Category talk:American beauty pageant winners

Please discuss.
I contend that it is redundant for this category to be added to biographies as the majority of bios are within a subcat of this category. disagrees and is stuck in the middle. I think we need to stop disrupting the articles, discuss this, and get some independent editors to look at the situation before this goes any further. PageantUpdater talk • contribs  04:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm a little pressed for time at the moment, so I'm just going to rehash my comments from the AfD. The winners-by-nationality category system is the pageant winner version of the common "career by nationality" category system.  It's the most effective method of categorizing bios by notability, including American pageant winners.  It's used (and apparently accepted) in biographies for non-American winners; American winners should not be excluded.  Nationality-based cats are valid in bios because pageant winners are often notable for pageant wins beyond those they're being categorized in. For example, an editor removed the cat here because it's supposed to be redundant, but the subject has won other pageants and is thus defined by being an American beauty pageant winner overall, not just by a single pageant win.  After all, if the standard lead sentence for the majority of these articles is Jane Doe is an American beauty pageant titleholder/winner, then that's how they're primarily defined and how they should be categorized in the article.    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 06:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the afd mentioned actually the cfd? I (an independent editor) agree with PageantUpdater on the matter of double categorisation. It is the general rule throughout category space that an article should be placed in the most specific categories and not also in their parents. Mbinebri needs to come up with a rationale for making this an exception. Why is it useful to see all these 100s of ladies at the top level as well as in the more specific subcats? Should a 'Miss America winner' also be categorised in and separately in ? (This double categorisation is not used in 'beauty pageant winners' except for the American ones, excepting edits by Mbinebri.) The intro to a 'Miss America' article is going to say she was 'Miss America'; it goes without saying that she won other beauty pageants to get there. David Cameron is not categorised inder  (although he undoubtedly is one) because he is in the more specific subcat . Occuli (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * An independent editor? Really?  Considering you were part of the CfD pushing for removal of the cat from biographies?  I'm not interested in another protracted debate on the topic, so I'll only reiterate my main points: that the category most reflective of a subject's overall career as a titleholder should not be trumped for what are basically performers-by-performance subcats.  After all, categories can be non-diffusing.  And the "double categorization" is not used in all non-American bios because those cat structures haven't been fleshed out as much and there are a great deal of articles to get to in order to reach any sort of standardization.  They instead rely on the winners-by-nationality system, as they should, and as should still be used here.  I'm happy to go with whatever mediation/arbitration decides.    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 15:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)