Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 27

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

The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Dragonriders of Pern locations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The category contains only one page. Goustien (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Deaths due to bird attacks to Category:Deaths due to animal attacks

Nominator's rationale: Category is underpopulated and has only one member in it. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 04:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge, also to Category:Bird problems with humans. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm, lacks "Aeschylus, the eldest of the three great Athenian tragedians, was killed by a tortoise dropped by an eagle that had mistaken his bald head for a rock suitable for shattering the shell of the reptile.", or did till now. There must be more. Johnbod (talk) 04:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Johnbod: was that really an "attack"? Grutness...wha? 01:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Sticking my beak in here, so merge per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge awaiting the inevitable creation of Category:Fictional deaths due to bird attacks so we can put Hitchcock's film somewhere else. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Scottish Television articles needing infoboxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category:Television articles without infoboxes handles this with the template. Gonnym (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The general category is populated by a template flag option, not directly added to talk pages as a direct category declaration — and it isn't otherwise subcategorized by the specific nationality of a topic at all (which wouldn't be helpful anyway, since it's a temporary maintenance category rather than a permanent one). With the result that this is completely empty, and not readily populated since there's no template associated with it. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:The Bill articles needing infoboxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category:Television articles without infoboxes handles this with the template. Gonnym (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:English esports players to Category:British esports players

Nominator's rationale: only 4 Rathfelder (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Welsh esports players to Category:British esports players

Nominator's rationale: only 1 Rathfelder (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Scottish esports players to Category:British esports players

Nominator's rationale: only 1 Rathfelder (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (no oppose): we should create Category:English game players etc. to serve as a second merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have struck my earlier comment. Support nomination per the various discussions above. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. We have always divided British professional categories like this. As part of an established category tree there's no need to alter it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - it seems quite likely that esports is or will be arranged along 'nationality' lines, as are traditional sports. Indeed - here we are. Oculi (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It's true that we're not always consistent as we should be about this, but "British" categories should rightly almost always be subdivided into separate subcategories for English, Welsh, Scottish and "from Northern Ireland" whenever possible. The question of nationality is more complex in the UK than it is elsewhere, precisely because the UK's four primary constituent parts are defined as countries rather than states or provinces — so while it isn't strictly wrong to categorize a Scottish, Welsh or English person as "British" instead of Scottish, Welsh or English, it is politically loaded, and that's before we even take into account the need to dual-categorize Northern Ireland as both British and Irish. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Ruins of churches destroyed during World War II; revisit if further clarification is needed There's several different counter proposals flying around on different aspects but no clear preference so it's best to take the category on the main point and then revisit Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Ruined churches of World War II to Category:Ruins of churches destroyed during World War II

