Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 3

4574:

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??

3622:

explanation for not splitting it be gender. What seems to have been the rationale for not splitting it by gender, that we should not have any occupation where both male and female genders had specific categories, died when we decided to keep the male and female singers cats. There is no consistent rationale for applying this rule to acting, but not to other occupations that also involve performing. Even the argument that "x occupation is more about forming than performing" fails when we look at the singer cats, so there seems to be no logical reason for this. It is not clear where the anti splitting actors cats part of the guideline came from, but since it seems to have only been applied to acting and not to even all of that, I think it is time we analize this matter without calling upon the anti-acting split guideline that has no clear reason for being.

2878:{{od}As you can see SAG does not consider the word actress as needed to denote a persons gender. While AMPAS has not yet changed the wording for the awards they have changed the way that they label the the women in the Im Memorium segment of their show. These are "evidence" that they consider actor as a gender neutral term and they do not see the need to have two different words to describe the same profession. Actors like Helen Mirren and Vanessa Redgrave (to name but two) prefer to be referred to as actors, they see no threat from it and both have excelled in their profession. I do not understand what you think I am accusing you of. I have asked that you provide a source that gender is the defining characteristic of an actor and that the term actress is necessary to denote females in the profession. I have not yet seen any. I have presented 2641:

people within the acting industry perfectly happy with using the term actor for both genders. Please watch the opening of any of the Screen Actors Guild award shows. All of the women introduce themselves as actors. All of them are still working after labeling themselves as this and none seem to have trouble finding new roles nor is there any confusion over who they are within the film/TV/stage industries. Second, the idea smacks too much of pigeonholing for me. To put it another way there was a time that black men and women would only be allowed certain roles - all of your percentages could as easily have applied when they could only get cast as pimps or whores. Or in Shakespeare a black man could only play Othello. Yet if you look at the recent production

1896:. In the end, this was not the focus of most of the discussion, but some users did comment on it. For those that did, it was fairly evenly split, with three being explicitly in favour of it, and two being explicitly opposed to it. Those in favour highlighted the fact that singer categories are named, eg, "American female singers", and the actors category should correspond. Those opposed highlighted the fact that "actress" was a commonly used word in sources and was more commonly used than "female actors". I did not see a consensus from those discussions, and in any case it was rendered somewhat moot by the consensus identified in the "merge" vs. "do not merge" debate which dominated the overall discussion. 2585:. You will note that all of the women, including Jane Russell and Elizabeth Taylor, profession is listed as actor. Acting is acting no matter the gender. Women don't have different acting classes from men. This assertion that gender specificity needs to be kept as men and women have different roles does not hold water. First, those in the profession, on both sides of the Atlantic, have moved to using the term actor. Next, cross gender productions occur all the time. Lastly, as has been stated before, in my lifetime the terms poetess, aviatrix, authoress, comedienne were all in general use. The same arguments as presented here for their retention were used yet you rarely see their use anymore. 1857:. I carefully read this discussion and also kept a tally of the various opinions and weighed up the strengths of the various arguments. Assuming the category is to exist, the discussion clearly results in a "no consensus" with regards to whether it should be named "American actresses" or "American female actors". However, I do see a consensus on the issue of whether or not the category should exist at all. Yes, I realise that this result is different than that in two previous discussions for other nationalities 2146:'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. 2732:

supplied several sources showing that the term actor is gender neutral and can be used for both men and women what I haven't seen is any sourcing that supports you assertion that women must be called actress because they play female roles. According to the entomology of the term that is not why the term actress started being used in the first place. And again why are those within the profession not following your assertions.

4075:. The criterion for having a WP article is that the person is notable (in their own right). The relationship may be important or trivial. I think the deletion of the parents was inappropriate. If a parent of sibling is NN, the remedy is AFD of the article, not deletion of the category. We all know that notability is not inherited, but the reationship of two notable people may often itself be notable. 2885:) that shows that at least one other wikipedia category has replaced the word actress with actor so a precedent has been set that this can occur. I have also said that all of this is unlikely to convince you that actor is becoming the accepted term for both genders, but, as so many in the profession are happy to accept that fact then I will concur with that situation. Your accusations of 2054:

premise on which the argument was based, but if we accept the controversial point as being true, this is a decent argument, and it was pursued at length. Ultimately, however, it is an argument better suited to an attempt to change the wording of the underlying relevant guideline. In any case, a clear majority of users who participated in the discussion were not convinced by this argument.

