Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 September 11

Category:Actresses – Clear consensus to allow these to be relisted at CFD. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I dunno if 6 years is a record for a DRV, but I looked at this closure because the deletion of these categories was cited as a precedent at a recent related CfD. I ask that a new CFD discussion be opened to consider these categories again, both to to reassess consensus after 6 years, and because the October 2006 CFDs were flawed.

Note that I have not attempted to discuss this with the closing admin, because after 6 years I think that it would be inappropriate for an admin to unilaterally overturn their own decision in an oft-cited case such as this.

I found 3 problems here: 1) lack of reference to a directly-relevant Wikipedia guideline; 2) fragmented discussion; 3) closure did not reflect discussion.

The first thing that struck me was that in most cases there was no assessment of the category against of the relevant guideline, viz. WP:Cat gender (here is the version at the time of the CFD). At that time, that guideline said:

"You must be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category is not valid. Generally, this means that the basic criterion for such a category is whether the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external source" permalink

This guidance has remained stable since then. The current version uses very similar wording.

In one of the discussions, the nominator linked to it in hir rationale as "per policy against gendered categories". As pointed out by one editor, "this is a misapplication of the gender policy at best".

That assertion was not contested, but because it was down at the bottom of the page, it may not have been seen by participants in the 4 others discussions.

Guidelines are not prescriptive, but they are intended to describe an existing consensus. A discussion may decide to reject that wider consensus, or to create a limited exception to it, but a discussion which does not even consider that wider consensus is flawed. These discussions made completely inadequate reference to the guidelines at the time, and the nominations all wrongly implied that it was a blanket ban.

The next thing that struck me was that on this page, 5 separate discussions considered a set of similar categories. Exactly the same rationale was applied in each case, to categories which raised no separate issues: they should have discussed together. The talk page guidelines at the time did not include the current WP:MULTI, but in hindsight it is clear that fragmentation of discussion here was unhelpful. In any case, the practice of grouping related CFDs was already in use at that time: on the same page there is a group nomination of 3 Big Brother categories.

Thirdly, the closures are perverse in several respects. No explanation was provided for any of the 5 closures, so there is no evidence that the closer noticed the misrepresentation of the relevant guidelines. The closer does not appear to have considered the problems caused by the fragmentation of discussion, and does not even appear to have weighed the fragmented discussions accurately.For example, in the section on Actresses by nationality, the point was made that "gender is a significant distinction in acting", and that argument was not contested. So the closure was flawed it was weighing arguments ... and if it was (wrongly) counting votes, then it was wrong too, because the tally in that section was 5 deletes (including nominator) and 4 "keeps". 5-4 is not a supermajority. I believe that the correct close of this group of discussions would have been either "keep" or "no consensus".

