Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 18 January 20 >

January 19

[edit]

Category:Books critical of Donald Trump

[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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also proposing:

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING, WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, and WP:OPINIONCAT. All the books in this category are by definition Books about Donald Trump, the neutrally worded category. Any biography can have critical as well as positive aspects, and parsing out how much criticism warrants ghettoization in a criticism article (and how much doesn't) is subjective, semantic, arbitrary, and POV pushing. No other categories in Category:Books about Presidents of the United States have a sub-category devoted to criticism, nor does Category:Books about Hillary Clinton, nor any subcategory in Category:Books about politicians. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the same rationale, as above, I am also proposing films and music critical of Donal Trump.
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:Birds of Uttarakhand

[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a bird species (e.g. tawny fish owl) is found in Uttarakhand is non-defining. DexDor (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2018 (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.

Years and decades in various European countries

[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: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 13:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Example
The full list of nominated categories can be found on the talk page.
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, mostly just one article per category. In contrast to previous medieval nominations, this nomination also covers part of the Early Modern period, and sometimes even includes the 19th century. There is a caveat: some of the nominated categories (e.g. the Ukrainian ones) and some of the target categories (e.g. the Italian ones) are anachronistic. However, I would suggest to proceed with this merge anyway, because it will be much easier to discuss the anachronisms after the merging, way fewer categories need to be nominated for a fresh discussion.
The countries involved in this nomination are:
  1. Bohemia (entirely)
  2. Castile (entirely)
  3. Finland (until 1800)
  4. Republic of Florence (entirely)
  5. Republic of Genoa (entirely)
  6. Luxembourg (until 1800)
  7. Moldavia (entirely)
  8. Naples (entirely)
  9. Papal States (until 1500)
  10. Russia (until 1500)
  11. Kingdom of Sardinia (until 1800)
  12. Kingdom of Sicily (entirely)
  13. Republic of Siena (entirely)
  14. Switzerland (until 1800)
  15. Ukraine (until 1900)
  16. Republic of Venice (until 1500)
- Marcocapelle (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in part -- This nom is a little too bold for me.
    • Finland was a province of Sweden, district from Sweden proper
      • I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you're not a Finn. This is actually a touchy area. But all of this is supposed to be ignored as "carping" (see below) so that only categories with five members are included, because that's the important criterion. Because There Is A Rule. A mismatched, nay irrelevant, nay objectively harmful rule for 'by year' categories and analogues, but A Rule. Remember, the point of the proposal is not to provide info that indicates it may be under both categories (IMO perfectly acceptable), but to make an executive decision prioritizing one political/historical interpretation over the other--and why in the HELL would anyone want to go there? It is not only "fixing" a non-problem, it is actively creating new ones. Doprendek (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the Florence items has a Papal States target - surely an error
    • Italy is a political anachronism until 1870s. The items for individual states should be retained with Italy as a parent.
      • Yup. The proposal is to simply ignore these distinctions. Won't it be great continuously argue over these decisions across every nascent country and imperial subject throughout history? Kidding. Doprendek (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspect there is enough on Bohemia, a kingdom within the Holy Roman Empire to merit keeping it.
      • Agree. But IMO more importantly--why does anyone have to argue over the existence at all, rather then just expanding the *already-existing* category type? Why wouldn't people run from such situations, rather than create more? There is so much work that has to be done in the structure of categorizing, but IMO (and I would have thought obviously), the effort should be in expanding, not removing, information. Doprendek (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I forget when the first Swiss cantons rebelled against Austrian rule, but some of the Swiss items look anachronistic. Switzerland grew in extent as additional cantons joined. Categorising something as Swiss before it joined Switzerland is also anachronistic. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for seeing the error, I've corrected it. The official starting year of Switzerland is 1291, indeed there are some anachronistic categories here as well. I'm proposing to merge them now and solve the anachronisms later (that also applies to Finland and Italy). The amount of content we have on Bohemia is disappointing indeed, though also understandable because it became part of the Habsburg Monarchy quite early in its history. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a guideline in which medieval (and ancient) years are removed entirely and upmerged. Don't see the purpose of overcategorization.--Zoupan 04:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is unreasonable to request checking all categories for authorship. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with that remark. The creators were following what was then accepted practice in creating these twigs. Marcocapelle has been doing excellent work in upmerging the ends of the worst of these twigs. As Laurel Lodged says below, the thrust is correct. I would suggest that this be closed as to the uncontroversial cases, and that the remainder be re-nominated for separate discussions. For example, Finland was in the nature of a colony of Sweden; and Bohemia of Austria, though they happened to be next door. My preferred solution for Italy might be keep the categories for each of the then-independent states, with an overall container for Italy (using its modern boundary). We should likewise be keeping Castile and Aragon separate until the union of the crowns in 1492(?). I do not think we would merge Portugal with Spain in the period when they were united with a single crown, until Portugal rebelled against this under a relative of the last king. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The creators were following what was then accepted practice in creating these twigs." Yes, well, and maybe these are perfectly reasonable practices. Whatever decision was made seems ("seems" because I have no idea how these "new accepted" practices came about, or where there is a record of them) to be based entirely on WP:SMALLCAT, which creates more problems then it solves if enforced on logically extendable, horizontally organized categories like 'by years' types. Doprendek (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I follow User:Peterkingiron correctly, he proposes to relist nr 4,5,8,9,11,12,13,16 jointly (for Italy), to relist nr 1,3,10,14,15 each separately (all with anachronism issues) and to merge nr 2,6,7 as uncontroversial. I'm emphasizing again (but realize that I'm repeating myself) that this nomination does not change anything about anachronism issues, neither for better nor for worse, the nomination just addresses an entirely different issue. So my suggestion is to merge anyway and address anachronisms in a later fresh nomination. With respect to Castile and Portugal we seem to be entirely aligned. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all Marco ought to be thanked instead of this carping. A huge effort went into this nomination. Carping like this only discourages such effort in future. If there are mistakes, correct them later. The thrust is entirely correct. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all "Carping like this only discourages such effort in future." So OK I'll "carp." Discouraging such efforts is all to the good, although I'm sure a lot of hard work was involved. In order to meet some ideal in [[[WP:SMALLCAT]] that I can't stress enough **misunderstands the reality of logically automatic but exogamously limited categories such as 'by year'**, we are somehow supposed to encourage the removal of accurate information created in good faith, plus put an effective stop to any further expansion into full-sized categories (time categories tend to grow by slow accretion), and instead adopt a system that will **guarantee** conflicts regarding national feelings, historical interpretation, judgments of whether such and such national entity is "important," etc., as already indicated by the discussion above (dismissed as "carping"), all to meet some ideal where the most important judgments are supposed to be whether a category has, say, not three, but at least five members. I'm not saying this suggestion is done in bad faith, but in the bigger picture can't people see this is roughly equivalent to randomly kicking hornets' nests? And to what purpose, when from an information standpoint the proposed categories are no better (I would argue inferior) to the status quo? And why force people to use subjective criteria for categorization for the type seen in 'by years' when there is an objective standard available, that is, set the establishment/disest/whatever in the most precise relevant entity based on the current development of Wikipedia, and then place those in relevant subcategories? Instead I feel like we're dealing with a parking enforcement dept that tickets a car in an otherwise empty parking lot for being two inches on the wrong side of the white line (based on a true story BTW). But that city does get revenue, at least. Not sure what the point of these labor is here. Doprendek (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support after issues raised by Peterkingiron have been addressed (sounds like they have?).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support. Regarding Finland, I propose that categories for establishments per year before 1809 shall be merged with those with Sweden. Most parts of today's Finland belonged to Sweden then. The state of Finland was established in 1809 as Grand Duchy of Finland, when it became an autonomic part of Russian Empire. In fact, establishments between 1809 and 1917 should be renamed as XXXX establishments in Grand Duchy of Finland. Now there is a mess, because many of the establishments in Finland of that era are categorised under establishments in Russian Empire. --Gwafton (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all, with regret. The nom @Marcocapelle has clearly put a huge amount of work into this nomination. Both in this discussion and in previous similar nominations, there is broad support for the principle of upmerging sets of small year-by-country categories. I agree with that broad principle.
However, this nomination is simply too wide-ranging to allow proper scrutiny. @Peterkingiron raises concerns about 4 countries (plus the 8 states later united into Italy), but the wide scope prevents proper scrutiny of how best to handle these cases. For example, November's nomination of Welsh categories allowed consideration of unforeseen NPOV issues, which might have been buried in a wider nom.
In this case, I don't think we have had enough scrutiny of:
