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:Scouting for Girls
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:Works by Szidi Tobias
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:Porcupine Tree images
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:Anahuac Univeristies
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:University librarians
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: The term Academic librarian is more commonly used, and it also allows using the category for Academic librarians working in college and other academic-level libraries.
DGtal (
talk)
09:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename also the term "university librarian" often is a designation of the head of the library, while there will in most universities be many people who count as academic librarians.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:27, 18 October 2012 (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:Omidiyeh County geography stubs
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, obviously Moronic gun jumping. I created all the county stub categories - as approved in the stub categories for creation. And have been diligently populating them since. In a few short weeks this will have to be recreated in any event, now it's just a frustration that no one can plan and build ahead without some busybody trying to tear things down before it can be populated. A waste of everyone's time and effort.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
17:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep: No longer underpopulated, was approved at proposals. For future reference, this is why we often create upmerged stub templates first then the category later after much of the tagging has been done: Populating a template takes at least 60 edits and sometimes some searching or other work. Once that's done, populating a category takes only 1 edit, so this saves leaving an empty category sitting around for more than a few seconds. --
Qetuth (
talk)
02:12, 18 October 2012 (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:Piirpauke albums
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:Paula Seling
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.
Lesbian actors
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.
Oppose. The term actress is as antique today as poetess. It is only used where necessary to make a distnction as it most certainly is not in these instances.
Bmclaughlin9 (
talk)
14:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Actually, they don't see
Helen Mirren among others. You will also want to note last February's Acadamy Awards telecast where, during the In Memorium segment, the women, including Elizabeth Taylor, who had passed away were labelled as Actor when their pictures were shown.
MarnetteD |
Talk19:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Same with comedienne. Gender neutral terminology is covered by wikipolicy. Also as this edit
[1] shows there is precedent for moving away from the term actress for categories.
MarnetteD |
Talk15:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Category:Actresses shouldn't exist at all, actually. This is not a case where gender segregation is useful or warranted, as there's no particularly meaningful or encyclopedic distinction between being an "actor" and being an "actress" beyond what type of sexy bits happen to be sitting between your legs while you're doing it. There might be a case for renaming the whole tree to "Actors and actresses" (though I'd certainly rather we didn't), but there's no valid case to be made for having separate categories for male "actors" and female "actresses". Oppose.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Men and women have separate careers in acting: the vast majority of roles are open only to people of one sex. This is recognised in all the major cinematic awards, which offer separate prizes for men and women. Categorising separately recognises the reality of a gendered profession, just as we do in gendered sports. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
01:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)reply
As I pointed out in a previous discussion, the problem is that while "singers" and "hockey players" and the like can easily be divided into distinct gender categories because there's a natural ungendered parent for them (ungendered "singers" parenting "male singers" and "female singers", etc.), there's no ungendered category that can parent distinct male "actors" and female "actresses" categories -- because "actors" itself is simultaneously both the ungendered parent term and the "gendered" one for men, the female category can only ever be a child of the "male" one rather than the two being sibling children of a common parent, which means that the categories cannot be gendered because there's no way to do so without
ghettoizing the women.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)reply
It wasn't a redirect at the time the initial nomination was made with that as a rationale -- it got speedy redirected afterward, in accordance with
WP:CATGRS and past CFD consensus.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:24, 16 October 2012 (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:Outlandish
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:The Dirty Mac
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: Just a collection of the musicians in this one-off supergroup. The main article can be subcategorized by those musicians if anything. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯05:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep - It's not "Just a collection of the musicians"; it also contains the main article and other related articles. It's a nice way of grouping the articles together. What's the point of deleting it? McLerristarr |
Mclay104:07, 21 October 2012 (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.
LGBT actors
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: Also per past CFD consensus, actors are not one of the categories for which the LGBT Wikiproject desires by-nationality subcategorization (as witness the fact that most of the comparable categories for other countries don't even exist); there's no substantive or encyclopedic difference between being an "LGBT actor from England" or an "LGBT actor from Germany". Delete.
Bearcat (
talk)
04:06, 15 October 2012 (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:Gay men by nationality
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: Per numerous past discussions, the LGBT Wikiproject does not want
overcategorization of this type.
