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:do not rename. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:The other relevant category for Australian film actors is "Category: Australian male film actors". Given we've moved beyond the idea of gender specific terms such as actresses, poetesses, authoresses etc, we should also change the name of this category to follow suit and rename it "Category: Australian female film actors". Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unlike poetess and authoress, "actress" is the primary English phrase to describe a female who acts. Happy to discuss a change should actor become more widely applied to women than it is now. Also, it's worth opposing the chosen nomination on the basis that starting with Category:Actresses would have been a much better option. SFB 17:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The proposal would have to be much, much broader than just Australians. In any case, "actress" is the commonly preferred term, even in Australia, as evidenced by the AACTA Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role. StAnselm (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's true that terms like "poetess" and "authoress" are archaic and deprecated, but the same is not true of "actress" — while a female who acts certainly can be included under the term "actor" in situations where the gender of the performer isn't actually germane to the context, the real English-speaking world still routinely uses "actress" (rather than "woman/female actor") in the contexts where gender is relevant. Virtually all acting awards for female performers, in film, stage or television in virtually all English-speaking countries, are still to this day named "Best Actress" rather than "Best Woman/Female Actor". And our role on Wikipedia is to reflect real-world usage, not to actively lead a proposed shift in it — and per other commenters, even if a change in our naming convention for "women who act" categories actually did take place, it would need to be applied comprehensively to the entire Category:Actresses tree rather than just to the Australians alone. Bearcat (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's response: Good points one and all. Thanks for your help with this. I'm convinced it should remain as is, and am happy for this discussion to be closed early. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2015 (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.
Nominator's rationale: A "liftback" is just another type of hatchback. It's not a particularly well-defined term, and many cars are known just as commonly by the hatchback term as they are by the liftback term. This is because hatchback is not only more general, it is an international term, whilst liftback isn't used anywhere near as widely. Several cars in this category probably shouldn't be here anyway, and there isn't that much to merge as it stands (many of them are already in both categories). The fact that a lot of cars that could be classified as liftbacks aren't in here is pretty damning, I feel. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 18:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Liftback redirects to Hatchback. Oculi (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: although it is not clearly defined, neither are terms like sedan and coupe. They are definitions which vary depending on the source you use. Generally, hatchbacks have an upright, close to vertical tailgate. Liftbacks are far more sedan/coupe like with a roughly 45 degree sloping rear end. This is a rough definition—grey areas exists, but no more so than any other body type. AFAIK, there are no standards bodies that precisely define exactly what qualifies as a sedan, hatchback, liftback, coupe, etc (just general definitions). If third parties commonly refer to a car as a "liftback" then Wikipedia should reflect this. Likewise, for less clear-cut cars where both hatchback and liftback are widely used externally then we should state both are used. E.g. the Mercedes-Benz CLS-Class is considered to be a sedan in some quarters but a four-door coupe in others (it bridges both).OSX (talk • contributions) 11:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sedan versus hatchback is easy; if the rear window is fixed, it's a sedan; if the rear window can be opened, it's a hatchback. Ambiguity between sedan/coupe/hatchback isn't relevant here, when we're discussing liftback and hatchback. Coupe especially; hatchback coupe is a distinct bodystyle from a regular coupe, although they're practically always just referred to as coupes in that case. The main difference is that "liftback" is a term that is far less commonly used than hatchback, it is part of the hatchback article, and the fact that the category has a large amount of cars missing from it is a fairly large nail in its coffin. As Warren also points out below, liftback is a marketing term first and foremost. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 19:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: In most cases the differentiation between the two terms is down to marketing. The slope of the window does not make a consistent difference between names, and I would agree that hatchback is the more common generic term. Warren (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2015 (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:rename. (To address Marcocapelle's question, I suggest that every instance would be a matter dealt with on the talk page for the article about the parliament. The category names then reflect whatever name is selected for the article. In such article name discussions, the standard principles of Wikipedia:Article titles will apply, including WP:UCRN, WP:UE, etc.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Main article is at Riksdag. Smartskaft (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per main article covering the same scope. SFB 17:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I do not think that the Swqedish name for their Parliament is so obscure that we should not use its name. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question For every country we might receive a request to keep the parliament in the category name in the native language. Where do we draw the line, also considering the C2C principle? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2015 (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:Ancient Greek Versions with the Divine Name[edit]
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.
Support mergeasSeptuagint is equivalent term. SFB 18:08, 14 January 2015 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Contained only three articles, two of which were not directly about the district, but about the Kapiti Coast, which is already covered by a well-populated category (Category:Kapiti Coast). Having two separate categories for essentially the same place (most of the Kapiti Coast article is about the district; the two are roughly coterminous) seems redundant - one is simply the local authority covering the other, and can only really ever have the one article which related directly to that district authority. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC) WITHDRAWN - see discussion. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge Human cultural categories such as those found in Category:Kapiti Coast are not typically placed under physical geography categories like this one (e.g. no Category:People from the Alps). The parents of the target category also suggest that it is actually describing the district, rather than the coast itself, so a district naming would be better in line with the rest of the content tree. SFB 18:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy enough with that, though it would require renaming of the four subcategories. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Grutness: I would support an expanded nomination including the sub-categories on the same basis. SFB 18:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Best way forward would probably be for me to withdraw this nomination and open a new CFD. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 16 January 2015 (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.