So I urge the nominator to withdraw this big nom, and come back with individual noms for each country after preliminary discussion on the relevant country project page(s). It may well be that no issues arise in those preliminary discussions, but is important to give editors a meaningful opportunity to scrutinise the proposals. This over-broad nom doesn't do that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: Fair enough, please consider this as withdrawn. Would it be possible to keep the tags on the category pages and provide a very clear link on top of this discussion to each of the new separate discussions yet to be started, as a kind of semi-relisting? Marcocapelle (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: if a nom is relisted in whole, all the tags would need to be updated. If chunks of it are relisted, they need a new section link too. It is much easier and more accurate to simply use AWB (or a bot) to untag, and then AWB to add new tags as appropriate for any further discussions. So withdrawn means withdrawn; new noms are a separate exercise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all to the general European category, except for those clearly under Russia (Ukraine) or the Holy Roman Empire (Luxembourg and Bohemia). Oppose the Finland move for now, and reopen as a seperate issue to see if Finland counts as an integral part of Sweden, or was too politically seperated to be just directly categorized under Sweden. The Italy category should be depricated as a target. This is especially true since the Republic of Venice held control over much of modern Albania and parts of modern Greece. The Sicily/Sardinia/Naples cats need to be considered in light of the fact that at times these places were under the same Monarchy as Spain. Upmerging to a general European category and hoping people will work on categorizing more places in the intersection categories is what is needed. I have spent huge amounts of time categorizing by these intersections, but have to admit it is at times a thankless task. This is especially true since my method of searching for every article mentioning a given year turned up way too many false positives, and the current search function seems to limit one to a number of results far below the returns I was getting for years even in the early 18th-century. More recently the intersection of things established and year it is done, is rarely combined with place, so that for example even Category:Organizations established in 1953 has lots of articles under it that are not in the appropriate sub-cat of Category:Establishments by country in 1953 or however that parent category is named. A part of the problem is we first had the by country categories, and later someone came up with the by continent categories. It would be less messy if we had started by putting things in by continent category until those got to large. What really happened is that at some point me and a few others realized that we had too many categories in say Category:1952 establishments that did not fit in any sub-cat, so we started the by country sub-cats to disperse the parent category. The tree was originally created with extreme presentism, such as classifying 19th-century establishments as in Israel. The system has evolved as a hodge-podge over time, and the presentist bias of Wikipedia clouds much of the system to the present. A consensus has come about to use political boundaries at the time in place, and to use countries of the time such as Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union and the Ottoman Empire. On the other hand in general we apply modern names of countries to past incarnations that were very different than at present, so that Category:1905 establishments in India includes all of Pakistan and Bangladesh as well as modern India. The tricky factor of parts of northenrn Pakistan not being brought into the orbit of India until the end of the 19th-century, and how to treat things going on in Assam and Manipur when the former was under Ahom Rule and the later was a vassal state of Burma, have not really yet come up. Prior to 1840 I have sought to seperate British India categories as a sub-cat of the India category, since there were large swaths of India at that point that were fully indepdent of any British control. Other unresolved issues are how to categorize places that had some sort of identity less than full national indepdence, such as Congress Poland and the Province of Finland under the Russian Empire. Some would argue that Category:1805 establishments in Russia would be better named Category:1805 establishments in the Russian Empire, but no one has been motivated enough to actually nominate for such a change. Ukraine in the 19th-century is divided into 2 countries, thought most under Russia, where it has no unified political identity, and is about 15 Governorates, several of which transcended modern boundaries with Moldova, Russia or Belorussia. Retroactively applying modern boundaries of Ukraine is unworkable for several reasons. To begin with the status of Crimea is de facto Russia but de jure Ukraine. Grouping in the areas under Autria-Hungary is highly questionable, especially since in the 19th-century people in that area more often identified as Ruthenians than Ukrainians, the unity of the Ukrainian people is a post World War I idea. The part of Ukraine around Uzhgorod (Ungvar) is even messier. That was part of the Kingdom of Hungary, and had Hungarian and Slovak as well as Ruthenian (and Jewish) population. Many of the land owners in Ukraine would have identified as ethnically Russia, and Kiev was clearly within the social orbit of Russian culture. On the other hand in the 19th-century some areas that are today part of Russia were heavily ethnic Ukrainian. In fact the Ukraine SSR in the inter-war years extended further east than the modern nation. We have not gotten to the large numbers of Greeks and Crimean Tatars both in Crimea (which by some views is not now in Ukraine) and in other parts of the Tauride Governorate, that is clearly in the current Ukraine. This is why I do not think Ukraine is a workable idea. The notion of an Italy or Germany before 1870 is at best hard to uncontroversially define. Prior to 1803 we have the clear Holy Roman Empire to fall back on for Germany. The Holy Roman Empire also included Luxembourg, and essentially what is today Belgium, Bohemia (modern Czechia), and some parts of modern Poland. It covered modern Austria as well, and most of Slovenia and the South Tyrol now in Italy. Earlier most of northern Italy and some parts of north-east France were in the Holy Roman Empire, but between 1500 and 1720 or so, most of these areas were removed from the empire. The Netherlands were also part of the Holy Roman Empire in 1500, as I believe was officially Switzerland. I believe those two were officially removed from the Empire in 1648, although de facto removal was earlier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had missed the Russia to Russian Empire rename. Of course merge the Ukraine categories to Category:1895 establishments in the Russian Empire etc, except where the establishment was actually done in what was then Austria-Hungary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2018 (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:Celebrities who lost children

