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. In future can users please not perform mergers before discussion and then present the empty categories as a reason to justify it.
Timrollpickering (
Talk)
11:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. The reason the category is empty is that the nominator emptied it out of process immediately before nominating it, so speedy isn't appropriate — but there were only two things in it (
Women's March in Portland and
Same-sex marriage in Oregon), so it's not actually worth keeping. We do not have a comprehensive scheme of subcategorizing ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Human rights in the United States by state, either — with the defensible exception of Puerto Rico, we otherwise subcategorize that tree by issue rather than by location, and there are very few human rights issues in the US that are genuinely unique to one specific state.
Bearcat (
talk)
13:06, 6 November 2019 (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:Noizy
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 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:North Bangkok Business District
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: This category is problematic because it's a vague grouping of locations in a non-distinct area within
Category:Chatuchak District. As such, it's redundant with the district category scheme, which is the only established geographical categorisation scheme for Bangkok. All articles are already in the district category.
Paul_012 (
talk)
19:32, 3 November 2019 (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:Anti-nationalists
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: Without discussion, a red-linked user with an account created less than a month ago has recreated a previously deleted category "Anti-nationalists" that was deleted almost exactly one year ago. The earlier deletion discussion
HERE noted issues such as "This category seems to be mostly a vast effort to correlate various notable people in WP:SYNTH", "The linked supporting article entitled "anti-nationalism" has numerous problems and there is only limited supporting reliable source literature. For pigeon-holing individual people as either "anti-nationalist" or (implicitly, for those omitted) non-anti-nationalist there appear to be even fewer reliable sources", and "The category seems so vague that anyone who has ever criticized any type of national approach could be included, regardless of whether their worldview was nuanced and affirmed a role for the nation in other ways. Retaining this vague and un-RS-unsupported category seems liable, intentionally or good-faith unintentionally, to open Wikipedia up to be a platform to aid fervent or fanatical nationalists in smearing those who differ with them, sweeping away nuances of beliefs." Such concerns all still seem valid - nothing significant seems to have changed from a year ago (it might also be worthwhile to check if the re-creator of the category is a sock of the previous creator). I propose that the category be deleted right away. If this category would qualify for speedy deletion, that should also be considered.
Presearch (
talk)
19:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
FYI: This category has been now been nominated for speedy deletion as per your suggestion and linked criterion. Thank you for your input. Best --
Presearch (
talk)
23:22, 3 November 2019 (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:Nations Cup (football)
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 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.
Potentially, if there was a way for a template to recognize the file extension (e.g., ".jpg" versus ".ogg"), but it would take a more skilled template editor than I to make that happen. Right now, however, this category contains a mix of images and other file types. I could start a discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) if you would like. --
Black Falcon(
talk)03:39, 8 October 2019 (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:World Heritage Site Tentative list
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: The
World Heritage Site#Nomination process requires states to include sites on its Tentative List. The Tentative List is capitalised, see
Nominations (UNESCO official page). As for the word "Site", this should either be plural as per the parent category, or omitted as per the by-country subcategories. I have opted for the latter, as I have not seen "World Heritage Sites Tentative List" in official sources, although it can be found (e.g.
local government in UK,
nice blog in Guyana).
Here is a NZ university web page referring informally to "World Heritage tentative list" (incorrectly not capitalised). –
FayenaticLondon10:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)reply
There used to be other articles directly in this category which was why I supported keeping the subcats before since it aided navigation in the tree. I'm all for deletion of the entire tree. --
Trialpears (
talk)
10:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - @
DexDor: that's a bit misconstrued - some articles have mention of this, such as
Old_Jewish_Cemetery,_Sarajevo#National_and_World_Heritage_designation, some have their sections, some paragraph or just sentence describing this situation, and regardless of number of these articles vs. those that have no mention, there is still no reason why all of them shouldn't have few words included as well. Category "suitability" has nothing to do with this issue - tentative list is tentative list, and no other category could be somehow more descriptive of that fact.--
౪ Santa ౪99°14:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)reply
As well as with the other articles from the group "Tentative list for Bosnia". For objects of "historical and/or cultural heritage" significance, UNESCO inclusion (as well as being put on the Tentative list for inclusion) isn't just any "bit of info".--
౪ Santa ౪99°15:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)reply
An article (e.g.
Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta) has a few facts in the opening sentence (e.g. that it's a mountain range in Colombia), dozens of facts in the lede and hundreds of facts in the article, but no mention of any heritage list. That it's on the list may be the fact that interests you, but as it's not even mentioned in the article text it can hardly be a defining characteristic (and categorizing for characteristics that the text doesn't mention also means it isn't referenced). DexDor(talk)20:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Funny thing is, I always believed inclusion on any "heritage" list (Regional, National, UNESCO) upon objects' some significant feature(s) makes its significant characteristic.--
౪ Santa ౪99°10:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)reply
And, as far as I can see, your article Sierra doesn't belong into "Tentative" cat anyway, since object is already included into WHC List and should be categorized as such! Someone (editor(s)) obviously can't differentiate between the two. Actually, after checking UNESCO portal I found that several areas within Sierra complex are included on the Tentative list, while National Park is part of the UN's MAB program according to provided reference.--
౪ Santa ౪99°10:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Indeed. That demonstrates another way in which attempting to create a list using categories doesn't work well (there often isn't a wp article with exactly the same scope as the object being awarded). DexDor(talk)14:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Do you have any response to the fact that on some articles this characteristic is so non-defining that it isn't even mentioned in the article? DexDor(talk)20:44, 15 December 2019 (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:Behavior models
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 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:Behavior selection algorithms
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 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:Behavior modelling
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.
@
Fayenatic london: I did not want to exclude the possibility that there is consensus for this nomination but not for one of the two other nominations. If there is indeed consensus for all three nominations, it results in a delete.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:36, 17 October 2019 (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:Sony Mobile mobile phones
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: All the phones in this category are Sony Ericsson mobile phones before Sony bought Ericsson's stake in the venture. All Sony phones (Sony Mobile phones) from after Sony buying out Ericsson's stake in the venture are all at
Category:Sony mobile phones. Quahog (
talk •
contribs)
09:09, 3 November 2019 (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:Transgender and transsexual literature
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: Most transgender/transsexual-related categories simply use the term "transgender", the addition of "and transsexual" is unnecessary and redundant. Transsexual is a subtype of the transgender umbrella. The only time I believe "transgender and transsexual" should be used is for individuals, which is the general usage on Wikipedia.
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk)
05:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support The usage of "Transgender and Transsexual" in every single article is a highly outdated practise which Wikipedia simply has not gotten to fixing yet. "Transsexual" in itself is outdated and only used by a few people these days who reject the Transgender term. Transgender is by far the accepted term in modern day in both society and medicine, in the same way
Homophile got replaced with
Homosexuality.
★Trekker (
talk)
10:25, 3 November 2019 (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:Australian portals by state or territory
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 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:Transsexual pornographic film actors
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: Generally, transgender/transsexual categories for individuals go by "transgender or transsexual". It's unusual to see a category for people that only has the word "transsexual" (and not "transgender") and it seems that the only time this occurs is for trans sex workers. This is an inconsistency that should be corrected. Furthermore, I think it may be stigmatizing towards trans sex workers to have a separate naming pattern just for them.
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk)
02:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
The problem with that is there would be inconsistency (
WP:C2C) in the naming patterns for trans people. Personally, I wouldn't mind if "transsexual" was removed from all of the transgender categories. That would require a much larger renaming discussion and all of the "transgender and transsexual people" categories would have to be listed. I'm not up to that task at this exact moment, but I would be in favour. Perhaps there could be "transsexual people" categories for the small number of people who identify as transsexual but not transgender, who knows.
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk)
11:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I agree with the above discussion - I would prefer "Transgender" over the current naming scheme, and see "Transgender and transsexual" as #2 most preferable. Unsure about having a "transsexual" sub-category to "transgender" as I feel there's a risk it starts getting applied in a "well this person has had bottom surgery, so they are transsexual" fashion, which A) implies different tiers of "transness" B) categorizes people by what their genitals look like, which is clearly invasive and inappropriate.--
Alexandra IDVtalk18:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
If transsexual categories were to be created, I think they would have to be restricted exclusively to self-identified transsexual people to avoid the issues you mention.
