 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
Move request
Requested move 29 January 2019
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Moved: consensus appears to be in favour of the proposal. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
– The term "genderism" is very new to English. It's not recognized by most professional dictionaries (such New Oxford American, American Heritage, and Merriam–Webster's). Google results are mixed and often politically charged. Non-professional dictionaries tend toward the route of this "ism" as a philosophy (similar to feminism, egalitarianism). Political, activist, and advocacy sites see this "ism" as a prejudice (similar to sexism, racism). The contents of the linked articles (especially for "gender binary/ism" and "gender essentialism" have historically been in flux. This proposal will coincide with a proposal to merge the current content of Genderism into Gender binary. A145GI15I95 (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support First move and merging the current article per nom.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support The proposal will help alleviate ambiguity in the title. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- This seems like a WP:DABCONCEPT case to me - a group of means of distinction that some people make around gender. bd2412 T 18:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support 1st move per nom, neutral on 2nd. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Edit war
Please stop engaging in edit war. Please stop accusing others of removing links. Please stop using impolite language. Please discuss further changes here, not in change logs. Thank you. @-sche: A145GI15I95 (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi! I'm glad if you've decided to pause from edit-warring the link to Genderism out of the disambiguation page on Genderism. That wa a frankly bizarre thing to pursue while that article still exists at that title. -sche (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Again, I wasn't removing the link, just the repeated word. And again, please stop making accusations. Please show good faith. A145GI15I95 (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Wrong merge and move Move and merge
The proposal was to merge the old Genderism content (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genderism&oldid=880736110) into the old Gender binary content (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gender_binarism&oldid=880851698), and to rename the content of Genderism disambig (can't find anymore) as Genderism. The outcome of the discussion (above) was support. Why instead now is Genderism pointed to what should be Gender binary (or Gender binarism), and Gender binarism is pointed to the disambig page, which should be simply Genderism? A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)This text was lost in round-robins, replaced with text below.
The proposal was to merge the old Genderism content (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genderism&oldid=880736110) into the old Gender binary content (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gender_binarism&oldid=880851698), and to rename the content of Genderism disambig (can't find anymore) as Genderism. The outcome of the discussion (above) was support. It appears the move was done in the opposite manner by mistake instead (with Genderism pointed to what should be either Gender binary or Gender binarism, and Gender binarism pointed to the Genderism disambig page, which itself should be simply Genderism). I've now attempted to correct the Genderism and Gender binarism move, and I've merged Gender binary into Gender binarism, following instructions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Merging#How_to_merge. A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
This change (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gender_binarism&curid=59865407&diff=881941529&oldid=881934417) appears to express preference to merge Gender binarism into Gender binary, rather than the other way (as I initially did). So I've now moved the merge and corresponding talk pages there. A145GI15I95 (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Well, looking at this and this, it makes sense why your approach was reverted. "Gender binary," as opposed to "gender binarism," is the WP:Common name. Binarism content in the sense of discrimination belongs in the same article. No need for a split, especially when "gender binary" and "gender binarism" are at times used as synonyms. I'm not convinced that "genderism" should be a disambiguation page rather than redirect to the Gender binary article, but oh well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- I attempted a second round-robin to correct the first round-robin, but while the articles' contents, locations, and talk pages then looked good, apparently history was lost. I noted my seemingly successful attempt here earlier, but that note was lost today when an admin made a third round-robin to correct the lost histories. Notes on that work can be found here. End result: all looks even more well now. A145GI15I95 (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)