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.
Category:Brazillian jazz singers
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.
Category:Indian women philosophers
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.
Category:Articles for Deletion
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'. Redirect Judging by the edit
here, a new user was trying to set up some kind of alternative AfD. Unless somebody else can find a use for the category, appears to be surplus to requirements .
Richhoncho (
talk)
19:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete, as noted by Black Falcon, there's no reason to expect that people will attempt to put articles or other pages into this category.
Nyttend (
talk)
22:42, 6 April 2010 (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:Australian rugby league teams
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.
Comment I would be careful with a merge here. A team does not always equal a club. Indeed, some teams are most definitely not clubs. The sub-cat
Category:Rugby league representative teams in Australia includes rugby league teams that are not clubs, but rather, representative selections. Perhaps better category naming can fix the issue? The whole category tree is a bit of a mess and this could be an opportunity to clean it up. --
Mattinbgn\talk22:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment Similar categories for other countries use team rather then club. See
Category: Rugby league teams. Regards to above cats, there does not see to be any criteria to distinguish between either. In fact I have seen some articles in both.
Djln--
Djln (
talk)
23:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment There is a clear criteria to separate the two concepts, it just hasn'r been used properly in these categories. A club is just that, a club: such as
South Sydney Rabbitohs etc. It is a organisation dedicated to putting sporting teams on the park, contracts its own players etc. A team on the other hand does not necessarily have to be a club.
New South Wales rugby league team is not a club, it is a representative selection of players from various clubs. To use a football example,
Manchester United FC is a club that has a range of teams, including obviously their main team; the
England national football team is not a club, but is simply a team. Perhaps football could be used as an example to help tidy the RL cats. --
Mattinbgn\talk23:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't need an explanation on difference between clubs and teams but whoever filled these cats might. If you check the teams and clubs listed you will see that they have just been randomly added without follwing any kind of criteria. There is no need for both cats. One should go and I suggest it should be the clubs as the teams one can be more inclusive and this is inline with other rugby league cats for other countries.
Djln--
Djln (
talk)
22:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People from Staveley
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.
Romanian towns
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 per nom - have checked myself and the nominator is correct. This isn't so much a rename as fixing misclassifications - the article leads themselves are correct.
Orderinchaos22:16, 30 March 2010 (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.
More singers by gender
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:mergeCategory:Singers by gender to
Category:Singers, and merge allFooian singers by gender to Fooian singers.
gidonb is correct that merging the categories in this manner will lengthen the path from
Category:People by gender to individual Fooian female/male singers categories; however, consensus is that the benefits of merging (i.e., removing these intermediate container categories) outweigh the disadvantages.
Support upmerge as nom. This is an unnecessary level of categorisation. Male and female are different, but there is no reason why Fooian singers should not have direct subcategories Male Fooian singers and Female Fooian singers.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep all. This comes across as having a well-occupied 20 floor building where the 13th floor is empty and coming over with a crane and a steal ball to knock out the empty floor out, while explaining that you have already resolved the problem of the water supply. Singer by gender categories are important, and cross-sectioning it with nationality is nontrivial. Everyone in this somewhat scattered discussion seems to agree on that much. (If anyone here is unaware of the real differences between female and (mature) male voices, I'd be happy to explain.) Singer by gender categories, however, are not only subcategories of singers, but also of
Category:People by gender. People by gender enables one to find all Wikipedia categories that are split by gender and is an important navigation tool for readers and Wikipedians alike. The suggested deletions would disconnect important categories from each other and significantly decrease the navigability of Wikipedia.
gidonb (
talk)
03:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)reply
I wonder whether Gidonb has misunderstood what is being proposed. These upmergers will not lead to a single article being removed from an existing category, nor for the removal or renaming of any
Category:Fooian male singers or
Category:Fooian female singers.