Category:LGBT people by nationality is an entirely sufficient layer of categorization at the nationality level, and does not need to be split out into separate subcategories for L, G, B and T people -- that level of subcategorization is warranted only in a very few specialized cases where a single merged LGBT category becomes extremely large and unwieldy, and the subcategories have already been created in every single case where that applies. In this case, however, it's just an unnecessary and unwanted triple intersection which is generating a lot of unnecessarily small categories with just two, three or four entries each. Delete all.
Bearcat (
talk)
03:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. I'm split on this. I see a category with only 5 or less entries as being possibly over-categorized, but the second one I looked at has 69 entries. And in looking to find the L, the G, the B, and the T in a very large group - of even 20 articles - is arguably taxing to those seeking this information. Perhaps there could be a cut-off if there are only 2-4 entries the category is upmerged but leave the rest? Over time various factions of L's, G's, B's and T's, etc., have sought to find identity and culture within the larger LGBTQIXYZ umbrella so it would seem to be a benefit to have these categories as the numbers are only likely to grow.
Insomesia (
talk)
12:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)reply
There are certainly a few categories where it's appropriate to separate the gay men and the lesbians and the bisexuals and the transfolk into distinct subcategories instead of keeping them together in a single merged category -- but there are many more where it's not a particularly useful or helpful thing for us to do. "LGBT people by nationality" categories are of the latter type, not the former.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Except that we don't do it for most occupations either. There are only three or four occupations for which we allow the splitout (and even then only due to sheer raw size, not because it's actually a useful distinction for an encyclopedia to make); for the remainder we have merged "LGBT" cats and specifically disallow separating them into distinct subcategories for each individual quadrant. In other words, it's an invalid categorization in most cases, so if this one's "just as valid" then that ain't saying much for its validity.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)reply
If we have lgbt people by country why not split it further into the likes of these. If anything they are more accurate as the cat wording is what the contained people are most commonly and specificly described as.
MaybeMaybeMaybe (
talk)
17:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Firstly, the splitout introduces gender segregation into the category system in a place where it isn't needed -- we don't do gendered categories for the sake of gendered categories, but rather restrict them to cases where the gender category is itself a genuinely encyclopedic phenomenon (e.g. the extensive volume of academic and social research into the evolving role of
Category:Women in politics). This, however, is a case where the gender distinction isn't the salient point of the category -- there's no meaningful difference between being a "gay man from England" and being a "lesbian from England" beyond that which is already inherent in the distinction between male and female (which is, again, not a distinction that we categorize on for its own sake.) What we care about for the purposes of the "LGBT people by nationality" tree is cultural identification with the broadly-constituted LGBT community as a whole, and not about the gender distinction. And secondly, it predominantly results in subcategories that are too small to be legitimate as per
WP:OCAT#SMALL. We only allow the splitout in a few specific cases where a merged "LGBT" cat would be populated in the thousands; it is not acceptable (or needed) in cases where the parent category has only seven or eight or 15 articles total.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)reply
These categories however do not fit that definition - Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme - they are only going to get larger. I can see upmerging the categories that only have a handful but even the parent categories have large numbers in many cases. I say selectively upmerge only the smallest and allow recreation.
Keep the largest/Upmerge the smallest (for now), separating out which of the LGBT individuals is actually G, L, B and T, etc is a recurring facet of the LGBT experience, in a communities of minority communities searching for identity and culture. Yes, some of these are small categories but some are certainly not. And it is useful for those looking for the information to know which of hundreds of LGBT people are L, G, B and T for a variety of reasons. And logically these groups are all going to increase in size.
Insomesia (
talk)
23:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Of course there is, by nation and by the subgroup of being gay rather than lesbian, bisexual and transgender. This is noted in each article.
Insomesia (
talk)
18:49, 23 October 2012 (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:Works by Marika Gombitová
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.
Mannheim Steamroller seasonal albums
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:Ma, Meyer, O'Connor albums
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:Harry Potter actors
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: Per
WP:OC#PERF, we do not categorize people in this way. This is particularly true given that, while their roles in Harry Potter may be defining for some of the actors, especially ones still near the beginning of their careers, for others they range from utterly trivial to simply another role in a great career. (This has probably been created and deleted before.) –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
02:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete Film and television categories like this were deprecated several years ago. Once you start down this road you can wind up with articles with more categories than main article info.
MarnetteD |
Talk03:21, 15 October 2012 (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.
