Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:04, 6 November 2006

November 5

Category:Wars in the Balkans

Category:Wars in the Balkans to Category:Wars of the Balkan states

• Rename, more accurately reflects the actual contents (as noted in the category description) and matches the common naming convention for Category:Wars by country. Kirill Lokshin 23:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Beatallica songs

Category:Beatallica songs to Category:Songs parodied by Beatallica

• Rename, These are not songs by Beatallica, only songs used by them in their parodies. GVOLTT 22:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, do not rename; we don't want song articles flooded by categories for everyone who has ever covered or parodied them, and those subsequent derivatives do not redefine the original song (but if it isn't deleted, renaming per nom is better than keeping it as is). Postdlf 22:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. When I originally created the category, I hadn't thought it out as much, sorry. But since there is a Category:Songs parodied by "Weird Al" Yankovic, it is the perfect precedent for both a naming convention and for Postdlf to consider. We're not talking about a high school garage band, this is college level garage band. ;) — RevRagnarok 03:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as this is not an inherent quality of the original songs. I'm skeptical of the Weird Al category, too. --Dhartung | Talk 07:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - This was tougher to decide on than I had originally thought. Yes Weird Al has had songs and albums consistantly on the international charts, and so there really isn't a comparison there. However, I tend to lean towards Misplaced Pages is not paper-style inclusionism. However (again), I am also somewhat of an incrementalist, and in looking at these categories, I would presume that they will eventually list every Beatles and Metallica song. - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my comments above. - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Hunterd's Assessed Articles

Delete, as personal user category. -- ProveIt 21:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Though I have to admit that User:Hunterd/Article assessment made me laugh : ) - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies

Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies to Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament representing English constituencies

• Rename in the interests of clarity; the proposed title reflects the apparent intention of the category. Many of the MPs listed here are not from English consituencies in their origins (for example Tony Blair , who is 'from' Scotland) but they do 'represent' English consituencies. An alternative renaming, which I personally would prefer, would be Category:Members of the House of Commons representing English constituencies- as members of the other house of Parliament, the Lords, do not represent consituencies in any case. --Smerus 20:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. The alternative suggestion will not do as this category is specifically for the post 1801 period, not all eras of Parliament. Metthurst 05:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename - I've noticed lately that the nationality-based noms are typically controversial (not all, but quite a few). Try as I might, I can't seem to find anything controversial about the actual nom (the alternate, on the other hand, would seem to be opening a can of worms that I think we should avoid). Nice job : ) - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: this category is one of a series of categories relating to UK MPs. They should be considered together, and named consistently. Please see the discussion at Category talk:British_MPs#Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring for an explanation of the context and a suggestion for renaming them all consistently. I would like to ask the nominator to withdraw this nomination and to explore the issues a little further at Category talk:British_MPs#Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring before bringing back a new CFD covering all the relevant categrories. --BrownHairedGirl 10:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Financial services companies of the China

Category:Financial services companies of the China to Category:Financial services companies of China

• Rename due to wrong grammar of the title. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  20:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Shouldn't it be Category:Financial services companies of the People's Republic of China? Postdlf 00:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Financial services companies of the People's Republic of China per Postdlf. - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Puppets Who Kill characters

Category:Puppets Who Kill characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate list of things. Patstuart 20:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Keep - Changing vote as per Postdlf below (thank you for the clarification). May need to merge into one article to avoid fancruft anyway, but that's for AfD. -Patstuart 05:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Mild keep, I don't see this as any worse than any of the other Category:Television characters by series. -- ProveIt 21:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 22:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but only because all four of those included articles only have about one paragraph's worth of content, and so need to be merged (if anything is left) and redirected to the parent article (which can easily accommodate the character descriptions) for lack of independent substance. Postdlf 00:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not EVEN trivia. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an encyclopedia. This would be an appropriate category for a puppet encylopedica. Maybe. -THB 01:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Puppets Who Kill is the title of a television series. Not all of those leaving comments seem to understand that. Postdlf 02:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Postdlf. I don't see it really expanding much past the 3-4 main character articles tho. — RevRagnarok 03:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

&Weak Keep - Another "characters" category. "Weak", because it's underpopulated, and is likely to stay so. (Rename/UpMerge to Category:Puppets Who Kill might be preferrable.) - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:American judges by state

