Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/10/Category:Sexuality
This category seems to be about everything to do with sexual reproduction. Wikipedia doesn't have an article about sexuality, it redirects to en:Human sexuality. Wouldn't it be more consistent if the contents of this category were merged into Category:Sexual reproduction?, which is little used at present? ghouston (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Support Right idea, thanks for noticing this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
No. The term "sexuality" deals with a well-observed, broad social, behavioral, physiological, cultural, evolutionary and psychological infrastructure in organisms that serves the goal of reproduction. The entry about "sexual reproduction" is a bio-genetic niche which probably shouldn't be crossed with the casual, social-science discourse definition of sexuality. It might be valid, though, to suggest containing Sexuality under Sexual reproduction, guaranteeing that it continues speaking to the cultural / psychological pillars of sexuality and not sinks into being a biological cat. Orrlingtalk 01:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think Category:Sexual reproduction should be a bio-genetic niche, it should be a very broad category that has all of the current contents of the Sexuality category within its scope. Any bio-genetic niche categories should be subcategories of Sexual reproduction. You are right that Category:Sexuality could be retained as a subcategory of Sexual reproduction. It would help if it had a description explaining exactly what was in scope, since definitions of "sexuality" vary in different sources. I'm not sure that some of its subcategories, namely Asexuality, Castration, and X chromosome, belong there. ghouston (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with some principles here and there you see now, we already have a well-elaborated Category:Reproduction where "sexuality" is contained already, as suggested above. I guess you checked the category yesterday and didn't see the Reproduction parent on it, as someone had opted it out just a couple of days earlier; I now restored it and I'd like to know if you think the structure is basically OK. Why is this "Sexual reproduction" needed when it can't potentially manifest any tangible distinction from just "Reproduction" which we already have? You're proposing "sexual reproduction" be kind of intermediative between reproduction and sexuality. I, however, would eliminate that skim-dup altogether but I might be wrong. Orrlingtalk 09:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sexual reproduction would include some things that are not covered by sexuality, such as sexual reproduction in plants and biological processes at the cellular level. I did originally suggest a single category, named "sexual reproduction", which avoids the extra level of grouping categories, the question is, how important is it to have a category named "sexuality"? ghouston (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- However, a general sexual reproduction category also has problems. Category:Animal reproduction doesn't fit into it, because some animals can reproduce asexually. Perhaps separating the sexual aspects alone isn't a bad idea. ghouston (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sexual reproduction would include some things that are not covered by sexuality, such as sexual reproduction in plants and biological processes at the cellular level. I did originally suggest a single category, named "sexual reproduction", which avoids the extra level of grouping categories, the question is, how important is it to have a category named "sexuality"? ghouston (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with some principles here and there you see now, we already have a well-elaborated Category:Reproduction where "sexuality" is contained already, as suggested above. I guess you checked the category yesterday and didn't see the Reproduction parent on it, as someone had opted it out just a couple of days earlier; I now restored it and I'd like to know if you think the structure is basically OK. Why is this "Sexual reproduction" needed when it can't potentially manifest any tangible distinction from just "Reproduction" which we already have? You're proposing "sexual reproduction" be kind of intermediative between reproduction and sexuality. I, however, would eliminate that skim-dup altogether but I might be wrong. Orrlingtalk 09:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Also, aren't Category:Sexuality and Category:Animal sexuality the same thing, if I'm not mistaken that sexuality only applies to animals?. ghouston (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sexuality applies to animals incl humans and we typically classify humans under mammals > animals, which is more than acceptable but "human"-categories still ideally parallel "animal"-categories at a same level notwithstanding. As to the rigor to eliminate our "sexuality" category – in this case by moving much of its content elsewhere - unfortunately I'm not convinced there's even a slight reason to accept such an idea, as sexuality is dealt as a social-science matter and held universally (including on Commons) as a network of cultural and psychological ties and notions away from the immediate biochemistry cause of splitting cells, a proposal to repress or dismantle Category:Sexuality can't even be sustained to the slightest. Orrlingtalk 20:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I accept that Sexuality is a meaningful category. Classifying humans outside animals seems rather odd, what are we supposed to be, plants, minerals? The categories Sexuality and Sexuality in animals are duplicates, which isn't right. My solution would be to delete the Sexuality in animals category and move its contents to Sexuality. Alternatively, one could have Sexuality in animals and Sexuality in humans if it's essential to keep humans separate from other animals. ghouston (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Humans are not classified outside animals, and as I just pointed out in a previous comment - Humans categories regularly get Animals as one of their parent cats: please review some plenty of the "X in animals" and "X in humans" here on Commons and see how well and fine and logically they are interrelated in this project's tools. If there's anything to improve, come back here. I could see some point in merging animal sexuality into sexuality but this will need to be very careful and not blindly as sexuality is a BROADER notion than any of its given beneficiary organisms at any time. This is a topic which is observed APART from its narrow biological end. Orrlingtalk 16:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Anyone has objections to merging Category:Animal sexuality into Category:Sexuality? Orrlingtalk 18:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well I don't really see the point of doing that... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- You don't think they are duplicates? ghouston (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well no. Sexuality = human sexuality + animal sexuality. Therefore it's a surcategory of both human and animal sexuality. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oh I think I get it ! You say that sexuality only concerns animals (not vegetals) and since humans are animals, either "sexuality" is the same thing as "animal sexuality" or "human sexuality" would be a subcat of "animal sexuality". Am I right ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's it. ghouston (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- In that case I see no objection. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's it. ghouston (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- You don't think they are duplicates? ghouston (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well I don't really see the point of doing that... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Anyone has objections to merging Category:Animal sexuality into Category:Sexuality? Orrlingtalk 18:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Humans are not classified outside animals, and as I just pointed out in a previous comment - Humans categories regularly get Animals as one of their parent cats: please review some plenty of the "X in animals" and "X in humans" here on Commons and see how well and fine and logically they are interrelated in this project's tools. If there's anything to improve, come back here. I could see some point in merging animal sexuality into sexuality but this will need to be very careful and not blindly as sexuality is a BROADER notion than any of its given beneficiary organisms at any time. This is a topic which is observed APART from its narrow biological end. Orrlingtalk 16:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I accept that Sexuality is a meaningful category. Classifying humans outside animals seems rather odd, what are we supposed to be, plants, minerals? The categories Sexuality and Sexuality in animals are duplicates, which isn't right. My solution would be to delete the Sexuality in animals category and move its contents to Sexuality. Alternatively, one could have Sexuality in animals and Sexuality in humans if it's essential to keep humans separate from other animals. ghouston (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sexuality applies to animals incl humans and we typically classify humans under mammals > animals, which is more than acceptable but "human"-categories still ideally parallel "animal"-categories at a same level notwithstanding. As to the rigor to eliminate our "sexuality" category – in this case by moving much of its content elsewhere - unfortunately I'm not convinced there's even a slight reason to accept such an idea, as sexuality is dealt as a social-science matter and held universally (including on Commons) as a network of cultural and psychological ties and notions away from the immediate biochemistry cause of splitting cells, a proposal to repress or dismantle Category:Sexuality can't even be sustained to the slightest. Orrlingtalk 20:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I have a different question. Orrling and I had recently had a debate about the meaning of "Sex" on Commons. According to Orrling, sex is linked to "having sex" and should be (as it is now) a subcat of "Sexuality" ; while I think it should be the contrary as on English Wikipedia, where "Sex" is taken as a larger concept that includes 'Sexuality". I have been said that the present contents of the categories are more compatible to Orrling's POV. I can accept that affirmation but... in this case is there really a difference between "Sex" and "Sexuality" ? And if there's none, shouldn't we merge those cat - and later be able to recreate or reuse the "Sex" category as it is used on WP ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, it seems that Commons Category:Sex in humans corresponds to en:Wikipedia w:Category:Sexual acts. Maybe the Commons sex categories should be renamed to be more specific. I don't think there's any benefit in naming this category "sex" instead of "sexuality" though. Would "sex" mean the same as "sexual reproduction"? ghouston (talk) 10:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Engaging oneself in pursuing congruence of the Commons categories' logic with English Wikipedia is not the right thing to do in any event. On Wikipedia we write text articles, while here we store and manage media files. "Sex" might have different meanings in many sources, maby even within the Wiki projects, because these are different projects from one another. So "sex" here on Commons means what it is in the more casual discourse, and not some equivalent of "Gender" because "gender" already has its own category on Commons, while Sexuality is even more simple - and can't be interpreted any longer in a variety of wishful ways than the way clarified and agreed in multiple venues already. If the hindrance is now about the question whether we thus continue to keep the term Sexuality as it normally is taken and understood or as it's rather interpreted by possible individuals, then I suggest we heartily refrain from indulging this occurrence of unreasonable caprices and keep evolving the category constructively. At this point we might benefit if we know whether we can or not carry out the merger of Category:Animal sexuality with Category:Sexuality. No point even in trying to explain to adult persons why sexuality (emotions, attraction) is broader than sex (coitus). Orrlingtalk 12:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have moved the sex-related categories from Category:Reproduction to Category:Sexual reproduction. The status quo is that the category exists, therefore it should be used. But if you think that it's unnecessary, I'd suggest starting a discussion on that category and asking for its deletion. ghouston (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Engaging oneself in pursuing congruence of the Commons categories' logic with English Wikipedia is not the right thing to do in any event. On Wikipedia we write text articles, while here we store and manage media files. "Sex" might have different meanings in many sources, maby even within the Wiki projects, because these are different projects from one another. So "sex" here on Commons means what it is in the more casual discourse, and not some equivalent of "Gender" because "gender" already has its own category on Commons, while Sexuality is even more simple - and can't be interpreted any longer in a variety of wishful ways than the way clarified and agreed in multiple venues already. If the hindrance is now about the question whether we thus continue to keep the term Sexuality as it normally is taken and understood or as it's rather interpreted by possible individuals, then I suggest we heartily refrain from indulging this occurrence of unreasonable caprices and keep evolving the category constructively. At this point we might benefit if we know whether we can or not carry out the merger of Category:Animal sexuality with Category:Sexuality. No point even in trying to explain to adult persons why sexuality (emotions, attraction) is broader than sex (coitus). Orrlingtalk 12:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Closing, the conclusion was that Category:Sexuality should be retained, and Category:Animal sexuality was merged into it. ghouston (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)