Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 18

< September 17September 19 >

September 18

Year ranges in politician categories

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: Rename all. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming: categories found below in drop-down box
nominated categories
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I propose renaming these date range categories to the ####–## form that is recommended by the Manual of Style guideline for AD/CE date ranges when the date range is entirely within one century numerically (an exception being birth year–death year life ranges for people). Most categories have already been renamed to this format, but these politician term categories have not yet been. Some things to note:
(1) Category redirects should be kept on the longer form to resolve issues with Wikipedia searches and users adding categories to articles using the ####–#### format; I am willing to create the redirects after renaming;
(2) there are some templates and other category text that will need to be updated; I am willing to update these after renaming;
(3) there are some existing category redirects to these categories that use a hyphen rather than the en-dash; these too will need to be updated and I am willing to update these after renaming;
(4) this nomination is essentially a housekeeping nomination and is not about—and takes no position—on any of the following legitimate issues:
(a) deletion/retention, ie, whether these categories should exist;
(b) whether the dates should be in parentheses or be preceded by a comma;
(c) the appropriateness of the abbreviated name of some of the categories. — Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Congrats to the nominator for making such a huge nomination, for explaining it so clearly, and for trying to keep it focused on the narrow issue of date format.
    Personally, I find the the ####–#### format clearer, and it offers the advantage of consistency (no change in format when the range spans more than one century). However, I do believe in following the MOS, so I won't oppose this change. But can anyone clarify whether this is a recent change to the MOS? Is the guidance in this area stable?
    If these changes are made, a lot of redirects and templates will need to be updated, and tens of thousands of articles recategorised. Is the disruption worthwhile? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as the disruption goes, it can all be over well within 24 hours, and most of the changes will be done by bot. AFAIK, it is not a recent change to the MOS, but its implementation has been slower in some topical areas of the encyclopedia as opposed to others. From what I have seen, it is now relatively stable. The Australia WikiProject has not yet implemented it, but most others seem to me to be on board with it. Category-wise, these are some of the last ones that I know of that have not been changed, though there may be others out there. I hear you on the consistency issue; on the flip side, one benefit of this format is that it is slightly shorter, which may be beneficial on some of the UK politician articles where there can be half a dozen of these or more. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems like an awful lot of trouble to shorten a category by two characters and I'm not sure what is gained here. But far be it from me to go against the WP MOS. Liz Read! Talk! 01:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is better to use the full years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the MOS. No compelling argument not to do this. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose What a waste of effort for no gain; they are as they are, have been so for an extended period. No one will come along and type them out, so there is nothing saved. The guideline is that, and it gives guidance for setting things up, and yes it would have been fantastic if they had been set up that way initially. That is no reason to run around and look to achieve some pointless perfectionism now. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • From my perspective, this is not about "perfectionism" (given the inherent nature of the project, I don't believe anything on WP will ever be able to claim "perfection"), it's just about following the Manual of Style, the content of which has been agreed to by consensus. If we adopted your approach to the MOS, then it wouldn't really operate as a MOS, because we would just leave everything as it was originally set up by the original creators. And there is indeed a "gain" to be had--users who create new categories will hopefully follow the pattern of the pre-existing categories, and the new categories will thus follow the MOS by imitating these. If we don't change them, we essentially institute a pattern that deviates from the MOS, which defeats the entire purpose of having one in the first place. BTW, we have changed these before (from hyphens to endashes), so it's not like this is a proposal to disturb the original status of the creations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the MOS, and per the clarity of the nom. Oculi (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - can't think of a good reason to oppose but the benefits of a change are trivial to non-existent. Ben MacDui 07:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Long-serving MPs have a lot of such categories. It pays to keep the category names as short as possible. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The MOS is there for a reason, conforming to it is a good thing. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It will significantly reduce the number of characters in cat section for MPs/MEPs who have served for many decades. Philip Stevens (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As per the MOS. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per MOS. —  dainomite   07:37, 11 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.

