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.
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]
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]
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]
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)[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]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You seem to be ignoring the fact that it was deleted thrice before and almost SALTed. Then it was re-created without consensus. That is unacceptable. pbp15:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not ignoring the prior CfDs, I'm simply stating that they are no longer relevant and recognizing the fact that the close of the Category:Actresses by nationality as Keep demonstrates that the community consensus has changed. You reference two CfDs from 2006 that are hopelessly out of date and a November 2012 CfD that was closed improperly. In the wake of a strong consensus for retention at the December 2012 CfD across all nationalities, and given that the November 2012 close was at best questionable, the logic for recreation of the category seems unassailable. More important is that the underlying reason for the change in consensus -- the recognition that the real world does distinguish between male and female thespians, and that the actors themselves make this distinction when they recognize their peers -- has not been rebutted. The only claim offered for deletion is that the category had been deleted in the past, and there seems to be no reason to stand in the way of the change in consensus. Alansohn (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The term "doctress" has existed. However, there are no teacher-ettes, or cookresses, etc.. Language changes when we make it change. We don't going around calling people "darkies" either, and there is a reason for that. I would hope Wikipedia might be on the cutting edge of 21st Century language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.1.24.33 (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a repeat vote. The attempt to portray the term "actress" as racist or discriminatory shows a clear ignorance of the fact that it is still a very heavily used term, and the term used in a large number of main stream awards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I erased the vote on the above comment. The ignorant one is whomever would look at my comment and interpret it in such a reductive, simplistic way. I didn't say it is "racist" (are you stupid?!!), I used an analogous parallel to make a point. The fact that the term is in common usage does not make it less inappropriate. And the fact that it's used by award-givers couldn't be less irrelevant. 97.115.194.19 (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with User:Purplebackpack89's above-referenced comments; category is ridiculously broad and unnecessary. Why bother having specific categories like film, stage, television, soap opera and musical theatre actors? Is there any actor article on Wikipedia where there is a question regarding gender?? Quis separabit?22:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
JPL and other editors have offered reasoned arguments, and all you seem to be offering is that you don't like it. There are 823 entries in Category:American male actors and 812 in Category:American actresses. Once the 86 entries in the parent Category:American actors are divvied up by sex we will have a rather effective organizational structure that is well-defined and manageable. Do you have anything else that would be a meaningful argument for deletion? Alansohn (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. The category was deleted and there would need to be clear and convincing evidence that a new consensus was in place to support recreation. I would respectfully submit that such evidence is not present in this discussion. I don't feel that the decision on a subcategory should override the decision on the parent category. If this winds up being deleted, then perhaps we should reconsider the decision on the remaining subcategory. If someone has an issue with the first close, then take it to WP:DRV. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The categories parent was recreated and no one has given any reason at all to not have this category when we have the parent category. It was a whole month after the first close that the second close occured. It is clear here that there is not a consensus to delete. No one has given any reason to single out this category for dletion when its sister categories will stand. There is no logic to these arguments at all. To delete this category just to enforce the rules makes no sense at all. Anyway, your description is reverse of what happened. The decision was to keep the parent category, to keep all the other various actresses by nationality categories, and no one has even in any way ever attempted to explain anything that would make it so we can have Category:French actresses and Category:Russian actresses and not this category. I know I should not mention other stuff to defend this category, excpet I fail to see how there is any way that those categories stand by this category falls.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The more I read Vegaswikian's statement the more I come to realize he does not get what is going on. The issue involved is the keep of the parent, and the keeping of the 25 sister categories. The existence of a sub-category has never been a point of discussion. It is not the "remaining subcategory" because there never were any others. No one expect for him has even thought that the subcategory was at issue. What was decided was to keep the parent category Category:Actresses by nationality. That was the decision which clearly gave the green-lighht to have this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but possibly rename to Category:American female actors. It might have been better for this category to be examined at WP:DRV, rather than being re-created and coming back to CFD. There were numerous flaws with the closure of the November 3 CFD, such as: the closer was WP:INVOLVED; the closure considered CFDs from long ago but not, the current village pump discussion nor other current CFDs; it counted votes rather than weighing arguments. I meant to take it to DRV myself, but was too busy to take the time to set out the long list of failures, and rather sickened by the highly abusive responses of the closer when I pointed out the WP:INVOLVEDment. Since the parent Category:Actresses by nationality was kept in a subsequent and much longer discussion, I can see the logic for recreating this one. Now that we are discussing this at CFD, I have made the substantive arguments in favour of gendered categories at length, both at the village pump discussion and at the November 3 CFD, and if the closing admin is looking for substantive arguments to keep this category, mine are there. I see no point in repeating them here. The crucial question posed by this discussion is why the delete !voters want to delete American actresses while keeping all the other actresses by nationality: Austrian, Belgian, Brazilian, British, Canadian, Danish, English, Filipino, French, German, Hungarian, Irish, Israeli, Kuwaiti, Malaysian, Mexican, Portuguese, Russian, Soviet, Swedish and Ukrainian. What exactly is the issue with American actresses that they alone should not be categorised by gender, unlike those of every other nationality? As to the name of the category, I can see good arguments both for renaming these categories to "female actors" (to match the male actors), and also for keeping the word "actress" since it is so widely used. However, that would be best achieved by a separate discussion of all such categories, to ensure consistency. