Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 4

January 4

Category:American actresses

• Propose deleting Category:American actresses - Template:Lc1
  

Nominator's rationale: Category was recreated without consensus, after having been previously been deleted several times, including at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 3, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2006 October 23, and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2006 August 8. Recommend delete and SALT. pbp 23:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep we just decided to keep Category:Actresses by nationality. There is no goood reason to even discuss this category without discussing its sister categories. This one category nomination is highly irregular. Beyond that there are awards giving for best actress and best supporting actress. Acting is a gendered profession and men and women in general fill different roles. The fact that Category:Canadian actresses and several other categories were just kept at the end of the CfD and the fact that there is still open a discussion on the matter which is clearly treanding towards keeping such categories makes this nomination very odd indeed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The existence of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Actresses_categorization should be considered. Also the results of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 30 where the decision was to keep the actresses by nationality categories seem to apply here. In fact multiple people said specifically this category should be recreated, and no one has ever given any reason at all that Category:Portuguese actresses can exist but this category cannot. Even more intriguingly the result of the CfD on Category:American male actors and its brother cats was to keep, and some people there essentially argued against that category but for the existence of this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep – consensus has obviously changed on this matter, as described by User:Ruslik0 in the exemplary closure of the recent actresses cfd. Support for Category:Actresses clearly implies support for the creation or re-creation of all 'by nationality' subcats. Oculi (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would also support a rename to 'female actors' but that should be done from Category:Actresses downwards. Oculi (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Please! We are all actors. The term "actress" is simply not necessary and is even insulting and offensive to many. 67.1.24.33 (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Delete I can foresee edit wars and lengthy discussions over who is an actor and who is an actress. I can assure you that I know actors who would bristle at the thought of labeling her an "actress". To quote one, "they don't call female doctors 'doctresses'!" So please avoid this can of worms. Wikipedia has survived fine without this category for umpteen years so far. It will survive into the future without it. Also, delete related categories for uniform appearance. Elizium23 (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The preceding two delete recommendations seem to have to do with the name of the category, not the category itself. Of course, there are no "doctresses", but there is Category:Women physicians. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• There are too many non-gendered professions with categories for women in the field (Category:Female cinematographers, Category:Female film directors), so I don't think being gendered or not holds much weight. However, I am recommending Keep based on the earlier, indepth discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 30. But should Category:American actors be a container category or should it be where American male actors are placed because now we'll have this category and Category:American male actors. Some consistency is naming conventions would be nice. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Well since the discussion on Category:American male actors resulted in keep, I think that is what we will do. Also, for what it is worth with CAtegory:American stage actors, Category:American film actors, Category:American television actors and a few others, it would seem there are enough different ways this category is subcatted that it is hard to see it as anything other than a container category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  So change the name to Female Actors. The term "actress" becomes more inappropriate every day. And where do you put Transgender/gender queer actors? 67.1.24.33 (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Having looked through the articles I can say that 99% of them use the term actress. A quick search on google will show that the term actress is the normally used term at least to describe individual females. It is true that there are some people who will not easily fit in a given schema. However this does not stop us from having Category:American female models and Category:American female singers among many others. Since those are the other two categories I can think of that essentially involve performing I would say they are very close counterparts. For the record I did in the past try to get this category renamed to Category:American female actors, however it got delted instead. There are some people who will object to the term "gfemale actor" as just plain unnedded. I am not very strong either way, but would point out that 99%+ of articles on females who act use the term "actress". Mainstream media still routinly uses the term actress, awards are still named with the term "actress", so the claim the term is either "inapropriate" or "outdated" is not supported by the facts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, as consensus has clearly changed. As far as the naming, that should await conclusino of the above linked village pump discussion. --Qetuth (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep -- with minor exceptions where cross-dressing is the norm, actresses do not play male roles or vice versa. I suspect that actresses have had an agenda that they are female actors and should be paid equally with men, but that does not stop them being actresses. This is a profession where the gender of the person is highly relevant, unlike lawyers, accountants, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Keep The delete arguments are entirely unconvincing, grasping at the doctor/doctress dilemma and the results of CfDs from over six years ago. Regardless of the results of the improper close of the previous CfD for this category, the compelling argument here is the close of Category:Actresses by nationality, where consensus has rather clearly changed, above and beyond the fact that whatever remaining holdouts put forth arguments that are in direct contravention of the real world manner in which there is a clear distinction based on sex. Category:Film awards for lead actor and Category:Film awards for lead actress each list several dozen categories of awards that are bestowed by dozens of film, television, theater and other industry groups that as a matter of course group actors and actresses (or male actors and female actors) separately. I know of no organization that bestows any honor in which male and female are lumped together into one category. A search on Google Books finds almost 2 million links to works about "actresses", again demonstrating a strong real world distinction between female and male practitioners of the art of acting. There may be some folks here in CfD World who are blind to this distinction, but the real world has no trouble doing so. Given that the Oscars, Emmys, Tonys and Golden Globes, as well as the fact that the Screen Actors Guild, all distinguish distinctly based on sex, the argument that acting is "not gendered" carries no weight. Alansohn (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strongest possible keep. It is a necessity for users to be able to search this category under sex. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. What does gender have to do with acting? It's not a definable characteristic. Are we saying that there is a fundamental difference between the way men and women act? Benkenobi18 (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Gender is "not a definable characteristic"? I guess someone needs to have that conversation to define the differences between men and women. But more importantly, the real world sees a difference that you seem to be unable to discern, as evidenced by millions of references to newspaper, magazine, journal articles and books that make a difference between men and women in acting. Most important is that actors themselves believe that acting is sex differentiated based on how they categorize themselves, as with the Screen Actors Guild Awards, where presents the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role as well as the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role, among all other award categories that are sex differentiated. Outside groups such as the Oscars, Tonys, Emmys and Golden Globes (as well as other such groups around the world) also differentiate between men and women, You don't need to be a doctor (or doctoress) to see that there is a difference. Alansohn (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Question Since this is open for discussion, I have a question that I figure is most likely to get answered here. Do people think we should put someone like Judy Garland in a category Category:American film actresses, or do people think she should be in Category:American actresses and Category:American film actors? Basically the question is should we subdivide this category by medium? Another possible way to subdivide the category, which is done for the general American actors category, is by state. Do people think we should subdivide in that way. My own preference would be no subdivision by state (although we do have Category:Women writers from Kentucky and many others, so it is clearly done for some combinations of gender and occupation) and I am iffy on the by medium. The very high overlap of film actresses and television actresses makes me wonder if such categories are really neccesaary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Answering the question immediately above here, I would like not to sub-divide actors by sex and then by kind of acting, medium, becauses actresses are still actors - Category:American actors won't or should not contain just male actors. Mayumashu (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Kara's Flowers albums

