Category talk:American actresses
 | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This category was nominated for deletion on 4 January 2013. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Contested deletion
editThe delete of this page just does not work when Category:Actresses by nationality and all its related sub-cats were kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because all the other categories under Category:Actresses by nationality such as Category:Canadian actresses were just kept at a CfD. The recent deletion of this category at CfD was also irregular and suspect since it was made by someone who in other discussion of the topic had expressed very strong dislike for this type of category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Additionally there is still a discussion open at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Actresses_categorization that is definately trending towards splitting by gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- You keep referencing that village pump discussion as a reason to keep these categories. How about letting it run its course, and then create the categories? Nymf wabbit! 18:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Having read the prior deletion rationale, it does not appear to apply to current consensus, thus this is not a candidate for speedy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- This was deleted once, therefore it should not have been recreated and Johnpacklambert should not be adding it to pages pbp 20:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yet all the other contents of Category:Actresses by nationality were kept and no one has ever even tried to give an explanation for this inconsistency.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- A rule more honoured in the breech than the observance. Rich Farmbrough, 05:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC).
- A rule more honoured in the breech than the observance. Rich Farmbrough, 05:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC).
- Why is the speedy posted again. Did we not contest it the first time. It makes no sense to try and speedy it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The claims that we should move this to deletion review make no sense. The decision to keep the parent category indicates we should be allowed to create the sub-cats. No one has yet given a reason that this category should be deleted when Category:Canadian actresses was kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- JPL, for someone with as many edits as yourself, you are woefully ignorant of policy. When a category is deleted (and this one has been deleted at least three times), a person who thinks it shouldn't be kept doesn't just go off and recreate it. It shouldn't have been recreated until after a DRV, or after the pump thread was resolved. As such, I have CfDed it pbp 23:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Should this category by subdivided by medium
editI was wondering if stage, film, television and other subcategories of this category would be considered a good idea. Thoughts on this question would be appreciated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- Due to a lack of participation here, I have actually moved forward with various subcategories. No one has yet complained in any meaningful way about their existence, and considering that many actresses are in 5 of the categories as it is, I really see no reason for them to be in five actor categories plus a general American actresses category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)