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk)
07:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
The genre of pornography is commonly known as transsexual pornography; individuals who appear in films of this genre may or may not be transgender or transsexual. Therefore I support the first three (transgender and transsexual actors, actresses, male actors) and oppose 4, 5, and 6 (actors and directors of transsexual pornographic films, transsexual pornographic film studios). I'd note in particular the necessity of distinct "actors in transsexual pornographic films" and "transgender and transsexual pornographic film actors" categories, in parallel with the separate categories
Category:Actors in gay pornographic films and
Category:Gay pornographic film actors. Cheers,
gnu5718:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Note, There are types of transgender pornography that are transgender but not necessarily "transsexual". There are articles related to pornography featuring transgender people who are non-binary, genderqueer, etc.
Jiz Lee is a genderqueer pornographic performer.
Pink and White Productions is known for producing queer/trans/non-binary content. JL and P&W would certainly be examples of transgender pornography, but not necessarily transsexual pornography. The entire genre of "
queer pornography" appears to emphasize gender/sexual fluidity and non-binary/genderqueer identities, from what I can tell.
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk)
07:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – (
edit conflict) Generally, I don't care what you call categories, but just adding a comment here to let you know that nom's reasoning would be invalid if it came up for
article naming. If categories were dependent on
WP:COMMONNAME (but they aren't, right?), then all of the proposed category name changes above would need to be tested against common usage, and I would definitely oppose some or all of them on the basis of evidence, namely that pornographic films of this type have typically been called transsexual pornography and not transgender pornography. The pornographic film industry is not in the business of being genteel and observing the latest trends in respectful usage of terminology for minority groups; they are, let's face it—in the business of selling sex, and the term transsexual pornography has the word sex embedded right in it; score one for not very subliminal advertising in product naming. That said, if you change all of these category names without considering common usage in reliable English sources, you risk having a divergence between the Category names and the main articles corresponding to those categories. I for one, would strongly oppose changes to the corresponding article titles unless a strong case could be made for COMMONNAME, and I think there's a strong chance that some or all of the proposed article title moves would fail. Maybe if the category names and the article titles diverge, that's okay; and like I said, I don't lose much sleep over category names. Just thought I'd throw this in here, though, so you can think about the implications, and make the best decision.
Mathglot (
talk)
18:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Had an edit conflict, and now I see that
gnu made a similar argument. I would mostly agree with gnu, with the following caveat: there's an interesting analysis to be made about whether
MOS:GENDERID applies here or not for the categories including actors in the name. I'm not sure it does apply to category names, in which case, what sways the decision most, COMMONNAME? My sense is, that GENDERID is intended to be about individuals, not groups, since after all, different trans* people may identify differently, and unless it was a 100% situation, I don't see how GENDERID would apply to a collectivity, which, by definition, is what a
Category is.
Just one more wrinkle, in considering this issue: I'd just like to caution editors on this discussion to be extra careful; this is a bit trickier than simple consistency issues on your run-of-the-mill category discussion. Editors who have not run into issues relating to this topic before, should be aware that there are
ArbCom discretionary sanctions in place for
articles on this topic; I don't believe that sanctions apply to Category naming discussions, I'm just saying that this whole area is a highly sensitive one, and editors considering their arguments and how they wish to vote here, should be aware of the broader issues in this area, and consider their choices with more care and due diligence, than one might do for renaming a category about Middle age battles. Thanks,
Mathglot (
talk)
19:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
There have been many good points made here. I think I agree with @
Alexandra IDV: and belive we should differenciate between the performers within the genre and porn actors who are simply transgender, just like with the Gay porn categories. I also think @
Mathglot: and @
Genericusername57: are correct that the main name fo this genre is indeed "transsexual porn".
★Trekker (
talk)
19:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the comment. I hadn't expected the debate to be as controversial and wasn't initially aware of the ArbCom implications. Thanks for educating me. What would be the best way to proceed from here? I haven't had an encounter with these sorts of issues before. EDIT - I added notices at WikiProjects LGBT and Film, let me know if I did so correctly. Which articles do you think need notices about this conversation? EDIT - @
User:Mathglot, I'm pinging you here in case you did not initially see this comment. Best,
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk)
07:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
It's just a terminology issue really. There is no agreement that they mean diffeent things within the LGBT community or medical circles.
★Trekker (
talk)
23:55, 8 November 2019 (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:Transgender and transsexual culture
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: "Transgender and transsexual" is generally used for individual people categories, while most transgender/transsexual categories just have the word "transgender". There's inconsistency of naming for transgender/transsexual categories. That inconsistency could use some correction. My suggestion is that transgender categories only have the word "transgender", except for categories for people, in which case it should be "transgender and transsexual".
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk)
01:53, 3 November 2019 (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.