Talk:Prostitution in Africa

Sexology and sexuality: Sex work Mid‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Sex work task force (assessed as High-importance).

Africa Start‑class High‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Note: this article contains material that was originally in the Prostitution by country article. -- The Anome (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Some articles that are linked from the "Other" section are very short. I propose to merge them into this one. Kurepalaku (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have rearranged them into main section - but I agree - very short --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting articles

I believe that Prostitution in Morocco should be split there is enough third person information to justify a solo article. Dwanyewest (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all three split suggestions, assuming that you're planning to expand them to enough length to justify their stand-alone status. I think a 2-3 sentence summary should remain here in the overview article, however. Speaking more broadly, it'd be nice if this article was someday rewritten to include a continent-wide view of the issue rather than only a nation-by-nation. I don't have anywhere near the knowledge to do this for now, though. Thanks for your work on this! Khazar2 (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the split tags since the split has not been carried out and the sections are not viable articles as they stand. If some one were to create the articles using new material then that would be a different matter. Op47 (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dwanyewest on 31 August 2014‎ again proposed splitting to create Prostitution in Morocco.

I would advise developing the Morocco section here until it's 3-4 times its current length (say 350-500 words at a minimum), and only splitting it out then. Worldbruce (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana and Senegal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge Sex trade in Ghana and Sex trade in Senegal into this article

See Talk:Sex trade in Ghana#Requested move 13 March 2017 and Talk:Sex trade in Senegal#Requested move 13 March 2017 for two related discussions. Andrewa (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is ok but I still believe there is enough third person information for Prostitution in Ghana and Prostitution in Senegal to be solo articles Andrewa. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dwanyewest, it's good to discuss it here. Hopefully we will get some other opinions. (But you might have a look at wp:string... there's no call to go an extra level of indenting, it just means we run out of space twice as fast. Best not to fix it now IMO, see WP:REDACT. Yes, there are a lot of guidelines, but hopefully most of them are commonsense.) Andrewa (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the two move discussions are now closed as not moved, with a recommendation that any further moves, splits or merges be discussed here first. [1] [2]

Ebonelm, AngusWOOF, you supported one or both of the moves, any further comments? (Love the sig, Angus!)

And in particular, does anyone have any further comments on the proposal of Dwanyewest to reverse the merge of the articles on Ghana and Senegal? Andrewa (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what are we gonna do with Sex trade in Ghana and Sex trade in Senegal as they clearly are not appropriate titles and I don't see why the articles can't be deleted and have their info transferred to Prostitution in Ghana and Senegal respectively Andrewa (talk) . Dwanyewest (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've made a real mess of this which we do need to clean up.

They can't be simply deleted because they have significant edit history which we need to preserve. Yes, I know you don't understand this, obviously. I'm sorry if that's blunt.

My suggestion is still that we merge those new articles that you have created into this article, and then have a discussion here about reversing the previous merges. Andrewa (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that Andrewa's suggestion is the only only one left on the table. As far as I can tell there is comparatively little support for the status quo as it deviates from a WP naming convention. This seems to be Dwanyewest's motivation for originally proposing the moves from "Sex trade in..." to "Prositution in...", but his proposals could not gain consensus. The subsequent idea of deleting the two "Sex trade in..." articles and reposting them under "Prostitution in..." titles does run contrary to the rules on edit history, and it also replicates the unsuccessful move proposals by a different route. Thus we are left with Andrewa's suggestion. Of course, this does not mean that there is no support for the existence of these as stand-alone articles, and once the articles have been merged into this page there is potential for discussing splitting them out again, as Andrewa has mentioned elsewhere. I propose that we execute Andrewa's suggestion as a way of getting out of the current impasse. Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re-organization

I have extensively redone this page, taking into account above comments. It is now more systematic, and has been linked to all the related pages that were out there, and to the template.

I agree most of the offshoot pages are basically stubs. I favour leaving them there to encourage them to be developed further.

The template leads in many cases not to a prostitution page but to human trafficking, most of which are problem pages in their own right. This represents a problem which will need to be addressed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]