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, It would be fair (not to mention civil) if you couched some of your accusations about the previous closer (me) in terms of opinion rather than fact: ie, "...in my opinion, the closer was involved...and it counted votes rather than weighing arguments", rather than just "...the closer was involved ... and it counted votes rather than weighing arguments". As you probably know, there has been a lively conflict of opinion on these matters and so far you have been the only one to have expressed those particular opinions about what I did. You can have whatever opinion you want about me and what I did, but don't present as fact mistakes which no one else has alleged, especially when others (including me) disagree with you over the truthfulness of the allegations. I'm definitely not looking to open discussion on the matters with you again, but since this is going to be an archived discussion, I wanted to write what I have to get "both sides of the story" into the record. Good Ol’factory(talk)05:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has now been settled. With the keeping of all other "(X) actresses" categories, it's preposterous not to have one for American actresses. Consensus has changed, and it's time to move on.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mike S. It's absurd to use past CFDs to argue against this category without mentioning the past CFD to keep many other countries' actresses, and if you do that, you'll see that it wouldn't help to get rid of the Americans while the others exist. "Actress" is a common term for female humans who act on stages or on film, so we shouldn't get rid of the name, and the importance of sex for casting means that we should distinguish between men and women in actor/actress categories — the best actor in the world won't have a chance at a female role. Nyttend (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: 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]
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)[reply]
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)[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:Christian confessions, creeds and statements of faith
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.
RenameCategory: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. – FayenaticLondon18:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Peterkingiron. Confessions and creeds (and catechisms too; we could make Category:Catechisms a subcategory of this) are statements of faith, and I don't particularly see a good reason for a complicated name that embraces everything. Nyttend (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: 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]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. – FayenaticLondon18:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. – FayenaticLondon20:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Peter. When we're referring to something that appears in numerous religions, we have to be really careful to have an appropriate title. Between the specifically Christian origin and generally Christian basis of "creed" and the purely descriptive nature of "statement of faith", the latter is much better. Even an ignorant person will generally be able to determine that something is a statement of faith, while determining what is or isn't a creed requires more familiarity with the context in which the creed or non-creed was produced. Moreover, an atheist or someone in a completely different religion who calls a certain statement a "creed" may attract criticism from members of that religion who don't see it as such, but it's much less likely that you'd get similar criticism against "statement of faith". Nyttend (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: 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]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: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]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comment The big problem as I see it is that being a victim of a given crime is not neccesarily going to be a defining characteristic for everyone who suffers from that crime. I am not convinced that any "victim" category is really needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Unfortunately that not-always-defining issue applies to many many categories. Being an Olympic gold medalists or a Prime Minister is defining for nearly everyone in those categories, but for many local political office-holders their career in local politics barely merits a passing mention, and plenty of those who play sport are notable for things other than their sporting achievements. The same goers for religious categories; in many biographical articles, the subject's religion barely merits a passing mention, whereas in others it's a central defining characteristic. The same applies to rape. 18% of women in the United States report having been raped at least once their lifetime, but however traumatic for the individual victim, it will be not be a defining characteristic in most cases. As with many other categories, editorial discretion is required when categorising people in this way ... but that need for discretion does mean we should never categorise in this way. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had looked into various categories of rape. However a gang rape is much more brutal and serious than a normal rape and victims suffer severe physical damage and most victims die. Category:Rape in India is a very general category we need a more specific category to highlight the severity of these kind of cases. May be can rename it to something like Category:Rapes resulting in deathNaveed (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2013 (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:Facilities of the United States Air Force slated for realignment
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: 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]