Category:Scouting for Girls
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:Works by Szidi Tobias
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:Porcupine Tree images
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:Anahuac Univeristies
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:University librarians
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: The term Academic librarian is more commonly used, and it also allows using the category for Academic librarians working in college and other academic-level libraries.
DGtal (
talk)
09:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename also the term "university librarian" often is a designation of the head of the library, while there will in most universities be many people who count as academic librarians.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:27, 18 October 2012 (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:Omidiyeh County geography stubs
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, obviously Moronic gun jumping. I created all the county stub categories - as approved in the stub categories for creation. And have been diligently populating them since. In a few short weeks this will have to be recreated in any event, now it's just a frustration that no one can plan and build ahead without some busybody trying to tear things down before it can be populated. A waste of everyone's time and effort.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
17:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep: No longer underpopulated, was approved at proposals. For future reference, this is why we often create upmerged stub templates first then the category later after much of the tagging has been done: Populating a template takes at least 60 edits and sometimes some searching or other work. Once that's done, populating a category takes only 1 edit, so this saves leaving an empty category sitting around for more than a few seconds. --
Qetuth (
talk)
02:12, 18 October 2012 (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:Piirpauke albums
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:Paula Seling
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.
Lesbian actors
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.
Oppose. The term actress is as antique today as poetess. It is only used where necessary to make a distnction as it most certainly is not in these instances.
Bmclaughlin9 (
talk)
14:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Actually, they don't see
Helen Mirren among others. You will also want to note last February's Acadamy Awards telecast where, during the In Memorium segment, the women, including Elizabeth Taylor, who had passed away were labelled as Actor when their pictures were shown.
MarnetteD |
Talk19:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Same with comedienne. Gender neutral terminology is covered by wikipolicy. Also as this edit
[1] shows there is precedent for moving away from the term actress for categories.
MarnetteD |
Talk15:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Category:Actresses shouldn't exist at all, actually. This is not a case where gender segregation is useful or warranted, as there's no particularly meaningful or encyclopedic distinction between being an "actor" and being an "actress" beyond what type of sexy bits happen to be sitting between your legs while you're doing it. There might be a case for renaming the whole tree to "Actors and actresses" (though I'd certainly rather we didn't), but there's no valid case to be made for having separate categories for male "actors" and female "actresses". Oppose.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Men and women have separate careers in acting: the vast majority of roles are open only to people of one sex. This is recognised in all the major cinematic awards, which offer separate prizes for men and women. Categorising separately recognises the reality of a gendered profession, just as we do in gendered sports. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
01:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)reply
As I pointed out in a previous discussion, the problem is that while "singers" and "hockey players" and the like can easily be divided into distinct gender categories because there's a natural ungendered parent for them (ungendered "singers" parenting "male singers" and "female singers", etc.), there's no ungendered category that can parent distinct male "actors" and female "actresses" categories -- because "actors" itself is simultaneously both the ungendered parent term and the "gendered" one for men, the female category can only ever be a child of the "male" one rather than the two being sibling children of a common parent, which means that the categories cannot be gendered because there's no way to do so without
ghettoizing the women.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)reply
It wasn't a redirect at the time the initial nomination was made with that as a rationale -- it got speedy redirected afterward, in accordance with
WP:CATGRS and past CFD consensus.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:24, 16 October 2012 (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:Outlandish
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:The Dirty Mac
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: Just a collection of the musicians in this one-off supergroup. The main article can be subcategorized by those musicians if anything. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯05:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep - It's not "Just a collection of the musicians"; it also contains the main article and other related articles. It's a nice way of grouping the articles together. What's the point of deleting it? McLerristarr |
Mclay104:07, 21 October 2012 (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.
LGBT actors
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: Also per past CFD consensus, actors are not one of the categories for which the LGBT Wikiproject desires by-nationality subcategorization (as witness the fact that most of the comparable categories for other countries don't even exist); there's no substantive or encyclopedic difference between being an "LGBT actor from England" or an "LGBT actor from Germany". Delete.
Bearcat (
talk)
04:06, 15 October 2012 (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:Gay men by nationality
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: Per numerous past discussions, the LGBT Wikiproject does not want
overcategorization of this type.
