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. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Potoos to Category:Nyctibiidae
• Propose merging Category:Puffbirds to Category:Bucconidae

Nominator's rationale: Merge and redirect. These follow the decision at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 June 10#Category:Waxwings, and are fairly small and simple categories which seem redundant. I nominated them for speedy merging under WP:C2C but that was not accepted, see below (fair enough). – Fayenatic London 16:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If they are the same, obviously merge, with a cat-redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, and the Waxwings decision was ill-advised as well. These are parts of two entirely seperate trees, one birds by scientific name and one birds by common name, both of which fit under the WP:SMALLCAT exemption, and merging them piecemeal guts the trees. The need to all be merged, eliminating one or the other tree, or none should be merged at all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:African-American television drama series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The same arguments apply to this renamed category as applied when this was called Black television drama series: we do not categorize by race; the definition is too subjective, leaving it to editors to decide what percentage of the cast is large enough for an article to be placed in the category; and this kind of categorization obscures as much as it reveals. This is an encyclopedia, and I do not think this categorization is encyclopedic. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no clear cut line to say when something counts as this and when it does not. Any percentage that we say the top cast has to be to qualify will be arbitrary. Beyond this, there is the issue that at times African-American actors are cast in roles where the character is not African-American. What do you do then?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete television dramas don't have race; and how would we begin to classify them as such. There are certainly shows that have the lead characters portrayed by African-American actors but the shows "African-American" (as opposed to what? someone's definition of "real unhyphenated American" shows). Illogical category at best.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Chinese language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Other languages don'ty have such categories - we have no similar categories for French or Spanish. In fact, among a dozen Articles containing Foo-langauge text categories, I found only one category with any parent other than Category:Articles containing non-English-language text and Category:Hidden categories - and that is German, which is in Category:German language. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Other languages don'ty have such categories" You can create them. See also Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists#Deletion_of_articles. Apokrif (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"that is German, which is in Category:German language." Does metacontent belong in categories intended for article space? Apokrif (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- It contains articles using Chinese language and a user category for Chinese speaking users. A user category should not be in the main category space, so that this becomes a one-article category. Such categories are too small to be useful. Possibly upmerge. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – There is no need to try to group unrelated project pages and categories on the basis of a common linguistic connection. Each of the members of this category is already appropriate categorized within an established administrative category tree: Category:Articles containing Chinese-language text is in Category:Articles containing non-English-language text (part of the structure of Category:Wikipedia maintenance), and Category:User zh is in Category:Wikipedians by language (part of the structure of Category:Wikipedians). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. – Fayenatic London 19:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge Category:African-American child actors to Category:African-American actors and Category:American child actors
• Upmerge Category:African-American child actresses to Category:African-American actresses and Category:American child actresses
• Upmerge Category:African-American male child actors to Category:American male child actors and Category:African-American male actors
• NOTE: These have been split off from the group nom below to create a separate discussion in order to allow for proper consideration of their own characteristics because they are not fully analagous to the larger group of categories, all of which are sub-divided on the basis of medium or genre. The nominator is welcome to provide a rationale which applies to these categories if he wishes to do so. Cgingold (talk) 09:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator's rationale:

• Counter-proposal: 1) Keep Category:African-American child actors, but 2) Merge Category:African-American child actresses into that category. We don't really need to sub-divide child actors by the combination of both gender-AND-ethnicity. Cgingold (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both as originally nominated I do not think we need to divide child actors by ethnicity at all. I see no reason why the general reasons to not overly divide by ethnicity do not apply here. This is still a bottom rung category, and we should not have bottom rung categories by ethnicity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, but Category:African-American child actors is NOT, in fact, a "bottom rung category by ethnicity", but rather the proposed upmerge target. Please read thru my proposal again more carefully, and you will see that I am NOT proposing to keep Category:African-American child actresses -- or to create its (missing) bottom-rung counterpart, Category:African-American male child actors. In