Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 4: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 20: Line 20:
*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. --<font color="blue">Star</font><font color="orange">cheers</font><font color="green">peaks</font><font color="red">news</font><font color="black">lost</font><font color="blue">wars</font><sup>[[User talk:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars|Talk to me]]</sup> 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. --<font color="blue">Star</font><font color="orange">cheers</font><font color="green">peaks</font><font color="red">news</font><font color="black">lost</font><font color="blue">wars</font><sup>[[User talk:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars|Talk to me]]</sup> 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.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 15:27, 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.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|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? [[Special:Contributions/67.1.24.33|67.1.24.33]] ([[User talk:67.1.24.33|talk]]) 16:04, 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? [[Special:Contributions/67.1.24.33|67.1.24.33]] ([[User talk:67.1.24.33|talk]]) 16:04, 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. --[[User:Qetuth|Qetuth]] ([[User talk:Qetuth|talk]]) 06:25, 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. --[[User:Qetuth|Qetuth]] ([[User talk:Qetuth|talk]]) 06:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


Revision as of 16:05, 5 January 2013

< January 3 January 5 >

January 4

Category:American actresses

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Category:Kara's Flowers albums

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)[reply]

Category:Fictional stick fighters

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Category:Christian confessions, creeds and statements of faith

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

Category:Statements (religion)

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Category:Robert Rich 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)[reply]

Dominican House of Studies, Washington, D.C.

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

Category:Jiangsu culture

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

Category:Strathcona County, Alberta

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)[reply]

Category:Gang rape victims

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
  • Rename Since this has already occurred, it should be in the past tense. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete not a defining characteristic of the bases involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islands in Fujian Province, Taiwan

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support Republic of China is the official and correct term. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: "Fujian, Taiwan" is an oxymoron. Shrigley (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_4&oldid=531462948"