I wonder whether BrownHairedGirl has misunderstood the implications of the proposal. The process of removing the Singer by gender categories will remove this category from People by gender and create a disconnect in the categorization system. Singers by gender are notable both for male and female voices and therefor the reference to
WP:CATGRS is irrelevant in this case.
gidonb (
talk)
12:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Again, when both genders are included in Wikipedia, an X by gender category should by accessible from People by gender. It makes our encyclopedia easily navigable for visitors and clarifies for Wikipedians which articles should be categorized by genderS.
gidonb (
talk)
13:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Imho, the latter categories should be listified as such or split into two, if kept as categories. I agree that this is sidetracking. It is important that we allow navigation throughout the category system by different features and if there happen to be only two genders (versus more religions, ethnicities etc.), so be it. The feature itself must be notable (no argument above) and if it is, it should be kept or made navigable.
gidonb (
talk)
16:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment This looks like a halfbaked proposal, that has not been been evaluated in the light of all factors, until late in the discussion. With all respect to the keenness to eliminate categories, please bare in mind that some of them are absolutely necessary to keep the articles navigable, consistent, and organized and that the category system is one of the most precious Wikipedian tools for naviagbility, organization and consistency. Also in the future: Please take a good look at the uses of a category, before going per nom!
gidonb (
talk)
13:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Things look brighter for the navagibility in the related discussion, where there is clearly no consensus to merge.
gidonb (
talk)
13:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Upmerge. I'm not convinced that eliminating these mid-level containers will cause any sort of problem to the overall navigational purpose of the categories. I'm not sure we even need to divide singers by gender, but that's another story.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:46, 6 April 2010 (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:Models
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. There was consensus that the current title is ambiguous and needs to be changed but no clear preference for a single option.
Of the ten options that were presented,
Category:Models (occupation) was the only one which resolves the ambiguity in the current title, was supported by more than one participant, and to which no one directly objected, but even it was the first preference (in terms of ranked preferences, not chronologically) of only one editor (taking the most recent expression of a single preference as the first preference).
In the table below, I have listed the ten options and tried to summarize the arguments offered for and against them, as well as added some technical notes and (in one instance) my personal opinion:
Does not resolve the ambiguity of the current title (
diff)
An alternate suggestion (see comments by
choster,
Brunnian, and
Jubileeclipman) was to split the category tree by
type of modeling. There was no consensus to implement this idea, but it was not clearly rejected either.
I encourage a follow-up discussion that builds on this one to explore in more depth the suggestions made here, since it is clear that the current title is undesirable. (P.S. In response to Carlaude's comment of 19:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC), made in reply to Brunnian, regarding non-professional artists' models: I think
Julie Bell is an example.) -- Black Falcon(
talk)23:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The category scheme encompassing models, conceptual models, scientific models etcetera would benefit greatly by being able to reside under this name. Please support this effort to organize some otherwise difficult to classify articles.
Greg Bard03:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment Not disputing the vagueness of the current name, but it would be good to achieve consistency of naming (a) upward with the article relating to the category at
Model (person) and (b) downward with the 9 subcategory names - should these also be changed?
AllyD (
talk)
07:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment Yes, but there is a delicious irony in something inelegant associated with professional display of the body. I've never seen one that didn't look to be suffering from some deformity!--
Brunnian (
talk)
14:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment Is the umbrella concept of "Model (person)" really a useful layer? To my mind, it would be like lumping talent managers, corporate executives, and project managers in
Category:Managers.-
choster (
talk)
18:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)reply
"Model (person)" seems to me to be a better grouping than that. Artists models, fashion models, and porn models are all people who make their living from having people look at their bodies, rather than what they say, do, or think. Basically, they do similar things, just for different markets. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
19:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - fashion models are technically paid to model the clothes so people look at those rather than the model. Artists' models are paid (or not as the case may be) to inspire artistic creation that other people then look at, the model being part of the art and therefore secondary to it. These are all entirely distinct forms of modelling. (Porn models, obviously, are paid for people to drool (or whatever...) over their bodies...) --
Jubilee♫clipman15:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I would support renaming to "professional models" as a more general name. I would also support consistency upward and downward.