other words, the issue is completely eliminated, because we stay clear of the intersection of American child actors by gender with American child actors by ethnicity. I'm trying to lay this out as clearly as possible, JPL, and I'm hoping that I've succeeded this time. Cgingold (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is the only subdivision of American child actors by "ethnicity". I do not think such a subdivision is justified. There is no reason to subdivide the actors by ethnicity categories at all. There is even less reason to chose African-Americans as the one specially treated ethnic group, when they are actually smaller than at least one other ethnic group we are dividing by and not to this level (Hispanic and Latino Americans number more than African-Americans).John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As a matter of fact, this is NOT the only such category. I took note of your comment (below) on that very point; please take a look and you will see that there is indeed another such category, Category:Hispanic and Latino American child actors, which I created and populated over a week ago. And please note that, like its counterpart, Category:African-American child actors, it is NOT a "bottom rung category by ethnicity". As I pointed out above, both of these categories stay clear of the intersection of American child actors by gender with American child actors by ethnicity. I was hoping you would acknowledge that crucial point, but you chose to ignore that (as well as the fact that we are in agreement on eliminating Category:African-American child actresses). It seems to me that I have shown quite clearly that the argument you've raised vis-a-vis the other categories simply doesn't apply to Category:African-American child actors. Again, it is NOT a "bottom rung category by ethnicity", and should not have been lumped in with those other categories in the first place. Cgingold (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This was actually split off from the rest of the debate after most if not all the comment there, so it seems logical to assume most people in the other debate favor upmerging this category as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I posted my emphatic request to split these off from the larger CFD immediately. In other words, those editors were put on notice that these categories were going to be split off, so it seems logical to assume that they were not indicating any opinion one way or the other. Regardless, your inclusion of these categories in the larger group nom was, shall we say, fatally flawed, because -- as I have already explained -- they are not fully comparable to those other categories, and therefore cannot validly be grouped together with them for a CFD discussion. Cgingold (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually splitting off a nomination after the fact is a highly unusual action, and in general is considered bad form. No one else has supported you in your single-handed claims that this sub-category is so different it should be considered differently.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it was unusual -- and not undertaken lightly, JPL. But I did make my concerns known immediately -- and requested that you, as nominator, separate these categories from the group nom. However, you completely ignored my request, leaving me no choice but to take care of it myself. It was not an unreasonable request, and certainly not frivolous, so most nominators would have obliged in the spirit of fairness and collegiality. I hope that hasn't gone completely by the boards here at CFD. Cgingold (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• merge per nom. This is indeed a "bottom-rung-by-ethnicity" category Cgingold. You are perhaps misunderstanding what "bottom-rung" means here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm... I think we should compare our differing understandings of what "bottom-rung" means, OWK. As I did my best to explain above, Category:African-American child actors does not constitute a "bottom-rung" category, because it's not, in fact, the "bottom-rung". Category:African-American child actresses, on the other hand -- along with its missing counterpart, Category:African-American male child actors -- ARE/would be "bottom-rung" categories, because they entail a further intersection by gender -- and that is why I support upmerging it as proposed. Please explain where you see things differently than what I've laid out here. Cgingold (talk) 08:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

as I explained elsewhere, I think this is a bottom rung since it divides American child actors by ethnicity.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The ERGS rules suggest that other ERGS divisions do not end the bottom rung rule. Thus, a category being further divided by ethnicity does not mean that it is acceptable to also further divide it by sex, even though technically the ethnicity divisions mean we no longer have sex as the only acceptable divisions. As I have argued elsewhere, in singing and acting sex is so central and controlling to peoples careers that it makes sense to divide as low as possible. For example, in singing, one very specific way to divide people is by voice type, and this is a sub-division of by sex. Altos and sopranos are subdivisions of women singers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Update I added the newly created Category:African-American male child actors to this discussion, since it would not make sense to upmerge these two put not upmerge that category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. – Fayenatic London 19:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge Category:African-American film actors to Category:American film actors and Category:African-American actors
• Upmerge Category:African-American film actresses to Category:American film actresses and Category:African-American actresses
• Upmerge Category:African-American soap opera actors to Category:African-American actors and Category:American soap opera actors
