Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 19 May 21 >

May 20

Category:Recipients of the Order of the Badge of Honour

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: delete. ℯ xplicit 04:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category for a low-tier meritorious award; more than 1 million have been awarded. Fails WP:CATDEF as none of the recipients are known for having received this decoration. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:32, 20 May 2017 (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:Recipients of the Order of the Red Banner of Labour

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: delete. ℯ xplicit 04:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category for a meritorious award; more than 1 million have been awarded. Fails WP:CATDEF as none of the recipients are known for having received this decoration. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:11, 20 May 2017 (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:Female impersonators

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. ℯ xplicit 02:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There's no properly sourceable distinction between the term "female impersonator" and the term "drag queen" — they're not separate concepts, but represent historical and contemporary terminologies for the same thing. For example, the head article female impersonator is not a standalone article, but merely a redirect to drag queen. The subcategory Category:Female impersonators by nationality, further, contains eight subcategories named in the form "[Nationality] drag queens", and just one that's actually named in the form "[Nationality] female impersonators", and is itself a subcategory of both this and the drag queens category at the same time. Some people draw the distinction that a "female impersonator" seeks to impersonate one or more specific celebrities while a "drag queen" seeks to create her own character persona, but even that's an arbitrary distinction — for example, challenges on RuPaul's Drag Race quite frequently call on the queens to play celebrity roles instead of being "themselves", and many drag performers play both sides of the fence by including celebrity impersonations in their repertoire, while still fundamentally presenting as original characters who don't only do that. (Plus, for added bonus, drag queens don't necessarily only do female celebrities either — male celebrities with sufficiently flamboyant public images, such as Elton John, Prince, Michael Jackson, David Bowie, Little Richard or Boy George, are on the table of options too.) And of the four people filed directly in the main category rather than the FI/DQ subcross, only one might have any genuine claim to being called a "female impersonator" instead of a "drag queen", as he was an ancient Greek who lived and died two full millennia ago — all three of the others are or were alive well after "drag queen" supplanted "female impersonator" as the standard term for this. So the difference between the two terms is an arbitrary personal choice of individual language preference rather than a substantive distinction that would actually support two separate category trees. Bearcat ( talk) 21:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
comment - a very culturally bound response, imho - Australia has a female impersonator - Dame Edna Everage aka Barry Humphries has never - as far as I know been allocated the drag queen title - JarrahTree 13:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
(As an Australian familiar with the character of Dame Edna Everage) I personally would not have thought of Barry Humphries as being a "drag queen", but a quick consultation with Dr Google turns up a few such associations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV3qjljfBBM
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/iconic-aussie-comedy-drag-queen-dame-edna-cast-as-goblin-king-in-the-hobbit/news-story/b98dbe65ef749a44ba2c50bd9eb19103?sv=a7052996dea601e407685a08ba06ee13
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/calendar/the-mother-of-all-drag-queens-6372621
Although apparently " "Humphries never thought of himself as a drag artist". Mitch Ames ( talk) 09:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Oh, right. I have a "culturally bound" bias because you can find one performer who calls himself something different than the standard term for everybody else who does the same thing? Bearcat ( talk) 18:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete instead -- the category name is confusing; my initial thought was that the category included women who were celebrity impersonators. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If someone can write two articles clearly distinguishing the two terms then keep as separate. There is only one article at the moment which tries to discuss the history of both terms, although some verification is needed, but it seems the categories should be combined in line with the one main article. The real issue is probably coming up with a NPOV name. Drag queen has connotations to many regarding gender. Female impersonator to many implies presentation as some, highly varied and probably culturally leveraged, concept of female, often caricaturised, without necessarily implying the person has any personal female tendencies. Perhaps it comes down to how the individuals see themselves, rather than us or others categorising them, but then how will people search for them will depend on their POV too. Aoziwe ( talk) 11:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply
"Drag queen" doesn't carry any implications about the performer's personal gender identification — in actual fact, it carries no implications about gender identity any different from the description you just gave of "female impersonator". Sure, people who identify as transgender can and do also work as drag queens, but the term "drag queen" doesn't inherently imply anything whatsoever about the performer's personal gender identity once they're out of character and just being themselves. Bearcat ( talk) 18:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Okay, for you it does not. My point is for many it does. Aoziwe ( talk) 10:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply
No, not just for me: for anybody and everybody who uses the term correctly. Anyone for whom the term inherently implies anything about the performer's gender identity is simply wrong about what it means. Bearcat ( talk) 03:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Sorry but obviously not everybody understands the term that way. Interestingly, the article Drag queen is explicitly shown as being Part of a series on Transgender topics, so the consensus of the wikicommunity taking responsibility for the article seems to think there is a reasonable bias in the term towards gender identity issues. If this is sufficiently wrong then that whole box should be removed and contextual linking to the article throughout the pedia be thoroughly reviewed? Yours in good faith. Aoziwe ( talk) 11:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply
And interestingly, that box includes the term "cross-dressing", but does not directly include the term "drag queen" at all. The simple reality is that the term "transgender" does not only encompass people who actually identify themselves differently from their assigned birth gender — in its broadest sense, the term includes all forms of gender-variant behaviour, inclusive of cross-dressing for fun or profit regardless of whether you call that "drag queen" or "female impersonator". The concepts of "drag queen" and "female impersonator" both carry exactly the same relationship to the concept of "transgender" as each other — neither term implies anything different about the person's internal gender identity than the other one does. The vast majority of drag queens, in fact, are cisgender men who identify and present and dress and act as men when they're not performing — their drag persona is a character, not a representation of their internal gender identity. Sure, a transgender person can also work as a drag queen, but being a drag queen doesn't automatically imply anything about the drag queen's gender identity in and of itself — if you think it does, then your assumptions about individual queens' identities are going to be wrong quite a lot more often than they are ever actually right. I'm a gay man with literally dozens of friends or acquaintances who are or have been drag queens, and trust me, not a single one of the ones I know identifies as anything but cisgender male when he's not getting paid to perform. Bearcat ( talk) 22:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply
While we might be coming at the matter from different directions and backgrounds and experiences I think you have convinced me, including below, that the two articles need a complete review because rereading them again just very much blurs any clear understanding of the distinctions and concepts many of which are not referenced. As you know we in the Wikipedia community rely in RSS to support an article and cannot rely on each of our personal experiences. Aoziwe ( talk) 11:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose any merge until there is a clear definition of female impersonator (and conversely male immpersonator) versus drag queen versus cross dressing. Until then the three categories should remaing available with articles being categorised according to how the subjects self identify. Aoziwe ( talk) 11:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete but Don't Merge. As pointed out, the term "female impersonator" is pretty ambiguous and likely to cause confusion. But "drag queen" comes with a bunch of cultural connotations that "female impersonator" doesn't. A male sketch comedian dressing in women's clothes for a joke is not a "drag queen", for instance. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 07:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC). reply
Would you keep your arms if you dared call Aunty Jack a draq gueen? Mitch Ames ( talk) 10:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I laughed, well played! Lankiveil ( speak to me) 00:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply
That person wouldn't be a "female impersonator", either. Bearcat ( talk) 03:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The difference between doing it casually or personally on one's own time and dime, and doing it as a professional performer who makes a career out of it. Bearcat ( talk) 03:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Sorry but I do not follow. Both Drag queen and Cross dressing articles give examples of professional performers who are cross dressed ? Aoziwe ( talk) 11:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply
"Drag queen"/"female impersonation" is a form of cross dressing, but not the only form that exists. But as titles, a person is only a drag queen or a female impersonator if they're performing in cross-dressed clothing as an entertainer — a person who's doing it just for fun (e.g. trying it out one time on Hallowe'en, or exploring it as a sexual fetish) is not a "drag queen", but just a "crossdresser". Bearcat ( talk) 22:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. We need to follow Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, and some people may identify as one or the other both not both, so they're not equalivent. Stuartyeates ( talk) 09:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - exactly a number of Australian cross dressers such as humphries, bond (and others) do not self identify as drag queens at all JarrahTree 14:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Question, is this perhaps mostly a matter of WP:ENGVAR such that Category:Australian female impersonators is a valid subcategory of Category:Drag queens? (Note that it is currently a subcategory already, but the question really is whether this is appropriate.) Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. Part of the confusion, I suspect, is due to the tendency of modern drag towards increasingly exaggerated hairstyles, outlandish costumes and dramatic makeup. However, before the 1980s or so, drag queens looked less over the top and more like regular showgirls, and there are still drag queens who have a less theatrical, more toned-down style and image. I dare anyone to look at pictures of Courtney Act, Gigi Gorgeous, Lady Gaga, Barbara Cartland (compare especially this picture), one of those (predominantly Russian) "living Barbie dolls" and any glamorous Hollywood star actress (or Eurovision act, or porn star, even) and figure out which of them is a drag queen, a trans woman and a cis woman whose style happens to be quite extravagant or eccentric. A drag queen doesn't have to be all that flamboyant or "freakish", so if you think a drag queen by definition has this highly artificial look, while a female impersonator attempts to look more like a typical woman, you're mistaken – it's a distinction without difference. Like Damenimitator in German, which is now old-fashioned, female impersonator is simply a fancier, more "respectable" sounding term for the same phenomenon: individuals (usually, but not always, men) who dress up in public as distinct, generally camp, female personas for entertainment. Drag queen § Female impersonator makes it quite evident that there is no consistent distinction in use. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 20:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Definitely not equivalent. My own understanding of the words is that "drag queens" are part of LGBTQ sub-culture, while female impersonators are part of mainstream music hall and variety entertainment (not that there might not be some overlap). This is backed up by the OED, where I find "female impersonator" = "a male entertainer who dresses as a woman for his act, and typically performs songs"; while "drag queen" = "a homosexual transvestite man", with an example of use from 1941 "Drag-queen, a professional female impersonator; the term being transferentially used of a male homosexual who frequently wears women's clothing". Hinge and Bracket performed "in drag" but it is pushing the definition to categorise them (as they currently are categorised) as "drag queens", and the same goes for pantomime dames. Next thing you know people will be categorising molly dancers as "drag queens"! With regard to it being a mistake to think "a drag queen by definition has this highly artificial look, while a female impersonator attempts to look more like a typical woman", I would think rather the opposite: the drag queen of the past aimed either for androgyny or for passing as a woman; the "female impersonator" of cabaret and pantomime for something hilariously "over the top". -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 16:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Drag queens can and do participate in mainstream variety entertainment — Bianca Del Rio, for just one example, is quite well known outside of LGBTQ culture and regularly performs in mainstream comedy venues; queens regularly get booked as entertainers on cruise ships; queens can and do appear in cabaret and panto shows; and on and so forth. Sure, gay bars are the bread and butter of how most drag queens earn their regular weekly income, but the performers are in no way limited to lipsyncing Madonna tunes in gay bars — they most certainly do regularly have and take opportunities to cross over where you perceive the distinction to lay. And on the other side of that false dichotomy, every man who dons drag to play a pantomime dame, or Lady Bracknell in a production of The Importance of Being Earnest, or an experimental gender-flipped production of an established theatrical play, or whatever, is not automatically labelled as a "female impersonator" — he would only get that label if that was all he actually did, and even then a lot of people would just say "drag queen" instead. And your last sentence, about how drag queens historically aimed for verisimilitude while female impersonators aim over the top, doesn't wash either — at the time when verisimilitude was the prevailing drag ethic, "female impersonator" was what they were called, and in the present era both terms can still encompass either fishy fish or OTT clowns. Bearcat ( talk) 16:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Yes, drag queens can and do perform in mainstream variety, but not every mainstream variety female impersonator is a drag queen. It's not because the sets intersect that we should say they are identical. Editing to add: I would suggest we follow the OED in using "drag queen" for the intersection of "female impersonator" and "LGBTQ". -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 16:21, 13 June 2017 (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:Recipients of the Order of the October Revolution