Category:American judges by state to Category:American state court judges

• Rename, along with all subcategories (e.g., Category:Alabama judges --> Category:Alabama state court judges), to avoid ambiguity so that judges who only served on federal court will not be mistakenly added. Postdlf 20:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as not every judge within a state is a "state court judge." Otto4711 20:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That's exactly why it should be renamed, to avoid the ambiguity. Postdlf 20:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Are there then going to be categories for judges within a state who are not "state court judges"? If so then I withdraw the objection (heh, that's lawyer talk), otherwise the categories as they stand are better choices so as to include anyone who's a judge in a particular state and not just those who sit on particular benches. Otto4711 21:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
      • You're still not understanding the issue. "Alabama judge" strongly suggests state court affiliation, yet is just ambiguous enough that someone may mistakenly think a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Alabama belongs there. That federal court judge will then be mistaken by many as having served on an Alabama state court by virtue of his inclusion in the category. I have only found a handful of federal judges so categorized since the state judges categories were created, which means that the categories are largely being applied only as state court categories, and which consequently means anyone included is probably going to be presumed to have served on a state court. If you can think of a completely clear supercategory to include both Alabama state court judges and federal judges who sat on courts within the state of Alabama, let me know, but the current category is not it, and isn't being used as such on the whole. Postdlf 21:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, just because I don't agree doesn't mean I don't understand. As long as it's clear that the cats include judges within the state at all levels other than federal then I don't really care what it's called. If someone mistakenly slips a federal judge into the state category, well, then, that's why we have editors. Otto4711 05:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If you "don't really care what it's called," does that mean you're no longer opposing the rename, which is intended to make it even more "clear that the cats include judges within the state at all levels other than federal"? Postdlf 05:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per Otto4711. There are too many judges called "district court judges" and "superior court judges" the like who wouldn't be put into the categories if renamed as proposed, and that's more of a problem than some federal court judges getting put in there. Gene Nygaard 07:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I strongly support the intent of the nomination in clearing up ambiguity. I have to ask though: Is "state court judge" the accurate term? Is there another term/title? - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional characters based on insects

Category:Fictional characters based on insects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete as vague and superficial. A similar category, "Fictional bug-based characters," was previously deleted, (see CFD) and the same reasons apply to this one (speedy delete it?). Categorizing by motif is not useful or instructive because the relationship is too superficial. The Charlton Comics version of Blue Beetle, for example, bears far more similarity to the Golden Age Hawkman (both derive their powers from Ancient Egyptian animal-totem artifacts) than to Ant-Man (a scientist who develops a shrinking chemical and a helmet that can communicate with insects), despite the fact that both beetles and ants are insects. I also think it's telling that when the Blue Beetle was parodied in Watchmen, that character's motif was made an owl, not another insect. The groupings just aren't any more meaningful than if you were to categorize characters by costume elements (cape or no cape?), and in most cases this is simply going to be a categorization of characters who have insect forms on their costumes (as the category description invites). Postdlf 19:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. — J Greb 20:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - the idea seems to be fairly common in fiction. -Patstuart 20:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The idea of animal motifs? Yeah, comic book creators have commonly used animals of all kinds for visual appeal, for catchy names, and to ostensibly explain certain superpowers. But please address the arguments as to why this doesn't work as a category. Postdlf 21:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete this recreation of previously deleted category. This one has inadequately defined criteria for inclusion. This category invoked speculative POV in some cases. Do you really know what the character was based on? Did you ask the creator? Spme characters are not based on insects but are merely named for them. What does "based on" mean? And how could this possibly be a useful category? Whatever meager worth is has can be covered by a simple list, which can be properly annotated and broken down by the different ways the characters are "based on" insects (name, powers, appearance, mating habits). Doczilla 21:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, trivia. And also, speedy per Doczilla. >Radiant< 22:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. a category with too many characters with too little real connection. You might as well have Category:Comic book characters with names beginning with the letter Y. You would get a similar grouping with just as little connection to one another. Stephen Day 00:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for the many reasons above. — RevRagnarok 03:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - First of all, these are characters in comic books (not in all fiction, though I suppose that may come later), so renaming might have been in order. However, "animal-based" characters, whether insects, bugs, spiders, snakes, cats, or whatever, all sound like GREAT lists, but not-so-great categories (some aren't obvious by the article name, for example). - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Da Ali G Show