• Upmerge Category:African-American soap opera actresses to Category:African-American actresses and Category:American soap opera actresses
• Upmerge Category:African-American musical theatre actors to Category:African-American actors and Category:American musical theatre actors
• Upmerge Category:African-American musical theatre actresses to Category:African-American actresses and Category:American musical theatre actresses and Category:African-American female singers
• Upmerge Category:African-American stage actors to Category:African-American actors and Category:American stage actors
• Upmerge Category:African-American stage actresses to Category:African-American actresses and Category:American stage actresses
• Upmerge Category:African-American television actors to Category:African-American actors and Category:American television actors
• Upmerge Category:African-American television actresses to Category:African-American actresses and Category:American television actresses
• Upmerge Category:African-American voice actors to Category:American voice actors and Category:African-American voice actors
• Upmerge Category:African-American voice actresses to Category:American voice actresses and Category:African-American actresses
• Nominator's rationale Basically this division goes against do not make last-rung divisions by ethnicity. So some will ask "why divide by gender and not by ethnicity". The reason, gender is a controlling, defining characteristic in acting, ethnicity is not. How do I know. 1-the academy awards have specific actor and actress categories, they do not have "white actor", "black actor" and "Asian actor" categories. 2-with very, very few exceptions people will be cast in their actual gender. I can name lots of cases where people have been cast as a different ethnicity, including a recent case where a black Canadian actresses was cast as an Armenian-American. 3-closely related to this, when casting actors as aliens, ethnicity is not controlling, thus the partly Asian-American Dean Cain can be cast as Superman, but no one has ever cast a woman as Superman. 4-characters can undergo change of race without much change of the character, change of gender is another story. Thus, in the recent film "Man of Steel" Perry White was cast with an African-American actor, all previous castings had been with Euro-American actors, but the character was still largely the same. So it makes sense to split at all levels by gender, while there is no good reason to subdivide beyond the top level by ethnicity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, for reasons that have yet to be explained, this is the only ethnicity that we split the actor category by medium. We just have Category:Hispanic and Latino American actors and Category:Hispanic and Latino American actresses we do not have Category:Hispanic and Latino American film actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Another issue is that these are supposed to be non-diffusing subcategories, but an actual look at how they are used shows they have in general been diffused. However with so many actors having acted on television, film and stage, that would put an African American actor in 6 categories just from that, while if we do the upmerge we get 4 categories. It has been nearly 40 years since Guess Who's Coming To Dinner, ethnicity is a consideration in casting, but we can find television shows where they seem to have recast a character as a different race within the same season (Season 1 of Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman they recast Bill Henderson from an African-American actor to a Euro-American actor, although maybe there are two police offices in Metropolis Police Department named Bill Henderson, such is believable in a city of 12 million), and that was nearly 20 years ago. Yes, ethnicity matters, which is why we have Category:African-American actors, but not enough to categorize at every level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Probably the most noted African-American voice actor is James Earl Jones, for the role of Darth Vader. Not only is that role playing a character who is the father of two characters played by Euro-Americans, but the actors playing Vader were all of European descent, just with Jones voice added in. Although admitedly voice acting also has a high rate of females voicing male roles (although mostly children), so the gender lines are less clear there, but ethnicity is largely not connected to the character at all (especially when lots of voiced characters are not even human).John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose upmerging of Category:African-American child actors. I am reserving judgement for now on the other categories, but this one needs to be separated out and considered on its own merits, rather than being thrown in with a group nom for a whole slew of categories that are differentiated on the basis of which medium is involved -- an issue that has nothing to do with this particular category. Please split this one off without delay, JPL. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that you think we should merge say Category:African-American child actors to Category:American male child actors? While actors may sometimes be used to stand in for male actors, I don't think we can assume such, even if that is our eventual goal. If that is not what you are saying, I have no clue what your problem is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know how I could say it any more clearly, JPL. I am opposed to upmerging Category:African-American child actors. Period. And to repeat, it should not be lumped in with the other categories in this group nom, as I have already explained. If you won't remove it and list it separately, then I suppose I will have to do it myself. Cgingold (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - With just a quick look through I've already spotted a number of errors in the upmerge targets that need to be corrected, JPL. Please go through them line by line and take care of those mistakes ASAP. Thanks again. Cgingold (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have no clue what the alleged errors in target are. I also see no reason why we should have Category:African-American child actors when we do not have Category:Hispanic and Latino American child actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see that you actually found one of those errors and changed the 2nd line from Category:African-American actresses to Category:African-American child actresses -- which also needs to be listed in a separate nom along with Category:African-American child actors, as I've already explained above. AS I recall, I spotted at least one other error, as well, but if you don't wish to deal with that, I suppose it's your choice. I was simply trying to be helpful. Cgingold (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete racist categories; are African-Americans less than Americans; only a few oddballs and Wikipedia seem to think so. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I am really sick of reading this kind of garbage from you, Carlossuarez. All these years and you've never let up. Disgraceful. Please strike your remarks forthwith, or I will have no choice but to make a formal request for censure. Cgingold (talk) 07:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You may call it garbage and disgraceful, but categorization based on race is garbage and disgraceful. I will not strike through my comments; nor will I knuckle under to your intimidation and will continue to oppose racial categorization of people. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, please -- "intimidation" my ass, Carlossuarez. You are -- of course -- perfectly free to "continue to oppose racial categorization of people". That is NOT the issue, and I am quite sure you know that. The issue is your outrageous characterization of people such as myself -- and yes, I took it as a personal attack -- who support such categories, as "oddballs" who subscribe to the appalling notion that "African-Americans are less than Americans". That kind of verbiage is patently offensive -- and just plain unacceptable here on Wikipedia, as you surely know, Carlossuarez. So I will give you one more opportunity to strike through those remarks, in sincere hopes of avoiding formal proceedings. Cgingold (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The lady doth protest too much, methinks. If you see yourself in such a way that the term "oddballs" offends you, you're sensitivities are probably at too low a threshold to participate in lively active debate on controversial topics; but again, it wasn't directed to you. You are part of the Wikipedia problem, which any reasonable editor of as long standing as you would rationally have concluded. I have no clue what you feel inwardly, only what you write on Wikipedia. Moreover, you have nowhere answered the objective question required to maintain race-based categories which I've posted on your talk page and repost here:

See Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#General which says as point #1:::: "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. [¶] For example, most sportspeople should not be categorized by religion, since e.g. being Catholic or Protestant is not relevant to the way they perform in sports." In what way do you contend that a child actor's race or ethnicity is relevant to the way they perform in acting? Without answering that preliminary question satisfactorily as shown by reliable sources, any defense of such categories is suspect. No one has posited an answer.

And still we're awaiting an answer. And whilst you consider that, keep in mind WP:COP#N, we categorize people only based on what makes them notable. Are you arguing that these categorizes do so? And while you mull "formal proceedings", remember WP:NLT and the chilling effect you no doubt hope your threats will cause. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It is really quite extraordinary that you, as an admin (or so it says on your user page), seem to have no awareness or real comprehension of the core issue here -- and how a mature and responsible editor would ordinarily respond. Let me lay this out clearly:

1. The vast majority of editors would not have made a gratuitously offensive personal attack such as you made above in the first place.
2. Having had the offensive remark brought to their attention, along with a request to strike thru said remark, it has been my experience/observation that the vast majority of editors quickly acknowledge the error/offense and strike thru the offending passage. In contrast, rather than taking that simple and expedient step -- which would have ended things then and there -- you chose to go on the attack, compounding the original offense with the ludicrous accusation that I was trying to "intimidate" you.
3. Even after I elaborated on how your remark was an offensive and unacceptable personal attack, and made another request for you to strike thru the offending passage, you adamantly refused to acknowledge the offensiveness of the remark and ignored my entreaties to resolve the matter by striking thru the offending passage. With what I can only describe as willful obtuseness, you pretended to believe that it was merely the use of the term "oddballs" that I took offense at, when I had made it quite clear that it was (as I said above) "your outrageous characterization of people such as myself... who support such categories as 'oddballs' who subscribe to the appalling notion that 'African-Americans are less than Americans' ". If you truly do not comprehend why that is a patently offensive personal attack, I really don't know what to say.... I am simply dumbfounded.
4. Finally, just so there was no doubt about how far off the track your entire response has been, you jumped into the deep end by accusing me of making "threats" -- and invoking "WP:NLT", of all things. I hardly know whether to laugh or scream. It seems to have escaped your notice that WP:NLT, AKA "Make No Legal Threats", is entirely focused on the issue of editors who threaten to take legal action in the real world -- which is absolutely distinct from any of the "formal proceedings" that take place here on Wikipedia.