[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The name of the category is clearly not good (who is a celebrity?), and I am not sure this is a good principle to classify over. My proposal would be either delete. or rename into Category:People who lost children. Note that it is not currently included anywhere. Ymblanter (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2018 (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:Modern liberal American magazines

[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. Articles which are miscategorised may be removed from the category through normal editorial processes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NCCAT compare Category:American conservative magazines. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:20, 19 January 2018 (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:Transmisogyny

[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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with no parent article, because reliable sources typically don't use the term. Redundant to Category:Transphobia, which, unlike this, is well supported. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 19 January 2018 (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:Transmisogynic violence

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Violence against trans women / Category:Transphobic violence, both of which are much more NPOV. Reliable sources typically distinguish between misogyny and transphobia. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 19 January 2018 (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:Biphobia

[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. While this appears to be a valid topic per se, it is unclear if there is sufficient content to justify a separate topic category. If the category cannot be materially expanded (currently, it contains just 4 articles) within a reasonable time, then it should be renominated and upmerged. As suggested by User:FreeKnowledgeCreator, I will add a description, similar to the one at Category:Homophobia, to restrict the category's scope. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Adding any article to this category will be contentious and unlikely to achieve any kind of consensus, as reliable sources rarely, if ever, use this label as a categorical descriptor. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which articles do you think can be uncontroversially included? Guy (Help!) 15:54, 19 January 2018 (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:Trans-exclusionary radical feminist books

[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: Upmerge. Per BrownHairedGirl, there is no question that if the parent category continues to exist (see below), this book belongs in it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A category where virtually no article can go, because reliable sources rarely, if ever, use the term, and it's always contentious. Guy (Help!) 08:21, 19 January 2018 (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:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism

[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. Despite the upmerge above and the deletion of an individuals category on the previous day, this is far less clear. The debate over the validity of the academic and political term does not make the term less valid, so it can continue. If in a year or so this has less traction, it can be brought up again.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A category where virtually no article can go, because reliable sources rarely, if ever, use the term, and it's always contentious. Guy (Help!) 08:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Documented scholarly usage. "Contentiousness" is not necessarily a criterion for deletion, and reliable sources can be used to neutrally cover the subject in articles. James (talk/contribs) 13:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes, the term may be used by scholars, but it still doesn't represent an uncontroversial scholarly consensus or a neutral term by any means. It is a term used by one group in a political and ideological dispute to attack another, and Wikipedia should avoid by implication endorsing it through categories like this. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it is used by scholars to describe an ideological position. This category is about that ideology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • No really, it is purely a term used by people who don't like a particular strand of feminism to attack it, as noted a number of times now by several editors. Common sense should be used when employing scholarly sources, and Wikipedia shouldn't endorse a term obviously lacking in neutrality. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @FreeKnowledgeCreator: It is sad that you continue to describe as attack the academic process of describing something which is being analysed. Common sense should look at the term and see if it uses pejorative language or is incapable of objective assessment. "Trans-exclusionary" is not pejorative, and it is capable of objective assessment. So no problem.
          (For some calling themself "FreeKnowledgeCreator", you seem remarkably hostile to a normal part of the scholarly process of knowledge creation, viz. describing an ideology. You should change your username to KnowledgeSuppressor). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you look at the very first Google Scholar hit in the link you provided above, you find Rachel MacKinnon's The Epistemology of Propaganda. It refers to the ideology we are discussing as a, "modern form of propaganda where so-called trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs) are engaged in a political project to deny that trans women are women—and thereby to exclude trans women from women-only spaces, services, and protections". The "TERF" term is quite clearly an attack, used by opponents of the ideology to try to discredit it. I doubt you could provide even a single source that actually suggests the term is neutral and descriptive only. " "Trans-exclusionary" is indeed pejorative, like other terms such as "capitalist stooge". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • @FreeKnowledgeCreator: You are struggling here, as your reality inversion gets laid bare. Your last point first: "stooge" is widely described in dictionaries and language books as pejorative, e.g. Collins: "term of contempt", Hayes: "pejorative". Please find similar, non-partisan reliable sources to support your description of "Trans-exclusionary" as pejorative, or withdraw the claim.
              Now MacKinnon . The propagandists who MacKinnon describes are the proponents of Trans-exclusionary radical feminism. You, invert that, claiming that describing the political propaganda project is a form of attack.
              You still seem to be having great difficulty facing up to the very simple core point that excluding trans women from a definition of women is precisely what this ideology is all about. It's not at all complicated, so why do you find it so hard to understand?
              Your insistence on labelling this description as "attack" is bizarre and irrational. Consider Category:Opposition to same-sex marriage. Do you consider it an "attack" to apply that label to the ideology which opposes same-sex marriage? If not, why is it different to "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism"?
              Similarly, Category:Anti-abortion activists describes people who oppose abortion? Is that also an "attack"? If not, why and how is it different to "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism"?
              And finally, if you sill want to insist on labelling a description as an "attack", please suggest an alternative descriptive phrase for the strand of radical feminism promoted by Raymond, Jeffreys, Bindel, &co which holds (rightly or wrongly) that trans women are not women? Per WP:NDESC, we can use a neutral descriptive phrase .. so if you don't like the phrase "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism", please offer an alternative. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • You refer to "non-partisan reliable sources", which is an interesting choice of words. It shows an awareness on your part that reliable sources can be partisan and that non-partisan reliable sources are therefore best. That point being admitted, I suggest that the burden of proof falls on you: you should find non-partisan reliable sources endorsing the term "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" as a neutral descriptive term. I further suggest that you will be unable to do so and that all sources that use that term are engaged in an attack on those identified as supporters of "trans-exclusionary radical feminism". Suggesting that the term "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" is no more an attack than "opposition to same-sex marriage" could most politely be called disingenuous. Those opposed to same-sex marriage are perfectly happy to identify themselves as opponents of same-sex marriage; the term "TERF" in contrast is only used by those opposed to "TERFs". Your suggestion that I am "irrational" is a personal attack that you should know better than to make. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • @FreeKnowledgeCreator: You're still weaving around, fixated on your bizarre notion that scholarly analysis is "attack", and ducking the core point, which I will repeat: per WP:NDESC, we can use a neutral descriptive phrase .. so if you don't like the phrase "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism", please offer an alternative.
                  If your concern is genuinely about the terminology (which I increasingly doubt), then the issue you should be addressing is how best to describe this ideology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I don't recall having objected to a category such as, "Category:Feminists critical of transsexualism", or the like. If you don't like that precise category there are other, similar ones that could be created instead. Why turn to me for suggestions? I am really not that concerned with the issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                    • @FreeKnowledgeCreator: You objected by supporting deletion rather than proposing renaming. If you are really not that concerned with the issue, it's surprising that you have been such an enthusiastic advocate of deletion across several related categories.