Greg Bard00:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Agree some sort of splitting is appropriate. (We already have Mathematical Modeling and Scale Modeling (sic) ) I'd support Fashion Models and Artists' Models as separate entities. I know nothing and care less about Fetish Models, who I would suspect are well able to take care of themselves. Don't forget that in french - and France dominates the fashion business - they are known as mannequin, and are thus indistinguishable from the lumps of wood which serve the same purpose. --
Brunnian (
talk)
14:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)reply
While
Artists' models are professional in that they are paid-- I see that there could be a notible artists' model who was not paid because s/he was married to (or a lover of) the artist. But this is conjector ATM. Carlaude:Talk19:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Split - this is the only truly practical solution, IMO. Fashion models, adult models, beauty pagent models, game show models and artists' models are all quite distinct entities. However, I do empathise with the eventual splitter as they will have to deal with all those subcats to make the split make sense, I suspect... --
Jubilee♫clipman14:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Human models. While I don't really like the name, it seems to be a generic parent that allows for both individuals and groups of models. I think that all of the other options have baggage in that they presuppose certain other conditions for inclusion and can only function as subcategories.
Category:Models (people) on the surface seems like a good choice, but the main article there only covers one branch of models. If consensus shifts to
Category:Models (occupation), I could support that.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:38, 6 April 2010 (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:Chennai Technical fest
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.
Category:Louis-François Baron Lejeune
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.
Delete as it links nothing together (and also lacks a comma, cf
Louis-François, Baron Lejeune). There is an image in the category, but this has no overt connection with the good Baron, and the image in his article also has no obvious connection with him. He has works but none yet has an article; 'Cossack' merely redirects to the Cossacks.
Occuli (
talk)
09:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete -- essentailly nothing but a main article at present. Deletion should be without prejudice to re-creation if it can be populated adequately.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:53, 30 March 2010 (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:Black Library authors
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.
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:Brazillian jazz singers
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.
Category:Indian women philosophers
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.
Category:Articles for Deletion
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'. Redirect Judging by the edit
here, a new user was trying to set up some kind of alternative AfD. Unless somebody else can find a use for the category, appears to be surplus to requirements .
Richhoncho (
talk)
19:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete, as noted by Black Falcon, there's no reason to expect that people will attempt to put articles or other pages into this category.
Nyttend (
talk)
22:42, 6 April 2010 (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:Australian rugby league teams
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.
Comment I would be careful with a merge here. A team does not always equal a club. Indeed, some teams are most definitely not clubs. The sub-cat
Category:Rugby league representative teams in Australia includes rugby league teams that are not clubs, but rather, representative selections. Perhaps better category naming can fix the issue? The whole category tree is a bit of a mess and this could be an opportunity to clean it up. --
Mattinbgn\talk22:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment Similar categories for other countries use team rather then club. See
Category: Rugby league teams. Regards to above cats, there does not see to be any criteria to distinguish between either. In fact I have seen some articles in both.
Djln--
Djln (
talk)
23:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment There is a clear criteria to separate the two concepts, it just hasn'r been used properly in these categories. A club is just that, a club: such as
South Sydney Rabbitohs etc. It is a organisation dedicated to putting sporting teams on the park, contracts its own players etc. A team on the other hand does not necessarily have to be a club.
New South Wales rugby league team is not a club, it is a representative selection of players from various clubs. To use a football example,
Manchester United FC is a club that has a range of teams, including obviously their main team; the
England national football team is not a club, but is simply a team. Perhaps football could be used as an example to help tidy the RL cats. --
Mattinbgn\talk23:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't need an explanation on difference between clubs and teams but whoever filled these cats might. If you check the teams and clubs listed you will see that they have just been randomly added without follwing any kind of criteria. There is no need for both cats. One should go and I suggest it should be the clubs as the teams one can be more inclusive and this is inline with other rugby league cats for other countries.