Category:Da Ali G Show to Category:Sacha Baron Cohen

• Rename, category contains items related to Sacha Baron Cohen, but not necessarily to Da Ali G Show. If renamed, the category will itself need to be recategorised. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, there are enough Ali G specific-entries to justify it, such as the episode list. A better solution might be to create a Cohen category as a parent. Postdlf 22:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and reparent per Postdlf. — RevRagnarok 03:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:American singers in acts and Category:American dancers in acts

Delete useless category, only two entries, no clue what it suppose to mean, singers and dancers who act? Jaranda 18:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and per "wtf??" Postdlf 22:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, don't see the point. >Radiant< 22:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Well in looking at Special:Contributions/TSOP, it would seem that this is about actors on stage. I am thinking "in acts" means that they were a part of an "act". (compare to being a part of an act on the vaudeville stage. This would seem to be a new creation, so I might suggest giving some time for this to see where it's going before we arbitrarily delete. - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Daredevil films

Category:Daredevil films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Two entries, only one of which should even be there. It should be merged itno Category:Films based on Marvel comics. :) ~Zythe 18:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Upmerge per Zythe. >Radiant< 22:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• UpMerge per nom. (Wasn't this recently deleted?) - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Sport in Puerto Rico

Redirect to Category:Sports in Puerto Rico. -- ProveIt 18:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge (and redirect) per nom. - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:TV Logos

Merge into Category:Television logos, duplicate. -- ProveIt 17:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. — RevRagnarok 03:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Reverse merge per Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (television). These are not television manufacturing logos, they are logos for TV program productions/companies. The disambiguation between the unit and the programs is "TV" for the programs and related, and "television" for the unit itself. (Note that even the associated template uses "TV".) - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Pro Wrestling DVDs

Rename to Category:Professional wrestling DVDs, or Merge into Category:Professional wrestling films. -- ProveIt 16:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Either merge per above, or rename to Category:Professional wrestling direct-to-video films, to match Category:Direct-to-video films and avoid categorizing by the specific recording media. Postdlf 22:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Professional wrestling direct-to-video films, per Postdlf - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Weather modification

Category:Weather modification into Category:Meteorology

• Merge Delete, Limited category that can be discussed entirely within one article if desired. All topics also relate to Meteorology, so opted for the merge into parent instead of delete. WindRunner 16:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed to delete upon viewing the restructuring debate in Category talk:Meteorology. This is an unnecessary subcalssification with 2 stubs and the remaining are brief articles, with the exception of Weather control. Delete seems more appropriate now as there are so few articles directly under Category:Meteorology. WindRunner 16:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Actually, per that breakdown, Category:Weather control is listed. It was renamed to Category:Weather modification according to its deletion log. COnsidering that the article name is also Weather control, I think that that probably should be the name of the category. Is there a previous CfR out there somewhere? - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Weather control per my comments above, pending further information. - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Singing Bassists

Category:Singing Bassists to Category:?

• Rename, This category should clearly be renamed (it's contents are "Bands in which the lead vocalist is also the bass player.", quite an interesting category I think so I'm not proposing deletion). However I'm not sure what it should be called so over to the floor... kingboyk 15:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Singer-bassists to match Category:Singer-guitarists and Category:Singer-keyboardists. TimBentley (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Maxim Hot 100

Delete, not a defining characteristic. It seems there used to be Maxim Hot 100 article, but it is now just a redirect. -- ProveIt 15:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, trivia. Postdlf 20:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, we see "top X" categories all the time and we don't want them. >Radiant< 22:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. A similar category was the subject of a CFD shortly after the category system was implemented; worth a read-through for the rationales. I believe that the actual lists aren't kept on Misplaced Pages because of copyright concerns, as the "100 sexiest" whatever lists are formed from the creative decisions of editors as to who gets included and in what order. Postdlf 02:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Metthurst 05:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the consensus on the "top X" categories seems to shift every time they come up. What I seem to recall is that a List is a bad idea due to possible copyvio, but that a category is ok since they are not listed in the same "top" order. However, everyone and their cousin has a "top x" list these days... Not to mention, I seem to recall that we also frown on model categories. So I think delete is the way to go with this one. - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional MySpace people

