Category talk:Anti-pornography activists
 | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Partial categories
editAt separate times, there's been disagreement over whether or not to include the higher-level categories Category:Women's rights activists and Category:Conservatism by issue. The category in question, Category:Anti-pornography activists, is split between radical feminists and far-right conservatives, in a ratio of slightly more than 1 to 2.
I think that neither category is appropriate, certainly not "Women's rights activists" because they are not even half the category, but not "Conservatism by issue" either because anti-conservatives make up between one-third and one-half of category members. Other users believe that when some members belong in a higher-level category, that category can be added.
Should either category be included? If so, which?
Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Include in both parent cats Regarding "Conservatism by issue," I think you just made the case for inclusion. If the members of Cat:anti-porn are "far-right conservatives" by 2:1, it seems to make sense to include it in "Conservatism by issue."
- But are the members of anti-porn pertinent? Not really. Reliable sources consider the topic of anti-porn an issue for conservatives. And I think you'll agree anti-porn is a topic of interest to feminists. A reader browsing Conservatism-by issue would expect to find anti-porn, and likewise for women's-rights-activists. Inclusion in both parent cats is appropriate. Lionel (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Anti-porn would certainly work in a conservatism template, but as I said, there are too many anti-conservatives in the category for it to belong. When you add a higher-level category, you are adding the subcat's members to that higher-level cat. Why would the category members not be pertinent? See WP:SUBCAT: "When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the first really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the second also." There are far too many exceptions - as I said, more than a third of the category members aren't conservatives, and more than half aren't women's rights activists. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)