2401:. We have been locked into a double-bind where the guidelines are remain as they are because CFDs on actresses are repeatedly closed as "delete", but the CFDs get closed as "delete" because the guidelines say so. The Deletion Review specifically allowed relisting these categories, so please can we discuss the merits of this category against the general principle in the guidelines? -- 2073:, but I evaluated each of the three discussions based solely on the arguments made in each individual discussion. I could well have closed those other two discussions as "merge to the appropriate 'actors' category", but I felt that given the actual contents of the Kuwaiti and Portuguese discussions, that approach could have been viewed as inappropriate in isolation. 2300:. 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. 977:- not the best source, but it does illustrate that that is what people call it there, natural considering the etymology "Luxembourgeois". I'd also add, that the reason why many dictionaries will list "Luxembourg" as the adjective itself is that the terminology has changed significantly in recent years in English, from when the country was "Luxemburg". 2164:, where the decision was to relist the deleted categories. I would have preferred that this had happened as one discussion rather than as three separate ones, but regrettably other editors declined my requests to centralise discussion. So we need to discuss this category on its merits rather than by appealing to discusions from several years ago. -- 1923:. This guideline was referred to a number of times by those in favour of the merge, and in my view it constituted a strong, guideline-based argument. Those opposed to the merge argued that this example should not be one that is used in the guideline, arguing that gender has a specific relation to the topic of acting, and, as the guideline states, 3560:, or should we not seperate by gender the various medium (film, television, stage, voice, etc.) categories. I think the rules that exist would suggest that we should not subdivide the by gender category much, but I am not sure either way. For now I will not create such subcats until I sense there is a strong feeling that we should do so. 2784:

that do not adhere to the criteria you set. I full well know that none of these will persuade you so lets leave it at this. If you can convince the SAG or any of these sources that your theory is a reason they should change their gender neutral usage back to gender specific then I will consider changing my support of this motion.

3297:(neither do I know by which it is currently split), but if it's decided that separate categories are needed for male and female actors, then they need to be on the same level. Having "female actors" (or "actresses") as a subcategory of the "actors" category (where male actors currently reside) is sexist. - 4573:

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

2703:

Thirdly, we are are not discussing race here, nor are we discussing class, disability, marital status, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, or any of the other factors which may relevant in a person's career. We are discussing gender. So please leave the stuff about black and white people for another time

2364:

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 Knowledge (XXG) articles I

2057:

These factors led me to believe that the users in favour of merging had a much stronger argument overall. This—combined with the fact that the users who participated in the discussion favoured merging by a 2:1 margin—led me to conclude that there was a fairly robust consensus to merge the category to

1682:

The isses of notability of the intersection may varry from country to country. Anyway, it is tedious to nominate multiple categories, so I think in general we should consider categories on their own merits and treat sister categories as "other stuff exists". If there is a reason to have a category,

3220:

Maybe it's because I'm a chick and an actor out here in meat space, but I find keeping actors and actresses separate in this fashion kind of silly. If there is no consensus to merge, I'd rather keep the current naming convention unless the similar categories match (i.e. American male actors, etc.).

2893:

are unfounded - and also chilling considering that they are coming from an admin. I will be happy to have an uninvolved outside party examine this discussion to determine the validity of the claim. We have each presented our case and our support or lack of it far this particular change and/or merge.

2797:

Marnette, what on earth makes you think that I have any interest in trying to persuade the Screen Actors Guild to change their terminology, or that I have any objection to their terminology? Your repeated assertions that I am trying to achieve something wrt the terminology are starting to look like

2706:

I was hoping that you might have some evidence to support your opposition to categorising actors by gender, other than the terminology, but I don't see it. AFAICS, the crucial issue is that for most women actors, the proportion of male roles they play is zero, or near-zero. We may disagree about how

2697:

Marnette, please do not put words in my mouth. I am absolutely definitely not "assuming that actor only means male", and I don't think I have said anything which could be misread to imply that, even at a stretch. (Further down you try to avoid putting words in my mouth, but you start off by doing it

2601:

Women may not have different acting classes, but they certainly do have different roles. Cross gender productions do indeed occur all the time, but still they represent a tiny fraction of all productions. If you disagree, let's see the evidence: how about any three award-winning women who have acted

2106:

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

1942:, several users referred vaguely to past precedent on this issue. I was aware of such past precedents as well and for convenience can include some of them here. Categories in general that have referred to "actresses" or "male actors" or "female actors" have been deleted in the following discussions: 3080:

opens by saying (sometimes actress for female), so the article does not make it clear that the term actress has no use. As I said elsewhere google searches seem to indicate that at least when referring to who has played a fictional female role, people tend to refer to the people as actresses. The