Djln--
Djln (
talk)
22:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People from Staveley
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.
Romanian towns
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 per nom - have checked myself and the nominator is correct. This isn't so much a rename as fixing misclassifications - the article leads themselves are correct.
Orderinchaos22:16, 30 March 2010 (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.
More singers by gender
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:mergeCategory:Singers by gender to
Category:Singers, and merge allFooian singers by gender to Fooian singers.
gidonb is correct that merging the categories in this manner will lengthen the path from
Category:People by gender to individual Fooian female/male singers categories; however, consensus is that the benefits of merging (i.e., removing these intermediate container categories) outweigh the disadvantages.
Support upmerge as nom. This is an unnecessary level of categorisation. Male and female are different, but there is no reason why Fooian singers should not have direct subcategories Male Fooian singers and Female Fooian singers.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep all. This comes across as having a well-occupied 20 floor building where the 13th floor is empty and coming over with a crane and a steal ball to knock out the empty floor out, while explaining that you have already resolved the problem of the water supply. Singer by gender categories are important, and cross-sectioning it with nationality is nontrivial. Everyone in this somewhat scattered discussion seems to agree on that much. (If anyone here is unaware of the real differences between female and (mature) male voices, I'd be happy to explain.) Singer by gender categories, however, are not only subcategories of singers, but also of
Category:People by gender. People by gender enables one to find all Wikipedia categories that are split by gender and is an important navigation tool for readers and Wikipedians alike. The suggested deletions would disconnect important categories from each other and significantly decrease the navigability of Wikipedia.
gidonb (
talk)
03:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)reply
I wonder whether Gidonb has misunderstood what is being proposed. These upmergers will not lead to a single article being removed from an existing category, nor for the removal or renaming of any
Category:Fooian male singers or
Category:Fooian female singers.
I wonder whether BrownHairedGirl has misunderstood the implications of the proposal. The process of removing the Singer by gender categories will remove this category from People by gender and create a disconnect in the categorization system. Singers by gender are notable both for male and female voices and therefor the reference to
WP:CATGRS is irrelevant in this case.
gidonb (
talk)
12:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Again, when both genders are included in Wikipedia, an X by gender category should by accessible from People by gender. It makes our encyclopedia easily navigable for visitors and clarifies for Wikipedians which articles should be categorized by genderS.
gidonb (
talk)
13:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Imho, the latter categories should be listified as such or split into two, if kept as categories. I agree that this is sidetracking. It is important that we allow navigation throughout the category system by different features and if there happen to be only two genders (versus more religions, ethnicities etc.), so be it. The feature itself must be notable (no argument above) and if it is, it should be kept or made navigable.
gidonb (
talk)
16:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment This looks like a halfbaked proposal, that has not been been evaluated in the light of all factors, until late in the discussion. With all respect to the keenness to eliminate categories, please bare in mind that some of them are absolutely necessary to keep the articles navigable, consistent, and organized and that the category system is one of the most precious Wikipedian tools for naviagbility, organization and consistency. Also in the future: Please take a good look at the uses of a category, before going per nom!
gidonb (
talk)
13:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Things look brighter for the navagibility in the related discussion, where there is clearly no consensus to merge.
gidonb (
talk)
13:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Upmerge. I'm not convinced that eliminating these mid-level containers will cause any sort of problem to the overall navigational purpose of the categories. I'm not sure we even need to divide singers by gender, but that's another story.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:46, 6 April 2010 (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:Models
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. There was consensus that the current title is ambiguous and needs to be changed but no clear preference for a single option.
Of the ten options that were presented,
Category:Models (occupation) was the only one which resolves the ambiguity in the current title, was supported by more than one participant, and to which no one directly objected, but even it was the first preference (in terms of ranked preferences, not chronologically) of only one editor (taking the most recent expression of a single preference as the first preference).
