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]

  • Delete per multiple precedents. Doesn't promote collegiality in improving the encyclopaedia. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to Category:Wikipedians. I am not aware of any extra-terrestrials or heavenly beings among our fellow editors. – Fayenatic London 09:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparently Jesus doesn't edit here. Benkenobi18 (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe keep due to we can detect non-Earth people which does not use category :-). --B767-500 (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since no one has claimed to be anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 4 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]
  • Leave. I suggest leaving the categories intact, simply because as deaths from this cause become more commonly identified, this is a category which is likely to grow a great deal. Daniel the Monk (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. Breaking down categories-by-cause of death in this way will just create a forest of small categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge no reason to split this category out by geographical location.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- No need to split until the population is extremely high. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 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.

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]

  • I want to create many of personal categorys for the user page.
  • Merge to Category:Wikipedian San Francisco Giants fans. (Note: Category hasn't been properly nominated). --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like your category you have found it. Thanks. --B767-500 (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prcedural close -- This is not a CFD. Copy to nom's user talk page. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proc close. per Peterkingiron.Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Peterkingiron. Close this and speedy delete as empty category. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:56, 4 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]
  • Delete Category:Murdered American mobsters
  • Nominator's rationale I see no reason to categorize people by this overlap of method of death and profession.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep personal 'seeing' is not a valid reason for deleting anything. In any case, these mobsters regularly get murdered so this is a navigation aid, the reason for having categories. Hmains (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on -- This is a target involved in a complicated restructure involving upmerging various intersections. It is premature to do anything with this until the other CFD is closed. AND Keep Murder by rival mobsters is an occupational hazard of being one. This is thus not a trivial intersection. However, I would want the category to be purged of those who were (for example) killed in domestic disputes with their wives, or otherwise unrelated to their criminal activities. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we are going to have it be murdered, than as long as they were killed by someone else they belong in the category. Category:American mobsters murdered by rival mobsters just seems too picky. Anyway, what about people killed in shoot-outs with the police? Maybe we should listify and delete. This seems more suited to a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Listify. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete whether it's listified or not. Being murdered and American and a mobster is a triple intersection that creates the false impression that those included were all murdered because of their profession. People can be murdered for all sorts of reasons unrelated to their profession. Buck Winston (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions. The nominator's objection is to the existence of the intersection category, but the effect of the nominator's proposal would be to remove the items in this category from all three parents categories: Category:American mobsters, Category:American murder victims, Category:Murdered mobsters by nationality.
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 didn't ascribe a motive. I just pointed out that unless there was undescribed motive, the nomination had lots of apparently bad effects. If there is an undescribed motive, I did not presume that it was "sinister".
    Some of the mergers suggested by Buck Winston may ensure that this particular category can be removed without ill effect ... but I see no reason to remove this category while keeping the rest of Category:Murdered mobsters by nationality. Per WP:BEFORE, a nominator should do a little checking before making an XFD proposal, and it was not hard to see that Category:Murdered mobsters by nationality is listed at the bottom of the nominated category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 7 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]
  • Comment 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]
    • See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 September 11, where the decision was to relist the deleted categories. I would have preferred that this had happened as one discussion rather than as three separate ones, but regrettably other editors declined my requests to centralise discussion. So we need to discuss this category on its merits rather than by appealing to discusions from several years ago. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 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]
    • Comment the nom is in favor of leaving the cat as a seperate by gender cat, just under a new name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 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]
  • Comment the article Actor opens by saying (sometimes actress for female), so the article does not make it clear that the term actress has no use. As I said elsewhere google searches seem to indicate that at least when referring to who has played a fictional female role, people tend to refer to the people as actresses. The term is clearly used, although it is also clear that refering to a female as an actor is also done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there any way in which being a female actor is less gender related than being a female singer? I think we could find that in reality female actors have what they do more influenced by their gender than female singers do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename – BrownHairedGirl has made a compelling case over the last several weeks to subcategorise actors into male or female ones. I don't mind whether they are called actresses or female actors. Oculi (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for what it is worth in wikipedia in the vast majority of cases in describing these people they are descibed as actreeses. I no someone will say "not a reliable source", but it does show that at least those who edit wikipedia chose this way to describe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actress is not a pejorative or offensive term. Major theatrical professional organization have separate award categories for actress and actor, based on gender. It's an important distinction backed up by reliable sources. No need to make a change.--agr (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename, no opinion on merge - in English, a female actor is refered to as an actress, not a female actor. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Then how could they be in anything other than the current category?