2783:

The problem is that you have provided no evidence that gender is the defining characteristic of an actor. I have provided dictionary definitions, a writing style guide, programs and films that label men and women as actors and sources within the acting profession (the Screen Actors Guild and AMPAS)

2512:

This is the third discussion like this in a few days. If we are to abandon traditional English in which the female of Actor is Actress, it should be the subject to a general nomination for all relevant categories. There is apparently a guideline on this that supports the nom, but the guideline is

1583:

I just don't see "there are a few other other categories in the tree" as a valid reason to keep a category. If this discussion shows that there is consensus for deleting one category in the tree then another nomination can address the other categories. Yes, it would have been nice if the nomination

1059:

BTW, I hope that other editors will agree that Jimbo Wales is a vandal/sockpuppet/extraterrestrial/talking-chimpanzee/ninja-turtle (or whatever). I have offered no evidnence whatsoever to support any of these claims, but obviously you will all agree that we should convict him now, and then look for

2700:

Second thing: I really don't care much whether the category is called "actresses", "female actors", or "women actors", or "women in the acting profession" or whatever. (I have some views on that, but to my mind they come a distant second to the question of whether to keep the category, so I'm not

3450:

except there is a very large overlap in the two categories. Anyway, as I have said and others have said, acting is a gendered profession. Roles are determined in the vast majority of cases by gender. Gender is central to the careers or actors. No one has refuted this for the vast majority of

2731:

As I read it you are saying that men must be called actors because they play male roles and women must be called actress because they play female roles. The arguments to use to use gender to justify are little different then the ones race or any of the other things that you list. Actually I have

2640:

This "different role" stuff has a few problems for me. First and foremost you keep assuming that actor only means male - in the same way that poet or author only meant male - but it doesn't. Actor means one who acts regardless of gender. Next, if your classification were the case why are so many

3621:

and similar cats for other nationalities. So there is a precedent for classifying at least some actors by gender. Thus the gripe about the specific form of pornography cat really does not belong here. The fact of the matter is that acting is a gendered profession, and no one has given a good

2649:

you will see black men and women in various roles none of which have to do with their race. Let me say right off that this might weem like I am putting words in your mouth which is not my intent. I most certainly apologize if you are offended in any way. I suspect that you will disagree with my

2076:

In conclusion, I noted that "This discussion does not have to be the final word on the issue", which acknowledged that those opposed to merging had made decent arguments that the guideline itself—which was a strong factor in the merge taking place—could be open to future discussion and possible

2053:

What the "do not merge" side countered with, in summary, was the argument that the guideline, if interpreted correctly, would not prohibit the creation of "actresses" (or "female actors") categories, given that gender does have a specific relation to the topic of acting. Some users doubted this

1055:

It amounts to "I have no evidence to justify this change, but expect you to support it in the hope that I will eventually find some scrap of evidence somewhere to justify it". How about you produce the evidence to justify the proposal, and let editors make up their minds on the strength of that

3273:

For the record I don't think we should separate singers by gender/sex either. It's silly. But 1) I don't edit music related pages terribly often so I'm not that invested and 2) there are a lot of situations on wiki where one size seems like it would fit all but doesn't (I work on film and tv

2679:

One last thing and then whatever the consensus is will be fine with me. Elizabeth Taylor's roles were all as women (except for Cleopatra of course - heehee just kidding) but if AMPAS is okay with calling her an actor in their tribute to here passing away then I would say that illustrates the

2282:

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

2128:

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

1378:

Murder by rival mobsters is an occupational hazard of being one. This is thus not a trivial intersection. However, I would want the category to be purged of those who were (for example) killed in domestic disputes with their wives, or otherwise unrelated to their criminal activities.

3405:

Again how does this differ from the singers category which we clearly split by gender. I have yet to see anyone give even the slightest half-hearted explanation for this. We should split this category by gender because roles in acting are determined in the vast majority of cases by

3238:

I have yet to see anyone offer any explanation of why we should not seperate actors by gender when we seperate singers by gender. Until someone presents some sort of argument for this I will find it very hard to believe we should have one system for actors and a different one for

2656:

and programs on The Biography Channel and TruTV identify men and women as actors. None of them cause any confusion or use any percentages as a basis for using the gender neutral term. I don't expect any of this to change your mind but I would be interested whether you can find a

1438:

whether it's listified or not. Being murdered and American and a mobster is a triple intersection that creates the false impression that those included were all murdered because of their profession. People can be murdered for all sorts of reasons unrelated to their profession.

