Category talk:Actors

message: *This category was listed for deletion on April 4, 2005. It was deleted as categories should generally be gender neutral. The following discussion took place and should not be modified.
This only had one entry, which has now moved to :Category:Male actors. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 10:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Male Actors]]

message: Regarding the scope of the original discussion (and the area for which we have editors willing to work on consistency of categorization at this time):
If the consensus statement proposed above is accepted, we have already established in the discussion that the following "grandparent" categories should be populated with all of the articles in their descendant "by nationality" categories: :Category:Film actors, :Category:Film directors, :Category:Television actors, :Category:Television directors, :Category:Stage actors, :Category:Theatre directors  Are there any other similair "fooers" categories to add to this list at this time? --LiniShu 03:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm taking the liberty of pulling out a couple of comments from the section above, relevant to what we do here and now with the film, television, and theatrical professions (--LiniShu 13:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From Nareek 05:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: From Samuel Wantman 08:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: My preference - My "pet question" :P I really want to know what to do with :Category:American actors - because that's the avenue by which I became involved in this discussion.  I can go through the category making sure each actor is in the appropriate Category:FIELD actors and Category NATIONALITY FIELD actors, but do I then remove them from "American actors" or leave them in?  And do I add back those I had removed before this discussion began?  I'd like to make the usage consistent, one way or another.  Status quo and lesser amount of edits required would probably be to populate rather than depopulate. --LiniShu 13:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Lini, could you spell out exactly what you're doing in case others want to give you a hand? Nareek 22:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see the "note box" that I have "hard-coded" on Category talk:Argentine film actors. I would suggest putting something like this on the relevant talk pages as a guideline for editors, regarding usage of the Actors category heirarchy. Please feel free to adjust the wording if it is awkward or inaccurate.  Also, someone with more experience with templates (Samuel?) could maybe advise whether this is a candidate for a template.  Thanks, Lini 01:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Application to film, television and theatrical professions

message: A wild and crazy idea - for those who prefer smaller subcategories for browsing - for American actors, even the most precise subcategories that we have now :Category:American film actors, :Category:American stage actors, and :Category:American television actors are not small categories.  "American film actors" at the time of this writing has 1331 entries; more will be added in the effort to consistently categorize "American actors", and the category will only keep growing with time.  With the above discussions about the disadvantages of "over-subcategorizing", I'm not in a hurry to create these new subcategories, and I would not want anyone reading this to rush out and create them, but... what about the idea of actor subcategories by time period, as we have for musical groups?  Some actors like George Burns, of course, would have quite a few decades of activity, but others would have only one or two.  Advantages would be: a.) we'd have subcategories that at some point stop growing very much b.) we could see people grouped with their contemporaries c.) an actor's time period implies something about the cultural climate in which they worked.  What do you all think?  (If you are tired of more and more subcategorization, "please don't shoot me" for suggesting this :) - just an idea) Thanks, --LiniShu 03:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Actors by time period

message: At this time, among this group we have clear consensus on: do re-populate :Category:Film actors and :Category:Film directors, do not re-populate up the heirarchy tree above :Category:Actors.  There is less clear agreement on "Actors" itself, and the NATIONALITY actors categories.  We also have the "cousin" categories of the Film categories - Stage and Television.
I've been thinking this over the past couple days - I think that those who are interested in helping with the repopulation effort for the "MEDIUM(Film,Stage,Television) Actors" (or directors) categories should go ahead and begin, maybe focusing on the film category first (one has to choose somewhere to start), but at the same time, as we "touch" any articles to add in MEDIUM Actors category tags, why not make sure, at the same time, as Nareek suggested, that the NATIONALITY Actors and Actors category tags are there also?
Of the group that has given consensus on populating categories farther up the heirarchy tree than the NATIONALITY MEDIUM Actors categories, no one showed significant opposition to populating NATIONALITY Actors or Actors, and our "populate to the level of notability" criterion could be applied either at the MEDIUM Actors or Actors level, and, interest has been expressed in having :Category:Actors populated for browsing.
As we begin this work, it would be good to incorporate Samuel's new "Allincluded" template on the appropriate category pages.
I am planning to proceed as I have described above, if there is strong objection, or a different consensus is reached, my changes can always be undone.
NickelShoe, you were part of this discussion at the beginning; I know that the repopulation of the higher level categories is a new direction from the way we were going before, hopefully, after the discussions above, and the checking of whether categories can be too large (from a technical standpoint), this conclusion is something that you can live with?  Your opinion is valued; you do a lot of work improving the quality of Wikipedia, and you had already put in a lot of effort in organizing the Actors categories according to the generally held application of WP:MOS prior to this discussion.
Feedback from all is appreciated, as always. Thanks,Lini 13:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lini, could you spell out exactly what you're doing in case others want to give you a hand? Nareek 22:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see the "note box" that I have "hard-coded" on Category talk:Argentine film actors. I would suggest putting something like this on the relevant talk pages as a guideline for editors, regarding usage of the Actors category heirarchy. Please feel free to adjust the wording if it is awkward or inaccurate.  Also, someone with more experience with templates (Samuel?) could maybe advise whether this is a candidate for a template.  Thanks, Lini 01:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proceeding from here

message: Articles in :Category:Argentine film actors repopulated into :Category:Actors, :Category:Argentine actors, and :Category:Film actors --Lini 13:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work on the Venezuelan actors.  So, what is this about writing one edit summary that fits multiple edits and then you just type in the first few letters on subsequent edits?  Is this something like the AutoComplete in Excel?  If so, I was not aware of that feature - "Kewl" :)--Lini 13:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. At least the way it works on my computer, when you type in the Edit Summary box it offers you the choices of what you've written before with the same beginning characters. Nareek 13:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Actors categories worked on following discussion