Finally, on the substantive point. We have long had the guidance quoted above. If editors really believe that this is not a case where "gender has a specific relation to the topic" or that it is not possible to write "a substantial and encyclopedic head article" on the topic of actresses (as distinct from male actors), then that case needs to be finally made and discussed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications. I have the closer of the previous discussions, and also the CfD which prompted me to open this review. (see notifications). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and delete Category:Actresses. I think that after six years, the principles of deletion review probably shouldn't apply any more; the categories can just be recreated and then the case for deletion can be re-established. Nonetheless, this is a fine forum to discuss BHG's well crafted argument. I still come down on the side I was on six years ago, that there's no reason to split Category:Actors by gender. The presence of women in acting is not rare, nor is there anything special about a female style of acting. I also do not think Category:Singers should be split by gender, or any other category where the presence of women is not extremely rare (Category:Female American football players, for example). But here's the rub: A look at Category:Women by occupation shows an explosion of categories in which women are defined by occupation. So my case is extremely shaky. What I have is a preference, but it is not in any way supported by what we have now. In either case, a lot of work will need to be done to either delete a lot of gender-based categories or split a lot of actor categories. We certainly need to have this discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One side note: I'm not sure I buy the logic that a close might be invalid because the closer didn't address specific points. There's no burden on a closer to provide a rationale. It's advisable in case something like this comes up, but the absence of such rationales doesn't make a close subject to question, in my opinion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mike, we are on opposite sides about the virtues of this sort of category, but our views on the merits or otherwise of these categories are not the issue at DRV. Those arguments are a matter for a relisted CFD, if it happens.
    I agree with your point that while a rationale is desirable in some cases, it is not required. In any case, there was no rationale for these closures. So on what basis do you endorse the closer's asessment of the debate which took actually took place? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the basis that it represented the consensus at the time. There were six nominations: four were unanimous for merging, one had one objection, and one had several objections. The totally of the discussion would have made me close all of them as a merge, just like the closer did. But as I said at the top, time has rendered whatever consensus or lack of consensus occurred irrelevant. It's time to start the discussion again, and see where we end up.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Mike, that's a really terrible way to analyse them. These discussions all covered the same territory: they had identical rationales, viz. a claimed policy objection to categorising actresses. None of the comments suggested any reason to treat then separately.
        The discussion at the top of the list unsurprisingly got the most participants, and participation declines as we go down the page. However, there was only one comment lower down from an editor who had not participated in the first discussion. So the fact that 4 were unaninmous for merging is due solely to lower participation in the repeated discussions ... and by looking at 4 unanimous low-particpation discussions as overriding the first one, you give effactively give the repeated voices multiple votes :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem to be arguing with me for the sake of arguing with me, BHG. I've said that I think the discussion should be reopened because of time reasons. Maybe you could accept that and move on?--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know that jazz trumpet players are much rarer than jazz saxophonists, but it doesn't change that they're different things. Personally I think in singing and acting gender kind of does make a difference. Sure Cate Blanchett, Linda Hunt, and others have played men but generally I think gender affects the roles one gets. And it's extremely rare for a woman to sing like Paul Robeson or a man to sound like Minnie Riperton. I think if being part of a group is an influence that's also seen as relevant.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per nom. That's more than enough to justify revisiting a brief 2006 discussion. No criticism of the closer. Alternatively, this may be calling for an RFC on the guideline. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I think I could see a validity for this category more as a parent category. Acting awards tend to be gendered so I could see dividing Category:Actors by award into Category:Actors by award and Category:Actresses by award. Than have the actresses in this one as a parent. (Or maybe I'm just arguing for a creation of Category:Actresses by award instead) However I don't think I have much to say on the validity of the initial deletion, etc.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Deletion review#Commenting_in_a_deletion_review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer. The vast consensus was to close as I did. Cat:American Actresses was unanimous. As for the guideline, it specifically states (then and now): separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed I didn't see in any of the discussions anything that would call for an exception to apply. --Kbdank71 15:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very misleading quote, because you omit the first two words in the sentence: "For example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed" ... and then you use it to create a circular justification. The guidelines list this as an example of a specific category that shouldn't exist, without providing any explanation of why it is a special case rather than example of the general principles ... but you interpret that as a lock which CFD can't override. However, if CFD upholds it, then the guidelines will continue to reflect the CFD result. Result=lockdown.

When the specific example in the guideline is being discussed, why not test the category against the general principles set out in the guideline rather than using the existence of an example to prevent any change?

You also say that you saw nothing to call for an exception. Did you not see T. Anthony's comment that "Acting, unlike most of these, actually tends to separate by gender. Oscars are given to "Best Actor" and "Best Actresses" as are Emmies, etc"? Or do you think that T. Anthony's assertion was incorrect?
I'm also disappointed by Kbdank71's assertion that "American Actresses was unanimous". It seem disingenuous to comment only on that one discussion. Only 2 participants, and nothing to differentiate it from the other similar categories discussed around it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's an example of a very specific category that shouldn't exist. The very category we're discussing. So how is the quote misleading? I can't imagine for the life of me how the author of that example really meant to say "For example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed. But that's just an example. If you really want to, have at it." No, if you're going to use a category as an example of something that shouldn't be created, but you think that specific category could be created, use a different example.

Yes, I saw his quote. I didn't think his one comment, which had no other participants agreeing with, called for an exception to the guideline.
I made that assertion because it was true. The others weren't unanimous, but the consensus on the others (as I said above) was to close the discussions as I did. --Kbdank71 21:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. You say of T. Anthony's comment that it "had no other participants agreeing with [it]". That is not true; two others made exactly the same point, and a third explicitly supported T. Anthony:
JW (User:Jay-W) noted that "Gender is a significant distinction in acting because it has a major effect on the types of roles actors can play. As noted above, it is also the basis for eligibility for major awards"

User:Valley2city wrote "We have gendered categories for many different things, why not this? If Oscars, Emmys, and Tonys distinguish women from men in awarding them by category (best actor vs. best actress (or "female actor"), then why should we not have this distinction in category here?"

Anthony (User:FutureNJGov) said: "Keep as per JW and T. Anthony. Although certain categories have no need for gender splits, this one does, and should be kept for conformity"

None of those points were challenged by the other participants. Did you actually read the discussion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. When someone says "Keep it as is. Here's some more reasoning. Well, you know what, actually a rename would be better." They're not exactly being clear on what they want. Especially when he seems to be arguing for "female actor", not "actress". His argument got less weight because we were not discussing Category:Best Actress Academy Award winners or any of the awards categories.

My bad, I clicked on your link, which was to his diff. I did indeed read the entire discussion when closing them, and when writing my original endorse here.

