Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 3



Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: split (non-admin closure) are you willing to implement the split yourself? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: Separate category containing users from category containing project pages to match the general convention of Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia status and Category:Wikipedia user roles. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose splitting Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats to Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats and Category:Wikipedia bureaucratship


 * Can you explain this with more words? I have read it five times.  Is “separate” a verb or an adjective? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "separate" is intended to be a verb. The nomination rephrased: Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats currently contains both user pages and project pages, whereas the rest of the categories in Category:Wikipedia user roles contain only project pages, and this abnormality should be remedied by moving the project pages to a new category named Category:Wikipedia bureaucratship (parented to Category:Wikipedia user roles) while keeping only the user pages in Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats (parented to Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia status or Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia user access level if the below split passes) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - Category:Wikipedians is presumably intended for people and so its subcat Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats should be restricted to people, and the non-people moved to a topic category (such as Category:Wikipedia bureaucratship unless someone can think of a better name). Oculi (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2021 (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:Wikipedians by Wikipedia status

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: split and rename.  bibliomaniac  1  5  05:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: This is a follow up to the inconclusive discussion at the top of Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 10. Sub-cats that correspond to a page in Category:Wikipedia user access levels should be moved into a new sibling Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia user access level. The category as it then remains should be renamed to Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia activity. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose splitting Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia status to Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia activity and Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia user access level
 * Propose renaming Category:Lists of Wikipedians by Wikipedia status to Category:Lists of Wikipedians by Wikipedia activity
 * Pinging as participants in the last one. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Split per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak support. The nominations sounds ok. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2021 (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:Wikipedia user roles

 * 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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: This is the other part of follow up to the inconclusive discussion at the top of Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 10. Apart from Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia status which is nominated above this discussion, and which should be removed from this parent, the other sub-cats of this category mainly contain project pages rather than categories of Wikipedians. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedia user roles to Category:Wikipedia user administration


 * Oppose. User roles is a subordinate concept to user administration. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2021 (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:D4 receptor antagonists

 * 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 and redirect (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: same topic. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:D4 receptor antagonists to Category:D4 antagonists


 * Merge, and keep redirect. These titles are over-short to the point of jargon. These are D4 type dopamine receptor antagonists.  The missing word “receptor” throughout the categories I think is a problem, and is prone to confuse readers.  The molecules most certainly do not antagonise something called “D4”.  However, this is a mainspace titling issue for the parent article Dopamine antagonist which might belong at Dopamine receptor antagonist.  These subcategories could use category header information to explain. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2021 (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:Petromyzontiformes

 * 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:Lampreys.  bibliomaniac  1  5  05:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: Taxon with commonly used common name, matching main article Lamprey. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 16:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Petromyzontiformes to Category:Lampreys


 * Support. The category title should match the parent article, which is Lamprey. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support but leave cat-redirect, as the scientific name is a credible search term. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom -- Lenticel ( talk ) 04:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename per C2D. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)  01:12, 11 December 2021 (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:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United Kingdom

 * 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.  bibliomaniac  1  5  05:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: All of the articles listed in this category are also listed in Category:Organizations that oppose transgender rights, and were added to this category by this category's creator. While I make no comment on the accuracy of that title at this time, all of the organizations listed in this category have no reliably sourced evidence supporting the claim that they oppose gay, lesbian, and bisexual rights. Per WP:CATV and WP:CATPOV, the right thing to do would be to remove the category from these articles. Once that is done, it would be empty. Crossroads -talk- 05:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting organizations that oppose lgbt rights in the united kingdom