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: delete. ℯ xplicit 04:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining -- lower tier decoration for meritorious service. Fails WP:CATDEF as none of the recipients are known for having received this decoration. Prior CfD for this category closed in no consensus in 2015. I believe it's a good time to revisit since two of the other cats mentioned in the discussion ( Category:Recipients of the Purple Heart medal & Category:Recipients of the Bronze Star Medal) have since been deleted. K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:58, 20 May 2017 (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:Major League Baseball player centenarians

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: delete. ℯ xplicit 04:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:ARBITRARYCAT, this is non-notable intersection of age and profession. I'm not sure of the whole category scheme of sorting biographies by their age, but this one seems particularly useless. TM 19:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete People reaching 100 years of age are broken down by nationality, and not occupation. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the intersection of these two have no less in common than 'British actors,' 'New York politicians,' or 'People by religion," and hundreds of others, and is an easy way of finding all people who fit this category. Ira Leviton ( talk) 01:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply
This is already listified.-- TM 13:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support, this is a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, trivial intersection, not a factor in notability –  Muboshgu ( talk) 22:41, 3 June 2017 (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:North American unisex given names

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: merge ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: "North American" is not a language, and the additional information conveyed by separating "English" (which is spoken outside England and North America) from "North American" is minimal and questionable (do NAmE name trends really stay confined to North America?). Florian Blaschke ( talk) 09:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. Not a single name filed in this category is uniquely "North American" — virtually every one of the lists includes Australian, New Zealand, South African and/or British examples as well as US or Canadian ones (and often at least one or two examples of non-English-language usage too.) So there's simply no need for this. Bearcat ( talk) 23:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - D'oh! Who knew that "North American" was a language? :-) K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:17, 22 May 2017 (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:English-language unisex given names