Category:LGBT people by nationality is an entirely sufficient layer of categorization at the nationality level, and does not need to be split out into separate subcategories for L, G, B and T people -- that level of subcategorization is warranted only in a very few specialized cases where a single merged LGBT category becomes extremely large and unwieldy, and the subcategories have already been created in every single case where that applies. In this case, however, it's just an unnecessary and unwanted triple intersection which is generating a lot of unnecessarily small categories with just two, three or four entries each. Delete all.
Bearcat (
talk)
03:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. I'm split on this. I see a category with only 5 or less entries as being possibly over-categorized, but the second one I looked at has 69 entries. And in looking to find the L, the G, the B, and the T in a very large group - of even 20 articles - is arguably taxing to those seeking this information. Perhaps there could be a cut-off if there are only 2-4 entries the category is upmerged but leave the rest? Over time various factions of L's, G's, B's and T's, etc., have sought to find identity and culture within the larger LGBTQIXYZ umbrella so it would seem to be a benefit to have these categories as the numbers are only likely to grow.
Insomesia (
talk)
12:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)reply
There are certainly a few categories where it's appropriate to separate the gay men and the lesbians and the bisexuals and the transfolk into distinct subcategories instead of keeping them together in a single merged category -- but there are many more where it's not a particularly useful or helpful thing for us to do. "LGBT people by nationality" categories are of the latter type, not the former.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Except that we don't do it for most occupations either. There are only three or four occupations for which we allow the splitout (and even then only due to sheer raw size, not because it's actually a useful distinction for an encyclopedia to make); for the remainder we have merged "LGBT" cats and specifically disallow separating them into distinct subcategories for each individual quadrant. In other words, it's an invalid categorization in most cases, so if this one's "just as valid" then that ain't saying much for its validity.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)reply
If we have lgbt people by country why not split it further into the likes of these. If anything they are more accurate as the cat wording is what the contained people are most commonly and specificly described as.
MaybeMaybeMaybe (
talk)
17:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Firstly, the splitout introduces gender segregation into the category system in a place where it isn't needed -- we don't do gendered categories for the sake of gendered categories, but rather restrict them to cases where the gender category is itself a genuinely encyclopedic phenomenon (e.g. the extensive volume of academic and social research into the evolving role of
Category:Women in politics). This, however, is a case where the gender distinction isn't the salient point of the category -- there's no meaningful difference between being a "gay man from England" and being a "lesbian from England" beyond that which is already inherent in the distinction between male and female (which is, again, not a distinction that we categorize on for its own sake.) What we care about for the purposes of the "LGBT people by nationality" tree is cultural identification with the broadly-constituted LGBT community as a whole, and not about the gender distinction. And secondly, it predominantly results in subcategories that are too small to be legitimate as per
WP:OCAT#SMALL. We only allow the splitout in a few specific cases where a merged "LGBT" cat would be populated in the thousands; it is not acceptable (or needed) in cases where the parent category has only seven or eight or 15 articles total.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)reply
These categories however do not fit that definition - Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme - they are only going to get larger. I can see upmerging the categories that only have a handful but even the parent categories have large numbers in many cases. I say selectively upmerge only the smallest and allow recreation.
Keep the largest/Upmerge the smallest (for now), separating out which of the LGBT individuals is actually G, L, B and T, etc is a recurring facet of the LGBT experience, in a communities of minority communities searching for identity and culture. Yes, some of these are small categories but some are certainly not. And it is useful for those looking for the information to know which of hundreds of LGBT people are L, G, B and T for a variety of reasons. And logically these groups are all going to increase in size.
Insomesia (
talk)
23:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Of course there is, by nation and by the subgroup of being gay rather than lesbian, bisexual and transgender. This is noted in each article.
Insomesia (
talk)
18:49, 23 October 2012 (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:Works by Marika Gombitová
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.
Mannheim Steamroller seasonal albums
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:Ma, Meyer, O'Connor albums
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:Harry Potter actors
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: Per
WP:OC#PERF, we do not categorize people in this way. This is particularly true given that, while their roles in Harry Potter may be defining for some of the actors, especially ones still near the beginning of their careers, for others they range from utterly trivial to simply another role in a great career. (This has probably been created and deleted before.) –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
02:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete Film and television categories like this were deprecated several years ago. Once you start down this road you can wind up with articles with more categories than main article info.
MarnetteD |
Talk03:21, 15 October 2012 (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.