Category:Perris Block

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't normally categorize articles about geographic features by their underlying geology - especially when all/most of the articles don't mention the geology. For info: Many/most of the articles in the category are in the lists in the Perris Block article. DexDor (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I do not see why we should not categorise them like this. This is not in the nature of a performance by performer category, since this is a geological region. If we were categorising "granite mountain ranges", I would object that the granite was effectively a performer. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its not a matter of perf-by-perf - it's about consistency of categorization. Most/all articles about geographical features specify what they are (hill, lake etc) and which state/county(s) they're in - hence those are good characteristics to use for categorization. Very few articles (and that includes the articles in this category) specify which lump of bedrock the feature is above. An article (e.g. about a region or a country) might mention which tectonic plate it's on, but AFAIK we don't categorize by that characteristic. DexDor (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The reason I categorized the Perris Block was that it is an ancient intact undivided actor in Southern California's geology that is little recognized. It has stayed relatively stable while all around it tilted, rose up or sank down. Its surfaces features that are more location identifying rather than active features. There are other blocks on either side of it that are major actors in Southern California's geology also that I was thinking of adding articles about.Asiaticus (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That the block is little recognized supports the view that it's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Articles about geology are fine, but I don't think we want to extend categorization to have by-geology categories for articles about places where (for non-geologists) the geology isn't that important (when compared with things like which state the place is in and whether it's a hill/lake/river etc). DexDor (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:05, 18 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.

Category:Candan Erçetin

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:03, 18 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.

Category:Theaters in Ponce, Puerto Rico

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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The category should use the same spelling as it's parent Category:Theatres in Puerto Rico. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duplicate Discussion. Request Removal from this list. This matter is currently under "full discussion" at THIS Categories for discussion forum. Why is it listed here also when several participants are already discussing it there as follows?
Copy of speedy nomination
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So I am not sure why this is showing up here now as if no discussion was actively taking place. In particular I puzzled as to the labeling here of "NEW NOMINATION" when this is not new as it was nominated on 21:48, 5 September 2013, according to THIS record. Am I missing something?
Mercy11 (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're missing two things. (1) A discussion at CFDS isn't considered full discussion. A full discussion have to take place on date subpage of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, such as this. Nominations on CFDS can only processed if they are unopposed or the opposition is withdrawn. (2) The "NEW NOMINATION" header is just there to make Twinkle nominations possible, and it will be removed once the current day is over. Also this section is not a subsection of it. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Armbrust. And while my preference is still for theater for the reasons I presented, I guess they may have to be renamed for the greater good of globalized consistency within Wikipedia. Mercy11 (talk) 11:46, 21 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.

Category:HeroQuest Adventues Series

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC#SMALL, only 1 article in the category. Armbrust The Homunculus 05:46, 18 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.

Category:Wonders of India

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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 07:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category currently contains a mixture of articles about specific temples etc (for which being on a list is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic) and 2 lists (for which "Wonders of India" is a defining characteristic, but WP:SMALLCAT applies and both of the lists are already in Category:Lists of visitor attractions in India). A similar category was deleted by a recent CFD. DexDor (talk) 04:22, 18 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.

Category:Songs covered by Willie Nelson

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 to Category:Willie Nelson songs. Editors are free to cleanup the entries either before ot after the merge to remove any articles that should not be there. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a song has been covered by a particular artist is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that song. For info: This is the only "Songs covered by <artist>" category. See also a note by the category creator at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories#Songs_covered_by_artist. The parent category ("songs recorded by Willie Nelson") also looks dubious. DexDor (talk) 04:18, 18 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.