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]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Main article is titled Fujian Province, Republic of China (per CFD speedy criterion D), 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". GotRTalk00:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Republic of China" and "Taiwan" are synonymous, they're both names for the country. This point was clearly established in the recent moves. We do not follow WP:Official names in our articles or our titles. The various islands under discussion are often referred to as part of Taiwan [3][4][5]. Fujian, Taiwan, is although a good example of how the English language isn't perfect, isn't an oxymoron, nor is it unique. "Gozo, Malta", "Klein Curaçao, Curaçao", "Surtsey, Iceland", or even "Calf of Man, Isle of Man" are similar examples where a country shares the name of a large island in it, yet has other islands around it. CMD (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of the listed islands have the problem of being part of a greater province split with another state, namely Fujian. Categories on topics that do not deal with the nation as a whole must also be speedily renamed to match their parent articles, and therefore WP:UCN has less precedence with categories; that Taiwan is an alternative name for the state named the Republic of China is a non-argument. The sources you provide pretend as if the province didn't exist at all, and at the least I quote the NYT article as saying this: "the people of Kinmen feel closer to the mainland...than Taiwan". And the BBC: "Michael Bristow recently visited the point in mainland China which is nearest to Taiwan..."; yes it does state "Taiwanese-controlled island of Jinmen", but only to mean "Taipei-controlled", which is different from being fully Taiwanese. GotRTalk18:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The historical split of the province of Fujian a problem for anything. Taiwan being an alternative name for the Republic of China is not an argument, it is a well established fact. No source I provided says the province doesn't exist (and discussing an island as part of a country is quite normal), and that NYT quote comes in contrast to an article that opens with "KINMEN, Taiwan" (and is quite standard English which could be used for any of the cases i mentioned). Your OR about whether or not something is "fully Taiwanese" is irrelevant to the article which as you note calls Xiamen the closest bit of China to Taiwan, and even describes Taiwan as a "democratic island chain" rather than an island. A further note on your assertion that "Fujian, Taiwan" is POV (despite being a quite banal and ordinary way to list "subdivision, country name"), if it was POV, that's not in itself a reason to change due to WP:POVTITLE (and a change based on WP:Official name is not a strong one), and "Republic of China" is also in its way POV, due to the whole China conflict, say changing to that is not an escape to NPOV. Despite the unsourced assertions of others here, clearly Taiwan is synonymous to Republic of China in describing the islands in question, and as noted in the Taiwan move requests "Republic of China" is far less known, and far less recognised, than "Taiwan", and so this move would actually make the category less recognisable rather than less confusing. CMD (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) Your own vaunted NYT source states quite explicitly that Kinmen does not identify with Taiwan. That is sufficient. It is not merely OR. 2) All of your sources refuse to mention the ROC province directly, and all of them at least on one occasion use "Kinmen is some 1XX km away from Taiwan" (i.e. the island). 4) As I will state again, all of your arguments are relevant for a requested move of Fujian Province, Republic of China, which, will never succeed, and as it stands right now, that is what the article is titled under, and in fact, that is the only criterion that has any importance. GotRTalk00:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A statement on cultural affiliation is hardly relevant to whether an area is in a country or not (or Catalonia wouldn't be in Spain). That sources do not mention a particular administrative division is not in any way a refusal to do so, and saying that sources mentioning that the islands are X km away from the island of Taiwan is a reason not to use Taiwan is simply a poor understanding about how the English language works with pars pro toto names, and indeed with islands in general (it's not at all unusual to describe an island as being so far away from a country or continent or other body, even if in other situations the language describes it as part of it). As for your supposed "state again", you haven't once mentioned a move request of Fujian Province, Republic of China. In light of your many previous oppositions to moving subarticles to follow their main articles, it's good to see you now taking consistency to be not only an important criterion, but the only one of importance (and I note that the article at the top of all these trees is Taiwan). CMD (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) The reason why, here, that only consistency with the subject article matters, is because of CFD-C2-D: "A rename to facilitate concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name", most prominently, "Renaming a topic category to match its eponymous article". Since it has already been a full 168 hours after I opened this 'discussion', the second and third points are moot. 2) Mentioning Kinmen is of no use, because what we do know is that these media sources do not mention the province at all, and your arguments are only useful to a silly, for-brinkmanship discussion on using "Kinmen, Republic of China" versus "Kinmen, Taiwan". Anything else is being a Sooner (i.e. jumping the gun) and borderline WP:OR, and besides, we cannot for sure rule out the possibility of a conscious editorial decision to forgo the existence of the province. GotRTalk03:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing that a discussion of the islands of a category used to categorise islands is "no use" is an odd claim, as is your insistence that we find different sources for every level of a country's administration. There's no jumping the gun over the name Taiwan, it's been used for decades (and your claim of OR is simply ridiculous, as is your paranoia that editors are trying to delete the existence of a province, especially considering that both the current title and the proposed one have the name of the province in them). CMD (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) CFD Speedy is absolute, no matter your qualms; I suppose you never had, do not and never will have a substantive response to this. 2) A discussion of the individual islands is not a discussion on the overarching administrative division itself. 3) You yet again put words in my mouth (for your own gain) which I never uttered! I was referring explicitly to the possible editorial decision in media organisations, not Wiki editors themselves. GotRTalk18:56, 14 January 2013 (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.