Category:Fictional MySpace people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I could go about adding various Nip/Tuck and Veronica Mars characters or we could nip this in the bud before we get category:Fictional characters by online media in which they have been officially represented or similar nonsense.. ~Zythe 15:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete with great prejudice. Every fictional character has a MySpace; this in no way makes the character nor the site any more notable or interesting. -- Kicking222 15:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kicking222. Postdlf 22:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete uhmk. Danny Lilithborne 03:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:People from Beaver Falls, Pennsylvanis

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: SPEEDY DELETED as obvious misspelling. Postdlf 22:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:People from Beaver Falls, Pennsylvanis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Please delete this category (Category:People from Beaver Falls, Pennsylvanis) due to misspelling of state (Pennsylvanis). Thanks.HOT L Baltimore 14:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Rename it to the correct spelling instead...~Zythe 15:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. You can do speedy rename to fix spelling mistakes, btw. -- ProveIt 15:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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 cricket from 2001

Category:English cricket from 2001 to Category:English cricket seasons from 2001

• Rename to fit convention agreed per decision in previous discussion – this should have been renamed at same time but was overlooked. --BlackJack | 13:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per BlackJack. Sam Vimes | Address me 14:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per convention and oversight of previously agreed change. — Moondyne 14:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename as above. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per previous nom. - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Female comedians

Category:Female comedians into Category:Comedians

• Merge per Misplaced Pages gender neutral policy Vegaswikian 07:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per comment on Women poets nom. Otto4711
• Keep Doc ♬ talk 08:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep – proposal smacks of political correctness. There is absolutely no reason not to split genders. --BlackJack | 13:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Comedians are often rather gender-specific in their source of material. (Even a comedienne complaining about a girlfriend is usually going in a different direction than a male comedian talking about his girlfriend)--T. Anthony 14:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, no need to categorize by gender. >Radiant< 22:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Just an observation. It would seem that women in entertainment (actresses, comedienes, and sports), or "gender-specific official title", tend to garner more votes of keep than other gender-split categories. That said, recently most of the actress categories were merged to actor due to consensus. - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. --Mais oui! 09:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Women poets

Category:Women poets into Category:Poets

• Merge per Misplaced Pages gender neutral policy. Note, I am not doing an umbrella nomination since I believe that these categories must be considered on a one on one basis. If someone thinks that they all should go, then feel free to do an umbrella nomination. Vegaswikian 07:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Comment Keep is largely because I don't think the stated reason for the nom is valid. The cited "policy" is a convention/guideline, not a policy. There's nothing that forbids categorization by sex if there's a valid reason for doing so. The convention you site might apply if there were categories called Category:Poets and Category:Poetesses because the two are not gender-neutral (see example in guideline of "Kings" and "Queens" versus "Monarchs"). The question should be whether or not there is a valid reason for categorizing women poets and given the number of women poets who write mostly or exclusively about women's issues and women's experiences, I'm not convinced that there isn't a valid reason for the category. Otto4711 07:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • So we should create a category of Category:Men poets to be correct? Why is the gender of a poet important? If we need a category for 'poets who write mostly or exclusively about women's issues and women's experiences' then we should create that, but this category does not serve that purpose. It just serves to split out women. Vegaswikian 04:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps. In modern times poetry is sometimes seen as unmanly. Likewise there are poets who deal with specifically male issues. I believe there was a Welsh poet who wrote paeans about his penis, William Blake wrote poems about whoring and wondering why Cupid was male, Rudyard Kipling had several poems dealing with masculinity, etc. Still I think I might favor a merger with an option of Category:Feminist poets and Category:Masculist poets being created later.--T. Anthony 05:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Otto Doc ♬ talk 08:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep – proposal smacks of political correctness. There is absolutely no reason not to split genders. --BlackJack | 13:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This was not nominated to be politically correct. I think that PC is a bunch of <insert the 4 letter word of your choice here>. Vegaswikian 04:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, no need to categorize by gender. >Radiant< 22:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Vegaswikian. Postdlf 05:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per the discussion above, though I would not be opposed to Category:Feminist poets (or is it poet feminists?) which would be a restructure at the very least. (And I think that would be masculinist, rather than masculist?) - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. --Mais oui! 09:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Playgirl