• Propose deleting Category:Kara's Flowers albums - Template:Lc1
  

Nominator's rationale: Same band, different name/branding. Upmerge to Category:Maroon 5 albums —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Upmerge to Category:Maroon 5 albums.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Fictional stick fighters

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional stick fighters - Template:Lc1
  

Nominator's rationale: Fictional gunfighters and sword fighters have already been deleted. These type of categories are just too general. JDDJS (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Delete this is a nighmare waiting to happen. Does one fight with a stick make someone a stick fighter?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Based on the category descriptor, Stick fighting, and {{Stick fighting}}, that would be half of the criteria. The other would be that the character training, either explicitly stated in-story or assumed by the readers (and thar be the nightmare...), in a "stick" based martial art. - J Greb (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - Lends itself to inclusion by OR or questionable sourcing. And in some cases can amount to a trivial aspect being focused on. - J Greb (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Christian confessions, creeds and statements of faith

• Propose renaming Category:Christian confessions, creeds and statements of faith to Category:Christian creeds

Nominator's rationale: To match proposed super-category. JFHutson (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• split into Category:Christian doctrinal statements and Category:Christian creeds with the latter being a subcategory of the former. Most articles seem to use the "doctrinal statement" language, but the creeds have a liturgical significance special to them. Mangoe (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• don't rename—confessions and statements of faith cannot be lumped into creeds. The literary forms are completely different and much as I admire, for example, the s:Westminster Confession of Faith, I'm not about to recite it every Sunday morning. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Some churches do recite the WCF (albeit in sections), and if that is the criterion what about the Tridentine Creed or the Credo of the People of God? --JFHutson (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Rename Category:Christian statements of faith. If that does not cover them all, we need to split the rest out. However, my suggestion should cover most. "Creeds" are a statement that is recited in the course of a church service, something that is not done in churches with a less formal liturgy. I do not accept the target for the parent category (q.v.). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

See my comments above re the Tridentine and Credo of the People of God. Creed does say that creeds are often recited in worship, but it doesn't make that a criterion for being a creed, and you'd need some verification to say it is. --JFHutson (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Rename to Category:Christian statements of faith per Peterkingiron. This is a suitably wide term to encompass statements of different lengths, whereas "Creed" implies something fairly short. I think the main article may end up at "statement of faith"; a merger of four articles is being discussed at the same time as these categories, but its eventual name may take longer to resolve. – Fayenatic London 18:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Statements (religion)