In closing: When I said that I would "have no choice but to make a formal request for censure", I was of course referring to your violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which was further compounded by your refusal to take the simple ameliorative step of striking thru the remark in question. At this point I will give you one more opportunity to take that simple step. It's your choice. I really do hope you will choose wisely, Carlossuarez, so that we can both avoid the bother of "formal proceedings". Cgingold (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no personal attack. Your comments are little more than drama, because you cannot defend the existence of these categories. Go running to whatever you want. I will not strike my !vote no matter how much you intimidate me. Moreover, if you found it so offensive and were sure the community viewed it as you do, you'd have stricken it and see whether you were right or were just posturing to chill debate. You haven't so you've proven my point. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. However I would question whether we should be categorising actors accoring to the genre in which they perform. Actors will commonly at differnet stages in theri careers perform in soaps, films, TV, musicals, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genre would be if we categorized people as acting in westerns. Although we actually do have a category for that. This is something more notable than that. There are lots of actors who only appeared in film, although the overlap of film and television is pretty high for any actor whose career goes past 1950, and the overlap of film and stage is high as well. It is also true that lots of people the article says "Jane Sorel was a film, stage and television actress" in the first sentence, but they are only in the film category at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, there are lots of people who have played the same role on both television and film, or on both stage and film. Star Trek is the most notable example of the first, although Don Adams comes to mind. Keeping on the Adams theme, then we have Amy Adams who had a role in both Smallville a TV show related to Superman, and in Man of Steel a film about Superman, although the Adams case is a bit different, because it was not the same role. What do we do with people who acted in a made-for TV movie, are they film actors, television actors, or both?John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom, as above. Neutrality^talk 04:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - None of the categories listed above were provided with correct links to the proper CFD section; if it was my own CFD nom I would happily take care of it, but it's not, so I will leave it for the nominator to decide whether or not to bother with this. Cgingold (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• upmerge per nom. We don't need these fine divisions. dual-categorization as "type-of-actor" and "african-american-actor" is largely sufficient. otherwise these would tend to ghettoize.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this is still open for debate, I think it's important to note ethnicity and gender but specific aspects of their occupation (film actress, television actress, stage actress, voice actress, etc.) is less crucial. I can see someone wanting to see who is in Chinese-American actresses category but not, specially, Chinese-American soap opera actresses category. Since, in this example, the actress would also be in the American actresses category, I think that the Chinese-American actresses serves to identify actors, not ghettoize them.

So, I guess that makes me Oppose unless you are considering merging all acting mediums into simply "actors/actresses".

P.S. Yes, I realize that I didn't use "African-American" as an example (even though they are the categories under discussion) because I honestly think it is desirable and useful to categorize actors by ethnic heritage. If not, why do we have categories for Jewish-American actors and Puerto Rican actors? The really ridiculous categories are "Actor from state"...what possible purpose does it serve to know an actor is from North Carolina or Ohio? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rican is not an indicator of ethnicity, it is a by place, on the same level as Category:French actors. If you do not think we should have the actors by state categories, you are free to nominate them for merger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination addition Category:African-American male musical theatre actors which was created while this was in discussion should be upmerged to Category:African-American male actors and Category:American male musical threatre actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm actually it looks like all these categories have been further sub-divided while under discussion. This is making everything a big mess. I don't think it is a good idea. Due to ERGS rules, that will mean people will have to be in both Category:American male stage actors and Category:African-American male stage actors. Considering how many people are stage, film, and televion actors, this will put lots of people in 6 categories where if we upmerged they would only be in 4 categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment From what I can tell even though the ERGS rules say if someone is in Category:African-American film actors they need to also be in a non-ethnicity specific sub-category of Category:American film actors in practice this rule is almost never followed. We would avoid this whole problem if we just upmerged. Especially since Category:Hispanic and Latino American actors for example is not split by medium. There is no good reason to split African-American actors this way, and no other ethnicity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To get at why this is a problem, currently in the very small Category:African-American male soap opera actors we have a ghettoization problem of over 30%, a full third of the people involved in the category are in that category but not in the not-ethnically specific category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete as empty (WP:CSD#C1). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Antimycotics for systemic use (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: - THIS CAN BE SPEEDIED. - Empty/unused/uneeded category, per remarks of category creator. (See below) Cgingold (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the creator's talk page (in response to my inquiry): "There is an old WP:PHARM consensus that the category scheme for pharmaceuticals should be based on ATC codes, only we couldn't agree on how deep the structure should be. This category would correspond to ATC code J02. As it doesn't look like the discussion will be revived any time soon (as far as I can tell – I haven't been following what's going on here for weeks), I suppose the category can be deleted without harm. Cheers, User:Anypodetos" [emphasis added]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 18:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Sean Hannity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: All are easily navigated from a footer or the main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:CLN, categories, lists and navigation templates are intended to exist in synergistic fashion. Categories here not only allow for navigation by a rather clear defining characteristic, but also allow for integration into the remainder of the category system. Alansohn (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alansohn. These pages are grouped by a clearly defining characteristic, so they have a good and valid reason to exist. Per WP:CLN, the existence of a category is not dependent on the existence (or absence) of a list or navbox, so the nominator's rationale is misplaced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - amounts to "TV shows that starred Sean Hannity" and while categories can exist where templates also do they don't have to exist. The material here is in no way so intricate or complex that the lead article all by itself doesn't serve as proper navigation; in fact, the bulk of the category topics are linked in the introductory paragraph. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. You right that other navigational options are available here. But I don't see you providing any reason why this categ shouldn't exist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a small category with little or no growth potential. It's an unnecessary eponymous category. It's functioning as basically nothing other than a category for TV shows starring Sean Hannity. Anyone looking for information on Sean Hannity is going to type in Sean Hannity and find all of these articles within three sentences. You haven't provided any particularly compelling reason why this category should exist. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason it should stay is that it groups together a number of articles (plus a subcat) of which Hannity is the most defining characteristic. The fact that other navigational tools exist is irrelevant.
  When I made my keep !vote above it contained 9 pages, which is quite big enough; you didn't disclose that you had moved 3 articles ([1] [2] [3]) to a new Category:Books by Sean Hannity. That new categ is quite valid, but should have been made a subcat of the category under discussion, so I have done that. It now contains 5 articles plus a template plus a subcat, which is plenty big enough to keep; and since Hannity's career continues to thrive, I'm sure that it will expand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess I don't understand why "because we can" is a reason for keeping a category that isn't particularly worthwhile, nor do I understand why when we would not have something like Category:Television series starring Debra Messing we do have this category, which for all intents and purposes is the exact same thing. Category:Television series starring Sean Hannity would be deleted. It's bizarre that a near-identically functioning category is OK just because it happened to have been named differently. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Your premise is entirely wrong.
  First, please read WP:CAT#Overview. This category meets the objective of allowing navigation through articles which share a common defining characteristic.
  This is not a TV-shows category; it also includes the books, which are now in a subcategory. Nor is it a "shows starring Hannity" category, because (unlike Messing) Hannity is not an actor. The shows in question exist solely as vehicles for Hannity, which is not case for Messing's acting parts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - we have deleted dozens of similar eponymous categories such as Category:Mitchell and Webb on the grounds of 'undefined inclusion conditions'. Category:Television series starring Sean Hannity has clear inclusion conditions, Category:Books by Sean Hannity likewise. Category:Sean Hannity has no criteria and can easily collect his wife, his dog, his friends or his costars (if such have articles, for which we have 'what links here'). (IMO eponymous categories should exist only as parent categories for at least 2 well-defined subcats and perhaps a template or similar at the top level.) Oculi (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who use Gmail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This user category does not group users on the basis of any ability, knowledge, interest, or other characteristic that is relevant or useful to encyclopedic coordination and collaboration. Gmail is "the most widely used web-based email provider" and using it requires no special set of skills that would justify creating a grouping of users. In fact, the category's existence basically is incidental to transclusions of ((User:UBX/Gmail)), to which the category code was added. The userbox more than suffices to provide notice of a user's email preference, and there is no value in a category that serves as nothing more than a bottom-of-the-page notice. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I recall when userboxes were first introduced and they were of the sort "This user likes gum!" and then would generate Category:Users who like gum!. These categories can't conceivably be used for collaboration in writing an encyclopedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not needed to build an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Irrelevant to collaboration. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This contrinutres nothing. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as above. Neutrality^talk 04:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge. I'm basically only dealing with the use of active in the category name here. I think the comments made by WDGraham should be considered when determining the next step. This merge does not mean that there should not be any cleanup or further nominations, which are allowed. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Active extraterrestrial probes to Category:Extraterrestrial probes
