Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 2 November 4 >

November 3[edit]

Category:Human rights in Oregon[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. 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]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category unlikely to ever contain many topics. Lmatt (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete empty category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could've been speedied. Liz Read! Talk! 15:18, 5 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 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[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 10:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With only one related article already categorized in Category:Noizy songs, this eponymous category is overcategorization per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:03, 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:North Bangkok Business District[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 10:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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[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: Already deleted. (non-admin closure) Fiamh (talk, contribs) 08:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  • Speedy delete per G4. The account which re-created this category seems to be a SPA dedicated to categorizing. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:29, 4 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)[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) 11:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 13:53, 4 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:Childbirth in Uganda[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 15#Category:Childbirth in Uganda

Category:Non-free images for NFUR review[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:Wikipedia non-free files for NFUR review without prejudice to a later split. This is the proposed target closest to the existing name. Given the technical limitations, splitting will require further discussion and implementation Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Category:Wikipedia non-free files and Category:Wikipedia non-free files with NFUR stated (renamed at CfD), and because not all pages in this category are images—some are audio or video files. The category is populated by multiple non-free file copyright templates. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:37, 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:World Heritage Site Tentative list[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: no consensus. However, noone has objected to renaming it World Heritage Tentative List. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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). – Fayenatic London 10:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining; many articles (e.g. Rostov and Taklamakan Desert) have no mention of this characteristic (and are already in much more suitable categories). DexDor (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DexDor (or else rename per nominator). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There was no consensus to delete the country sub-categories at CFD August 2 on Bosnia, & Colombia below it. @Richard3120, Peterkingiron, Santasa99, Trialpears, and Newshunter12: pinging you as the other participants there. – Fayenatic London 10:10, 17 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]
    There are still many articles in the top category. Anyway, I've added the sub-cats now. – Fayenatic London 17:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: you have my full support over this issue !--౪ Santa ౪99° 12:14, 18 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]
That article is well categorized (grouped with articles about similar subjects) by Category:Cemeteries in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Category:Jewish cemeteries etc. An article may mention hundreds/thousands of bits of information about its subject. DexDor (talk) 15:02, 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:37, 3 November 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[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 10:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, per WP:SMALLCAT, but move the article to Category:Models of computation or similar. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:31, 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:Behavior selection algorithms[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 10:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: selectively merge per WP:NONDEF, none of the articles in the category (except for the eponymous article) mentions that it is a "behavior selection algorithm". Some articles belong in Category:Game artificial intelligence though. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:31, 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:Behavior modelling[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 anything that's left. Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, this category only contains one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: would any contents actually be merged? Perhaps it would be helpful to combine these three nominations. – Fayenatic London 10:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:31, 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:Sony Mobile mobile phones[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 10:54, 11 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[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 10:54, 11 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]
  • Support per BB and Trekker - "transsexual" is an older, less commonly used term, and does not add additional information or context.--Alexandra IDVtalk 17:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment my understanding is transgender and transsexual have different meanings. --Doug Mehus (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • They do, but "transsexual" is a term that is within the transgender umbrella. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 00:10, 9 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[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) 10:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. There are now only 8 Australian portals in total, all of which are already categorised in Category:Australian portals. This 4-item subcat serves no purpose. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, as no longer warranted based on the current category tree membership. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:51, 4 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:Transsexual pornographic film actors[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 "Transgender". Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 this. And I think it's a discussion that needs to be had soon.★Trekker (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, good. Would you agree to my proposed rename for the interim until that larger discussion gets rolling? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 17:46, 4 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 IDVtalk 18:10, 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, gnu57 18:46, 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]
  • Comment: – For a discussion concerning a possibly controversial set of moves, have there been any appropriate notification messages placed to draw input from interested editors? I don't see any notices on article talk pages or at WikiProject pages for this discussion. (In-links at the latter are for other discussions on this page.) At the very least, a neutral notice should be placed at WT:LGBT, and probably at WT:FILM. Mathglot (talk) 19:20, 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]
  • Comment my understanding is transgender and transsexual have different meanings. --Doug Mehus (talk) 23:50, 8 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[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 10:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  • Comment my understanding is transgender and transsexual have different meanings. --Doug Mehus (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't actually. It's just a terminology thing.★Trekker (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support an alternate splitting of this category into two. --Doug Mehus (talk) 23:51, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_3&oldid=942739876"