Category:21st-century Indian television actresses

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: upmerge as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just placed notifications on your Talk Page, Sitush, as you are the creator of these categories. You're right, this should have happened when the categories were nominated. Liz Read! Talk! 12:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and I thank you for that. Without it I would have been unaware, as so often in the past. - Sitush (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To illustrate what this looks like in practice, if the current categories were filled out Soumili Biswas would be in Category:21st-century Indian television actresses and Category:21st-century Indian film actresses. Right now she is in Category:21st-century Indian actresses, Category:Indian telvesion actresses and Category:Indian film actresses. However, many people would end up being in 4 categories either way since they are in both 20th and 21st century categories, and both film and television.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) But this is a part of the flawed CfD process, isn't it? Get a change of some sort at one category and then use that as precedent for many others - I wonder how many people really see the ramifications when things are nibbled at in this way. I wasn't aware of the recent discussion regarding the Category:20th-century Indian film actresses and will certainly go take a look at it. Hopefully, you were not the nominator of that although, of course, it would still be possible for you not to have been aware of the parallel cat at that time. I'll also see if WP:OSE applies as much to CfD as AfD. However,your argument about this being the only cinema genre to be categorised in this manner seems somewhat perverse: there is nothing to prevent categorising others in the same manner. Category:21st-century Indian actresses and its recently-deleted counterpart are huge and some breakdown makes perfect sense - better to start now than to wait until 2020 and then have another umpteen thousand new actor/actress articles that will require manual categorisation because they fall only in one century or the other. I'm still pretty sure that by far the majority of these people act only in one medium. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was not the person who nominated the other category. In fact I did not even participate in that CfD. There was a CfD where it was directly proposed to split the 21st-century actors cat, that closed with no consensus, but that is partly because CfDs are not good forums for porposing to split things. Which leads to the oddity that people usually do so unilaterally and wait for others to react. For what it is worth, this proposal would leave intact Category:21st-century Indian actresses. Also, oddly enough, no actor cats are effected by this nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've read the other discussion now, thanks. What a travesty that was. Splitting is probably a function of the "be bold" mantra but I swear that if I can get my head round all these problems then I'm going to be proposing a massive overhaul of how CfD works: it is a disgrace. As for actor cats not being affected, that is entirely because the outcome of another recent CfD was not completely enacted at the time, leaving all the "actress" variants out of kilter, causing me to begin a process of manual fixing and then to spot that we had all sorts of other issues in the categorised articles. I never got round to the actor ones because the decision was carried out correctly by a bot; however, absence of something in one place is not a reason per se to absent it elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even if you had created the actors categories we would have had an imbalance. The history is this. Starting last August people pushed to create actress cats. In November it got to the point where some essentially objected because we would have actresses and generic actors, so I started by creating Category:American male actors and a few others. These categories were then taken to CfD with a many people arguing to keep, a few arguing to just have actors and actresses categories. Oddly enough at one point Category:American actresses was deleted, but Category:American male actors was kept. Then there was a decision to split by gender. Initially I and a few others implemented this primarily through actress categories. Then in April we had the Wikipedia gender wars, attacks on Category:American women novelists in the NYT and elsewhere, and the most participated CfD of the year. During which I was dubbed the "president of the woman haters club" or something like that, even though I was not the creator of the category nor was I the first person to implement it, I was just the first person to implement it on articles on women novelists who were not household names. Then in August we had a discussion of Category:American child actresses, as a result of that I created Category:American male child actors, which then went to CfD where it survived. The male actors category structure has not been much implemented, and Category:21st-century male actors is pretty small. Category:19th-century male actors might not even yet exist. The question before us is, how finely do we want to divide by century categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:Indian actresses. Unless the structure4 of the acting profession is very different from other places, actresses will at some stages of the career appear in TV and at others in films. We do not allow a 20th/21st century distinction, unless there is a reasonable prospect of populating 19th and perhaps 18th century categories. This was the subject of a long series of discussions a while back, as an attempt to create a current/former distinction by the backdoor. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unaware of those earlier discussions but in any event common sense should prevail: this situation is not "an attempt to create a current/former distinction by the backdoor". There is no need to slavishly follow something that simply does not apply. You made an almost-certainly flawed observation in the prior CfD concerning the 20th-century category ("most Indian drama is film-based") - please don't make another. - Sitush (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was not one of the four people who participated in the discussion of Category:20th-century Indian film actresses. Another interesting note is that up until today Category:21st-century Indian actors as a parent and the sibling category Category:21st-century Indian male actors did not exist. With categories the whole point is to organize articles in a logical way. I guess we could 1-decide that Indian productions are unique from elsewhere and allow the split there, but not for other countries, however I have seen enough Indian actresses who are in stage, film and television categories, that I am not sure that is wise. 2-allow split by nationality and medium, so we will have a whole lot more categories. The things is, that will in the case of people who are stage, film and televsions actors across 2 centuries make them go from 5 categories to 6. Also, categories like Category:19th-century American actresses is probably over 75% full of people who were silent film actresses who were previously on stage. Do we want to make them go in even more categories?