In the table below, I have listed the ten options and tried to summarize the arguments offered for and against them, as well as added some technical notes and (in one instance) my personal opinion:
Does not resolve the ambiguity of the current title (
diff)
An alternate suggestion (see comments by
choster,
Brunnian, and
Jubileeclipman) was to split the category tree by
type of modeling. There was no consensus to implement this idea, but it was not clearly rejected either.
I encourage a follow-up discussion that builds on this one to explore in more depth the suggestions made here, since it is clear that the current title is undesirable. (P.S. In response to Carlaude's comment of 19:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC), made in reply to Brunnian, regarding non-professional artists' models: I think
Julie Bell is an example.) -- Black Falcon(
talk)23:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The category scheme encompassing models, conceptual models, scientific models etcetera would benefit greatly by being able to reside under this name. Please support this effort to organize some otherwise difficult to classify articles.
Greg Bard03:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment Not disputing the vagueness of the current name, but it would be good to achieve consistency of naming (a) upward with the article relating to the category at
Model (person) and (b) downward with the 9 subcategory names - should these also be changed?
AllyD (
talk)
07:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment Yes, but there is a delicious irony in something inelegant associated with professional display of the body. I've never seen one that didn't look to be suffering from some deformity!--
Brunnian (
talk)
14:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment Is the umbrella concept of "Model (person)" really a useful layer? To my mind, it would be like lumping talent managers, corporate executives, and project managers in
Category:Managers.-
choster (
talk)
18:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)reply
"Model (person)" seems to me to be a better grouping than that. Artists models, fashion models, and porn models are all people who make their living from having people look at their bodies, rather than what they say, do, or think. Basically, they do similar things, just for different markets. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
19:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - fashion models are technically paid to model the clothes so people look at those rather than the model. Artists' models are paid (or not as the case may be) to inspire artistic creation that other people then look at, the model being part of the art and therefore secondary to it. These are all entirely distinct forms of modelling. (Porn models, obviously, are paid for people to drool (or whatever...) over their bodies...) --
Jubilee♫clipman15:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I would support renaming to "professional models" as a more general name. I would also support consistency upward and downward.
Greg Bard00:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Agree some sort of splitting is appropriate. (We already have Mathematical Modeling and Scale Modeling (sic) ) I'd support Fashion Models and Artists' Models as separate entities. I know nothing and care less about Fetish Models, who I would suspect are well able to take care of themselves. Don't forget that in french - and France dominates the fashion business - they are known as mannequin, and are thus indistinguishable from the lumps of wood which serve the same purpose. --
Brunnian (
talk)
14:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)reply
While
Artists' models are professional in that they are paid-- I see that there could be a notible artists' model who was not paid because s/he was married to (or a lover of) the artist. But this is conjector ATM. Carlaude:Talk19:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Split - this is the only truly practical solution, IMO. Fashion models, adult models, beauty pagent models, game show models and artists' models are all quite distinct entities. However, I do empathise with the eventual splitter as they will have to deal with all those subcats to make the split make sense, I suspect... --
Jubilee♫clipman14:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Human models. While I don't really like the name, it seems to be a generic parent that allows for both individuals and groups of models. I think that all of the other options have baggage in that they presuppose certain other conditions for inclusion and can only function as subcategories.
Category:Models (people) on the surface seems like a good choice, but the main article there only covers one branch of models. If consensus shifts to
Category:Models (occupation), I could support that.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:38, 6 April 2010 (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:Chennai Technical fest
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.
Category:Louis-François Baron Lejeune
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.
Delete as it links nothing together (and also lacks a comma, cf
Louis-François, Baron Lejeune). There is an image in the category, but this has no overt connection with the good Baron, and the image in his article also has no obvious connection with him. He has works but none yet has an article; 'Cossack' merely redirects to the Cossacks.
Occuli (
talk)
09:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete -- essentailly nothing but a main article at present. Deletion should be without prejudice to re-creation if it can be populated adequately.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:53, 30 March 2010 (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:Black Library authors
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.