Category:Playgirl models

Category:Playgirl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Playgirl models (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. Empty category except for cat for models. No need for the parent cat. Otto4711 04:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --BlackJack | 13:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Sigh. Keep of course. It might have been empty but clearly shouldn't have been: I've added the eponymous article (Playgirl); with the subcategory that's quite enough for it to be useful, and I daresay there are other articles which could be categorised there too. --kingboyk 15:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Parallel to category for Playboy, Penthouse, etc. Though I admit a few more entries would be worthwhile. AnonEMouse 16:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and delete Category:Playgirl models too. An appearance in a magazine is not a defining characteristic. Metthurst 05:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Category:Playgirl models is now tagged. Metthurst 05:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (and repopulate) Category:Playgirl. - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Category:Playgirl models. Models in a magazine series, comparable to actors in a TV series, I presume? - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:DreamWorks animated films

Category:DreamWorks animated films to Category:DreamWorks Animation films

• Rename, company name is DreamWorks Animation FMAFan1990 04:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename – sensible proposal to remove ambiguity. --BlackJack | 13:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Australian Capital Territory elections

Category:Australian Capital Territory elections to Category:Elections in the Australian Capital Territory

• Rename, For consistency with other state cats in Category:Elections in Australia. MH au 04:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. --BlackJack | 13:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Page Three girls

Category:Page Three girls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Another classification of models. We just cleaned out a bunch of these. Need to ask if thss one should also go. Vegaswikian 03:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Unique category. A Page Three Girl is known as a Page Three Girl much more than she is as a model. Landolitan 05:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Landolitan. --BlackJack | 13:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Landolitan. --kingboyk 16:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. In the United Kingdom, Page Three Girls in the most popular newspaper in the country (even if it is a rag!) are very notable and in a very recognisable category. -- Necrothesp 16:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the UK equiv of the Playboy Playmate. Postdlf 20:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Performer by performance. (it would be like a category for all actors in TV commercials.) - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Rivers named after women

Category:Rivers named after women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not a defining characteristic for rivers. Vegaswikian 03:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Lena River is missing. More seriously, it is rather likely that results of hydronymy studies won't be used, instead people will populate the category with everything that sounds like a female name. Pavel Vozenilek 04:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it is generally impossible to prove if a river was named after a woman. There are probably case where a woman's name was based on the name of a river. --BlackJack | 13:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 22:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of above. And I love that we have an article on hydronymy. Postdlf 02:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per aboves. — RevRagnarok 03:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Due to other languages adding gender to words, this could become somewhat ambiguous. - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Lesbian actors

Category:Lesbian actors into Category:LGBT actors

• Merge. Fails categorization by gender guideline. Otto4711 01:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I would not mind deleting both, but combining people into one LGBT category makes no sense to me. Landolitan 05:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Oppose merge Why would you lump lesbian actors into bisexual and transexuals? A subcategory of LGBT yes, but not eliminate where the orientation is clear. As above the cited "policy" is a convention/guideline, not a policy. There's nothing that forbids categorization by sex if there's a valid reason for doing so. Were there an equally accepted term for male and female homosexuals that could be one category. Doc ♬ talk 08:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment See comment on Gay actors nom below. Otto4711 09:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose merge I guess as I think dividing actor categories by sex is itself sensible. Also if these "sexual orientation of actors" categories must exist lumping them all together into "LGBT", a term many people still are unfamiliar with, is probably not the way to go.--T. Anthony 11:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep category as is. Having said that, shouldn't it be called Category:Lesbian actresses? --BlackJack | 13:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"Actor" is considered a gender neutral term. The term "actress" I believe is even seen as demeaning by some Wikipedians. Hence there are a few women, like Sophie Ward in this category, whose article never uses the word "actress." Granted in actual reality "male actor" would be deemed redundant to most folks, but Misplaced Pages is correct going by the dictionary.--T. Anthony 14:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need gender neutrality in this case? Is there such a thing as a male lesbian?! --kingboyk 16:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems I heard of lesbians who became men and bisexual transgendered men who became women who were attracted to women.--T. Anthony 16:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, it would cause FAR too much confusion.~Zythe 15:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment What confusion would result? Is someone going to see a male's entry in the LGBT category and think he's a lesbian? Otto4711 18:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• The bi/gay thing. For example, Billie Joe Armstrong is listed under Category:LGBT people from the United States which prompts many user's to protest "he's not gay!!!11!" ~Zythe 18:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• So you're suggesting that an encyclopedia cater to stupidity? That seems...counterproductive. Otto4711 18:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge, "lgbt" is the common term for cat'ing. >Radiant< 22:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The LGBT categories are nonsensical, like Category:French, German, Dutch or Spanish people. Metthurst 05:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. --Mais oui! 09:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Gay actors