3352: 2513:

wrong: normally only actors play Hamlet and only actresses play Ophelia. Acting is one profession where gender is highly relevant. The position has been muddied by feminists who (to claim equal pay with actors) have preferred to assert taht there are only actors.

3476:

and strongly oppose deletion or any merge that would de-gender the category, per BHG's excellent reasoning. Acting is a predominately gendered occupation and dismantling the categorical infrastructure will lessen its utility. A broader discussion around revising

2908:

Marnette, this is about the fifth time that you have trued to claim that I am promoting a particular terminology, despite repeated my denials and explanations. That's way beyond a misunderstanding, and it's a pity that you can desist only by withdrawing from the

3451:

actors. No one has been able to deny that actress is still a living and used term. The fact of the matter is this is a profession that is divided by gender, as seen by the fact that the academy awards are seperated by gender for actors, but not for directors.

4112:, where you could arguably say that frequently the children go into politics due to their parents, I fail to see this with siblings - either it's coincidence, or they both went in due to previous generations in their family. I think this is more similar to 4313:

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

2312:, 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 1931:, so those opposed to the merge have a difficult argument to make. Ultimately, their arguments would be more appropriate in the context of a discussion that attempts to change the wording of the guideline. Here, the gender-specific category was created 1700:

The category tree works as collection of sets, and a lot of work is put into trying to achieve consistency where possible. So unless this category is so me sort of exception to other Murdered mobsters categories, they shoukd either all stay or all go.

4384:-- unless some one can come up with a rational boundary to the category (which will probably involve a rename). On the fringes, whether a person belongs in the category or not will be a matter of the editor's POV, something that we do not allow. 2581:

has uses gender neutral terminology. Although other acting awards retain the term actress the associations that present them have moved away towards gender neutrality as can be seen in the In Memorium segment of this last February's Academy Awards

4358:. 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 3133:

for what it is worth in wikipedia in the vast majority of cases in describing these people they are descibed as actreeses. I no someone will say "not a reliable source", but it does show that at least those who edit wikipedia chose this way to

3581:) that we should not split the actor category into males/females. We are taking these guidelines, that was put together to form a coherent category system, too lightly, and as a result we are now starting to end up with abominations such as 2830:

As you can see, the SAG regards gender as such critical factor in acting that it segregates its awards by gender ... and the terms it uses are "male actor" and "female actor". You approve of the SAG's terminology, and I have no objection to

3151:

Actress is not a pejorative or offensive term. Major theatrical professional organization have separate award categories for actress and actor, based on gender. It's an important distinction backed up by reliable sources. No need to make a

3515:

For what it is worth, if this nomination was accepted we would still seperate out females who act from males who act, we would just not use the term "actresses". Of course it will take a lot more work to actually seperate out the female

2661:

that the distinction that you keep making is supported by anyone who works in the film/TV/stage industry in the performing or the production end of the business. I also apologize for taking up so much room in this thread with this post.

3353:

https://www.google.com/#q=Actress&hl=en&tbo=u&source=univ&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=giatUMLWGqqV0QGP2ICQCg&ved=0CHMQqAI&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=db0dad5452b41f3b&bpcl=38897761&biw=1024&bih=623

2707:

to interpret that, but for starters do you that it is the case? (BTW, the space is no problem. People flooding a page with screenfuls is disruptive, but a few tightly-argued paragraphs is just what discussion pages are for.) --

386:

per nom. There is nothing to indicate that these two states have a particularly high or low death rate associated with the neurodegenerative diseases, in comparison with other states (or indeed with the rest of the world).

3098:

Is there any way in which being a female actor is less gender related than being a female singer? I think we could find that in reality female actors have what they do more influenced by their gender than female singers

1518:

Or, the nominator nominated the category he saw and was unaware of the existence of the remainder of the ethnicity tree. Why do so many people in these discussions feel the need to ascribe sinister motives to others?

3842:

to the more inclusive term. Layout engines are used in all sorts of applications, not just webs browsers, and most of those used in web browsers are also used for other purposes. The more inclusive term is better.

2650:

comparison of the two situations. I am only using this as an illustration of claiming that we need to determine a persons category based on some percentage of roles that they portray. Finally documentaries like

2598:

Marnette, the question of keeping the category is a different one to what name to put to it if kept. You make a good case against using using "actress", but a less persuasive case against merging the category.

