Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by B767-500 (talk | contribs) at 19:53, 3 November 2012 (→NEW NOMINATIONS: Category:Fans of San Francisco Giants). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< November 2 November 4 >

November 3

NEW NOMINATIONS

Can I creating this kinds of category? Other editors is fan, can add those category to [[User:]] page. --B767-500 (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Luxembourgian sport stubs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I've proposed this category for re-naming to bring it into line with the guide on Wiki:WikiProject Luxembourg#Spelling and usage. Brigade Piron (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African journalists by type

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This level is no longer needed after the deletion of Category:African photojournalists at CFD Oct 26, leaving only one sub-cat. A special sort key can sort the sub-cat to the top, apart from the national categories. – Fayenatic London 16:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Murdered American mobsters

American actresses

  • Rename Category:American actresses to Category:American female actors
  • Nominator's rationale Despite the fact that the current form is more common, I think we do need to rename this. The only case where we use a clearly different term is in the case of monarchs, and that is a very different case. In modern speech it is clear people will use the term actor in general neutral ways, so it is clear "female actor" is an acceptable term. It is also clear that this is one of the most seperated by gender professions, so it makes sense to seperate it thus. Since we have Category:American female singers it makes sense that we have this category as well, especially since there is a very high overlap in these two categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming as proposed. However, I am not inclined to agree that everyone will use the gender neutral term. Today it is becoming a more prevalent preference. But those who prefer e.g. 'actress' and 'waitress' are still significant in numbers, if yet a minority. The bottom line is that it is controversial on Wikipedia. I have seen silly edit wars over changing "actress" to "actor" and back again. The proposal is the best idea for neutrality. Elizium23 (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not rename 'Actress' is the common English term and is the term used in the articles which this category navigates to. 'Female actor' looks like a WP invention for pushing some point or another, hard to tell which. In any case, the entire 'Actress' category tree was deleted in the recent past and I have seen nothing about why that deletion decision should now be overturned just because some deleted categories have now been re-created and very thinly populated. Hmains (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Hmains states, the actress category tree was deleted before. The creation of this category is WP:POINTY, as the others in the current tree are also up for deletion/discussion. There is no need to have a split of actor/actress. A female actress is infact an actor. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:American actors. This is not a profession where women are seen as outliers, so I see no need to split by gender.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the issue seems to be that gender is a controlling factor in casting in the vast majority of cases. How and in what roles a person is cast is to a large extent determined by whether they are male or female, which seems to suggest it is a determining factor, and that acotrs and actresses are inherently different.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose deletion, neutral on name. My main concern here is that this category does not get deleted. As the nominator notes, acting is a rigidly-gendered profession, and actors should be categorised by gender. Mike Selinker's remark that "not a profession where women are seen as outliers" is true but irrelevant; that has never been the main test of whether we should have such a category. WP:CATGRS says "Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic". It specifically says that "a gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic", and this is just such a case: acting is a rigidly gendered profession, in which men and women work in the same settings but have roles defined by their gender. Unless a casting director is trying to make a counterfactual point, women don't get to play Hamlet and men don't get to play Ophelia.
    Look at the careers of some leading contemporary actresses. I took Judy Dench, Reese Witherspoon, Meryl Streep, Kate Winslet, Julia Roberts ... and in those 5 articles I found not one single example of these women playing a male part.
    This gendered split is acknowledged in the major awards in the profession, which have separate awards for men and women: there are separate Academy Award for Best Actress/Actor, and the same applies at the Golden Globe Awards, the Screen Actors Guild Award and countless others.
    AFAICS, the real world out there divides systematically actors by into male and female categories. Is Mike or anyone else seriously trying to argue that they not divided in this way?
    As to the choice between "actress" and "female actor" (or alternatively "woman actor"), I don't think that there is going to be any easy answer; there is a case to be made for each of them. I note, for example, that the major awards ceremonies use "actress", and most of the Wikipedia articles I have read on actresses describe them in the lead as "an actress".
    If the are going to make a change from this widely-used term, we should do so on the basis of some evidence of common usage in reliable sources, per WP:COMMONNAME, and the discussion should be widely-notified to all relevant wikiprojects. The more input we have to this discussion, the more stable the outcome is likely to be. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Web browser engines

Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Half of the articles in Category:Web browser engines are already correctly named "XXX (layout engine)". Discussion is here. (There is already a Category:Layout engines, so this is a proposal to merge them). LittleBen (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All but one of the pages in Category:Web browser engine comparisons are already correctly named "layout engine". Discussion is here. LittleBen (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Siblings of Presidents of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Tenuous, trivial association which is not useful for navigation. Cf. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_30#Category:Parents_of_national_leaders, which deleted Category:Parents of Presidents of the United States —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with The Beatles

Nominator's rationale: Per other "People associated with X" categories. cf. Wikipedia:OC#ASSOCIATED —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I created this cat most of the articles which now populate it were placed under the main Category:The Beatles cat, so I swapped cats to make the categorisation more precise. Unless there is a reasonable alternative proposal put forward to deal with the situation I don't see how it would be helpful to revert back. It is useful to have people who are associated with the Beatles, such as Klaus Voormann, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Brian Epstein, Mal Evans, etc. categorised. If this cat is deleted, someone will make an attempt to categorise the above people and others, and the attempt may not be as workable as this solution. I see the general sense of Wikipedia:OC#ASSOCIATED, though wonder if it should apply in all situations. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I thought I would go through the cat to remove those people whose article didn't mention the Beatles, I started at the bottom and looked at Roby Yonge. That person's main claim to fame appears to be that he was fired as a DJ after he announced McCartney's death in 1969. As his notability is this association with the Beatles, then - other than the main Beatles cat - the only appropriate cat is Category:People associated with The Beatles. Rather than overload the main cat, and to group articles more precisely, this cat seems not just appropriate but fairly important. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artist's books and multiples

Nominator's rationale: I recommend have the parent cat be Category:Artist's books, with the renamed category here being a subcat of it, along with another sub cat created, Category:Individual artist's books Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would oppose the renaming; very few of the entries are limited editions; Fluxus 1, for instance, was available for 15 or so years until Maciunas' death; Dimanche was printed in an enormous edition; twentysix gasoline stations was reprinted three times, etc etc. This category was started in the hope of collecting together articles on mass-produced modern artworks that referenced book form, or emulated mass production as part of the work's meaning. At the time, the other bookart category included graphic novels, comics and the like, which struck me as belonging to a completely different genre. To use 'limited edition' in this context seems an attempt at a synonym for 'high art'; I'd oppose either reading. As a practioner and historian of book art, I was (and am) interested in improving understanding of what remains an elusive- though hugely influential- genre of modern art. Many works of conceptual art, for instance, are published primarily as mass-produced books, without ever being specifically numbered or limited. I intend to continue writing about these works- such as Weiner's Statements, Warhol's Index and Siegelaub's Zerox book.I think these terms are at best unhelpful and inappropriate, implying exclusivity, which is not the same as poor distribution, disinterest and an absence of marketing. Yves: Peinture, for instance was said to have been published in an edition of 100, sold about 16 copies, and the remaining copies lay under Klein's bed until after his death. There is no reason to assume that he wouldn't have made more if there had been the demand. I also am unaware of what is meant by 'individual artist's books'??? Perhaps you could elucidate?? Franciselliott (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Failure albums

Nominator's rationale: Misleading name: I initially thought this category was for albums which were commercial failures, or something like that. In fact it's for albums by Failure (band), and should be renamed to match that title. (It should also be removed from Category:Failure, which is for the general concept, not the band.) Robofish (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_3&oldid=521247876"