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. ℯ xplicit 02:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Redundant. None of the other unisex given name cats use "-language". Florian Blaschke ( talk) 09:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Oppose. At the moment readers can easily comprehend that the cat specifically refers to the language. If "language" is removed from cat it will become muddled with the culture and country. The cat will then mean different things to different people and become useless.
So " Category:English unisex given names" (under its parent " Category:English given names") should exist under " Category:Given names by culture"; whilst Category:English-language unisex given names (under its parent Category:English-language given names) should exist under " Category:Given names by language". If the cats are organised like this there shouldn't be any confusion.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 00:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC) reply
If you have a source that lists a name in the context of the English-language, or the English-speaking world, place it in "English-language unisex given names". If you have a source that lists a name in the context of the country of England, or the English people, place it in "English unisex given names". To me that makes sense, and I think that's the way we ought to handles these cats. -- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 22:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Marcocapelle: Oxford University Press' A Dictionary of First Names lists Kale as a masculine given name, and states that it could be derived from the Irish-language Cathal, or may originate as a masculine form of the feminine Kayley. This suggests to me that Kale is an English-language name (and thus suitable for the cat "English-language masculine given names"). I don't know if Kale has been associated with England or the English people because the source doesn't say so. If Kale is indeed an English-language form of an Irish-language name, perhaps it could be categorised " Irish masculine given names" (note that this cat is different than the cat devoted to " Irish-language masculine given names"). Looking at Kai in the same source suggests to me that Kai is a English-language unisex name (and a Danish and German masculine name). I don't know if there's any association with England or the English, so I wouldn't categorise Kai as an "English name".-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 00:18, 12 June 2017 (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:Virtual battles

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: delete ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Category has one member. Unlikely to get more members as fictional battles between players in a video/tabletop game are rarely ever notable. The1337gamer ( talk) 09:05, 20 May 2017 (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:Nintendo DS games with Rumble Pak support

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: merge. ℯ xplicit 04:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF: Rumble Pak support is a non-defining characteristic of a video game. The1337gamer ( talk) 08:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support, most articles don't even mention Rumble Pak at all. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:13, 3 June 2017 (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.

Ancient crimes by century

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: delete. ℯ xplicit 04:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: (with one exception) all these categories merely contain biographies rather than articles about crimes and that's not really the way crimes categories should be populated. The biographies are already in Category:Ancient criminals and Category:Ancient murder victims so nothing is lost by deleting the nominated categories. The only exception that is really about a crime, is Category:Assassination of Julius Caesar‎, so this one should be moved from Category:1st-century BC crimes to Category:44 BC in Europe and Category:Crimes in ancient history. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:05, 20 May 2017 (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:Information economics

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. ℯ xplicit 02:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The content of this category is mostly not related to its main article information economics but instead to information economy which is an entirely different topic. So merge everything to the other category apart from the main article and Category:Information economists, then delete it. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Hmm. I'm not convinced. Economics is the theory, and the category structure supports that.
Category:Information economics is a subcategory of Economics by specialty; Category:Information economy is a subcategory of category:Economic systems.
Moreover, when I look at the two categories I see quite different articles. Category:Information economics has topics like "Knowledge assessment methodology", "Monopolies of knowledge", "Economics of digitization," etc. These are all clearly "economics" topics. I'm not sure why they would go into something that is supposed to be about a specific economy.
What I do see is that category:Information economy is under-populated, and is so tagged. It seems to me that this category either needs to be populated, or eliminated. I worry that as a category it might be a little too broad to be properly useful, but at any rate, someone should try. category:Information economics, on the other hand, seems perfectly mine; likely in need of weeding, but it perfectly fits a particular topic (in economics) and it is not theoretically or in usage equivalent to "information economy".
-- Lquilter ( talk) 00:18, 12 June 2017 (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:Skop Productions contract players

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: relisted, see here ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: No scheme of contract players by studio. Studio doesn't even have article. Questionable defining aspect. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 05:28, 20 May 2017 (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:Recipients of the Order of St. George of the Fourth Degree

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: delete. ℯ xplicit 04:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category for a low (fourth) tier of this award. Fails WP:CATDEF, as none of the recipients are known for having received this award. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:34, 20 May 2017 (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:Beneditense CD players

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: delete. ℯ xplicit 04:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Beneditense CD does not have a WP article, and there are few articles with this category added in them. MYS 77 ✉ 01:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep there are enough articles to justify the category. The lack of an article is not sufficient reason to delete a category.-- TM 20:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support, having a category about a non-notable club is pointless. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:05, 28 May 2017 (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:Paio Pires FC players

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: delete. ℯ xplicit 04:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Paio Pires FC does not have a WP article, and there are no articles with this category added in it. MYS 77 ✉ 01:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support, having a category about a non-notable club is pointless. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:05, 28 May 2017 (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:Nationalism in Poland

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. ℯ xplicit 02:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: A newly created category essentially duplicating Category:Polish nationalism. Staszek Lem ( talk) 00:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to the other. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. No, it does not. Not every nationalist movement in Poland is Polish nationalism. Zionism in Poland is nationalist, but it is not Polish nationalist. Furthermore, why did you remove the category "White nationalism in Poland" from the "Neo-Nazism in Poland" category? Neo-Nazism is an explicitly white supremacist/nationalist ideology. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 21:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've removed Category:Zionism in Poland from this category since zionism is a political movement within an ethnicity, that's something else than nationalism. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Why? Zionism is absolutely a nationalist movement. Israel is a nation. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 00:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Zionism in Poland was not aiming for self-governance of Jews in Poland. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:35, 3 June 2017 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_20&oldid=1138411197"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 19 May 21 >