Nominator's rationale: The name is somewhat ambiguous. I'd suggest new name, Category:Ruins of churches destroyed during World War II. I don't think this category is intended for churches that were damaged but later reconstructed (not former anymore), or for ones where no ruin remains (see [1]). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This has gone through several names already, see WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 26#Category:Preserved ruined churches of World War II. This new name is clearer, and closer to the clear intention here, than the current name. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Clearer inclusion criteria in the name. Dimadick (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the articles are about (former) churches, not about ruins. Alt rename: Category:Former churches destroyed during World War II. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is to completely misunderstand the point. These are the ruins which were preserved, not those which have vanished. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is beside the point. For example Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church is an article about the church, it is not about a ruin. So in short this is about Category:Church buildings destroyed during World War II of which the ruins have been preserved. Honestly I think it is a borderline defining characteristic of these churches and it might better be listified. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: You are half-right. The problem with this (and its parent category, see Category talk:Buildings and structures destroyed during World War II) is that they include buildings that were destroyed (or just seriously damaged). Some where rebuilt, some were preserved as ruined monuments, and some were paved over and repurposed. We need to clean this mess up. I started with this cat as it is the biggest outlier in said parent cat. I'd appreciate your help sorting this mess out. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The example I mentioned earlier, Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church, is also in Category:Buildings and structures in Berlin destroyed during World War II. I can't see what is wrong or messy about that. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep somehow (not merged) -- There is a genuine category here. The full description Category:Church buildings destroyed during World War II of which the ruins have been preserved is too much of a mouthful: category names benefit from brevity. Recent WP work has tended to make "church" refer to a building, rather than the people who worship in it. Even Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church includes elements that are still a ruin, even though it and some others have a rebuilt functioning church. Marcocapelle's proposal would change the scope: (1) an existing ruin (2) church building (3) destroyed as a functioning building in WWII. The category has a long headnote describing its scope, which should be retained. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• How would my proposal change the scope? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (now vote below). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Former churches destroyed during World War II. The articles are about the churches not the ruins and I don't think it should be only for churches were the ruins remain. There already are a few without present day ruins in the category and I don't see the ruins remaining or not as defining. That the category was removed says more about the bad name then what the scope of the category should be. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. If we want a category for those churches who were destroyed in WWII and are currently ruins, Category:Ruins of churches destroyed during World War II seems like the best name. The problem I see with Trialpears' proposal is that it sounds like they were former churches when they were destroyed and that it is not clear that the churches are currently ruins. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - several of the comments above (including the OP's diff, "have been preserved" and "are currently") incorrectly indicate that that the category should track the current state of the building/ruins; that's not how topic categorization should work. The category inclusion criteria should be such that if an article belongs in a category (Foos) it should always belong in that category (possibly in a subcat such as Former foos). DexDor ^(talk) 12:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to include the word "destroyed", adjust/trim the category text to conform to the text at the parent Category:Buildings and structures destroyed during World War II and purge of articles about churches that were not destroyed. DexDor ^(talk) 12:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Churches destroyed during World War II, remove the ruins parent category and link to that category. DexDor ^(talk) 21:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• How about Category:Church ruins from World War II. However there are several viable options that would so. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Taking into account Marcocapelle's point below) What articles would belong in such a category? DexDor ^(talk) 21:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support DexDor's alternative which was also my first proposal. Most importantly this category contains articles about churches (which happened to end as a ruin), it does not contain articles about ruins. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Dungeons & Dragons standard creatures to Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures

Nominator's rationale: This D&D category structure is no longer so large that it's necessary to split up the contents. All of the articles on "creatures" can fit in the parent category without it being a mess. This category in particular holds no value in organizing due to a lack of other non-D&D fictional parent categories. TTN (talk) 12:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, standard is a subjective distinction. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: dual merge as all five member pages do refer to Arab-American or Arab culture. – Fayenatic London 17:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:American comedians of Palestinian descent to Category:American comedians of Arab descent

Nominator's rationale: Also Category:American people of Palestinian descent. Splitting this small category by nationality does not make sense. There is no distinct Palestinian-American comedy tradition that would justify it. TM 04:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the category contains 5 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - though it is not standard to mix nationality and ethnicity, in the modern Palestinian case the line is very blurred.GreyShark (dibra) 20:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there is no indication that American comedians of XXX descent are notable for that intersection, and the standard problem with descent categories: how much is enough to be included? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as nom or alt merge to Category:American people of Palestinian descent only (do not upmerge to the Arab parent category). Intersections of descent and occupation, or ethnicity and occupation, are rarely useful and do not seem to be motivated by any specific link in this case. See also collateral discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 24#Category:American sportspeople of Palestinian descent et seq. This batch of category discussion should probably have a grouped outcome. Place Clichy (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge; there is no consensus about removing the members from the Arab hierarchy, but most of the member pages do make significant mention of Arab-American or Arab media, so this will be a dual merge. – Fayenatic London 17:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:American journalists of Palestinian descent to Category:American journalists of Arab descent

