Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 17 January 19 >

January 18[edit]

Category:Gregorio Ezparza[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.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Insufficient reasoning given for the need for this category. What articles would fall under it? ‖ Ebyabe talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 21:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - José Gregorio Esparza is the article for this man. He was but one of 212 known Texian defenders who died during the Battle of the Alamo. He was not notable for anything else, and one lone article does not necessitate a category. — Maile (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: as the category is empty now, were there any articles in it before and if so, which ones? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The editor only has two edits. One was to create this category. The other was to link the Battle of the Alamo to it. The categories for the Battle of the Alamo have none for individuals.— Maile (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More fully answering the question, since this category was put up for deletion only half an hour after its creation, it's unlikely there were any other links to it. — Maile (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He's not really known for much as mentioned above. Jackninja5 (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poorly named eponymous category (since this is not his full name) on a very minor historical figure. Not even Antonio López de Santa Anna, the most significant historical figure of the Battle of the Alamo, has an eponymous category yet. Dimadick (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is a poor bio-article on a NN person sitting in category space. If he were notable, I would have said 'articlise'. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2016 (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:Groups not accepted as states claimed to be Islamic states[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.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This well-intentioned category is problematic because it: (1) categorizes entities by what they are not instead of what they are; (2) attempts to define them by the opinions of unidentified arbiters of "claim[s] to be Islamic states"; and (3) applies an arbitrary or subjective "no true Scotsman"-like standard for Islamic states. Its sole purpose appears to be to avoid calling IS an "Islamic state", presumably in order to distinguish between IS's jihadist ideology and mainstream Islam. However, to acknowledge that IS functions as "a type of government, in which the primary basis for government is Islamic religious law (sharia)"—see the description at Category:Islamic states—is simply factual. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: Azawad is already in Category:Former unrecognized countries, and so needs only to be upmerged to one parent, Category:Islamic states.
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:En Masse Entertainment[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.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fruit Attacks and Pocket Platoons are currently in AfD, here and here, respectively with ZMR already being redirected to En Masse Entertainment. If the last 2 articles get redirected/deleted, that'd leave 2 articles in this category. This category is small and has basically no potential for growth, at the current time. Anarchyte 10:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Delete since AfDs don't seem likely to be closed as keep. Not enough articles to need a category. I wouldn't say the category has no potential, as the dev could release more games that could be notable, but it's certainly too early for that. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The main article says that En Masse Entertainment was founded in 2010 and has only 6 years of history. I doubt that it has enough relevant content to warrant a category of its own. Dimadick (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Await outcome of the two AFDs on its products. If they are deleted, the deletion of this category will be inevitable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: The discussion for Pocket Platoons was closed as Redirect and it won't be too long for Fruit Attacks to follow, the votes currently favour redirection. Anarchyte 12:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If both are closed as redirects to the main article, this category will have nothing but its main article and probably a series of redirects, and must accordingly then be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: Both were closed as redirect. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:22, 3 February 2016 (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:Alaska statehood[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.
The result of the discussion was: merge to both parents, Category:Territory of Alaska and Category:Political history of Alaska. – Fayenatic London 22:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Judging from the category's content, it was intended to cover the statehood movement, which is a definitive chronology of events stretching from 1916 until Alaska achieved statehood. "Alaska statehood" is vague enough to possibly be construed as referring to the history of Alaska under statehood. As far as I'm aware, we haven't broken things down that finely (yet). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is where Alaska is different. Many states were territories for only two or three or so years. The long, tough battle by both Alaska and Hawaii to achieve statehood has been written about countless times by higher-tier historians, and is just as much a defining element of territorial-era Alaska history as World War II was. Our coverage is somewhat behind that of the available sources due to this being ancient history as far as Wikipedia's memory is concerned, plus it's covered more in book sources than anywhere else. I write of inconsistent definitions below. Here's another: "Alaska Territory" or "Territory of Alaska" is defined on the one hand as the governing body for Alaska between 1912 and statehood, and generally refers to the history of Alaska under that period. Emphasize "generally", because various subcategories use their own definition of "Alaska Territory", to where instances of "Alaska Territory" and "Pre-statehood history" become interchangable in those cases. That problem affects categories than would not fit within the scope of this CFD, however. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not to belabor this, but I was curious about your rationale of most states as territories for only 2-3 years. Here's what Wikipedia says.