• Propose renaming Category:Statements (religion) to Category:Creeds

Nominator's rationale: Very ambiguous current title and description. Based on the contents the best use for this category would be to correspond with Creed, which defines a creed as a religious statement of belief. -- JFHutson (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Don't rename—current name is just fine for the contents. The suggestion by the nom that a statement on religious diversity is a creed demonstrates a lack of understanding of just what a creed is. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right in that that document doesn't seem to belong with the others, but it's hard to know what does belong in a cat of religious statements. "I am a Presbyterian" is a statement (religion). The problem is that the cat is a sub-cat of Category:Statements, which seems natural based on the title, but doesn't correspond to the description of that cat. In your view, what is the purpose of this cat? --JFHutson (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• REname Category:Statements of faith. Creed is derived from the Latin "credo" - I believe, and is perhaps specically Christian, even Catholic/Anglican. National Statement on Religious Diversity will site uncomfortably in the category, but is not too far off from it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

IMHO National Statement on Religious Diversity should be removed. I have added it into Category:National human rights instruments and others. – Fayenatic London 18:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you making a distinction between statements of belief and statements of faith? Creed includes statements of belief from several religions. I don't see how SoF is less Christian than creed, since I don't know of any religions other than Christianity which use that term. --JFHutson (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Rename (to Category:Creeds). While the term creed is Christian in origin, it is increasingly used in non-Christian contexts, particularly among scholars. Also, the article "creed's" position in the category sorting suggests that this is the main article for the category. Andrewaskew (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It is currently the longest article, but it may not stay at that name. If the articles such as confession of faith get merged into the longer article creed as proposed, which I think is sensible, then the merged page may end up being moved to something more neutral and general such as statement of faith. – Fayenatic London 18:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Statements of faith per Peterkingiron. This is a suitably wide term to encompass statements of different religions and different lengths. "Creed" implies something fairly short. – Fayenatic London 18:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "statement of faith" is more neutral than creed or that creed implies brevity. SoF is usually used by Christians with an opposition to liturgical practices such as creedal recitation and carries that connotation. Creed should be used, however, because it is the most commonly used term for this type of document (the Shahada, the only non-Christian creed we have is described as a creed). As for length, as I mentioned in the discussion above, Credo of the People of God and the Tridentine Creed are examples of creeds which are at least as long as "statements of faith." --JFHutson (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Never mind that the Wikipedia article Shahada uses the word "creed" – do other WP:RS do so, excluding any that are principally seeking to explain Islam to Christians? This uses "confession of faith" for it, and Islamic sites say [1] "simple statement" or [2] "testimony"; BBC calls it "the statement of faith", or "profession of faith". I note your exceptions about long creeds, but I don't think the word "creed" is sufficiently widely used for us to prefer it to a descriptive phrase. – Fayenatic London 20:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Robert Rich albums

• Propose renaming Category:Robert Rich albums to Category:Robert Rich (musician) albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the name of the corresponding article and to prevent any confusion. Pichpich (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Dominican House of Studies, Washington, D.C.

• Propose renaming Category:Dominican House of Studies, Washington, D.C., faculty to Category:Dominican House of Studies faculty
• Propose renaming Category:Dominican House of Studies, Washington, D.C., alumni to Category:Dominican House of Studies alumni

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Dominican House of Studies. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Rename. I nominated these at WP:CFDS but they were opposed by one editor on the grounds that there is more than one "Dominican House of Studies". However, the article Dominican House of Studies doesn't seem to acknowledge the existence of others, so I am not sure that there are any that use this name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Jiangsu culture

• Propose renaming Category:Jiangsu culture to Category:Culture in Jiangsu

Nominator's rationale: To be consistent with other categories, and the current name is somewhat strange. Makecat 07:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Strathcona County, Alberta

• Propose renaming Category:Strathcona County, Alberta to Category:Strathcona County
• Propose renaming Category:People from Strathcona County, Alberta to Category:People from Strathcona County

Nominator's rationale: In an ongoing movement amongst articles on Canadian places, the province name has been removed from the title of the article where it is not necessary to disambiguate. All of Alberta's cities have been subject to this scrutiny, and many of its towns as well, it is about time that a specialized municipality with a larger population than most of Alberta's cities sees it as well. Like the ones in Category:Cities in Alberta, I see no reason to keep the "Alberta" in the category name either. 117Avenue (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Rename per above based on the new consensus at WP:CANCITY. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 05:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Gang rape victims

