otto4711 (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. In much of the English-speaking world, the spelling "program" is only ever used for computer programs. The use of the term "series' avoids the problem of using two different spellings within the one category name. Grutness...wha? 23:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2008 (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:Foreign government advisors in Meiji Japan[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Foreign advisors to the government in Meiji period Japan. Kbdank71 14:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foreign government advisors in Meiji Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I should explain that this was renamed from a Japanese term. A number of options were suggested, eventually including the current name. Unfortunately, I didn't make it back in time to point out the ambiguity before the CFD was closed. Cgingold (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Just put a clarifying statement at the top of the category page. This constant renaming is getting tiresome. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So why not just rename it and get it right? I give you my personal assurance that it won't leave you feeling worn out! :) Cgingold (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2008 (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:Nonsense[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 deletion per request of creator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Nonsense (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category does not have a role in the encyclopedia, nor is it helping the construction of the encyclopedia. It currently contains one user page. It's not useful for categorizing articles because nonsense articles are subject to speedy deletion. Stepheng3 (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's not beat around the bush: this Category is Nonsense. By all means, Delete. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. --Frogger3140 likes wikipedia (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I after all did tag it with {{csd-g7}} --Frogger3140 likes wikipedia (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2008 (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:Concepts pertaining to strategy[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: relisted on oct 3. Kbdank71 14:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Concepts pertaining to strategy to Category:Strategy
Nominator's rationale: Merge, The distinction between these two categories is unclear, so I am proposing that the new category be merged to the pre-existing one. Stepheng3 (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I assumed this category was a sub-cat of Category:Strategy, so I was surprised to discover that it doesn't have any parent categories. (As I've pointed out before, if we required at least one decent parent cat when a new category is created, it would reduce the number that wind up here at CFD.) In this case, I'm not quite sure whether to keep, rename, or merge with existing categories. One of the articles is already included in Category:Military strategy; the other three are all in military-related categories, and could probably go in Category:Military strategy as well -- so that may be a viable solution. But I'd like to see what the category creator has to say. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw a need for something that would group not categories but concepts that are used to talk about the formation, implementation, etc. of categories. I recall looking at the category strategy and finding it too diffuse to use for my purposes. Making "concepts pertaining to strategy" a sub-category of "Strategy" seems reasonable to me, at least from the standpoint of pragmatics. P0M (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I categorized the articles that I wrote or that crossed my tracks while I was making links and cross-connections to those articles. There may well be other articles that deal with concepts used to understand strategy. If they were categorized that way I might find them. But "dealing with concepts" seems vague to me. For instance, I was just looking for the concept of "mapping" -- as used in the mathematical sense of that term. I haven't found it yet but I assume there is either an article on "mapping," or that there needs to be such an article. But if I wrote such an article I don't think I would say that a wrote an article that "deals with" mapping. "He deals with criminals," means that he conducts mental and/or physical operations on criminals or in conjunction with criminals. It doesn't mean that he explains how the individuals in a certain jail are conceptualized as "criminals" apart from how they are conceptualized as "humans." "fat guys," "slobs," "immoral louts," or whatever. To me, a "military concept" is a concept that is used to help us think about some aspect of military activity, just as a "sociological concept" is some concept that is used to help us think about something that comes under the heading of sociology. An example might be "primary group." At a certain point you can't really talk about sociology, about what is going on in a certain society, unless you realize that groups of humans up to a total somewhere around 15 (?) behave in a cohesive way, and would-be groups of, e.g., 20 will naturally split themselves up into at least two smaller groups, neither of which will be larger than 15.