1878:

Update: I have been asked to require further details about my rationale in closing this discussion. I initially posted such further detail on my talk page. For convenience, I include a copy of it here: —

1865:, but participation in this discussion was much wider and this discussion successfully reached a consensus, which the other ones did not. This discussion does not have to be the final word on the issue. 1456:. The nominator's objection is to the existence of the intersection category, but the effect of the nominator's proposal would be to remove the items in this category from all three parents categories: 4330:, 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 1082:

I definitely expect that this discussion will be closed by a human being who will look at the comments and not just count the votes - the "for now" is clear from my comment about "the precident".

1545:

Some of the mergers suggested by Buck Winston may ensure that this particular category can be removed without ill effect ... but I see no reason to remove this category while keeping the rest of

2050:

recent DRV, which opened to door to reconsideration of the issue, but nevertheless as a body they remain a persuasive piece of evidence, especially when combined with the specified guideline.

766: 4131:

If a POTUS sibling is notable enough to have their own article here, I think a category entry is warranted. I would not allow links to people who are merely mention in other articles, e.g.

2680:

continuing move to use of the term actor as gender neutral and I would doubt that they are going to change back based on the argument that none of her roles could have been played by a man.

2491:(edit conflict with BHG’s PS) -- I support BHG on this. The answer is to get a proper discussion on whether the guideline is right and place a moratorium on these discussions. Presumably, 4843:: I've added the band's article name in the template parameter, which (i) gives the category a link to the band article, and removes it from the inappropriate head category. If there was a 2070: 2066: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1862: 1858: 1197: 42: 37: 3116:– BrownHairedGirl has made a compelling case over the last several weeks to subcategorise actors into male or female ones. I don't mind whether they are called actresses or female actors. 2602:

more than say 25% of their parts in a male role? Or 10%? Or try the any particular random chunk, such as the first few women under any random letter of the alphabet in a category such as

2035: 1983: 1955: 1951: 1947: 4113: 3981: 2039: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1943: 2362:

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?

2023: 4593:

This category proposal should probably be read in conjunction with a parallel AfD on the concept of "artist's multiple" which forms part of the category under discussion here: see

2031: 1967: 1963: 1959: 3817:. This was originally posted as two separate nominations, in which the formatting was a long way from the CFD norm. I merged the two discussions together, and reformatted them. -- 1374:-- This is a target involved in a complicated restructure involving upmerging various intersections. It is premature to do anything with this until the other CFD is closed. AND 4594: 2838:, its categories were "Actor in a Leading Role", "Actor in a Supporting Role", "Actress in a Leading Role" and "Actress in a Supporting Role". I'm fine with that terminology too. 2107:

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

2306:"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" 2027: 1357:

personal 'seeing' is not a valid reason for deleting anything. In any case, these mobsters regularly get murdered so this is a navigation aid, the reason for having categories.

408:. I suggest leaving the categories intact, simply because as deaths from this cause become more commonly identified, this is a category which is likely to grow a great deal. 2917: 2398: 2161: 2047: 1521:

Regardless, the category can simply be merged to the first two of its parents, but not the third since individual articles shouldn't go into the "by ethnicity" category.

2371:, 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. -- 2882:

that the term actress - while still in use - is no longer the only way to describe a woman in the acting profession. I have even presented a link (here it is again

1734:

In any case you offer no evidence (or even speficic rationale) for the idea that this intersection is different from from the other by-nationality categories under

310: 298: 2440: 2195:, 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. 2129:

controversial on Knowledge (XXG). I have seen silly edit wars over changing "actress" to "actor" and back again. The proposal is the best idea for neutrality.

1903:. On the other side, there were five who opposed such a merge. Clearly, those who were opposed to such a merge bore a greater onus to prove their case, given 1543:

there was undescribed motive, the nomination had lots of apparently bad effects. If there is an undescribed motive, I did not presume that it was "sinister".

2556:

would be better. First we already have precedence for moving away from gender specific categories for actors at wikipedia as can be seen here from last May

2222:

The bald statement that "there is no need to have a split of actor/actress" is simply an assertion of a point-of-view as an axiom, without explanation of

2750:

I really don't care much whether the category is called "actresses", "female actors", or "women actors", or "women in the acting profession" or whatever

21: 3503:, pending discussion. A person interested in American (or other) actresses should not have a headache browsing the entire category of American actors. 362: 336: 4742:

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

2367:

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

2065:

In the close, I noted that this result was different than the "no consensus" closes that had recently been completed with respect to discussions for

4870:

as nominated, following many precedents; even though the general pattern has recently been questioned, this case is required for disambiguation. –

4639:

per john pack lambert. since the term "artists multiples" seems to have some validity, my original suggestion can be modified to this new proposal.

