Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 13



Category:Statistical analysis
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 22%23Category:Statistical analysis

Category:Spaceflight portal
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 23%23Category:Spaceflight portal

Category:Category:Legisprudence

 * 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 14:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Category:Legisprudence is newly created, but we don't even have an article on the term legisprudence. It's not even in Wiktionary . John Womble (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. There was an article but it has been moved back to draft. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * 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:Gay male sex workers

 * 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. MER-C 14:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Gay male sex workers to Category:Gay sex workers
 * Propose renaming Category:Gay male prostitutes to Category:Gay prostitutes
 * Nominator's rationale: Every other category and subcategory of Category:Gay men by occupation uses "gay" rather than "gay male". Correction for the sake of consistency. Pinging @User:BizarreLoveTriangle, @User:Timrollpickering, @User:Stefanomione.


 * Comment: And when editors start putting women in the category since the term gay can also apply to women? Or what about non-binary people who identify as gay? Should we group them with gay men? Just leave it as it is. Bluerasberry, I know how you feel regarding the Gay male speech article. Any opinion on categories such as these?


 * For anyone replying to me, there is no need to ping me. I'll check back. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And for more discussions like this, started by Bohemian Baltimore, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason to think that mistaken editors are adding women en masse to gay categories? From what I can tell, categories such as Category:Gay writers and Category:Gay actors have existed for 15 years without problem. I've perused the categories for gay men and I'm not seeing any stray women. Women who call themselves gay are already added to the lesbian categories. Someone who identifies as both a gay man and non-binary would be added to both categories, as in the case of Sam Smith. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is a category and occupation defined by clear communication in the body anatomy. Leave no ambiguity and keep it called "gay male". Also I advocate for the development of a general guideline on this because this issue appears frequently and we would benefit from central discussion instead of discussion per instance.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure what you mean by "body anatomy". Given that Wikipedia classifies people based on self-identification, a hypothetical sex worker who identified as both a trans man and gay would be added to this category, regardless of anatomy. I don't think any other LGBT category is based on anatomy and I'm not sure why sex work should be the sole exception. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose, for the same reason I’ve opposed past efforts like this. “Gay male” is more specific and less likely to lead to any confusion. “Gay” is well understood to be used both in and outside LGBTQ settings to mean just gay men or almost any variation of the entire community. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If the vast majority of categories had a "gay male" naming pattern, I would support moving the handful of "gay" categories to conform with the naming pattern. Whether are not the standard name for gay men's categories should be "gay" or "gay male" is a conversation I'd be perfectly welcome to engaging in, but as is, it makes absolutely no sense to have two separate naming patterns. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy rename per WP:C2C, since the whole tree consists of LGBT split by (among others) lesbian and gay. If editors want to change the whole tree, fine, discuss that on the wikiproject talk page, but don't leave a few random exceptions while that overall discussion has not taken place. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Rename per everything in Category:Gay men by occupation; as Marcocapelle says. Oculi (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As already stated above, "Gay male" is more specific and there is a possibility of people adding gay females into the group. Am not opposed to the categories changing to "Male sex workers" and "Male prostitutes", which avoids all the problems of them not being gay but bisexual or "gay for pay" and not having alternative suitable categories. --John B123 (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen anyone give any evidence of women being added to gay men's categories en masse though. "Gay females" already have quite clearly labeled lesbian categories. Where are the errant lesbians in the gay categories? This seems to be an imagined problem. I'm open to correction. Edit: as a side note, not all male sex workers are LGBT or have sex with men. For a person to be listed in a "Gay"/"gay male" category, they have to self-identify as gay. So, for example, not all Category:Actors in gay pornographic films are Category:Gay pornographic film actors due to self-ID. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What you may see as an "imagined problem", others see as a "potential problem", so "evidence" of this happening previously is irrelevant. So if Category:Gay male prostitutes is for those who self-identify as gay, where is the category for male sex workers who have sex with men but don't self identify as gay? --John B123 (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not even seeing much reason to view it as a potential problem. If it hasn't been a problem before, why assume that it will be a problem in future? The category you mention does not exist because it has not been created. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - "gay" is not a male-only word. The problem is not "are biographies on lesbian women added en masse", it's that it's an imprecise name for the category, with a wider scope than intended.--Alexandra IDVtalk 17:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In another discussion I noticed someone made a reference to non-binary gay people. If you are referring to that as well, with "wider scope" I would rather argue that people who identify as non-binary gay perfectly belong in a gay category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes - "gay sex workers" would refer to anyone regardless of gender who is gay and a sex worker. I'm just saying that if the intended scope is limited to men, then the OP's proposed wording does not work. (I'm not watching this page btw, and only happened across it again by chance, so ping me if you want me to respond to something)--Alexandra IDVtalk 20:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * 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:Video games with custom soundtrack support
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 22%23Category:Video games with custom soundtrack support

Category:Futsal in the Arab states of the Persian Gulf

 * 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 14:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Futsal in the Arab states of the Persian Gulf to Category:Futsal competitions in Asia
 * Nominator's rationale: C2F: One eponymous article UA3 (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Weak delete, but not speedy (see below). It was simply underpopulated and now has several articles and subcategories. Still not entirely convinced that it's a useful way of splitting the articles (do we have many categories sorted by Arabian states of the Persian Gulf?) It's definitely not a C2F now (actually it never was - the article wasn't eponymous). Grutness... wha?   02:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC) (edited 06:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC))
 * Comment:, Looking into the user who created this category and several others with "Arab states of the Persian Gulf" (1, 2, 3 and 4), I find him obsessed with the Persian Gulf naming dispute and is pushing this term in several Wiki articles. I don't know if this violates Wikipedia policies, but I don't see this subcategorization adding any value. Regards, UA3 (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - in that case, changing my !vote to weak delete.Grutness... wha?   06:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, unnecessarily narrow region, unrelated to futsal. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete If "in Asia" already exists then we don't need this. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.