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just notified the three wikiprojects that BHG suggested notifying above. Hopefully this will generate more disccusion on the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Maybe it's because I'm a chick and an actor out here in meat space, but I find keeping actors and actresses separate in this fashion kind of silly. If there is no consensus to merge, I'd rather keep the current naming convention unless the similar categories match (i.e. American male actors, etc.). Millahnna (talk) 10:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have yet to see anyone offer any explanation of why we should not seperate actors by gender when we seperate singers by gender. Until someone presents some sort of argument for this I will find it very hard to believe we should have one system for actors and a different one for singers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have also notified the Women's History project of this discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/Reply For the record I don't think we should separate singers by gender/sex either. It's silly. But 1) I don't edit music related pages terribly often so I'm not that invested and 2) there are a lot of situations on wiki where one size seems like it would fit all but doesn't (I work on film and tv projects a lot and some things that work in the film MOS just don't in the TV one, for example). Millahnna (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know if actors should be split by sex or gender (neither do I know by which it is currently split), but if it's decided that separate categories are needed for male and female actors, then they need to be on the same level. Having "female actors" (or "actresses") as a subcategory of the "actors" category (where male actors currently reside) is sexist. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have created Category:American male actors so people stop gripping about "sexism". Of course how these people explain having Category:American women judges and not Category:American men judges as well as hundreds of other categories, to the point where Category:American women by occupation exists but Category:American men by occupation does not exist, I do not know.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the actors category: Not seeing a reason why we need to split the category by sex pbp 22:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again how does this differ from the singers category which we clearly split by gender. I have yet to see anyone give even the slightest half-hearted explanation for this. We should split this category by gender because roles in acting are determined in the vast majority of cases by gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not entirely sure that the singers should be split either. The "actors should be split because singers are" is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Just because singers are split one way does in no way imply that actors should be as well pbp 23:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment except there is a very large overlap in the two categories. Anyway, as I have said and others have said, acting is a gendered profession. Roles are determined in the vast majority of cases by gender. Gender is central to the careers or actors. No one has refuted this for the vast majority of actors. No one has been able to deny that actress is still a living and used term. The fact of the matter is this is a profession that is divided by gender, as seen by the fact that the academy awards are seperated by gender for actors, but not for directors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to Category:American female actors and strongly oppose deletion or any merge that would de-gender the category, per BHG's excellent reasoning. Acting is a predominately gendered occupation and dismantling the categorical infrastructure will lessen its utility. A broader discussion around revising WP:Cat gender would be welcome. Gobōnobō + c 09:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my rationale at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Actresses_categorization, pending discussion. A person interested in American (or other) actresses should not have a headache browsing the entire category of American actors. Brandmeistertalk 17:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For what it is worth, if this nomination was accepted we would still seperate out females who act from males who act, we would just not use the term "actresses". Of course it will take a lot more work to actually seperate out the female categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to American actors. I really don't think we should split actors according to gender. Pichpich (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question If this category is kept under either name, should we create subcategories like category:American female film actors or cAtegory:American film actresses, or should we not seperate by gender the various medium (film, television, stage, voice, etc.) categories. I think the rules that exist would suggest that we should not subdivide the by gender category much, but I am not sure either way. For now I will not create such subcats until I sense there is a strong feeling that we should do so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge back to American actors as per consensus (which is even covered specifically in the guidelines) that we should not split the actor category into males/females. We are taking these guidelines, that was put together to form a coherent category system, too lightly, and as a result we are now starting to end up with abominations such as Female actors in films of animal pornography, etc. Nymf hideliho! 09:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And if this is closed as keep in any way, we are no doubt going to end up with even further polluted categories, such as Category:American transsexual female film actors. Nip it in the bud, and stop here. Nymf hideliho! 09:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above comments ignore that there was a previous CfD that decided to keep Category:American female pornogrpahic film actors and similar cats for other nationalities. So there is a precedent for classifying at least some actors by gender. Thus the gripe about the specific form of pornography cat really does not belong here. The fact of the matter is that acting is a gendered profession, and no one has given a good explanation for not splitting it be gender. What seems to have been the rationale for not splitting it by gender, that we should not have any occupation where both male and female genders had specific categories, died when we decided to keep the male and female singers cats. There is no consistent rationale for applying this rule to acting, but not to other occupations that also involve performing. Even the argument that "x occupation is more about forming than performing" fails when we look at the singer cats, so there seems to be no logical reason for this. It is not clear where the anti splitting actors cats part of the guideline came from, but since it seems to have only been applied to acting and not to even all of that, I think it is time we analize this matter without calling upon the anti-acting split guideline that has no clear reason for being.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It does belong here, since it has derailed into a heap of gender/sexuality garbage ever since that was kept. Whatever happened to "that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right" or "unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic"? It is a slippery slope, and it just keeps getting worse. Nymf hideliho! 20:40, 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.