 * Keep. Appropriate subcategory, per Amanda. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is simply a sub category of the already existing Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights and corresponds to (and is modelled after) the already existing Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United States. The idea that we can have both a parent category and a sub category on Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United States, but not on the United Kingdom, is absurd. (The UK is currently better known for anti-LGBT groups than any other country in Europe)
 * The way the parent category Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights as well as the sister category Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United States are already used/understood, an organisation doesn't need to oppose every single letter in the alphabet specifically to be included; it's sufficient to oppose one of them. Again, this is not my proposal but how this category hierarchy already works. There are a lot of articles in this category on organisations that mostly focus on gay people and that haven't said much about transgender people specifically. If you are opposed to this category, you cannot nominate just one of the country sub categories, but need to nominate the main parent category instead.
 * I think it is useful to have country categories in addition to the more narrow thematic sub categories since there is a growing number of anti-LGBT groups in the UK specifically. Category:Organizations that oppose transgender rights is a thematic sub category of Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights and not a country category, and the two sub categories complement each other.
 * Note that some of the (around half a dozen) articles included in this category have currently been inappropriately removed based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT (any article included in Category:Organizations that oppose transgender rights by definition, per how the parent and sister categories are already understood, belongs in the country category), and that the category could reasonably include at least somewhere between half a dozen and a dozen articles if kept.
 * The claim that the articles in the category "were added to this category by this category's creator" is incorrect and only applies to a single (newly created) article. All the other articles were only added to a country-specific sub category of a category they were already included in (as part of one of its other sub categories). Also, the creator of a country sub category within an existing category hierarchy (that is well-established and almost a decade old) and based on identical sister categories can only be described as a "creator" in a very limited, technical sense.
 * --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 07:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * UK better known for this than even Hungary and Poland? I don't think so. Regarding "an organisation doesn't need to oppose every single letter in the alphabet specifically to be included; it's sufficient to oppose one of them", there is no evidence that this is actual practice, and this is contrary to WP:CATV. I nominated this because without the bad inclusions it would be speedy-deleted as empty, which is generally considered sneaky. Regarding the claim that you only added this as a country-specific subcategory, no, you added it as brand-new in making the claim about LGBT as a whole. Crossroads -talk- 08:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. As demonstrated by the diffs you provided there, they were already included in an existing sub category of Organizations that oppose LGBT rights. The inclusion of a country-specific sub category was uncontroversial, regular maintenance of a category hierarchy based on its existing use. There were no bad inclusions anywhere, only attempts to remove categories for WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons. And yes, I'd say UK-based anti-LGBT groups are far better known internationally, in Europe and the U.S., than any Hungarian organisations in this field. Which is not surprising considering how the UK is sometimes described as "one of the most transphobic countries in the world" (CNN) and also because it's easier for English-language groups to attract international attention than groups that operate in Hungary. The fact that transphobia is rife in the UK and that the UK plays a major role in exporting that kind of ideology is not controversial, it's widely discussed. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, see my comment on Talk:LGB Alliance for a more thorough discussion of how these categories relate to each other, and also why the creation of this sub category is just routine maintenance within an existing parent category. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding CNN's claim in that "analysis" (i.e. opinion) article, that is quite an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim when the UK has both legal gender change and a law against discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment, while numerous countries like Hungary, Poland, Russia, and many more have none of those things. Crossroads -talk- 19:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Re CNN, are their analysis pieces opinion? There seems to be an entirely separate section of their website for explicit opinion pieces. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll have to look into that, but it's still a sloppy and clearly exaggerated claim, of the sort that opinion articles tend to do. Crossroads -talk- 02:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per Crossroads. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep  but rename to Category:Organisations that oppose LGBT rights in the United Kingdom per Category:Organisations based in the United Kingdom. The creator is fully entitled to add suitable articles, which obviously includes anything in the UK found in Category:Organizations that oppose transgender rights. (It would be extremely bizarre to create a category and leave it empty or under-populated.) Oculi (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Organisations that oppose trans rights by default oppose LGBT rights, because trans rights are included in LGBT rights. In addition, organisations like the LGB Alliance have demonstrably shown anti gay, lesbian, and bisexual rights tendencies, for example in their opposition to a conversion therapy ban and saying it isn't homophobic to oppose same-sex marriage, and a lot of their arguments on trans people are just recycled homophobia (see the "Opposition to Relationship and Sex Education in schools" section). — &#123;{u&#124; CupOfTea 696 }} [ talk &#124; contribs ] 15:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A Twitter account and a blog are not WP:RS. Their claim about same-sex marriage was in a tweet and was deleted; they have never campaigned against same-sex marriage as far as I know. While I do not know what exactly they have said on conversion therapy, some laws on that in some places have been criticized for being so broad they criminalize a normal part of gender transition in children, as I explained here. Crossroads -talk- 19:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a Twitter thread of things they themselves have tweeted that are homophobic so I'd say that's relevant at least in discussion around wether or not they belong in this category. The fact is that transphobia and other anti LGBT sentiments often go hand in hand, and often groups