May 20

Category:Recipients of the Order of the Badge of Honour

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: delete. ℯ xplicit 04:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category for a low-tier meritorious award; more than 1 million have been awarded. Fails WP:CATDEF as none of the recipients are known for having received this decoration. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:32, 20 May 2017 (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:Recipients of the Order of the Red Banner of Labour

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: delete. ℯ xplicit 04:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category for a meritorious award; more than 1 million have been awarded. Fails WP:CATDEF as none of the recipients are known for having received this decoration. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:11, 20 May 2017 (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:Female impersonators

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. ℯ xplicit 02:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There's no properly sourceable distinction between the term "female impersonator" and the term "drag queen" — they're not separate concepts, but represent historical and contemporary terminologies for the same thing. For example, the head article female impersonator is not a standalone article, but merely a redirect to drag queen. The subcategory Category:Female impersonators by nationality, further, contains eight subcategories named in the form "[Nationality] drag queens", and just one that's actually named in the form "[Nationality] female impersonators", and is itself a subcategory of both this and the drag queens category at the same time. Some people draw the distinction that a "female impersonator" seeks to impersonate one or more specific celebrities while a "drag queen" seeks to create her own character persona, but even that's an arbitrary distinction — for example, challenges on RuPaul's Drag Race quite frequently call on the queens to play celebrity roles instead of being "themselves", and many drag performers play both sides of the fence by including celebrity impersonations in their repertoire, while still fundamentally presenting as original characters who don't only do that. (Plus, for added bonus, drag queens don't necessarily only do female celebrities either — male celebrities with sufficiently flamboyant public images, such as Elton John, Prince, Michael Jackson, David Bowie, Little Richard or Boy George, are on the table of options too.) And of the four people filed directly in the main category rather than the FI/DQ subcross, only one might have any genuine claim to being called a "female impersonator" instead of a "drag queen", as he was an ancient Greek who lived and died two full millennia ago — all three of the others are or were alive well after "drag queen" supplanted "female impersonator" as the standard term for this. So the difference between the two terms is an arbitrary personal choice of individual language preference rather than a substantive distinction that would actually support two separate category trees. Bearcat ( talk) 21:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
comment - a very culturally bound response, imho - Australia has a female impersonator - Dame Edna Everage aka Barry Humphries has never - as far as I know been allocated the drag queen title - JarrahTree 13:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
(As an Australian familiar with the character of Dame Edna Everage) I personally would not have thought of Barry Humphries as being a "drag queen", but a quick consultation with Dr Google turns up a few such associations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV3qjljfBBM
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/iconic-aussie-comedy-drag-queen-dame-edna-cast-as-goblin-king-in-the-hobbit/news-story/b98dbe65ef749a44ba2c50bd9eb19103?sv=a7052996dea601e407685a08ba06ee13
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/calendar/the-mother-of-all-drag-queens-6372621
Although apparently " "Humphries never thought of himself as a drag artist". Mitch Ames ( talk) 09:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Oh, right. I have a "culturally bound" bias because you can find one performer who calls himself something different than the standard term for everybody else who does the same thing? Bearcat ( talk) 18:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete instead -- the category name is confusing; my initial thought was that the category included women who were celebrity impersonators. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If someone can write two articles clearly distinguishing the two terms then keep as separate. There is only one article at the moment which tries to discuss the history of both terms, although some verification is needed, but it seems the categories should be combined in line with the one main article. The real issue is probably coming up with a NPOV name. Drag queen has connotations to many regarding gender. Female impersonator to many implies presentation as some, highly varied and probably culturally leveraged, concept of female, often caricaturised, without necessarily implying the person has any personal female tendencies. Perhaps it comes down to how the individuals see themselves, rather than us or others categorising them, but then how will people search for them will depend on their POV too. Aoziwe ( talk) 11:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply
"Drag queen" doesn't carry any implications about the performer's personal gender identification — in actual fact, it carries no implications about gender identity any different from the description you just gave of "female impersonator". Sure, people who identify as transgender can and do also work as drag queens, but the term "drag queen" doesn't inherently imply anything whatsoever about the performer's personal gender identity once they're out of character and just being themselves. Bearcat ( talk) 18:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Okay, for you it does not. My point is for many it does. Aoziwe ( talk) 10:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply
No, not just for me: for anybody and everybody who uses the term correctly. Anyone for whom the term inherently implies anything about the performer's gender identity is simply wrong about what it means. Bearcat ( talk) 03:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Sorry but obviously not everybody understands the term that way. Interestingly, the article Drag queen is explicitly shown as being Part of a series on Transgender topics, so the consensus of the wikicommunity taking responsibility for the article seems to think there is a reasonable bias in the term towards gender identity issues. If this is sufficiently wrong then that whole box should be removed and contextual linking to the article throughout the pedia be thoroughly reviewed? Yours in good faith. Aoziwe ( talk) 11:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply
And interestingly, that box includes the term "cross-dressing", but does not directly include the term "drag queen" at all. The simple reality is that the term "transgender" does not only encompass people who actually identify themselves differently from their assigned birth gender — in its broadest sense, the term includes all forms of gender-variant behaviour, inclusive of cross-dressing for fun or profit regardless of whether you call that "drag queen" or "female impersonator". The concepts of "drag queen" and "female impersonator" both carry exactly the same relationship to the concept of "transgender" as each other — neither term implies anything different about the person's internal gender identity than the other one does. The vast majority of drag queens, in fact, are cisgender men who identify and present and dress and act as men when they're not performing — their drag persona is a character, not a representation of their internal gender identity. Sure, a transgender person can also work as a drag queen, but being a drag queen doesn't automatically imply anything about the drag queen's gender identity in and of itself — if you think it does, then your assumptions about individual queens' identities are going to be wrong quite a lot more often than they are ever actually right. I'm a gay man with literally dozens of friends or acquaintances who are or have been drag queens, and trust me, not a single one of the ones I know identifies as anything but cisgender male when he's not getting paid to perform. Bearcat ( talk) 22:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply
While we might be coming at the matter from different directions and backgrounds and experiences I think you have convinced me, including below, that the two articles need a complete review because rereading them again just very much blurs any clear understanding of the distinctions and concepts many of which are not referenced. As you know we in the Wikipedia community rely in RSS to support an article and cannot rely on each of our personal experiences. Aoziwe ( talk) 11:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose any merge until there is a clear definition of female impersonator (and conversely male immpersonator) versus drag queen versus cross dressing. Until then the three categories should remaing available with articles being categorised according to how the subjects self identify. Aoziwe ( talk) 11:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete but Don't Merge. As pointed out, the term "female impersonator" is pretty ambiguous and likely to cause confusion. But "drag queen" comes with a bunch of cultural connotations that "female impersonator" doesn't. A male sketch comedian dressing in women's clothes for a joke is not a "drag queen", for instance. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 07:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC). reply
Would you keep your arms if you dared call Aunty Jack a draq gueen? Mitch Ames ( talk) 10:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I laughed, well played! Lankiveil ( speak to me) 00:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply
That person wouldn't be a "female impersonator", either. Bearcat ( talk) 03:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The difference between doing it casually or personally on one's own time and dime, and doing it as a professional performer who makes a career out of it. Bearcat ( talk) 03:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Sorry but I do not follow. Both Drag queen and Cross dressing articles give examples of professional performers who are cross dressed ? Aoziwe ( talk) 11:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply
"Drag queen"/"female impersonation" is a form of cross dressing, but not the only form that exists. But as titles, a person is only a drag queen or a female impersonator if they're performing in cross-dressed clothing as an entertainer — a person who's doing it just for fun (e.g. trying it out one time on Hallowe'en, or exploring it as a sexual fetish) is not a "drag queen", but just a "crossdresser". Bearcat ( talk) 22:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. We need to follow Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, and some people may identify as one or the other both not both, so they're not equalivent. Stuartyeates ( talk) 09:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - exactly a number of Australian cross dressers such as humphries, bond (and others) do not self identify as drag queens at all JarrahTree 14:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Question, is this perhaps mostly a matter of WP:ENGVAR such that Category:Australian female impersonators is a valid subcategory of Category:Drag queens? (Note that it is currently a subcategory already, but the question really is whether this is appropriate.) Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. Part of the confusion, I suspect, is due to the tendency of modern drag towards increasingly exaggerated hairstyles, outlandish costumes and dramatic makeup. However, before the 1980s or so, drag queens looked less over the top and more like regular showgirls, and there are still drag queens who have a less theatrical, more toned-down style and image. I dare anyone to look at pictures of Courtney Act, Gigi Gorgeous, Lady Gaga, Barbara Cartland (compare especially this picture), one of those (predominantly Russian) "living Barbie dolls" and any glamorous Hollywood star actress (or Eurovision act, or porn star, even) and figure out which of them is a drag queen, a trans woman and a cis woman whose style happens to be quite extravagant or eccentric. A drag queen doesn't have to be all that flamboyant or "freakish", so if you think a drag queen by definition has this highly artificial look, while a female impersonator attempts to look more like a typical woman, you're mistaken – it's a distinction without difference. Like Damenimitator in German, which is now old-fashioned, female impersonator is simply a fancier, more "respectable" sounding term for the same phenomenon: individuals (usually, but not always, men) who dress up in public as distinct, generally camp, female personas for entertainment. Drag queen § Female impersonator makes it quite evident that there is no consistent distinction in use. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 20:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Definitely not equivalent. My own understanding of the words is that "drag queens" are part of LGBTQ sub-culture, while female impersonators are part of mainstream music hall and variety entertainment (not that there might not be some overlap). This is backed up by the OED, where I find "female impersonator" = "a male entertainer who dresses as a woman for his act, and typically performs songs"; while "drag queen" = "a homosexual transvestite man", with an example of use from 1941 "Drag-queen, a professional female impersonator; the term being transferentially used of a male homosexual who frequently wears women's clothing". Hinge and Bracket performed "in drag" but it is pushing the definition to categorise them (as they currently are categorised) as "drag queens", and the same goes for pantomime dames. Next thing you know people will be categorising molly dancers as "drag queens"! With regard to it being a mistake to think "a drag queen by definition has this highly artificial look, while a female impersonator attempts to look more like a typical woman", I would think rather the opposite: the drag queen of the past aimed either for androgyny or for passing as a woman; the "female impersonator" of cabaret and pantomime for something hilariously "over the top". -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 16:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Drag queens can and do participate in mainstream variety entertainment — Bianca Del Rio, for just one example, is quite well known outside of LGBTQ culture and regularly performs in mainstream comedy venues; queens regularly get booked as entertainers on cruise ships; queens can and do appear in cabaret and panto shows; and on and so forth. Sure, gay bars are the bread and butter of how most drag queens earn their regular weekly income, but the performers are in no way limited to lipsyncing Madonna tunes in gay bars — they most certainly do regularly have and take opportunities to cross over where you perceive the distinction to lay. And on the other side of that false dichotomy, every man who dons drag to play a pantomime dame, or Lady Bracknell in a production of The Importance of Being Earnest, or an experimental gender-flipped production of an established theatrical play, or whatever, is not automatically labelled as a "female impersonator" — he would only get that label if that was all he actually did, and even then a lot of people would just say "drag queen" instead. And your last sentence, about how drag queens historically aimed for verisimilitude while female impersonators aim over the top, doesn't wash either — at the time when verisimilitude was the prevailing drag ethic, "female impersonator" was what they were called, and in the present era both terms can still encompass either fishy fish or OTT clowns. Bearcat ( talk) 16:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Yes, drag queens can and do perform in mainstream variety, but not every mainstream variety female impersonator is a drag queen. It's not because the sets intersect that we should say they are identical. Editing to add: I would suggest we follow the OED in using "drag queen" for the intersection of "female impersonator" and "LGBTQ". -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 16:21, 13 June 2017 (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:Recipients of the Order of the October Revolution