                      Anyway, thanks for clarifying that your objection is to the name rather than to the principle of having a category on this topic. In view of that, you be kind enough to strike your !vote to delete? We can then have a discussion about what title to use. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Feminism and transgender per WP:SMALLCAT, without objection to recover the category when there is much more content about the topic available. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't agree in this case, because the sourcing is thick, and the category is new. Make this argument again in a year if it's still very thinly populated. I'd bet money it won't be.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-documented (in scholarly sources) ideological strand within feminism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a pejorative term that clealry violates NPOV guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but remove "radical", and upmerge the ...feminists and ...books subcats. The ideology is well-documented and any page's inclusion in the category can be reliably sourced (or the page removed from the category pending better sourcing). The key piece is "trans-exclusionary"; the "radical" part is just baiting by the opposition. The fact that the longer phrase is attested doesn't require us to use it here, just a phrase long enough to convey what the category is for. The shorter "trans-exclusionary feminism" is very, very well-attested: [5][6][7][8] After upmerging the ...feminists and ...books subcategories, the SMALLCAT problem is also solved.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SMcCandlish: I can go with "trans-exclusionary feminism" as a compromise, because the most important thing is to keep this well-documented grouping. Many of the delete !votes above appear illogical or disingenuous, because they object to the name of the category, which suggests remedy of renaming ... but instead they propose deletion.
However, while I'm happy to accept a compromise, I do want to challenge the claim that the "radical" part is just baiting by the opposition. The leading figures in this group such as Julie Bindel, Sheila Jeffreys, Janice Raymond are well-documented as radical feminists and uncontroversially categorised in Category:Radical feminists.
Additionally, the sources include the word "radical" more than they omit it:
"trans-exclusionary feminism" "trans-exclusionary radical feminism"
Gnews 16 hits 46 hits
Gbooks 491 hits 762 hits
Gscholar 15 hits 38 hits
So I'd take the compromise, but "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" is what the sources say, and the dominance is strongest in scholarly sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that trend as well, but it still looks like a labeling exercise between factions. The encyclopedic part of this is "there is some feminism that excludes trans-women", and that's what we should focus on. How "radical" someone is within that section is hair-splitting. There's not enough material for both the general topic and for a focus on the radical sub-faction in separate articles, so go with the more general classifier would be the way to go, I would think.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: I seems to me that you misunderstand the significance of the word radical. It appears that you are reading it as a standalone spectrum positioner, a subjective or relative term used in the way that someone might say "Bernie Sanders was a more radical candidate than Hilary Clinton", "Lenin was a more radical socialist than Kerensky", or "Newt Gingrich was more radical than Bob Dole".
However, the usage here is not as a subjective value judgement, or as a relative positioner in a changing spectrum; it is used as part of the compound term radical feminism, which is a specific and notable ideological strand within feminism. Radical feminism seeks the elimination of male supremacy in all contexts, in contrast to e.g. liberal feminism's quest for equality opportunity.
The point of trans-exclusionary radical feminism is that a trans-exclusionary stance is not a broad theme within feminism which happens to be part of radical feminism amongst other strands. On the contrary, it is an ideological subset specifically of radical feminist ideology, and removing the word "radical" obscures its ideological context. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know perfectly well what the specialized meaning of the term is. Our readers are 99.9% of the time not specialist readers in any particular specialty (see WP:SSF), and will misinterpret it except in a context in which the special meaning is made instantly clear (e.g., as at Radical feminism itself). Adding the word in this case serves no Wikipedia-specific purpose, and the longer phrase is not consistently used in sources, so we have no reason to use it here. It's not a "compromise", as if you're losing something, it's normal WP procedure: don't make things more complicated and jargon-laden than necessary, especially if reader confusion is likely to result. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:38, 28 February 2018 (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:Coalition of Refugee Associations in the Republic of Serbia politicians

[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 19. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article, very unlikely to have more. No main article exists. Zoupan 03:19, 19 January 2018 (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:Vojvodina's Party politicians

[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 19. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article, very unlikely to have more. No notability whatsoever. Zoupan 03:18, 19 January 2018 (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:Together for Šumadija politicians

[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 19. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Defunct party. Only one article, very unlikely to have more. Zoupan 03:15, 19 January 2018 (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:Roma Party politicians

[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 19. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article since creation. Very unlikely to have more. Zoupan 03:13, 19 January 2018 (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:Roma Union of Serbia politicians

[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 19. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article since creation. Very unlikely to have more. Zoupan 03:12, 19 January 2018 (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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_19&oldid=871692981"