• Propose deleting Category:Gang rape victims - Template:Lc1
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete the category Category:Rape victims was deleted more than five years ago (see here) but I suppose consensus can change. However, I still find the arguments for deletion compelling and even more so in the present case. The core concerns are that this category poses basic BLP and ethics problems without providing much encyclopedic value and that the category system is unable to deal with the fact that terms such as "rape" and "gang rape" have different meanings in different cultures and even more markedly different legal meanings in different countries. Pichpich (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support This is a very subjective category, and I would have to agree with the logic behind the 2007 close as well. Also, if the "parent" category, per se, was deleted, than there is no reason that this one should be here as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Delete consistent with the prior decision. Note: we have made a conscious decision to delete something that may well be defining to those so categorized, but general principals prevail. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Delete First off labeling people as "victims" does not sound good. Secondly, we have the issue of deciding whether we allow people to self-identify, or require some sort of exterior verification. Thirdly, I am not sure there is any clear definition of "gang rape" as opposed to just "rape". We just plain do not need this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Not that we disagree but even rape has no clear definition and certainly no clear universal legal definition. Pichpich (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Rename -- to Category:Gang rape cases or Category:Gang rape prosecutions. Once again this is about the categorisation of a single article, about an incident that I hope does not get forgotten quickly. In English law it is illegal to publish the victims of rape; and in all jurisdictions they deserve the protection of their identity. We cannot have the exisiting category name, but cases such as this certainly deserve to be recorded, accordingly my suggestion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• A category for gang rape cases wouldn't work either, because there's no universal definition of the term. In a number of jurisdictions, that distinction doesn't even exist (a rapist faces the same sentence whether he acted alone or as part of a group). Note also that we don't have a Category:Rape cases. Rape cases are instead categorized in the appropriate national category, in this case Category:Rape in India. Pichpich (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment since the one article in this category is in the appropriate Rape in x category, I see no reason that it should not be deleted. Anyway, since the article is not about a person, we have nothing that even fits the name of the category in the category. I have been convinced this is an even worse category than I initially thought.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't see any reason to have a gang rape category when we don't have a generic category of rape victims. However, I am leaning towards a rename rather than a deletion, because I unpersuaded by most of the arguments against this category and those for the deletion of Category:Rape victims.
  First, we have lots of other categories of victims: see e.g. Car bomb victims‎, Landmine victims, Victims of school bullying, Victims of the Mexican Drug War, etc. If it's okay victims of some crimes as victims, then I don't see why rape needs to be an exception.
  Secondly, the lack of a consistent legal definition need not impede us. Many things are defined differently in different cultures, and we simply follow what the sources say in each case.
  Thirdly, the BLP concerns in the previous CFD are silly, because. If the rape is reported, we're not outing someone; if it isn't reported in reliable secondary sources, it shouldn't be in the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Facilities of the United States Air Force slated for realignment

• Propose renaming Category:Facilities of the United States Air Force slated for realignment to Category:Facilities of the United States Air Force realigned under the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission

Nominator's rationale: So, I just ran into this category today, and I finally decided to take action on whether or not we need this category, or should it be renamed to "Facilities of the United States Air Force realigned under the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission." This is because everything BRAC-related has been finished, and it makes little sense to keep a category in the future tense, when it is a past action. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Rename Since this has already occurred, it should be in the past tense. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• delete In a quick sample of about ten articles, I found that all but a few of them didn't mention BRAC at all, so it isn't clear that the resulting category would contain much. Also, "realign" seems to be bureaucratese for "move units around and close some bases." The fact is that you can look at any of these articles and see that realignment is a constant feature of the history of every base, so while I would agree that BRAC itself is notable, it's not a defining characteristic except possibly for the bases which were closed on its recommendations. Mangoe (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Delete not a defining characteristic of the bases involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Islands in Fujian Province, Taiwan

• Propose renaming Category:Islands in Fujian Province, Taiwan to Category:Islands of Fujian, Republic of China

Nominator's rationale: Main article is titled Fujian Province, Republic of China, and "Fujian, Taiwan" is extremely POV/contentious otherwise as Kinmen residents do not consider themselves Taiwanese and the proper name of the state is the Republic of China. In terms of using "of" versus "in", all other non-fictitious island categories use "of". GotR ^Talk 00:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Taiwan is sometimes used to refer to the big island, the change will help reduce confusion.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support of course. This is a (comparatively rare) case when "Republic of China" and "Taiwan" are not synonymous. :-) -- Vmenkov (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Republic of China is the official and correct term. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support: "Fujian, Taiwan" is an oxymoron. Shrigley (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)