Why should it be renamed?--Signed by User:$oliton (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose "Sex practices in humans" sounds pointlessly tautological to me.--Signed by User:$oliton (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
The "why it should be renamed" appears in the Move tag on the category page, please look before commenting.
And OK, I accept that "Sex practices in humans" might be awkward; changed now the proposal to Human sex practices. As explained, the essential is to keep this category - which clearly deals (only) with humans - understood as interrelated with Category:Animal sexual behavior. Generally, we add "human" to any category which has a same-topic "Animals" equivalent, so my aim is actually to get this category name with "human" in it. Orrlingtalk 18:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Anyone with objections to the rename from Sex practices to Human sex practices? Orrlingtalk 06:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose It's still pointlessly tautological. Animals f.exp. don't have such a wide variety of sexual practices, so renaming of this category still is utterly unnecessary.--Signed by User:$oliton (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
The category is the direct parallel of Category:Animal sexual behavior under Category:Sexual behavior. By looking at Category:Sexual behavior you’ll see my meaning. In this sense, the sexual-behavior entries of the animals constitute animals' variety of sexual practices – in the way that logically allows to position them as sister-category to "Human sexual behavior". the closest to "Human sexual behavior" is "Human sex practices" - so it's only about adding the differentiating "Human" to the existing "Sex practices", which currently lacks its clear association. Orrlingtalk 07:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)