Nominator's rationale: Also Category:American people of Palestinian descent. Splitting this small category by nationality does not make sense. There is no distinct Palestinian-American journalistic tradition that would justify it. TM 04:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the category contains 5 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is not that it is too small to be useful but that "Dedicated group-subject subcategories...should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." There is no evidence that Palestinian-American journalists are a distinct and unique cultural topic in their own right.--TM 14:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as nom or alt merge to Category:American people of Palestinian descent and Category:American journalists (do not upmerge to the Arab parent category). Intersections of descent and occupation, or ethnicity and occupation, are rarely useful and do not seem to be motivated by any specific link in this case. See also collateral discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 24#Category:American sportspeople of Palestinian descent et seq. This batch of category discussion should probably have a grouped outcome. Place Clichy (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Denny Regrade, Seattle to Category:Denny Triangle, Seattle

Nominator's rationale: Matching parent article and WP:COMMONNAME of neighborhood. SounderBruce 04:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - this is an unopposed speedy (WP:C2D) and should be closed. Oculi (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per C2D. J947 ^(c), at 19:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_6#Category:Viacom_Media_Networks (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Viacom Media Networks to Category:ViacomCBS television networks

Nominator's rationale: As of December 4, 2019, Viacom Media Networks has renamed to ViacomCBS Domestic Media Networks. Ridwan97 (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Why if the company has changed it's name to "ViacomCBS Domestic Media Networks", you are proposing the name be "ViacomCBS television networks"? --Gonnym (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_6#Category:Junior_Network_shows (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Junior Network shows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not sure what was the reasoning behind the creation of this category. The 4 pages in it never mention "Junior Network" even once in the article and the infobox actually list different networks. Gonnym (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Here TV original programming and purge. – Fayenatic London 16:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Here! original productions to Category:Here TV original programming and Category:here! Films films

Nominator's rationale: This category incorrectly combines two different entities. One is for programs which aired originally on Here TV, the other are for films which were produced by here! Films.

Regarding the names:

• For Here TV see the recent CfD
• For the films, see Category:American films by studio which has other similar titles Category:A&M Films films‎, Category:Barwood Films films‎, Category:CBS Films films‎ and others. Gonnym (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename the existing category per nom, but purge of the theatrical films rather than creating a new category for them. Across the board, on all the films that I checked, Here! Films was not actually the production company — it was merely the US distributor, which is not the same thing. But the distributor is not generally a characteristic that we categorize films for in most instances, and I don't see this as a case where an exception would be warranted. Some caution should be exercised, because there are also things in here that were television films created specifically for broadcast on Here!, which should therefore remain in the category — but theatrical films which were merely distributed by Here's theatrical distribution arm don't really need a category at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no issue with this. --Gonnym (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete as it is meanwhile empty. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Libertarian Party of New Hampshire chairs to Category:New Hampshire Libertarians

Nominator's rationale: Small category (1 article) that is unlikely to grow. TM 20:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge; the one member article is already in the other parent Category:State political party chairs of New Hampshire. – Fayenatic London 21:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note the one article which was formerly in this category, Darryl W. Perry, has been deleted. The category is now empty.--TM 12:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Gnomes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The category's purpose is served by Category:Fictional gnomes (and this category's existence implies that there are non-fictional gnomes). See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continued_disruption. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- Gnomes also occur in myth and folklore, which is not exactly fiction. I do not believe there are gnomes, but some people probably do. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Gnomes are legendary creatures. Dimadick (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Batman locations to Category:Batman

Nominator's rationale: Only one redirect and category. "Gotham City" already exists in "DC Comics populated places" in the same category structure. TTN (talk) 12:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Unisex sailing at the Summer Olympics. – Fayenatic London 14:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Open-sex sailing at the Summer Olympics to something else

Nominator's rationale: The term "open-sex" is used here to describe competitions where there are no restrictions on the sex of competitors. It is distinguished from:

• mixed-sex competitions, where a crew must include both a man and a woman
• single-sex competitions, where a crew must be either all-male or all-female

However, a search for "open sex" shows that the primary meaning of "open sex" seems to be a choice between outdoor sex, open relationships or orgies. Which is all well-and-good if that's your sort of thing, but this topic is just sailing, and not some sort of x-rated version of Love Island.