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: delete. ℯ xplicit 04:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining -- lower tier decoration for meritorious service. Fails WP:CATDEF as none of the recipients are known for having received this decoration. Prior CfD for this category closed in no consensus in 2015. I believe it's a good time to revisit since two of the other cats mentioned in the discussion ( Category:Recipients of the Purple Heart medal & Category:Recipients of the Bronze Star Medal) have since been deleted. K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:58, 20 May 2017 (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:Major League Baseball player centenarians

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: delete. ℯ xplicit 04:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:ARBITRARYCAT, this is non-notable intersection of age and profession. I'm not sure of the whole category scheme of sorting biographies by their age, but this one seems particularly useless. TM 19:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete People reaching 100 years of age are broken down by nationality, and not occupation. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the intersection of these two have no less in common than 'British actors,' 'New York politicians,' or 'People by religion," and hundreds of others, and is an easy way of finding all people who fit this category. Ira Leviton ( talk) 01:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply
This is already listified.-- TM 13:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support, this is a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, trivial intersection, not a factor in notability –  Muboshgu ( talk) 22:41, 3 June 2017 (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:North American unisex given names

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: merge ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: "North American" is not a language, and the additional information conveyed by separating "English" (which is spoken outside England and North America) from "North American" is minimal and questionable (do NAmE name trends really stay confined to North America?). Florian Blaschke ( talk) 09:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. Not a single name filed in this category is uniquely "North American" — virtually every one of the lists includes Australian, New Zealand, South African and/or British examples as well as US or Canadian ones (and often at least one or two examples of non-English-language usage too.) So there's simply no need for this. Bearcat ( talk) 23:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - D'oh! Who knew that "North American" was a language? :-) K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:17, 22 May 2017 (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:English-language unisex given names