Category:Gay actors into Category:LGBT actors

• Merge. And yeah, I get the irony that I've argued in favor of keeping sex-based categories before, but in this instance the category fails the classification by gender guideline. Otto4711 01:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I would not mind deleting both, but combining people into one LGBT category makes no sense to me. Landolitan 05:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Oppose merge Why lump all gay actors into a group category with bisexual and transexuals? As above the cited "policy" is a convention/guideline, not a policy. There's nothing that forbids categorization by sex if there's a valid reason for doing so. Were there an equally accepted term for male and female homosexuals that could be one category. Doc ♬ talk 08:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I said in my nom that it was a guideline and not a policy. The "equally accepted term" that includes male and female homosexuals that seems to be in usage throughout Misplaced Pages is "LGBT." Dividing LGBT cats into lesbian cats and gay cats is just another way of dividing by sex which, as you and I well know, is not forbidden but should be avoided if there's not a valid reason for it. Looking at the people listed at the lesbian actor and gay actor cats, there are very few if any who define themselves or their creative output by sex in the way that a woman poet might. I don't see a valid reason for subdividing LGBT actors by sex, any more than there's a valid reason for subdividing heterosexual actors by sex. Otto4711 09:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Strongly diagree as LGBT includes two orientations that do not apply to either male or female homosexuals so it is less specific. Doc ♬ talk 03:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose merge I guess as I think dividing actor categories by sex is itself sensible. Also if these "sexual orientation of actors" categories must exist lumping them all together into "LGBT", a term many people still are unfamiliar with, is probably not the way to go.--T. Anthony 11:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. I really don't see why people should be defined according to sexual taste as I presume I will not find Category:Nymphomaniac actresses or Category:Heterosexual actors anywhere. If we are going to have gay, lesbian, bisexual labels then it is sensible to keep them separate per T. Anthony. --BlackJack | 13:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

In fairness I did put Category:Bisexual actors up for delete see Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 19#Category:Bisexual actors. I ended up wanting to withdraw the nomination as it caused too much fighting and was clearly no concensus.--T. Anthony 14:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, it would cause FAR too much confusion. Also, I dislike the use of the word "tastes" as used above. ~Zythe 15:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, "lgbt" is the common term for cat'ing. >Radiant< 22:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The LGBT categories are nonsensical, like Category:French, German, Dutch or Spanish people. Metthurst 05:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. --Mais oui! 10:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:American Masters

Delete, as not a distinguishing characteristic. There is already a list in the American Masters article. -- ProveIt 01:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Having a list is no reason to exclude a category of the same name. A category takes you from article to article, through connections that aren't obvious. The list will take you to another article if you go to the article on American Masters. With the category you can go from Charlie Chaplin to Louis Armstrong. Is there a rule that if you have a list you can't have a category of the same name? What is the rule? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • When I mentioned there is already a list, that just means that there is no need to create a list article. If there hadn't been a list already, I would have suggested creating one. -- ProveIt 15:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Category clutter. Not a defining characteristic. Landolitan 05:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as the title is meaningless. Master of what? My first thought was that it must be misnomer for the US Masters golf tournament. Pointless category. --BlackJack | 13:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above: 1) having an American Masters biography made is not a defining characteristic of the subject; 2) the unelaborated, context-less title is meaningless as a category name. If the American Masters bio was significant enough to the subject to be mentioned in his/her article, then going to that article will enable navigation to other subjects of American Masters bios, and without either of the downfalls of this category. Postdlf 20:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - While rather interesting, I think it is better served as a list. (Can you imagine a category listing everyone who's has a "biography" on A&E or The Biography Channel?) - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)