1697:

It's not that tedious to add a few extra categories to a nomination, but it is very tedious to repeat the same discussion for the other categories.

3958: 3791: 3750: 328: 306: 294: 1657:

Additionally, the nominator proposes deleting this category rather than upmerging it, which would have several ill-effects as described above. --

4875: 4852: 3950: 3795: 3769: 1205: 774: 154: 4354:. 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 841:

offers no source for its preference for the "ish" form. If we are going to rename so many categories, some references would be a good idea. --

17: 4648: 4631: 4606: 4564: 4526: 3855: 3829: 3327: 3057: 3004: 2932: 2853: 2771: 2719: 2622: 2477: 2413: 2383: 2246: 2176: 1750: 1713: 1669: 1622: 1569: 1506: 1072: 955: 894: 853: 443: 319: 2344:

This gendered split is acknowledged in the major awards in the profession, which have separate awards for men and women: there are separate

3582: 3553: 1397: 4109: 4072: 3941: 3985: 3331: 3203:

I just notified the three wikiprojects that BHG suggested notifying above. Hopefully this will generate more disccusion on the subject.

2841:

As you can see, both AMPAS and the Screen Actors Guild do treat gender as a defining characteristic. What more evidence do you want? --

3618: 1494:

Either the nominator has some undisclosed reason for proposing this deletion, or this is an exceptionally ill-considered nomination. --

838: 795: 4242: 4234: 3600: 724: 4622:. As far as I can tell almost everything here belongs there, and the odd formation of the category name links not quite like things. 4362:. Rather than overload the main cat, and to group articles more precisely, this cat seems not just appropriate but fairly important. 3500: 1760:

That only makes sense if this was a normal cat. In reality this is treated as a non-diffusing cat, so there is no reason to upmerge.

583: 3636:

It does belong here, since it has derailed into a heap of gender/sexuality garbage ever since that was kept. Whatever happened to

1899:

On this latter issue, the "vote-count" split was not as even. There were 10 users explicitly in favour of merging the category to

4401:

It's very hard to have a binary determination of who belongs in this grouping and who doesn't. When this is closed, the category

4359: 4225: 3557: 2810: 2579: 1461: 2444: 1783:

Directly or indicatly this is the top level category for 217 articles. It really makes no WP navigation sense to delete this.

1652: 1648: 1554: 1546: 1488: 1465: 1610:. Categories are not like articles; they need to be considered as a part of a series, and this nomination fails to do that. -- 4732: 4538: 3489: 3319: 2345: 2080:

If the close of this discussion proceeds to DRV, please include the text of this explanation in the discussion. Thank you, —

4534: 2566:

and its 1st example of usage in a sentence is "my sister went to drama school to become an actor". Other dictionaries here

3315: 2607: 2603: 1175: 1019: 3599:

And if this is closed as keep in any way, we are no doubt going to end up with even further polluted categories, such as

3421: 2759:

of an actor, actors should be categorised by gender. The question of how we name such categories is a secondary issue. --

2448: 2111:

it makes sense that we have this category as well, especially since there is a very high overlap in these two categories.

1603: 1477: 1332: 4553: 4402: 3754: 2642: 2349: 1893: 1179: 728: 4942: 4922: 4905: 4884: 4835: 4796: 4759: 4720: 4696: 4668: 4583: 4500: 4472: 4452: 4435: 4418: 4393: 4374: 4346: 4295: 4216: 4192: 4164: 4144: 4123: 4098: 4084: 4063: 4046: 4015: 3932: 3908: 3880: 3860: 3834: 3807: 3785: 3731: 3707: 3679: 3653: 3631: 3612: 3594: 3569: 3544: 3525: 3507: 3491: 3460: 3442: 3420:

I'm not entirely sure that the singers should be split either. The "actors should be split because singers are" is an

3415: 3400: 3372: 3343: 3306: 3283: 3265: 3248: 3230: 3212: 3193: 3176: 3161: 3143: 3125: 3108: 3090: 3062: 3028: 3009: 2980: 2956: 2937: 2902: 2858: 2792: 2776: 2740: 2724: 2688: 2670: 2627: 2593: 2539: 2522: 2504: 2482: 2434: 2418: 2388: 2292: 2274: 2251: 2203: 2181: 2155: 2138: 2120: 1883: 1870: 1840: 1812: 1792: 1769: 1755: 1718: 1692: 1674: 1627: 1593: 1574: 1530: 1511: 1448: 1430: 1413: 1396:

If we are going to have it be murdered, than as long as they were killed by someone else they belong in the category.

