Category talk:Male humans by quantity by age

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Male humans

	Category:Males by activity	Move to/Rename as	Category:Male humans by activity
	Category:Human males by age	Move to/Rename as	Category:Male humans by age
	Category:Groups of males	Move to/Rename as	Category:Groups of male humans
	This CfD applies to all sub-categories of Category:Male humans. These categories are specific to male humans. Category:Male humans is the parent category name, and thus should be reflected through its sub-categories, and they should use the name "male humans" as well.
	Josh (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Your "by-line" isn't working, Joshbaumgartner. I've tagged parallel "female" and "adult" categories that this should also apply to. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

	Category:Females by activity	Move to/Rename as	Category:Female humans by activity
	Category:Females by setting	Move to/Rename as	Category:Female humans by setting
	Category:Adults by activity	Move to/Rename as	Category:Adult humans by activity
	Category:Adults by setting	Move to/Rename as	Category:Adult humans by setting
	per comment above
	Themightyquill (talk · contribs)

@Themightyquill: I've made some tweaks to {{Prop cats}} hopefully making it more clear (moving the signature to the bottom line). Thanks for identifying the additional categories, I agree that they should be handled likewise. Josh (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with specifying "humans" on all these. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree on almost all this request. In most categories, humans are designated as "people" (subdivided into "men", "women", "children"...) without using "humans" which is implicit (except for "males" and "females" which could be ambiguous with other animalia and that could be requalified, but changing "human (fe)males" to "(fe)male humans" will not solve anything; and "humans" remains a category for the gender, that will continue to include "people" for all individuals, including "men", "women", "boys", "girls" which should stay unchanged, which will remain subcategories in "(fe)male humans" still useful for generic non-personal contents on a medical perspective, excluding all "social/political/functional/births/deaths" and "young/old people" perspectives which are related to indivuals or local/functional/social/political/cultural/ethnic/religious/legal groups of individuals).
So renaming "human (fe)male" (prefered to "(fe)males" alone) to "(fe)male humans" serves no purpose, and there's no need at all to generalize it to all other subtopics. And if there's no gender distinction, we should prefer "people" for local/social/political/.../functional topics on individuals, and definitely not "humans" reserved for medical/biological topics on the human species as whole, without any distinction of "race/ethnicity/nationality/body colors" which are purely socio-political and not at all scientific). verdy_p (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Themightyquill and Verdy p: I wish I hadn't created this category: it seems redundant, since Category:Men already exists. Jarble (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jarble: It's not redundant. Men are adults. "Male humans" would include boys, who are not yet adults. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

"Males"(for humans) is more generic than "men" (that are male adult humans); "males" also include "boys" (for male children humans). There are several categories by age subdivided then by sex...

Also "males" vs. "females" is not a binary division for humans (and some other species), that may also be ambisexual (biologically, when not forced by a medical act), or hermaphrodite (two genders simultaneously, or changing naturally across life depending sometimes of social biochemical interactions for insects), even if hermaphrodism is very rare in humans (generally there's a biological gender dominating, even if there are some reduced attributes of the other sex: in many countries, the dominant gender was forced by law or medical acts or families, but modern democratic countries have forbidden these forced practices, now considered exactly like amputations, i.e. definitive punishments without volunteer law violation by the amputed person).

And "men" vs. "women" (only humans, excluding yound people that are still not binary determined) is a social classification that is refuted by transgenders (operated/treated or not: transexuality is part of the sexual identity and not sexual attraction or practices), and it is independant of the sexual identity (psychologic) or sexual attraction (heterosexual, homosexual/gay/lesbian, bisexual) or sexual practices with partners (asexual), social practices (single, partnered, married, polygam...). Sexuality of humans is complex! verdy_p (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Verdy p: Do you prefer "human (fe)males" to "(fe)male humans" in category names? Josh (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Both would be OK for me, but "Human (fe)males..." is already used in a category that would not need to be renamed. The second option allows replacing the leading "(fe)male" adjective by other adjectives (adult, young, old, African) keeping the generic "humans" name at end (also replacable by names of other species: "dogs", "horses")...

It does not matter for me if others would prefer the other option (and anyway they are IMHO synonyms, that would merit to remain as soft-redirected categories for completeness, using a standard redirecting template tracking pages that would fall later in them, because both could be expected by users). verdy_p (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

---

@Auntof6, Themightyquill, Verdy p, and Jarble: Closed (stale discussion; consensus to apply Universality principle to match main category name in children; maintain redirects for alternates) Josh (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)