like these who exclusively focus on undermining trans rights and do not actually do anything else (aka acutally stading up for gay rights), are more often than not happy to throw "LGB" people under the bus as long as it means they get to hurt trans people. I am well aware of their arguments against the conversion therapy ban, and that they are rooted purely in their transphobia, but that fact that they care more about denying trans kids the healthcare they need than making sure LGBT people are protected from conversion therapy speaks volumes in and of itself. And for the record, pubery blockers are exactly what allow normal gender-exploratory therapy with children, and are far more reversible that actual puberty. I also want to state that I have absolutely no interest in reading any more arguments against life-saving healthcare for trans youth. — &#123;{u&#124; CupOfTea 696 }} [ talk &#124; contribs ] 19:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Their position on conversion therapy is laid out here. Broadly - they support banning sexual orientation conversion therapy, but that "gender identity" conversion therapy should be addressed in a separate bill, with clear definitions of what "gender identity" is and what would be covered to ensure that standard exploratory talk therapy would not be criminalised in favour of rote affirmation, and all to be drafted after the Cass Review into the treatment of children with puberty blockers. The continual collapse of SO & GI conversion therapy into one, and LGB & T rights into one is preventing sensible discussion about different policy position, and this categorisation does not help. Getting bond wrong (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see support at the site linked for the more nuanced position bond wrong has elaborated here. What I do see is an interpretation of the Victoria conversion therapy ban (as banning "talking therapy" for young trans people regardless of intention to change their gender identity), which is unsupported by reliable sources and also at odds with the rationalization of the Alliance's position that bond wrong has put forward. Newimpartial (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said I am well aware of their arguments against the conversion therapy ban, and that they are rooted purely in their transphobia and I also want to state that I have absolutely no interest in reading any more arguments against life-saving healthcare for trans youth. — &#123;{u&#124; CupOfTea 696 }} [ talk &#124; contribs ] 02:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Amanda A. Brant. There is very clearly precedent for this category per Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United States, and given that the category itself was only created 28 hours ago, it is naturally going to have only a few entries. This CfD is I think premature. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To address the concerns about a lack of entries in the category, I have added several this evening. I would have added the Orange Order, as within Northern Ireland they are pretty notorious for their institutional homophobia, however that isn't supported by the article. There is almost certainly more organisations that can be added to it, however I would now point out that this category, even before my additions, has more entries than some other UK cats like Category:Political advocacy groups in Wales or Category:Nonviolence organisations based in the United Kingdom. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - the nominator has raised no valid objections to this category hierarchy, and the assertion that there is no reliably sourced evidence that these orgs fit the category is belied by the articles on the organisations and the sources behind them. The nominator seems animated by WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than any valid policy concerns. Newimpartial (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: This was only nominated because it would be empty without the inappropriate inclusions. The claims that these articles belong in the category are based on editor opinion and WP:Original research. Sexual orientation is distinct from gender identity, and while for many purposes LGBT are treated together, the sources on these types of activists do distinguish between activists that are against the whole group and those focused only on transgender identity. There is at present not a single WP:Reliable source directly supporting the claim that any of the listed groups are "anti-LGBT". That is a serious failure to uphold WP:CATV. Crossroads -talk- 19:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That is entirely inaccurate, and all the articles (except one new article) were already included in the category by virtue of being included in one of its thematic sub categories, and they were added to the country category based on their existing inclusion. The only new information included via the addition of the country category is the country, and that is reliably sourced in all the articles. Your objections seem to be based on your own personal, highly unusual interpretation of what anti-LGBT means, namely your insistence that an anti-LGBT group must explicitly oppose every single letter. That is not how this category, its parent category and its sister categories have been used; many of the articles included in the US sister category don't mention opposition to the rights of all the LGBT groups (e.g. bisexuals). It is also not how the term is used in other articles, or commonly interpreted. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sources specifically about a subset or subcategory (the T) do not automatically justify application regarding the larger set (LGBT). By that logic, we could also add Category:Civil rights and liberties or one of its "by country" categories. That is too broad and high level to be accurate. The US sister category groups all oppose rights of same-sex/gender-oriented people, thus including bisexuals. Crossroads -talk- 21:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So wait: your argument is that people who oppose L and G rights also oppose B rights whether they know it or not, so that counts as "anti-LGBT"? That exercise in letter-counting is the most ridiculous thing I've read today, while your equation of the rights of same-sex/gender-oriented people with LGBT rights - as though trans people aren't part of the umbrella - is definitely the most offensive. If you want to support the LGB Alliance, fine, but please don't pretend that mainstream LGBT organizations exclude trans people and their rights, because that is absurd. Newimpartial (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * When organizations oppose "homosexuality" they mean that regarding anyone who experiences attraction of that sort, whether or not they are also attracted to the opposite sex. I don't support the LGB Alliance and saying that I do is a personal attack. What I oppose is sloppy tabloid-style encyclopedia writing that does nothing but preach to the choir. And I know that mainstream LGBT organizations do include the T (obviously). Crossroads -talk- 02:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But you seem to be treating "opposing LGBT rights" as though it were meant as a euphemism for "opposing homosexuality". That simply isn't what the former term means. And bi (and pan) activists have made at some length the point that defending homosexuality is radically insufficient as a way of defending the rights of bisexual people; your deductive approach to the letters would erase that entirely. Newimpartial (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Including a category on "Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United Kingdom" in an article on an organisation that in fact opposes LGBT rights in the United Kingdom is clearly not comparable to including a category on civil rights and liberties by country in the same article, because the former is the most specific category within the tree, while the latter is not. In theory, the categories on "organizations that oppose LGBT rights" by country could have sub categories on "organizations that oppose transgender rights" by country (that would be sub categories of "organizations that oppose transgender rights" as well). The only reason that such a sub category doesn't exist is the limited number of articles. Not even the US sister category with about 80 articles has a sub category specifically for anti-transgender groups, so it would seem weird to create that for the UK category when there were only half a dozen articles in the category. In principle, I wouldn't be opposed to such a sub category, though. Then then tree would look like this:
 * Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights (main parent category) [created in 2012]
 * (geographical sub categories:)
 * Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United States [well-populated category created in 2016]
 * Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United Kingdom
 * (Possible sub cat: Category:Organisations that oppose transgender rights in the United Kingdom)
 * (thematic sub categories:)
 * Category:Organizations that oppose transgender rights
 * (Possible sub cat: Category:Organisations that oppose transgender rights in the United Kingdom)
 * --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 09:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: A further sub category on Category:Organisations that oppose transgender rights in the United Kingdom has now been created. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 10:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support the above, detailed suggestion by Amanda A. Brant. However, I'd suggest we resolve first how exactly "opposition to xyz rights" is defined. E.g. there is an unanswered (since 2016) question to that effect in the relevant US organizations' talk page. I'd urge editors more familiar with the subject to come up with something appropriate. -The Gnome (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Opposing something is hardly ever an uncontroversial characteristic of an organization, while it is usually less controversial what organizations advocate (e.g. conservatism or traditional family life). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Some organizations are, however, defined by their opposition to the rights of certain minorities, as is the case with the ones in this category. Newimpartial (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * For e.g. Christian Action Research and Education, it being a Christian education association is rather uncontroversial, but it being opposed to the rights of certain minorities may be considered as a minor detail. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Procedural close - additional articles that are unambiguously about groups opposing LGBT rights have been added, hence my deletion rationale no longer applies. Crossroads -talk- 04:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to say I'm a little concerned that almost immediately after proposing a procedural close, your first action was to remove the category from four articles 1, 2, 3, 4. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That is per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. Whether this category is appropriate on articles that are solely about trans topics and that do not contain any sources verifying they are specifically LGBT is being discussed at what is probably the most viewed such article, Talk:LGB Alliance. Since the category has undisputedly appropriate members now, the issue is no longer deletion but one for an article talk page. This discussion serves no purpose now. Crossroads -talk- 04:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The category never had any inappropriate members because all the members clearly belonged in the geographical part of the tree. The consensus is clearly to keep the category. I wouldn't object to a snow close as keep. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm very concerned as well, Crossroads. When this discussion clearly didn't go your way, you instead removed all the articles in the category, which is clearly disruptive. The articles clearly belong within the geographical part of this category tree one way or the other, as I have explained above. As long as a sub category (of this category) on organisations that oppose transgender rights in the United Kingdom didn't exist (it does now), this category was the most specific category within the relevant (geographical) part of the tree and they thus all belonged in this category. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 10:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, based on the above discussion I think the result should be keep. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't really know what to say to this. The only reason I didn't remove them originally is because doing so would have resulted in automatic deletion of the category, which would definitely be bad. When I could remove them from those particular articles - following BRD and ONUS - without secretly killing the category, I did so. With the new Category:Organisations that oppose transgender rights in the United Kingdom, there is both topic and geographic specificity, so this may be a moot issue. Crossroads -talk- 01:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose early closing of the discussion. I cannot understand how it's suddenly become fashionable to quickly close down discussions on subjects evidently contentious and controversial, such as this one. We started only yesterday; many editors might not even know about it. Where's the hurry? Why not have it stay up for one week? -The Gnome (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Literally just a more specific category than the parent category and the articles added to it were just ones in the parent category already, now moved to the most specific rung. That's how categories work. This seems like a purposefully biased nomination because the category was appropriately added to an article subject the nominator has been POV defending for months. Silver  seren C 17:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Amanda; this parallels the existence and use of Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United States. (Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights has a few South Korean orgs, too, if some enterprising seoul wants to find others and create a South Korean subcategory.) -sche (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. It seems perfectly reasonable that the parent category should be allowed to have subcategories by country. The fact that this is only the second such subcategory does not mean that these are invalid. I see no problem with this category containing any organisation that opposes any LGBT+ rights, even if it is claimed to only oppose some specific subset of the LGBT community. Generally, such specialisation will be a matter of tactics or optics rather than any sincere ideology anyway. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2021 (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.