I imagine all statehoods were hard fought battles with the US Congress and their own state legislatures to get there. And toss in the Mexican-American war for some of them. — Maile (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's an extensive Category:Political movements in the United States tree under which this topic fits for any state. It appears your objections are that the topic's significance is unequal among the states, and therefore categorization can't be consistently applied. Let me give you an example of how following consistent categorization schemes is working out. We have Category:Wrestling in Alaska, which contains only the subcategory Category:Professional wrestling in Alaska, which contains only the subcategory Category:Professional wrestlers from Alaska. At the tail end of all those nested categories is only one article, Kenny Kaos. Here in Alaska, Kenny is far better known as part of the cast of goofballs on some morning radio show in Anchorage than for having a cup of coffee two decades ago on the undercard at World Championship Wrestling (as Stone Cold Steve Austin put it, "where the big boys play with themselves"). As sport wrestling in Alaska is centered at the high school level and precious little of the history of professional wrestling has occurred in Alaska, the chance for growth of those categories is next to zero, unlike this category. That amounts to content for content's sake, and shouldn't be used as a "precedent" to inhibit categories which have a much better chance of amounting to something more but don't fall within such a scheme. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Clearer scope and notable historical subject. Dimadick (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. However, I wonder whether we might not merge it to Category:Alaska Territory, which could logically contain everything relating to it ceasing to be a territory. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's where this becomes a total clusterfuck. The previous comment mentioned a redlinked Category:Alaska Territory. The actual category is at Category:Territory of Alaska, with subcategory Category:History of Alaska Territory and no consistency with the other subcategories between "Alaska Territory" and "Territory of Alaska". The two aforementioned categories are really redundant to each other, unless you want to split hairs and make a big deal of the difference between a legal entity which existed for a specific time period in history and the actual history which occurred during that time period. The latter category is presently an anachronism by virtue of containing only particular subcategories and no other content related to the history of that era. Similarly, Category:People of pre-statehood Alaska and Category:People of the Alaska Territory are also pretty much redundant to each other. As I mentioned before with definitions, there are other parts of that category tree where "pre-statehood history" and "Alaska Territory" are in conflict. I haven't had the time to go through and figure all that out.

Back to this category: the history of the Alaska statehood movement is limited to the territorial era. It began in 1916 when James Wickersham marked the 49th anniversary of the Alaska Purchase by introducing statehood legislation, but didn't really gain steam until after the 1946 statehood referendum, in the process dominating political discourse in Alaska for well over a decade. Therefore, I agree with sentiments expressed thus far that this topic could be covered within the existing category structure, and that EXISTING COVERAGE of this topic is perhaps insufficient to warrant its own category. I wouldn't object to its deletion on such basis, but may object otherwise. The previous paragraph demonstrates that there's a bigger problem outside the scope of this CFD. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge the three articles to the two parent categories per WP:SMALLCAT. I don't think the two child categories should be upmerged too. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2016 (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.

Museums in Alaska subcategories[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.
The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Museums in Barrow, Alaska to Category:Buildings and structures in North Slope Borough, Alaska, Category:Visitor attractions in North Slope Borough, Alaska and Category:Natural history museums in Alaska; the others are kept for now. – Fayenatic London 10:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The whole Category:Museums in Alaska tree is overkill, IMO (the main category and about four or five subcategories would cover it just fine). With tiny categories widely encouraged and dumped in the laps of editors otherwise working on the category structure by the (hundreds? thousands?), it amounts to too much busy work for me to do anything about it. In the case of this one tree, populated place subcategories were originally created according to city, presumably to conform to Category:Museums in the United States by city. Since that time, a small handful of subcategories have been created by borough. There is no reason, other than perhaps particular fine points, to justify scattering these articles and not grouping them singularly, as the intention here is to allow readers to browse geographically among articles on a certain topic (so as an alternative, consider creating Category:Museums in Alaska by borough in place of renaming the first category). As for the other two, "Barrow, Alaska" and "Fairbanks, Alaska" refer to cities with defined corporate limits. This fact limits the scope of those categories compared with their surrounding boroughs, or else are used in a manner validating the "categories as OR venue" argument. There is not yet a Category:Barrow, Alaska. Furthermore, the Barrow museum category has little chance to grow beyond that one article, while there are other possibly notable museums in the borough (such as the Simon Paneak Museum in Anaktuvuk Pass, which has continued the study of the Nunamiut begun in earnest by Helge Ingstad 60+ years ago). Fairbanks has separate category trees for the borough and city. While latitude is helpful at times in delineating the difference between the two, it's a lot more cut-and-dried in the case of geographically fixed locations. Until recently, this category was dominated by museums located outside Fairbanks city limits. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support By City & Barrow/<OpposeNeutral on Fairbanks Rename 6 articles for Fairbanks is above my personal cutoff of 5 for Smallcat. Otherwise, I agree with the nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd ask to clarify if you're opposing renaming the Fairbanks category. The problem here is one of inconsistent definitions. "City" is defined in Alaska as a type of incorporated municipality. We say that "Fairbanks, Alaska" refers to the city of Fairbanks on the one hand, all the while miscellaneous editors add content which imply other definitions of Fairbanks the city, typically conforming to but not necessarily limited to ZIP code market areas. On the argument of the smallcat threshold, I removed Goldstream Dredge No. 8 during my most recent category cleanup, as it was in the category tree pertaining to the city of Fairbanks when it is actually located on the opposite end of an adjoining census-designated place. The University of Alaska Museum of the North is located at the opposite end of another adjoining CDP. Old City Hall is not a museum, but rather a building formerly housing a museum, which recently moved when the building was sold. Pioneer Park as a whole could be considered an open-air museum, but it's principally a venue for multiple smaller museums and related tourism tenants. Changing that category to "Fairbanks North Star Borough" would more clearly define what the untrained eye may view as "Fairbanks" but isn't necessarily "Fairbanks" in terms of our categorization scheme (otherwise, we wouldn't need the separate trees).
This brings to mind a similar problem with Category:Museums in Skagway, Alaska. "Skagway" primarily refers to a community which was a city for over a century and has been a CDP since 2007, but it can also refer to the surrounding borough. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was my intent based on the article count. Based your clarification about amgiguity, I'll back that down to a neutral. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fairbanks (5 members is enough to keep). Upmerge the rest. "by city" would probably become a single-member category and should also be upmerged.
  • Withdraw first and third categories – In further straightening out this bloated, confusing category tree, I boldly created Category:Museums in Alaska by borough, as Alaska was missing from Category:Museums in the United States by county. Creating that category made it easy to justify going ahead and creating Category:Museums in Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska. This fixed the problems mentioned, rendering those nominations unnecessary. Creating a separate "by populated place" category would only create an unnecessary step down on the category tree considering how few total articles and subcategories we're talking about here. Alaska has a unique local government structure — four boroughs are referred to as "unified municipalities", the literal equivalent of a consolidated city-county, as former cities were incorporated into new governmental structures. "Consolidated city-county" has proven to be a poor shoe horn, as "consolidation" in Alaska refers to a different process under Alaska law (and a different set of boroughs involved) in which former cities are typically dissolved and replaced with another governmental structure. The "by city" category is proper and useful as it takes into account these quirks, though it's largely subservient to the borough category due to the duplication involved. I think the main sticking point has been one of understanding of the difference between Fairbanks and the surrounding borough and whether we should let each individual editor's definition prevail or we should let sources prevail. Something like this makes it pretty clear, especially when we're dealing with types of articles where there's a fixed geographic location and therefore limited ambiguity between whether something is or is not inside a corporate limit (say, as opposed to "People from" categories, as we largely don't track whether biographical subjects really live in the corporate limits of the city corresponding to their mailing address for obvious reasons). Trying to maintain this distinction and avoid OR-ish situations is no different than the effort I saw a while ago which edited numerous articles to distinguish between the Las Vegas Valley and the city of Las Vegas, just on a lot smaller scale. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 09:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge the second category to its two North Slope Borough parents and to Category:Museums in Alaska, per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh...as I hinted at earlier, I would have much rather come here in the first place to outright nuke about three-quarters of the subcategories underneath Category:Museums in Alaska. I made it a lot smaller and simpler because the only consistent message I've gotten from the past several years' worth of browsing CFD is that tiny categories like this are okay now, with particulars of SMALLCAT usually given as justification. I don't think I explicitly mentioned that these CFDs are part of an overall effort to tweak the Category:Alaska tree and are only scratching the surface of a project I may not have time to really carry out. In the Alaska category tree, I'm looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,000 categories. I fail to see justification for who knows how many hundreds of them besides "process over product" and adherence to "one size fits all" categorization schemes which mindlessly create unnecessary categories. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:56, 4 February 2016 (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:1605 establishments in Acadia[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.
The result of the discussion was: merge. The one member page is already in Acadian history, and I am not aware of any "establishments" categories that are not sub-divided by period, so there is no need to also merge to Category:Establishments in Acadia. – Fayenatic London 17:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Acadia was a subdivision (a colony) of New France and rather than have a whole establishment set-up for this colony, it's better to just merge it into the New France structure (New France allows for establishments in North American and establishments in the French colonial empire so it's French-related but also in North America). Ricky81682 (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2016 (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:Islands of the Shumagin Islands[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.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category and parent category Category:Shumagin Islands have a grand total of eight articles between them. I get the impression that this specificity came about because one (and only one) of those articles isn't expressly about an island or islands. If you were flooding a category tree with many out-of-scope articles, I could see it, but not because of one out-of-scope article. The parent categories of those two categories are interchangeable as far as their applicability. As such, creating this subcategory amounts to unnecessary specificity, putting the majority of those eight articles levels further down on the category tree, plus unnecessarily thinning out the categories themselves and the tree in general. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The island categories can go directly under Category:Shumagin Islands. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - The islands of the Shugmagin Islands category clearly has more pages than the Shumagin Islands category itself so I consider it a redundant category. Jackninja5 (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2016 (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:No-Category Version 0.7 articles[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.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 12:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Assistance requested at Template_talk:WP1.0#v0.7_category. – Fayenatic London 13:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Nominator's rationale: Obsolete administrative category
This category was created in 2007 to hold the talk pages of articles that were uncategorized at that point so they would be ready for the 0.7 CD version of Wikipedia. All 3 articles currently in the category have long since been categorized and this CD was released in 2009. So the category is effectively empty and has outlived its original purpose. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Titoxd as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Categories/uncategorized. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be safe to delete now. Titoxd(?!?) 22:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RevelationDirect's explanation above. giso6150 (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2016 (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:Gender-based violence[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.
The result of the discussion was: split. I will implement this as a move to Category:Gender-related violence (with a hyphen) and leave it to the nominator User:GregKaye to follow this up. – Fayenatic London 10:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
or move to: Category:Sexuality and gender-related violence
Nominator's rationale: While the majority of the category content relates to gender-related violence (► Rape‎ (11 C, 53 P) ► Transphobic violence‎ (3 C, 10 P) ► Violence against men‎ (7 C, 19 P) ► Violence against women‎ (18 C, 73 P)) sexuality based violence remains a huge issue especially in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, but in situations where a potential victim is forced to keep a low profile for the sake of safety and within situations in which executions etc. may be interpreted to have been poorly reported. I think that either a split or a move would be beneficial. GregKaye 12:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • At second glance, I notice there is also Category:Violence against LGBT people. This suggests that the nominated category is already supposed to exclude sexual orientation related violence and this would probably make the split redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm wondering if this can be accomplished by being bold and adding sub-categories to the existing category. This seems like a complex split for a closing admin to manage. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move not all the items or subcats now in this are gender-related, rather than sex-related (not synonymous). An example: rape. In many jurisdictions rape may be committed by any gender against a victim of any gender (same as fraud, robbery, etc.). What differentiates rape is sex, not gender. As fraud and robbery, etc., are mostly about property, not sex. Thus moving to something like Category:Sexually- and gender-related violence (not "Sexuality", as again "rape" may be committed for reasons of violence or control upon victims of any gender or "sexuality", or even lack "sexuality" like committed virgins) would be most in keeping with the current contents and purpose. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree in principle, but rather than finding a difficult name it may be easier to move Category:Rape completely out of this tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be that this umbrella's difficulty in definition is because we're trying to create some combination and title it that the real world doesn't use. If so, that's WP:OR or WP:SYNTH kind of. Dropping rape might simplify things, but it'll keep getting re-added I think by those who haven't been in on this discussion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marcocapelle to be honest I think both alternatives have their advantages with both being better than the existing situation. Whatever other editors and the closing admin think is good with me. Sorry if that wasn't helpful but I will keep the issue in mind. GregKaye 12:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: The category was not tagged originally. It is now tagged. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Split - There is a different between things that are gender-related and things that are sex-related. However, Marcocapelle brings up a good point. The split is a bit redundant as it seems to exclude violence based on sexual orientation. Jackninja5 (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2016 (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.

@Fayenatic london, Marcocapelle, RevelationDirect, Carlossuarez46, Black Falcon, and Jackninja5: Post discussion comment on actions taken.

In response to comments above I unilaterally decided on the following:
I placed Category:Violence against LGBT people into the recently created Category:Gender-related violence and created: Category:Gender identity related violence which I placed into both: Category:Violence against LGBT people and Category:Gender-related violence. Any other categories that the three mentioned categories were in remain unchanged. I moved Category:Transphobic violence from Category:Gender-related violence and placed it in Category:Gender identity related violence.
I also adjusted initial blurbs for the categories.
This having been done I realise that a potential further tidy-up proposal may be in order:
Nominator's rationale: While Category:Transphobic violence is not directly fit into "Gender-based" / "Gender-related" categories, the repackaging as Category:Gender identity related violence enables the fit.
Ooo, more than I thought :)
GregKaye 13:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sexual and gender prejudices[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.
The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) sst✈(conjugate) 08:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: as per offspring Category:Sexuality and gender-related slurs, per initial category explanatory content: "Articles related to prejudices based on [[gender]] and [[Sexual orientation|sexuality]]." and per accuracy. Its not, for instance, about sexual preference and the prejudicing of personal choice not to consider one gender in relationship. GregKaye 12:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The scope becomes clearer with the new name. Dimadick (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - "Sexual prejudices" sounds like some sort of prejudice that is supposed to be sexually appealing. But in all seriousness, it should be renamed to such as the nominator has suggested, given that it is not about sexual preference. Jackninja5 (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Current name is confusing. giso6150 (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2016 (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/2016_January_18&oldid=1146511582"