1388: 1366: 1349: 1322: 1298: 1270: 1250: 1233: 1214: 1193: 1167: 1143: 1115: 1089: 1077: 1047: 1029: 986: 960: 916: 899: 874: 858: 807: 783: 750: 704: 684: 656: 639: 620: 605: 569: 553: 530: 502: 482: 465: 448: 431:

per nominator. Breaking down categories-by-cause of death in this way will just create a forest of small categories. --

417: 396: 374: 286: 262: 234: 214: 197: 180: 163: 137: 119: 103: 80: 4826: 4787: 4286: 4006: 2108: 2094: 1200:, leaving only one sub-cat. A special sort key can sort the sub-cat to the top, apart from the national categories. – 865:

Surely changing them all would be a good bet? If this is changed, it would set a useful precendent for the others...--

3473: 2098: 974: 1015: 1007: 4881: 4858: 4716: 4212: 3727: 3431: 3389: 3294: 2894:

I see no need to respond further to your posts. Especially as they now come with accusations of policy violations.

1211: 1163: 780: 282: 160: 3765: 3741: 3323: 926: 60: 4644: 4627: 4619: 4560: 4518: 4448: 4059: 3851: 3825: 3627: 3565: 3521: 3456: 3411: 3368: 3339: 3261: 3244: 3208: 3189: 3139: 3104: 3086: 3053: 3000: 2928: 2849: 2767: 2715: 2618: 2535: 2473: 2430: 2425:

Could you notify some possible projects. I really do not know how to do so, but I think it does need to be done.

2409: 2379: 2357: 2288: 2242: 2172: 2116: 1765: 1746: 1709: 1688: 1665: 1618: 1565: 1502: 1409: 1345: 1068: 937: 890: 849: 461: 439: 413: 210: 2234:, which provides that such a gendered category may be made where gender has a specific relation to the topic. -- 1735: 1607: 1484: 1457: 1011: 4615: 4579: 4514: 4140: 3302: 3157: 2989: 2552: 2260: 2059: 1900: 1854: 2701:

going off down that path). So please stop addressing with me arguments about terminology: I'm not going there.

4844: 4728: 4549: 2215:

If Lugnuts intended to say that "an actress is infact an actor", then that statement would be a a misleading

1038:

would be better? I assume you support the eventual move of the category, after a precedent has been found? --

4830: 4791: 4414: 4389: 4290: 4080: 4010: 3928: 3773: 3745: 3436: 3394: 2518: 2500: 2270: 1384: 1318: 1229: 1043: 982: 912: 870: 803: 635: 478: 392: 133: 3478: 2368: 4431: 1589: 1526: 1444: 2227: 1553:, a nominator should do a little checking before making an XFD proposal, and it was not hard to see that 4938: 4901: 4871: 4848: 4712: 4692: 4664: 4496: 4468: 4319: 4208: 4188: 4160: 3904: 3876: 3723: 3703: 3675: 3426: 3384: 2952: 1836: 1808: 1647:. No reason is given for removing this category which could not also be applied to the other subcats of 1426: 1400:

just seems too picky. Anyway, what about people killed in shoot-outs with the police? Maybe we should

1294: 1266: 1246: 1201: 1159: 1139: 1111: 770: 746: 700: 652: 549: 526: 498: 278: 258: 230: 176: 150: 99: 76: 3355:

google news search shows that actress is still a term used by all sorts of publications, including the

2916:. Previous discussion did indeed delete such categories, but approval for their relisting was given at 365:, so two categories should be upmerged to the main category. The container category should be deleted. 4640: 4623: 4556: 4444: 4406: 4306: 4120: 4055: 4026: 3844: 3818: 3803: 3781: 3623: 3561: 3517: 3452: 3424:

argument. Just because singers are split one way does in no way imply that actors should be as well

3407: 3364: 3335: 3257: 3240: 3204: 3185: 3173: 3135: 3100: 3082: 3046: 2993: 2921: 2842: 2760: 2708: 2652: 2611: 2531: 2466: 2426: 2402: 2372: 2284: 2235: 2165: 2112: 2043: 1761: 1739: 1702: 1684: 1658: 1611: 1558: 1495: 1405: 1341: 1086: 1061: 1026: 930: 883: 842: 457: 432: 409: 370: 206: 146: 4089:

Did you miss something here? In your 'keep', you used the same category name that already exists.

3578: 2985: 1925:"A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic." 1916: 1483:

Why does the nominator want to delete the category of murdered American mobsters, but not the wider

4575: 4523: 4136: 3298: 3279: 3226: 3153: 3081:

term is clearly used, although it is also clear that refering to a female as an actor is also done.