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is getting off-topic for his discussion, but I have almost finished diffusing Category:British actors and its subcats, and after scrutinising thousands of articles I see a massive overlap of mediums in that set. Beyond the mid 20th-century, British actors who have worked in only one medium are a rarity. This needs proper examination, so I will prepare some numbers and start an RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The argument about needing 3 centuries could really be interpreted in a way to get rid of Category:20th-century Indian actresses since we currently have no one in Category:19th-century Indian actresses. Were there really absolutely no notable actresses in 19th-century India? I don't know. However I think with the actress categories how we should look at it is 1-we clearly have enough actresses to split by multiple centuries. 2-some of these categories are large enough to be divided by country, we should divide out by country whenever the category grows too large to group all together and the country itself has a reasonable number of articles. However the futher division by mediums would seem to not really be helpful. Yes, this means we will end up with over 3,000 articles in Category:20th-century American actresses, but I am not sure it would really be worth what we would do to the number of articles Terri Hatcher is in, if we divided further.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we agree to only split to stage, film and television actresses, the effect on Terri Hatcher's categorization would seem to be net nil. She would move from being in Category:20th-century American actresses, Category:21st-century American actresses, Category:American television actresses and Category:American film actresses to being in Category:20th-century American film actresses (she was in at least 3 films in the 20th-century, possibly more), 21st-century American film actresses (she was in at least 1 film in the 21st-century, and has a voice role in an upcoming films. Are we going to also create Category:21st-century American voice actresses). She was also in Lois and Clark in the 1990s, so that puts her in Category:20th-century American television actresses and she has been in TV at times from 2001 on, so we put her in Category:21st-century American televisions actresses. However will people find these long named categories useful. It will also mean the category section runs longer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutralizing view. The more I think about this, the more I am conflicted. In India we seem to have a huge number of film actresses who have only ever appeared in films. In the US, there is a lot more overlap, although there are lots of actresses who were in 1970s B-movies who never appeared in TV. I could see us doing this division, but it will lead to even longer names for categories. If there is widespread support for splitting by century and by medium, I would be OK with it, but I really think we should get a clear consensus to do this split.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I notified the films and actors/filmmakes wikiprojects seeking comment.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hope some folks come over from different WikiProjects weigh in because right now, we just have two voices. I think we need to hear from more Editors to come to any consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From the perspective of easily building categories this seems a good idea. It makes it easy to see that people have been subdivide into the appropriate by century categories, because only those who are not would be in the parent categories. However, is this going to be the most useful for people searching? For some people this would also reduce their number of categories. Although, unless we create ones for all possible types of actors we will have an odd situation. Right now, with just these two, what happens if someone is both a stage and television actress in the 21st century. Do we just put them in Category:21st-century Indian stage television actresses and Category:Indian stage actresses? Or do they also get put in Category:21st-century Indian actresses, because they are not just a television actress?John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge both per nominator. I have grave doubts about the merits of any intersection category of occupation and 20th/21st-century people, because in most fields most of our articles related to those two centuries. A category which divides them into two overlapping halves makes no sense.
    In early 2010, a long set of CFDs (mostly or all nominated by me) deleted 20th- and 21st- century categories for sportspeople (see the discussions n cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople) ... so we now have no 20th- or 21st-century subcats of Category:Sportspeople by century.
    As I noted with cyclists by century, it makes no sense to divide a 120-year period into blocs of 100 years. Film-making has existed for about the same time as cycling, so the same argument applies equally to film actors. Splitting film actors on the year 2000 makes no sense.
Acting is an old profession, so I do support retaining by-century categories for the 19th-century and earlier. For example, Category:17th-century English actresses is genuinely useful for navigation; it separates out that period from the flood of 20th-century actresses. However, I really doubt the merits of Category:20th-century actors and Category:21st-century actors or any of their sub-categories. This a wider issue with categorisation of people, and I have been intending for some time to open an RFC at WT:COP ... but in the meantime I hope we can agree that Category:20th-century film actors and Category:20th-century television actors are not useful for navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they are "useful for navigation". Books are written about 20th cinema and about 21st century cinema, for example. People have such interests and navigating a huge, sprawling category containing thousands of names is not exactly an aid to navigation. That Category:Indian film actresses currently contains ca. 800 names is partly because some have been moved out and because many others are incorrectly categorised. Does anyone here have any idea how big the Indian cinema industry is? Cinema is still deeply embedded in a culture that often lacks access to television etc and actors/actresses often make many more movies in a year than do, say, their Hollywood counterparts. - Sitush (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush:, the problem is not with the notion of looking for a way of dividing a big category. The problem is that this particular division doesn't help. At this early point in the century, there is huge overlap between 20th- an 21st- century actors, whose careers often span several decades. That's bad news per WP:OC#OVERLAPPING, because it causes clutter on articles and creates a pair of categories with duplicated content. How many of our articles on film actors are about those who performed in the 21st century but not the 20th? Probably less than 10%, so even after the split the 20th-century category will be just as sprawling; and the 21st-century category will be dominated by people whose careers began long before.
By-century categorisation works well for topics which fit in a single year, so there is no problem with Category:20th-century films. But it doesn't work for these actors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 19 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.

Category:Radka Toneff Memorial Award Winners

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization per WP:OC#Awards. Radka Toneff Memorial Award seems to be enough to serve this purpose. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:23, 18 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_18&oldid=1136462733"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 18, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.