Anyway, if there are other concepts that help us think about military strategy, how one makes a good military strategy, etc., then that should fit into that sub category. But my areas of specialization are philosophy and martial arts -- and to some extent the general issue of how one effectively processes information in the middle of a fast-paced fight. So if there were a term that applies to, e.g., supply line maintainance, I wouldn't think of it in a million years. P0M (talk) 10:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One further thought: In the process of searching for more info on the original article I was working on, Fingerspitzengefuhl, I came across a French term that names a concept used to discuss military strategy. But I would never ever have thought of it, and if I had seen it on a list or something like that I would never have guessed what it means or how it was used by Napoleon to discuss his own non-verbal tools of strategy making and maintenance. P0M (talk) 10:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree.P0M (talk) 10:05, 21 September 2008 (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:Fraudulent micronations[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 and upmerge, without prejudice to re-creation under a more appropriate name and definition. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fraudulent micronations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Edits such as [1] & [2] seem indicative that the rarely used, poorly defined, and poorly named category is, well, so poorly defined that it lends itself more to abuse by POV-pushers than any legitimate end. Its very name reads like an unencyclopedic indictment against the subjects of the articles to which it is applied. Deletion warranted. MrZaiustalk 16:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Nominator's update: Upmerge suggestions seem reasonable enough, and, in the case of the clearest examples, largely already done MrZaiustalk 03:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not POV, for example Enenkio is claimed as fraudulent by US state institutions. --Yopie 16:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Not POV, Lonely Planet mentions fraudulent micronations too - EnenKio, Melchizedek etc. are definitely fraudulent because they are involved in crime. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The arguments above don't seem to deal with the issue at hand - The name doesn't accurately reflect the statement on the category's description page and seems to go far beyond asserting that they are tied to private fraudsters, and seems, again, to be an indictment of the micronations themselves at first glance. If kept a rename and rewrite would be in order, but I still don't feel that the category is necessary, warranted, or encyclopedic in nature. MrZaiustalk 17:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to both current parents. It is important to keep the articles within the micronations and fraud category systems but the name lends itself to ambiguity and confustion. Otto4711 (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge as Otto4711 seems the best solution for micronations used as vehicles for fraud. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2008 (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:Airlines of Greenland[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; any editor can change parent categories as desired. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Airlines of Greenland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not really sure if this category is necessary, there is only one airline of Greenland that is opperating. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 14:53, 19 September 2008 (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:Americans of German descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted on 25th. Kbdank71 16:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Americans of German descent to Category:German-Americans
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I've tried to separate articles into these two categories for many months, but it's a Sisyphean task. People will always confuse them or add articles into both categories. So I think it's better to have just one category instead of two, maybe with some restrictions on the degree of descent (although that's a bit arbitrary). I usually prefer the naming sheme "Fooians of Booian descent", but this might be an exceptional case, because the term "German-Americans" is quite established and there are several "German-American" subcats. Wulf Isebrand (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge (including subcategories) -- This is another case of the Booian-Fooians which has been the subject of a great deal of work over the last few months. The problem is that a German American can be taken as an American of German descent or a German of American descent, whatever the category-creator intends. Category:Americans of German descent is clear and unambiguous. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge for clarity, as per Peterkingiron Mayumashu (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would also accept a reverse merge, the name of the category isn't the most important aspect to me. But note that the main article is German American. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I for one don t mind that the article and category pages follow different naming patterns - I prefer seeing cat pages more formally, explicitly, and unambiguously named and feel that this sentiment is generally shared by users (as indicated here in discussion at 'WP:Cats for discussion') Mayumashu (talk) 02:50, 24 September 2008 (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:Persepolis FC[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. Kbdank71 16:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Persepolis FC to Category:Persepolis F.C.
Propose renaming Category:Persepolis FC players to Category:Persepolis F.C. players
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match parent article and other categories to do with Persepolis F.C.. --Jimbo[online] 14:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. – PeeJay 16:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename. - The dots seem to be standard for football club names on Wikipedia. Stepheng3 (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not true for all clubs, but for this one, it is. – PeeJay 17:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2008 (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:Ron Wood 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: rename. Kbdank71 16:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ron Wood albums to Category:Ronnie Wood albums
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the artist's name as used in our article about him. Requested at Help Desk by User:Sssoul DuncanHill (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, for consistency ... especially since i'm the one who requested the change Sssoul (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I question why the article is entitled Ronnie Wood and not Ron Wood, but as long as that's the case, they should match. Freekee (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2008 (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:Actor knights[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Actors awarded British knighthoods. Kbdank71 16:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Actor knights to Category:Acting knights
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Actor knights" sounds a bit odd. Best to use the same terminology as Category:Sporting knights. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeSupport Otto's version below Suggested name is ambiguous, suggesting some temporary rank, as in "acting Colonel". Johnbod (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Johnbod. "Theatrical knights" would sound better than "Actor knights". DuncanHill (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with "theatrical knights" is that not all acting knights are stage actors, otherwise I would have suggested it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support suggestion below for changing the category name to "actors awarded British knighthoods". i agree that "acting knights" is ambiguous. how about "knighted actors"? Sssoul (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as "Acting knights" makes it sound like they are only knights for a temporary period. – PeeJay 16:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Actors awarded British knighthoods or listify. "Actor knights", "Acting knights", etc. sound stilted. I wonder however whether categorizing by the intersection of profession and being awarded a knighthood is sufficiently defining as to be categorized. A list could be sortable by name and year and include information about the individuals. Otto4711 (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify to List of actors awarded British knighthoods - In looking over Category:Knights, I note that this cat, and Category:Sporting knights, are the only two to categorise by profession. And noting also that "Sporting knights" seems to duplicate existing lists (see the category). So listification is probably the way to go for this. And "A list could be sortable by name and year and include information about the individuals." - is an excellent point. If kept, keep at current name (preferred based on conventions of the parent cats). - jc37 00:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Otto's rename, but the category is justified. "Businessmen knights", "politician knights" or "Civil servant knights" would not be good categories, but for these relatively rare cases, and some others like writers or artists, categories are justified. "Sportsmen awarded British knighthoods" would be a better convention to move to. At the moment, as Jc points out, "sporting knights" is a "convention" of one. Johnbod (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is one occupation not ok, but another is? Seems fairly subjective to me. - jc37 00:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, but proposed name is even more ambiguous. -Freekee (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to either Category:Actors who have been knighted or Category:Knighted actors. Not only the UK grants knighthoods - there are or have been equivalent titles in other countries, such as Portugal. Grutness...wha? 23:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These cats are currently, and I think wrongly, both subcats of British knights and knights generally. The only Portuguese knights we have are a medieval pair. The Italians still I think make opera singers & no doubt actors "Commendatore" - perhaps the same thing, I'm not sure. But we have no category for Italian knights. All the current people in the cat are I think Brits, & if Otto's rename goes through the category should be only a sub-cat of British knights. Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But what about, say, Australians and New Zealanders - to use an example from the next CfD proposal down, Pat Evison was an Actress and a Dame, but was not British. I'm certain there must be knighted Aussies and kiwis who were actors, too. Though technically the honours could be said to have been "British", in that they are part of the British (or more correctly Imperial) honours system, to describe them as "British" is far from ideal when they were presented via the New Zealand (or Australian) governments for services to acting in those countries. Grutness...wha? 06:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See below - & and "Imperial" is less correctly as far as the UK is concerned. If there were enough of them they should have their own national categories; otherwise it's just too bad. Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is Actor knights such a strained expression ? Within the acting profession, there are "best actor awards" and the expression "best actor oscar" is widely used. Cjc13 (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2008 (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:Actress Damehoods[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Actress Damehoods to Category:Acting dames
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Damehood" refers to the honour itself, not to the individual holding it, who is a dame. "Actress dames" sounds a bit odd. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeSupport Otto's name below Suggested name is ambiguous, suggesting some temporary rank, as in "acting Colonel". "Actress dames" might be better than the present name. Johnbod (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Johnbod. "Actress dames" would be OK, "Theatrical dames" may give rise to confusion with "Pantomime dames". DuncanHill (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm happy with "actress dames", although I think it sounds a bit odd, but the current name is certainly unacceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support change to "actresses (or actors) awarded British damehoods" - it seems both ambiguous and awkward. how about "Actresses awarded damehoods"? Sssoul (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but support move to Category:Actress dames. "Acting dames" makes it sound like they are only dames for a temporary period. – PeeJay 16:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Actors awarded British damehoods or listify. Actor dames", "Acting damess", etc. sound stilted. I wonder however whether categorizing by the intersection of profession and being awarded a damehood is sufficiently defining as to be categorized. A list could be sortable by name and year and include information about the individuals. Otto4711 (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify to List of actors awarded British damehoods - In looking over Category:Dames, I note that this cat, and Category:Sporting dames, are the only two to categorise by profession. And noting also that "Sporting damess" seems to duplicate an existing list (see the category). So listification is probably the way to go for this. And "A list could be sortable by name and year and include information about the individuals." - is an excellent point. If kept, Rename to Category:Actor dames (preferred based on conventions of the parent cats). - jc37 00:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As with the knights above, support Otto's rename, but keep a cat. Johnbod (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Actor dames" sounds bizarre. You're using a specifically female title with a word which, while sometimes used in a gender non-specific sense, is still generally regarded as being male. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Actresses has been, per consensus, deemied inappropriate. Therefore, actor should be used in this case. - jc37 00:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actress seems to be acceptable in regard to awards such as the oscars and emmys where that award, as in this case, is limited to female actors. Cjc13 (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Actress" is used when the actual name of the award includes the word "actress". Otto4711 (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can find, Category:Actresses was deemed inappropriate only as a category and Actress as a separate article. This is a different situation. A separate category is needed for dames as opposed to knights and we are just looking for an appropriate name for the category, which relates only to female actors. I am curious as to what your basis is for saying that the word "actress" is inappropriate in this case. It seems odd that the use of "damehoods" is acceptable in this category but not "actress" in this category. There is an argument that damehoods and knighthoods are the same thing. Since we are dealing with British honours, it would seem reasonable to use the word actress which is acceptable in the UK. Cjc13 (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Category:Actresses is unnecessary because it is generally not necessary to distinguish the gender of people in a profession (unless one gender is particularly underrepresented in that profession). However, all actors who are created dames are by definition actresses (since it's a female-only award) so the category is perfectly acceptable in this case. It would be very weird indeed to insist on a gender-neutral category for a gender-specific award. I would also argue that "actor" is not generally used by the majority of people in a gender-neutral way - I don't think I've ever heard anyone in normal speech refer to Judi Dench, for instance, as an "actor". It can be used as a blanket term to refer to everybody in the acting profession, but when referring to a woman in that profession the term "actress" is almost always used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Otto4711's Category:Actors awarded British damehoods, though "Damehood" is not as well established a term as knighthood. "Dame" in the theatre suggests a particular sort of character in pantomime. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change, but oppose Otto's suggestion. Although technically describable as "British honours", the term "Imperial honours" is more accurate; the fact that they have been used in various other Commonwealth countries makes the use of the term "British" seem ambiguous. Pat Evison, for one example, was awarded a DBE by the New Zealand government for her services to acting in New Zealand. Grutness...wha? 06:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Imperial?? I think you mean "Commonwealth"! As with the knights, this should be a British-only category, though it might be sensible to have a note to other nations on it. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mean "Commonwealth". The awards are officially referred to as the Imperial Honours. Grutness...wha? 23:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Officially by ... ? It's not a term you ever hear in the UK. A look at Google suggests this term is only used in Commonwealth nations other than Britain, so would not be appropriate if we were treating the category as global, which as I've explained above, I don't think we should. Johnbod (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of which solves the initial problem, given that we use local names for articles and categories where appropriate and thus would have actresses from Commonwealth countries excluding the UK with imperial honours. We have Dames who are not British Dames or - according to the nation in which they live - not "Dames under the British honours system". So changing the category name to Category:Actors awarded British damehoods is not appropriate if we're going to include them. And if we're not going to include them, where should they be included? A better solution might be to reverse the procedure and think of these not according to where the damehood was awarded, but as to nationality of actor: Category:British actors awarded Damehoods, Category:Australia actors awarded Damehoods, Category:New Zealand actors awarded Damehoods +c. Grutness...wha? 08:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The parents go the other way, though I'm sure it comes to the same thing. Are there enough non-Brits for this? Johnbod (talk) 10:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but would be okay with a change to Category:Actress dames.The meaning should be obvious as those included in this category will also be in categories for actors and dames. A line of explanation could be included on the page, such as : "A Dame is the female equivalent of a Knight in the British honours system. The title Dame is used instead of Sir." Cjc13 (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Actors awarded British damehoods (or listify) per otto to get things moving in some direction. --Kbdank71 16:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
how about merging this category with Category:Actors awarded British knighthoods with a note on the page that the honorific in the case of females is Dame rather than Sir? Sssoul (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No point in that - Category:Knights and Category:Dames are the parents. Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2008 (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:Yazoo members[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. Kbdank71 16:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Yazoo members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Yazoo only had two members; their articles link to each other so this category is not required. 132.244.246.25 (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2008 (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:FC Cologne players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 16:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:FC Cologne players to Category:1. FC Köln players
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the club's main article and all related categories. – PeeJay 07:07, 19 September 2008 (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:Military occupations[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.
(re-listed to 2008-10-06). — CharlotteWebb 21:50, 6 October 2008 (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/2008_September_19&oldid=1140185758"