• Propose merging Category:Active extraterrestrial land probes to Category:Extraterrestrial probes

Nominator's rationale: We normally avoid categorizing things as being (currently) active as it's not a permanent characteristic and hence will become incorrect if the categorization is not updated. After merge the text at Category:Extraterrestrial probes should be changed. DexDor (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge "active" categories No comment on merging the land probes into the main category. Categorizing by present status is almost always a bad idea, with the BLP exception of Category:Living people. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Space probes; I see no strong evidence for "extraterrestrial" to be limited as beyond Earth-Luna orbit. I think the most common one is the Ufology one: anywhere out there where little green (or gray) men come from. So "extraterrestrial probes" seems to mean UFO probes,in common usage. In scientific usage (from the Latin, "extra" is out of and "terrestrial" is "pertaining to the earth (Terra)", so Luna (the moon) is extraterrestrial and so are all the gizmos in orbit around the earth, too, until they Skylab in on us. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support a merge of Category:Extraterrestrial probes into Category:Space probes, but suggest we let this CFD complete before proposing that next step. DexDor (talk)
• Merge all to Category:Space probes. I can see some point in splitting into satellites in terrestrial orbit; those in lunar orbit; those in solar orbit; missions to Mars; and missions beyond Mars. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the whole lot - we already have categories which sort these by destination and type - for example Akatsuki (spacecraft) is in Category:Missions to Venus. Category:Extraterrestrial probes is a holding category for the three "by status" categories (active, inactive, destroyed) which don't really add an awful lot. I say just get rid of the lot and use the other categories that are already on the pages. Merging would serve little purpose since better subcategories are already on most/all of the pages. --W. D. Graham 16:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete WP:CSD#G6 as in the wrong namespace. The text is a close Basque version of this version of Nada (novel), which is now redirected to the author. – Fayenatic London 23:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Nada novel in Basque (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure what this is meant to be, but it's not really a WP:EN category. DexDor (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Non-English content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete -- This appears to be an article in a foreign language (Basque?) sitting in category space. If this should exist anywhere it should be in the Basque WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Janet Heidinger Kafka Prize winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Having won an award like this is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person (see WP:OC#AWARD). For info: There is a list at Janet_Heidinger_Kafka_Prize#Winners. DexDor (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OC#AWARD. Clearly not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of any of the 6 authors currently in the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- yet another minor award, though most of the winners seem to be notable, according to Janet Heidinger Kafka Prize, which has a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Mediterranean Games host cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Having hosted the Mediterranean Games (or any other sporting event) is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a city. For info: There is a list at Mediterranean Games#Host_cities. There is an example of a previous CFD for other "host cities" categories here. DexDor (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I believe that the cat serves the purpose stated in Wikipedia:Categorization#Overview. Besides, in WP there are well over 1000 cities-categories including such diverse subjects as “Port cities in ...”, “Cities in fiction”, “Imperial free cities”, "Populated places on the (river sea or lake)", ”European capitals of sports”, "Members of the Hanseatic League” , “...border cities”, etc etc.. Well Cat: Mediterranean Games host cities is no less notable or no less Wiki-like than those. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Capitals of Sport" category is currently at CFD. The other categories you mention (e.g. Category:Port cities) may have a much stronger claim to be permanent defining characteristics (e.g. the characteristic is likely to be mentioned in the lead of articles) than that the city once hosted a sporting event. DexDor (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nominator's rationale. Hosting a sporting event is a transient characteristic of most cities, and the MedGames is not significant enough to be defining for the city. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent of deleting Olympic cities. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. The discussion on Olympic host cities was at CFD 2013 June 4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nondefining. Neutrality^talk 04:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If the Olympics are not defining, than certainly other events are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2013 (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.