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]
  • Note. This was originally posted as two separate nominations, in which the formatting was a long way from the CFD norm. I merged the two discussions together, and reformatted them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/merge both to the more inclusive term. Layout engines are used in all sorts of applications, not just webs browsers, and most of those used in web browsers are also used for other purposes. The more inclusive term is better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 7 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]
  • keep There are some ringers here, e.g. Milton S. Eisenhower, whose fame had nothing at all to do with their family, but there are also the Billy Carters whom nobody would have cared about if their brother hadn't been president. This is the defining characteristic in all too many cases. Mangoe (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a trivial commonality category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly and broaden to Category:Siblings of Presidents of the United States. The criterion for having a WP article is that the person is notable (in their own right). The relationship may be important or trivial. I think the deletion of the parents was inappropriate. If a parent of sibling is NN, the remedy is AFD of the article, not deletion of the category. We all know that notability is not inherited, but the reationship of two notable people may often itself be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you miss something here? In your 'keep', you used the same category name that already exists. Hmains (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unlike Category:Children of Presidents of the United States, where you could arguably say that frequently the children go into politics due to their parents, I fail to see this with siblings - either it's coincidence, or they both went in due to previous generations in their family. I think this is more similar to Category:Parents of national leaders. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If a POTUS sibling is notable enough to have their own article here, I think a category entry is warranted. I would not allow links to people who are merely mention in other articles, e.g. George Obama, rather than having an article of their own.--agr (talk) 20:14, 11 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: Delete. 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]
  • Comment When I created this cat most of the articles which now populate it were placed under the main Category:The Beatles cat, so I swapped cats to make the categorisation more precise. Unless there is a reasonable alternative proposal put forward to deal with the situation I don't see how it would be helpful to revert back. It is useful to have people who are associated with the Beatles, such as Klaus Voormann, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Brian Epstein, Mal Evans, etc. categorised. If this cat is deleted, someone will make an attempt to categorise the above people and others, and the attempt may not be as workable as this solution. I see the general sense of Wikipedia:OC#ASSOCIATED, though wonder if it should apply in all situations. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I thought I would go through the cat to remove those people whose article didn't mention the Beatles, I started at the bottom and looked at Roby Yonge. That person's main claim to fame appears to be that he was fired as a DJ after he announced McCartney's death in 1969. As his notability is this association with the Beatles, then - other than the main Beatles cat - the only appropriate cat is Category:People associated with The Beatles. Rather than overload the main cat, and to group articles more precisely, this cat seems not just appropriate but fairly important. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- unless some one can come up with a rational boundary to the category (which will probably involve a rename). On the fringes, whether a person belongs in the category or not will be a matter of the editor's POV, something that we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's very hard to have a binary determination of who belongs in this grouping and who doesn't. When this is closed, the category Category:The Beatles members should go back into Category:The Beatles.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per long-standing consensus against this sort of association category. Buck Winston (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the name invites categorization on trivial association, which we do not do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 7 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]
  • Speedy rename Per c2b/c2d. I've personally proposed hundreds like this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note It will be removed from Category:Failure if moved; inclusion is a product of a template. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: I've added the band's article name in the template parameter, which (i) gives the category a link to the band article, and removes it from the inappropriate head category. If there was a category:Failure (band) then it would put this category page within it. – Fayenatic London
  • Speedy rename as nominated, following many precedents; even though the general pattern has recently been questioned, this case is required for disambiguation. – Fayenatic London 16:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename. Couple more and we can WP:Snow this nom. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename. Oculi (talk) 22:23, 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"