If this was the WP:COMMONNAME for this type of competition, we'd probably have to use it. But as far as I can see, this usage is a wiki-neologism: a Google search for "open-sex sailing" throws up only usage on en.wp and its mirrors ... and a search on en.wikipedia for "open sex sailing" shows that it is used only as the title of these categories.

So this is clearly a descriptive title, per WP:NDESC. Which means that we can use a different title if somebody can devise one which avoids the ambiguity of "open-sex". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, either a common name should exist or it is unlikely to be a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, which suggests a merge to Category:Mixed-sex sailing at the Summer Olympics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, support this merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to "mixed" Sports Reference uses this term (1976 Summer Olympic example), and would remove the ambiguity. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's probably the least-worst option, Lugnuts. It's a loss of specificity, because it's unambiguous and it's the commonly used term. The parent category is Category:Mixed-sex sailing at the Summer Olympics, so this would be a upmerge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - 'open-sex' as defined above is not 'mixed sex' as defined above and so the parenting is incorrect. Consider for instance Sailing at the 1996 Summer Olympics – Tornado, placed in the open-sex category; open-sex is not mentioned anywhere and a glance at the competitors reveals no women judging from the names (and certainly not mixed sex). Oculi (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sailing at the 1996 Summer Olympics
Mistral	men	women
Europe		women
Laser	open
Finn	men
470	men	women
Tornado	open
Star	open
Soling	open
v t e

• Comment I made the category from this paragraph in Sailing at the Summer Olympics (bolding added):

  • Until 1988, sailing was a gender neutral 'open' sport where male and female sailors competed together. Even in 1900, several women participated at the Olympic sailing regattas. The exception to this is the post WWII 1948 Olympics where the IOC decided the events should only be open to male sailors.ref In 1988, the first exclusive women's sailing event was introduced. Sailing was also one of the first sports to introduce a compulsory mixed gender events in 2016 the Mixed Multihull was introduced."

  So the categorization distinction is based on a distinction made in the catmain article. The word "open" is used alongside "men" and "women" in templates like {{SailingAt1996SummerOlympics}}. I suppose to satisfy Oculi's concerns each article would need to contain a reference to justify adding to this category.

  To generalise from Sailing: in individual events the possible sex/gender categories are men's—women's—open; in pairs/team events the possible categories are men's—women's—open—compulsoryMixed. Most sports have either men's category or an open category but not both; and the open category typically is practically all men, especially at elite level. In the article Mixed-sex sports the section discussing what I have called "open" is named Direct competition. The best Wikipedia way to categorize all this is not obvious. Category:Mixed-sex sports currently does not include darts or snooker, which are technically "open".

  I don't think we should divide the open Olympic sailing events simply by whether or not a woman happened to participate in the finals, and I think distinguishing them from the 2016 compulsoryMixed event is useful. I can't vouch for the sources used in the articles, as I only added categories. Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailing could help. If more reliable sources are wanting then I will have to settle for the crude lumping of open and compulsoryMixed together as "mixed-sex". jnestorius^(talk) 11:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Sailing at the Summer Olympics; also the Mixed-sex category. All the subcats have this form. Ungendered competition occurs in few sports, due to the differing physical strengths of men and women, but this does not apply in a few cases, including some equestrian sports. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: "All the subcats have this form" -- all the subcats of what have what form? See Category:Mixed events at the Olympics. "Ungendered competition occurs in few sports" — do you intend that to be an argument for merging one of those few occurrences? jnestorius^(talk) 18:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if you're looking for a suitable term, perhaps Category:Unisex... would do the trick? Grutness...wha? 01:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, @Grutness. I think that unisex would be perfect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]