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. ℯ xplicit 02:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Redundant. None of the other unisex given name cats use "-language". Florian Blaschke ( talk) 09:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Oppose. At the moment readers can easily comprehend that the cat specifically refers to the language. If "language" is removed from cat it will become muddled with the culture and country. The cat will then mean different things to different people and become useless.
So " Category:English unisex given names" (under its parent " Category:English given names") should exist under " Category:Given names by culture"; whilst Category:English-language unisex given names (under its parent Category:English-language given names) should exist under " Category:Given names by language". If the cats are organised like this there shouldn't be any confusion.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 00:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC) reply
If you have a source that lists a name in the context of the English-language, or the English-speaking world, place it in "English-language unisex given names". If you have a source that lists a name in the context of the country of England, or the English people, place it in "English unisex given names". To me that makes sense, and I think that's the way we ought to handles these cats. -- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 22:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Marcocapelle: Oxford University Press' A Dictionary of First Names lists Kale as a masculine given name, and states that it could be derived from the Irish-language Cathal, or may originate as a masculine form of the feminine Kayley. This suggests to me that Kale is an English-language name (and thus suitable for the cat "English-language masculine given names"). I don't know if Kale has been associated with England or the English people because the source doesn't say so. If Kale is indeed an English-language form of an Irish-language name, perhaps it could be categorised " Irish masculine given names" (note that this cat is different than the cat devoted to " Irish-language masculine given names"). Looking at Kai in the same source suggests to me that Kai is a English-language unisex name (and a Danish and German masculine name). I don't know if there's any association with England or the English, so I wouldn't categorise Kai as an "English name".-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 00:18, 12 June 2017 (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:Virtual battles

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: delete ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Category has one member. Unlikely to get more members as fictional battles between players in a video/tabletop game are rarely ever notable. The1337gamer ( talk) 09:05, 20 May 2017 (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:Nintendo DS games with Rumble Pak support

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: merge. ℯ xplicit 04:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF: Rumble Pak support is a non-defining characteristic of a video game. The1337gamer ( talk) 08:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support, most articles don't even mention Rumble Pak at all. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:13, 3 June 2017 (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.

Ancient crimes by century

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: delete. ℯ xplicit 04:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: (with one exception) all these categories merely contain biographies rather than articles about crimes and that's not really the way crimes categories should be populated. The biographies are already in Category:Ancient criminals and Category:Ancient murder victims so nothing is lost by deleting the nominated categories. The only exception that is really about a crime, is Category:Assassination of Julius Caesar‎, so this one should be moved from Category:1st-century BC crimes to Category:44 BC in Europe and Category:Crimes in ancient history. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:05, 20 May 2017 (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:Information economics

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. ℯ xplicit 02:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The content of this category is mostly not related to its main article information economics but instead to information economy which is an entirely different topic. So merge everything to the other category apart from the main article and Category:Information economists, then delete it. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Hmm. I'm not convinced. Economics is the theory, and the category structure supports that.
Category:Information economics is a subcategory of Economics by specialty; Category:Information economy is a subcategory of category:Economic systems.
Moreover, when I look at the two categories I see quite different articles. Category:Information economics has topics like "Knowledge assessment methodology", "Monopolies of knowledge", "Economics of digitization," etc. These are all clearly "economics" topics. I'm not sure why they would go into something that is supposed to be about a specific economy.
What I do see is that category:Information economy is under-populated, and is so tagged. It seems to me that this category either needs to be populated, or eliminated. I worry that as a category it might be a little too broad to be properly useful, but at any rate, someone should try. category:Information economics, on the other hand, seems perfectly mine; likely in need of weeding, but it perfectly fits a particular topic (in economics) and it is not theoretically or in usage equivalent to "information economy".
-- Lquilter ( talk) 00:18, 12 June 2017 (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:Skop Productions contract players

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: relisted, see here ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: No scheme of contract players by studio. Studio doesn't even have article. Questionable defining aspect. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 05:28, 20 May 2017 (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:Recipients of the Order of St. George of the Fourth Degree

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: delete. ℯ xplicit 04:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category for a low (fourth) tier of this award. Fails WP:CATDEF, as none of the recipients are known for having received this award. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:34, 20 May 2017 (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:Beneditense CD players

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: delete. ℯ xplicit 04:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Beneditense CD does not have a WP article, and there are few articles with this category added in them. MYS 77 ✉ 01:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep there are enough articles to justify the category. The lack of an article is not sufficient reason to delete a category.-- TM 20:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support, having a category about a non-notable club is pointless. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:05, 28 May 2017 (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:Paio Pires FC players

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: delete. ℯ xplicit 04:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Paio Pires FC does not have a WP article, and there are no articles with this category added in it. MYS 77 ✉ 01:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support, having a category about a non-notable club is pointless. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:05, 28 May 2017 (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:Nationalism in Poland

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. ℯ xplicit 02:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: A newly created category essentially duplicating Category:Polish nationalism. Staszek Lem ( talk) 00:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to the other. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. No, it does not. Not every nationalist movement in Poland is Polish nationalism. Zionism in Poland is nationalist, but it is not Polish nationalist. Furthermore, why did you remove the category "White nationalism in Poland" from the "Neo-Nazism in Poland" category? Neo-Nazism is an explicitly white supremacist/nationalist ideology. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 21:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've removed Category:Zionism in Poland from this category since zionism is a political movement within an ethnicity, that's something else than nationalism. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Why? Zionism is absolutely a nationalist movement. Israel is a nation. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 00:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Zionism in Poland was not aiming for self-governance of Jews in Poland. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:35, 3 June 2017 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_20&oldid=1138411197"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE