Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 26 February 28 >

February 27[edit]

Category:Dragonriders of Pern locations[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category contains only one page. Goustien (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 17:49, 27 February 2020 (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:Deaths due to bird attacks[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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is underpopulated and has only one member in it. Sakura CarteletTalk 04:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, lacks "Aeschylus, the eldest of the three great Athenian tragedians, was killed by a tortoise dropped by an eagle that had mistaken his bald head for a rock suitable for shattering the shell of the reptile.", or did till now. There must be more. Johnbod (talk) 04:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more investigation to find additional incidents (or not).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 17:48, 27 February 2020 (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:Scottish Television articles needing infoboxes[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Television articles without infoboxes handles this with the template. Gonnym (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 17:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The general category is populated by a template flag option, not directly added to talk pages as a direct category declaration — and it isn't otherwise subcategorized by the specific nationality of a topic at all (which wouldn't be helpful anyway, since it's a temporary maintenance category rather than a permanent one). With the result that this is completely empty, and not readily populated since there's no template associated with it. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2020 (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:The Bill articles needing infoboxes[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Television articles without infoboxes handles this with the template. Gonnym (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 17:48, 27 February 2020 (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:British esports players[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: Keep Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only 4 Rathfelder (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Welsh esports players to Category:British esports players
Nominator's rationale: only 1 Rathfelder (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Scottish esports players to Category:British esports players
Nominator's rationale: only 1 Rathfelder (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have struck my earlier comment. Support nomination per the various discussions above. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We have always divided British professional categories like this. As part of an established category tree there's no need to alter it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it seems quite likely that esports is or will be arranged along 'nationality' lines, as are traditional sports. Indeed - here we are. Oculi (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 17:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's true that we're not always consistent as we should be about this, but "British" categories should rightly almost always be subdivided into separate subcategories for English, Welsh, Scottish and "from Northern Ireland" whenever possible. The question of nationality is more complex in the UK than it is elsewhere, precisely because the UK's four primary constituent parts are defined as countries rather than states or provinces — so while it isn't strictly wrong to categorize a Scottish, Welsh or English person as "British" instead of Scottish, Welsh or English, it is politically loaded, and that's before we even take into account the need to dual-categorize Northern Ireland as both British and Irish. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2020 (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:Ruined churches of World War II[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 to Category:Ruins of churches destroyed during World War II; revisit if further clarification is needed There's several different counter proposals flying around on different aspects but no clear preference so it's best to take the category on the main point and then revisit Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The name is somewhat ambiguous. I'd suggest new name, Category:Ruins of churches destroyed during World War II. I don't think this category is intended for churches that were damaged but later reconstructed (not former anymore), or for ones where no ruin remains (see [1]). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is to completely misunderstand the point. These are the ruins which were preserved, not those which have vanished. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is beside the point. For example Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church is an article about the church, it is not about a ruin. So in short this is about Category:Church buildings destroyed during World War II of which the ruins have been preserved. Honestly I think it is a borderline defining characteristic of these churches and it might better be listified. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: You are half-right. The problem with this (and its parent category, see Category talk:Buildings and structures destroyed during World War II) is that they include buildings that were destroyed (or just seriously damaged). Some where rebuilt, some were preserved as ruined monuments, and some were paved over and repurposed. We need to clean this mess up. I started with this cat as it is the biggest outlier in said parent cat. I'd appreciate your help sorting this mess out. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Former churches destroyed during World War II. The articles are about the churches not the ruins and I don't think it should be only for churches were the ruins remain. There already are a few without present day ruins in the category and I don't see the ruins remaining or not as defining. That the category was removed says more about the bad name then what the scope of the category should be. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If we want a category for those churches who were destroyed in WWII and are currently ruins, Category:Ruins of churches destroyed during World War II seems like the best name. The problem I see with Trialpears' proposal is that it sounds like they were former churches when they were destroyed and that it is not clear that the churches are currently ruins. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - several of the comments above (including the OP's diff, "have been preserved" and "are currently") incorrectly indicate that that the category should track the current state of the building/ruins; that's not how topic categorization should work. The category inclusion criteria should be such that if an article belongs in a category (Foos) it should always belong in that category (possibly in a subcat such as Former foos). DexDor (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to include the word "destroyed", adjust/trim the category text to conform to the text at the parent Category:Buildings and structures destroyed during World War II and purge of articles about churches that were not destroyed. DexDor (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Churches destroyed during World War II, remove the ruins parent category and link to that category. DexDor (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There appears to be some disagreement on whether or not to keep the "ruins" part.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToThAc (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Taking into account Marcocapelle's point below) What articles would belong in such a category? DexDor (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support DexDor's alternative which was also my first proposal. Most importantly this category contains articles about churches (which happened to end as a ruin), it does not contain articles about ruins. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2020 (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:Dungeons & Dragons standard creatures[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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This D&D category structure is no longer so large that it's necessary to split up the contents. All of the articles on "creatures" can fit in the parent category without it being a mess. This category in particular holds no value in organizing due to a lack of other non-D&D fictional parent categories. TTN (talk) 12:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 17:47, 27 February 2020 (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:American comedians of Palestinian descent[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: dual merge as all five member pages do refer to Arab-American or Arab culture. – Fayenatic London 17:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Also Category:American people of Palestinian descent. Splitting this small category by nationality does not make sense. There is no distinct Palestinian-American comedy tradition that would justify it. TM 04:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the category contains 5 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - though it is not standard to mix nationality and ethnicity, in the modern Palestinian case the line is very blurred.GreyShark (dibra) 20:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 17:46, 27 February 2020 (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:American journalists of Palestinian descent[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; there is no consensus about removing the members from the Arab hierarchy, but most of the member pages do make significant mention of Arab-American or Arab media, so this will be a dual merge. – Fayenatic London 17:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Also Category:American people of Palestinian descent. Splitting this small category by nationality does not make sense. There is no distinct Palestinian-American journalistic tradition that would justify it. TM 04:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is not that it is too small to be useful but that "Dedicated group-subject subcategories...should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." There is no evidence that Palestinian-American journalists are a distinct and unique cultural topic in their own right.--TM 14:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 17:46, 27 February 2020 (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:Denny Regrade, Seattle[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Matching parent article and WP:COMMONNAME of neighborhood. SounderBruce 04:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 17:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - this is an unopposed speedy (WP:C2D) and should be closed. Oculi (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per C2D. J947 (c), at 19:52, 29 February 2020 (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:Viacom Media Networks[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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_6#Category:Viacom_Media_Networks (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As of December 4, 2019, Viacom Media Networks has renamed to ViacomCBS Domestic Media Networks. Ridwan97 (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 17:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Why if the company has changed it's name to "ViacomCBS Domestic Media Networks", you are proposing the name be "ViacomCBS television networks"? --Gonnym (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2020 (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:Junior Network shows[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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_6#Category:Junior_Network_shows (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not sure what was the reasoning behind the creation of this category. The 4 pages in it never mention "Junior Network" even once in the article and the infobox actually list different networks. Gonnym (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 17:45, 27 February 2020 (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:Here! original productions[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 to Category:Here TV original programming and purge. – Fayenatic London 16:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category incorrectly combines two different entities. One is for programs which aired originally on Here TV, the other are for films which were produced by here! Films.

Regarding the names:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 17:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the existing category per nom, but purge of the theatrical films rather than creating a new category for them. Across the board, on all the films that I checked, Here! Films was not actually the production company — it was merely the US distributor, which is not the same thing. But the distributor is not generally a characteristic that we categorize films for in most instances, and I don't see this as a case where an exception would be warranted. Some caution should be exercised, because there are also things in here that were television films created specifically for broadcast on Here!, which should therefore remain in the category — but theatrical films which were merely distributed by Here's theatrical distribution arm don't really need a category at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no issue with this. --Gonnym (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2020 (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:Libertarian Party of New Hampshire chairs[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 as it is meanwhile empty. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category (1 article) that is unlikely to grow. TM 20:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 17:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note the one article which was formerly in this category, Darryl W. Perry, has been deleted. The category is now empty.--TM 12:22, 29 February 2020 (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:Gnomes[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: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category's purpose is served by Category:Fictional gnomes (and this category's existence implies that there are non-fictional gnomes). See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continued_disruption. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 16:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Gnomes also occur in myth and folklore, which is not exactly fiction. I do not believe there are gnomes, but some people probably do. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Gnomes are legendary creatures. Dimadick (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2020 (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:Dungeons & Dragons creatures from folklore and mythology[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 14#Dungeons & Dragons creatures from folklore and mythology

Category:Batman locations[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one redirect and category. "Gotham City" already exists in "DC Comics populated places" in the same category structure. TTN (talk) 12:14, 27 February 2020 (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:Open-sex sailing at the Summer Olympics[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 to Category:Unisex sailing at the Summer Olympics. – Fayenatic London 14:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The term "open-sex" is used here to describe competitions where there are no restrictions on the sex of competitors. It is distinguished from:
  • mixed-sex competitions, where a crew must include both a man and a woman
  • single-sex competitions, where a crew must be either all-male or all-female
However, a search for "open sex" shows that the primary meaning of "open sex" seems to be a choice between outdoor sex, open relationships or orgies. Which is all well-and-good if that's your sort of thing, but this topic is just sailing, and not some sort of x-rated version of Love Island.
If this was the WP:COMMONNAME for this type of competition, we'd probably have to use it. But as far as I can see, this usage is a wiki-neologism: a Google search for "open-sex sailing" throws up only usage on en.wp and its mirrors ... and a search on en.wikipedia for "open sex sailing" shows that it is used only as the title of these categories.
So this is clearly a descriptive title, per WP:NDESC. Which means that we can use a different title if somebody can devise one which avoids the ambiguity of "open-sex". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sailing at the
1996 Summer Olympics
Mistralmenwomen
Europewomen
Laseropen
Finnmen
470menwomen
Tornadoopen
Staropen
Solingopen
  • Comment I made the category from this paragraph in Sailing at the Summer Olympics (bolding added):
    • Until 1988, sailing was a gender neutral 'open' sport where male and female sailors competed together. Even in 1900, several women participated at the Olympic sailing regattas. The exception to this is the post WWII 1948 Olympics where the IOC decided the events should only be open to male sailors.ref In 1988, the first exclusive women's sailing event was introduced. Sailing was also one of the first sports to introduce a compulsory mixed gender events in 2016 the Mixed Multihull was introduced."
    So the categorization distinction is based on a distinction made in the catmain article. The word "open" is used alongside "men" and "women" in templates like {{SailingAt1996SummerOlympics}}. I suppose to satisfy Oculi's concerns each article would need to contain a reference to justify adding to this category.
    To generalise from Sailing: in individual events the possible sex/gender categories are men's—women's—open; in pairs/team events the possible categories are men's—women's—open—compulsoryMixed. Most sports have either men's category or an open category but not both; and the open category typically is practically all men, especially at elite level. In the article Mixed-sex sports the section discussing what I have called "open" is named Direct competition. The best Wikipedia way to categorize all this is not obvious. Category:Mixed-sex sports currently does not include darts or snooker, which are technically "open".
    I don't think we should divide the open Olympic sailing events simply by whether or not a woman happened to participate in the finals, and I think distinguishing them from the 2016 compulsoryMixed event is useful. I can't vouch for the sources used in the articles, as I only added categories. Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailing could help. If more reliable sources are wanting then I will have to settle for the crude lumping of open and compulsoryMixed together as "mixed-sex". jnestorius(talk) 11:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Sailing at the Summer Olympics; also the Mixed-sex category. All the subcats have this form. Ungendered competition occurs in few sports, due to the differing physical strengths of men and women, but this does not apply in a few cases, including some equestrian sports. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if you're looking for a suitable term, perhaps Category:Unisex... would do the trick? Grutness...wha? 01:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_27&oldid=1073192506"