Question: is there any reason you just didn't relist this? --Kbdank71 21:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's shoddy reasoning, Kb. He supported keeping it, and also suggested that it could be renamed; yet because he mentioned a possible renaming, you reduce the weight of the keep. And the point repeatedly made was that gendered nature of the awards illustrated the gendered nature of acting as a whole. If you look at the "delete" arguments in the same section, there is very little meat to any of them, yet you seem to have given those unreasoned !votes much more weight.

Why didn't I just relist this? Because I didn't think that it was acceptable to just relist a CFD which had closed as "delete". Since G4 doesn't have an explicit expiry clause, I assumed (maybe wrongly) that recreating one of these categories as a test case would lead to its G4 speedy deletion without discussion.

There seems to be an emerging consensus here that after this much time, a relisting is acceptable on WP:CCC grounds, regardless of the merits of the original discussion. If that is the case, and someone wants to close this DRV on that basis, then I'll be happy to proceed to a new CFD. Are you OK with a relisting on that WP:CCC basis, possibly involving DGG's suggestion of creating a sample category? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to get permission from DRV to start a new CfD discussion on the basis of new information or new arguments, even if the previous weren't old. If such a CfD were speedy closed, I'm quite confident that several voices at DRV other than mine would be strongly disapproving. An RfC should always be a welcomed excalation if a respected editor (such as yourself) wants to argue that a previous process discussion was flawed. As your question is quite broad, I think you should start an RfC. nb. I am personally undecided on the matter --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Smokey.

I have no interest in reviewing an old discussion for its own sake. I only did it because I thought it was the only way to reopen the issue, and I now see that I was mistaken on that point.

I would start the new CFD discussion now, except that doing so while the DRV is still open seems like forum-shopping. So'll wait until this closes. If someone will close it early as "relist, cos the original discussion is moot", that'd be fine. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DRV was one way to reopen, and not an invalid way. One problem with going straight back to CfD is that CfD needs more diverse participants - the regulars there have an appearance to bias to a certain rigid line of thinking. Whether to readily divide categories on gender is such a broad question, I think it needs to be an RfC, not just a CfD, and even should be listd at WP:CENT. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. To enforce this very ancient discussion in the face of good faith objections would be a direct denial of WP:CCC. At some point, old XfD discussions simply expire. (I express no opinion about old RFCs, etc.) DRV has never decided how old a discussion needs to be before it can be relisted, and it probably varies according to the specific discussion in question, but whatever that number might be, six years is clearly way past it.—S Marshall T/C 19:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relist – 'separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed' lacks a 'because' clause. Oculi (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relist and discuss the merits there, though it will probably take an RfC also. My own opinion is that gender and national categories are a good thing, and I think that the present general consensus at WP will support them. I suggest or at least hope that we will probably end by reversing a great many decisions to the contrary. Because of the work involved which would be wasted if it turns out consensus has not yet changed, I would not suggest just going ahead and creating the categories before discussion--at least not generally. I ask BHG, though, if she would be prepared to do one as a sample, in the hope it will clarify the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there is consensus to relist, then I'm happy to stop reviewing a 6-yo CFD, and proceed to the more productive phase of making a decision on what to do for the future. :)

Yes, I'd be quite prepared to create and populate a sample category. I suggest that it would be best to create one of the categories which would actually be populated, rather a {{container category}} such as Category:Actresses by nationality. To minimise work and disruption, I suggest doing it for a small by-country category, e.g. Category:Portuguese actresses as a subcat of Category:Portuguese actors, with Category:Actresses and Category:Actresses by nationality also created as containers, to illustrate the category hierarchy. Does that sound like what you intended?

I agree that an RFC will probably also be needed. If there is a consensus to keep, the the naming of the categories may need discussion (actress/woman actor/female actor?). There would also be a bigger decision on whether to create a parallel category for male actors. WP:Cat gender says that in gendered sports such as golf, there should be both Category:Male golfers and Category:Female golfers, and the same logic could be applied here. (Though note that in the example, Male golfers is redlink, and appears to have never existed).

If there was consensus to create parallel male categories, then there would a further question of whether to allow ghettoisation by gender in this case, e.g. by splitting Category:Portuguese film actors into categs for men and women. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there's consensus that a new debate, unfettered by precedent from the original close, would be welcome. I have no idea what result would come from it, but I'm sure it's warranted. I'm also sure it's not necessary to overanalyze the original close, or anyone who agreed or disagreed with it, to get there. We're all in the "that was a long time ago" camp, as far as I can tell.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should we ask at WP:AN/RFC for someone to close this DRV now? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look around; there is no need to close this yet. --George Ho (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - Category:Actors may be sufficient enough for transvestites, like Alexis Arquette. However, I guess there's no harm on changing guidelines and relisting old discussions, like female-only categories. --George Ho (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.