2899: 2789: 2737: 2685: 2667: 2590: 2455: 2310:"a gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic" 2134: 2081: 1880: 1867: 1003: 3274:

projects a lot and some things that work in the film MOS just don't in the TV one, for example).

3034: 2394: 2301: 2231: 2192: 1550: 837:

We should keep consistency: either change them all, or keep them all as they are. The guidance at

4755: 4410: 4385: 4371: 4343: 4076: 3924: 3540: 3487: 2646: 2514: 2496: 2353: 2266: 2265:

This is not a profession where women are seen as outliers, so I see no need to split by gender.--

2191:

As Hmains states, the actress category tree was deleted before. The creation of this category is

1380: 1314: 1225: 1039: 978: 908: 866: 799: 631: 616: 565: 560:

Can I creating this kinds of category? Other editors is fan, can add those category to ] page. --

474: 388: 193: 129: 115: 3982:

Knowledge (XXG):Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_30#Category:Parents_of_national_leaders

3638:"that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right" 2890: 2803: 4937:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

4663:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

4467:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

4427: 4305:

When I created this cat most of the articles which now populate it were placed under the main

4159:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3875:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3674:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3504: 2835: 2342:... and in those 5 articles I found not one single example of these women playing a male part. 2327: 1807:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1651:. Unless there is some exceptional difficulty with this American category, all the subcats of 1585: 1522: 1440: 1265:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1110:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

699:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

497:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

229:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

4893: 4691:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

4495:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

4187:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3903:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3702:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1835:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1293:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1138:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

745:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

525:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

257:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

75:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

4897: 4805: 4747: 4094: 4042: 2948: 2809:

I am quite happy to use the terminology which the Screen Actors Guild uses. Take a look at

2151: 1788: 1422: 1362: 1242: 648: 546: 172: 96: 4552:, with the renamed category here being a subcat of it, along with another sub cat created, 882:

And secondly, I'm still hoping for refs to reliable sources which support this renaming. --

4918: 4822: 4783: 4602: 4282: 4117: 4002: 3799: 3777: 3170: 3121: 2530:

the nom is in favor of leaving the cat as a seperate by gender cat, just under a new name.

1727:

intersection, then the solution is to upmerge to all parents. Instead your proposal would

1083: 1023: 366: 149:. I am not aware of any extra-terrestrials or heavenly beings among our fellow editors. – 4331: 4265: 2913: 2886: 2879: 2799: 2756: 2658: 2560: 1683:

it should be able to be argued specifically, without appeal to other categories existing.

922: 4743: 4315: 3649: 3608: 3590: 3275: 3222: 2895: 2785: 2733: 2681: 2663: 2586: 2130: 2046:. Some of these go back a fair way in time, and of course many of them are tempered by 1340:

I see no reason to categorize people by this overlap of method of death and profession.

128:

per multiple precedents. Doesn't promote collegiality in improving the encyclopaedia.

4751: 4364: 4336: 4323: 3536: 3535:

to American actors. I really don't think we should split actors according to gender.

3482: 2573: 2339: 2313: 1921:"As another example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed ..." 765:

as category page had not been tagged. To be re-listed in the top-level nomination on

612: 561: 189: 111: 2230:. There is a long-standing principle on how to assess such categories as set out at 2208:

Lugnuts says "a female actress is infact an actor". Not so: a "female actress" is a

794:. I've proposed this category for re-naming to bring it into line with the guide on 4132: 4033:

whom nobody would have cared about if their brother hadn't been president. This is

4030: 3318:

so people stop gripping about "sexism". Of course how these people explain having

3022: 2974: 2575:

all of which use gender neutral definitions. We also have this writing style guide

2335: 2331: 2197: 2564: 1480:

when it is the parent to six by-ethnicity categories of murdered American mobster?

975:

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/3601/whose-usage-determines-correctness

1935:

such a change was made, which makes the argument a little more difficult to make.

4090: 4038: 4029:, whose fame had nothing at all to do with their family, but there are also the 3552:

If this category is kept under either name, should we create subcategories like

2147: 1784: 1358: 2567: 4914: 4809: 4770: 4598: 4355: 4269: 3989: 3169:- in English, a female actor is refered to as an actress, not a female actor. 3117: 2583: 2323: 2216: 1927:

Nevertheless, the example of an actresses category is given in the guidelines

4746:, and should be renamed to match that title. (It should also be removed from 3617:

The above comments ignore that there was a previous CfD that decided to keep

4327: 3645: 3604: 3586: 2209: 4685: