From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 5 September 7 >

September 6

Category:Radiological weapon

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Category names, names of set categories should be plural. Ibadibam ( talk) 23:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Ibadibam, yes.-- Arbnos ( talk) 01:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Makes sense Ibadibam ( talk · contribs). Iazyges ( talk) 05:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Film speculative fiction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: selective merge to Category:Speculative fiction films. It has already been moved by User:Arbnos from the nominated title to Category:Speculative fiction film, so I will merge from there where necessary. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Recently created category that is redundant to Category:Speculative fiction films. Ibadibam ( talk) 23:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Ibadibam, it is genre.-- Arbnos ( talk) 01:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Ibadibam, see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9583669 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2973181 -- Arbnos ( talk) 01:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm not getting any meaningful Google results for "film speculative fiction". As far as I can tell, you coined the term yourself when you created that label on WikiData. I take it you were making a literal translation of Kinofantastika, which might translate better as " fantastique film", speculative fiction film", or maybe just " fantasy film". Help us understand: does kinofantastika differ in any way from speculative fiction, except for its culture and language of origin? Ibadibam ( talk) 01:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Ibadibam, it is genre. Similarly Category:Experimental film contains Category:Experimental filmmakers, Category:Experimental film festivals.-- Arbnos ( talk) 13:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Ibadibam, title is I do not care what.-- Arbnos ( talk) 13:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Difference is exist. John Clute propopse introdice term fantastika into English for good reason… But this isnn't for category. -- Be nt all ( talk) 01:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm very grateful for this link, which does a great job defining the term. I should point out that the definition offered in that article, "...the armamentarium of the fantastic in literature as a whole, encompassing science fiction, Fantasy, fantastic horror and their various subgenres; but not Proto SF.", is very similar to Wikipedia's definition for speculative fiction: "...a broad category of narrative fiction that includes elements, settings and characters created out of imagination and speculation rather than based on reality and everyday life. It encompasses the genres of science fiction, fantasy, science fantasy, horror, alternative history, and magic realism." From this I take it that fantastika is a synonym for speculative fiction, and as such should not be segregated. Following the closure of this discussion, I will take steps to merge the entries on WikiData. Ibadibam ( talk) 23:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Rob Sinden, Category:Speculative fiction films is subcategory for Category:Films by genre. And Category:Film speculative fiction is subcategory for Category:Film genres.-- Arbnos ( talk) 14:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Category:Film speculative fiction does not make sense and seems to be very poorly structured anyway. As Category:Films by genre is a subcat of Category:Film genres, Category:Speculative fiction films is included. This category is not needed. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 14:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Rob Sinden, WP:DIFFUSE.-- Arbnos ( talk) 15:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
That doesn't address the majority of my concern. You've created a nonsense-named, duplicate category and filled it with an incoherent jumble of articles without paying any mind to a structured category tree. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 15:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Judges of Supreme Court of Sierra Leone

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Should someone find some information in the future which would support using "Judges" in preference to "Justices", we can have a new nomination to change that word back. (From an English common law perspective, which is the system SL has adopted (or had imposed on it, depending on the POV), I think the terms are more or less interchangeable. In some jurisdictions, judges of superior courts are called "justices", while judges of inferior courts are called "judges". The SC of SL is a superior court, so "Justice" seems relatively safe to me.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: At the very least, there's a missing article in the current name. I propose using the most common format in the parent category Category:National supreme court judges but am obviously open to other suggestions. Pichpich ( talk) 19:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Major US cities

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. Consensus is clear that the categories should match the article titles (among other reasons). -- Tavix ( talk) 20:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming:
Rationale: Per names of articles about each of these cities. See also recent discussion, where this was decided about Seattle-related categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: The following are previous discussions related to this issue:

Will soon notify all the participants in the 2 most recent; pinging the other participants from the previous two: @ Andrewaskew, Benkenobi18, BrownHairedGirl, Mayumashu, Qetuth, Richhoncho, and Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Support rename, per nom. -- Dэя- Бøяg 16:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support, following the Seattle precedent. For those who may not recognize this group of cities, they're all listed in the AP Stylebook as not needing state designations, making them an exception to WP:USPLACE (hence the titles without the state name). -- BDD ( talk) 16:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); September 6, 2016; 16:20 (UTC)
  • Oppose Don't recall what I stated earlier, but I would oppose dropping the state names. Would rather be consistent for clarity purposes than remove something that may be redundant. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 16:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per main articles, per WP:USPLACE which makes these cities an explicit exception and per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 17#Seattle. Timrollpickering ( talk) 16:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per consistency, and as I said in the Seattle discussion, we should be making wikipedia easier to use for more people, not less. I don't see how removing the state (or not having them on articles) achieves that. Kbdank71 16:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    It makes it easier because in most cases, category names match article names. Deviating from that risks articles being placed in red categories. -- BDD ( talk) 17:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    Changing a category to match a less helpful article name doesn't make things easier, it just makes the encyclopedia less useful. You yourself said For those who may not recognize this group of cities, so you recognize that there are readers who would benefit from these being city, state. As for red categories, won't having some articles/categories as just city and some are city, state cause that problem as well? Kbdank71 18:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    For those who "may not recognize this group of cities", things can be made much clearer by moving all US city articles (except those with ambiguous titles, obviously) from "City, State" to "City" title. You know, setting them up the same way as nearly every other city article on Wikipedia. In all, if anyone gets confused, it's not the fault of this proposal (which simply follows the existing guidelines), it's the fault of the abomination which is WP:USPLACE. Just sayin'...— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); September 6, 2016; 18:48 (UTC)
    First of all, I do agree with Ëzhiki above. But I should clarify that the statement of mine you referred to was really saying "For editors who may not know why this nomination has these specific cities", i.e., to head off any boosterism or bickering about the relative significance of these or other cities. Apologies for not making this clear. -- BDD ( talk) 20:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • "Changing a category to match a less helpful article name doesn't make things easier" Sure it does: it forces these conversation about article names into RM article discussions on the article talk a where they belong. The purpose of CFD category discussions should not be to undermine and second guess the decisions made in the main articles. I think there is a potentially strong argument that the AP Style Guide is designed for American readers and Wikipedia has a global audience so we should use state names across the board but there is nothing about that argument that justifies having split naming conventions for main articles versus categories. RevelationDirect ( talk) 21:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename all (support): I don't think any additional words are needed for clarity purposes (all after, they aren't used in the article's actual titles); both Wikipedia and many other organzations recognize these cities as primary topics. Also per whatever was said in the Seattle proposal. p b p 16:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per consistency within category names. Removing state names is a step in the wrong direction. Oculi ( talk) 17:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per consistency with the main articles. The article names do not have the state, therefore the category names should not either per WP:C2D. It's that simple since the navigation needs of articles and categories are identical and mismatching the category name with the main article name hinders navigation. (I'm actually neutral on renaming the articles to include the state names if anyone wants to open a Request to Move; I would be fine with speedy renaming any of these categories back if such an RM passed at the article level.) RevelationDirect ( talk) 17:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong support all consistency with article titles is most important here. The arguement that say that this would make it inconsistent with other US cities does not make sense because US city names themselves are inconsistent with city names around the world. There is nothing intrinsically special about US cities that specifically distinguishes them from other cities.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 17:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support for consistency with article titles, and for conformance to the principle of using the names by which things are best known. It is indeed "Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States, North America, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Local Group, Universe", but let's value clarity over information content and call it "Philadelphia", as a newspaper article would. TypoBoy ( talk) 19:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support, while I haven't participated in the earlier Seattle discussion, I think we should respect the outcome of this discussion especially since many editors participated in it. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support Per WP:COMMONNAME and consistency between article and category. You're not going to confuse the city of Indianapolis in Indiana with anything else named "Indianapolis". This would be a different story with "Springfield" or an exceptionally common name but not here. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME; that's what these places are called except sometimes in rhyme or song. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. As I stated in the discussion about Seattle, I would have been happy to support that renaming had the category convention been identical to the article convention. This change will make it so, and is most welcome. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 21:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support, not directly because of COMMONNAME, but because categories should be consistent with the parent article. Arguments of COMMONNAME and CONSISTENCY should be made in relation to titling decisions for the parent articles. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support to keep the categories in line with the WP:USPLACE naming convention and also with MOS:PN. Calidum  ¤ 02:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support, to (1) implement the US place name convention in category-space, (2) match the category names to the relevant article names, and (3) follow the result of the most recent Seattle discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per Good Olfactory. Iazyges ( talk) 05:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support Category names should match article names. Number 5 7 08:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support C2D. SST flyer 09:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose: Boston; Cleveland; Dallas; and Las Vegas, Neutral on others. For the four named, this is on the grounds that these could lead to miscategorisation that is harder to detect. At present, the mere presence of a page in Category:Boston, Category:Cleveland, Category:Dallas, or Category:Las Vegas is a red-flag that another category is certain to be more appropriate. To a Brit, Boston is a town and small port in Lincolnshire, on the east coast of England, and I don't fancy trawling through Category:Boston post-rename to find and recategorise articles that should have been put in Category:Boston, Lincolnshire. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 09:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    • To this Brit with ancestry from Lincolnshire, "Boston" defaults to the place in Massachusetts. (And "Dallas" is the place in Texas but the one in Scotland is extremely tiny and unknown.) There's never been much rhyme or reason to the pattern of category redirects and disambiguation pages and they don't get that much debate so they don't represent a clear obstacle or a greater risk of miscategorisation than other articles on the list. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
      • And to some people in Pennsylvania, "Bethlehem" refers to a city in Pennsylvania, not to a Middle-Eastern city. Would you support renaming the Bethlehem categories to "Bethlehem, Palestine"? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
        • A person who assumes that "Boston", in an international encyclopedia, refers to Boston, England is awfully undereducated and I'm not sure how we can help him: "Boston, Massachusetts" won't much help as he's probably never heard of Massachusetts. If we don't want the articles and categories to be named just "Boston" etc., then "Boston, United States" rather than "Boston, Massachusetts" is the only logical choice; Adding state names is mostly only useful for distinguishing between similarly-named cities in the United States. Herostratus ( talk) 00:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support. Obviously, I oppose the Seattle decision. But since it was accepted, the rest should follow too. I will remind folks that Las Vegas is a real problem child here, and let the chips fall where they may.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support Category names should stay in line with article names. (Note: I would oppose renaming the city articles to City, State, however, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USPLACE.) clpo13( talk) 16:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom and WP:C2D. I bite my lip and reluctantly accept it when categories such as Category:Films directed by Colin Low (filmmaker) are created because of course the categories have to match the main article, and common sense be damned, apparently. Well, this is a case where both Wiki guidelines and common sense are aligned. And I thank the nominator for taking this on and doing all the tagging, etc. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support all per the explicit guidance in WP:USPLACE as consistent with COMMONNAME, and for consistency with the eponymous cities' articles. Regards, James ( talk/ contribs) 17:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support. It is gratifying that this unfortunate and irksome discrepancy has finally come up for a vote and is receiving such overwhelming support. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support but not all -- While the "city, state" format is desirable where there is any risk of ambiguity, it is not necessary where there is little or none. Care needs to be taken over this: the categories for Birmingham are at "Birmingham, West Midlands", to prevent the inadvertent addition of articles relating to Birmingham, Alabama. Applying this, I would object about Baltimore (which is probably named from the title of the Lord Proprietor, who took his title from a village in Ireland and Cleveland, which is a range of hills in north Yorkshire and became the name of a metropolitan county, though the preferred name for the area now seems to be Teesside. I would also query San Antonio and St Louis, both of whom are saints that may have given their names to other places, and may need to retain a disambiguator on the Birmingham principle. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support All This is a commonsense change that should have been made long ago to have category titles match those of the parent article as a general rule. Alansohn ( talk) 15:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose for several reasons.
    1. This doesn't help the readers, but it may harm them. Readers find categories in two ways; clicking on them from articles and typing them into the search bar. If they intend to search for "Category:Philadelphia" but the category is really at "Category:Philadelphia, Pennsylvania", that category will feature prominently in the search results (almost always the first result). The reverse is not necessarily true. If you search "Category:Philadelphia, Pennsylvania" but the category is at "Category:Philadelphia", it may not show up as easily, and it definitely won't be an auto-complete option.
    2. This harms content creators. The other group we have categories for is our content creators. As a rule, almost all US cities follow the "City, State" format to their categories. It is confusing to deviate from that pattern for a set of cities that have been determined to be the primary topic. Content creators aren't about to check the name of a city article every time they want to know what category name to use.
    3. The whole point of keeping consistency between article names and category names is to aid navigation. This should be self-explanatory, but since some editors tend to follow the "rules" without thinking too much about why we have those guidelines, I feel the need. The point of consistency is to aid our readers and content creators in finding the categories they're interested in. I'm extremely convinced this change would make navigation more difficult, not easier, and so we shouldn't act as slaves to the guidelines. This is a case where there's strong reasons to deviate from the "norm". ~ Rob13 Talk 05:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    Category redirects would take care of #1 entirely and partially address #2. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong support. State name should be used only for disambiguation purpose and in case the relevance of the second-most linked place is somewhat well assessed. No need to have "New Orleans, Louisiana" for the same reason we don't disambiguate between "London, United Kingdom" and "London, Ontario". -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 20:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Isn't WP:Commonname meant for article pages, not categories? These aren't long names and they are unambiguous, so why change them?? It certainly doesn't have navigation, as others have said above. Mayumashu ( talk) 09:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    Excuse me, I am not sure to have understood your point. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 10:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment In accordance with WP:APPNOTE, I've placed a notification of this discussion at WT:CITY, WT:USA, and WT:NCGN. Regards, James ( talk/ contribs) 20:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    • To be fair, the first 2 are WikizProjects where the Article Alerts bot listed this discussion for a number of categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per my earlier comment and so forth. Herostratus ( talk) 22:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. These are not unambiguous. Does "Category:Miami" refer to the city in Florida, or to Miami, Ohio? Is "Category:San Antonio" the one in Texas or in Florida? WP:COMMONNAME is a good standard but we need not to let policies become straightjackets that produce detriments to our readers. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Note to closing admin: If closing as "rename", a full list of targets which are currently blue-linked can be found at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 6/reverse redirects. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong oppose all The disambiguation in referring to US cities is nearly universal, and should be kept in place to avoid any confusion. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    • @ Johnpacklambert: This looks to me like a reasonable comment in a request to rename the articles about these cities, but why should it justify a difference between the articles and categories? If you think that the articles about the cities should be renamed, feel free to open a request at WP:Requested moves. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Similar São Paulo Nomination The naming of the Category:São Paulo (city) has been nominated for discussion by another editor here. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome. RevelationDirect ( talk) 20:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose all of this. Stupid nomination that makes things worse, not better. These are fine as they are. GigglesnortHotel ( talk) 21:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Firstly, the fact that you disagree doesn't make it stupid. And in my opinion, and the opinion of many other users, it does make things better, not worse - it matches the category names to the article names. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong support for all — As stated by several others, this change should have been made long ago for consistency between cats and parent articles. — Dale Arnett ( talk) 09:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Categories need to be less clear than articles because people can add to categories without ever checking them, and it is a lot harder to monitor the contents and changes of a category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    • People can also add content to articles "without ever checking them". Categories are not unique in this regard. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply
      • I disagree. Category errors impact editors while article errors impact readers. Obviously these discussions consist of editors, but that doesn't mean we should respect readers wasting their time going to the wrong article. RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
        • I've read it several times, User:RevelationDirect, but I can't quite parse the meaning of your comment above and discover where the disagreement is. I think that making any type of error has potential to impact both readers and editors. Readers as well as editors reference categories, and of course readers and editors reference articles, so I'm unclear on what distinction is being drawn here. All in all, though, I have found categorization errors to be reasonably rare events, even when categories are not 100% unambiguous. The vast majority of editors working in categorization don't seem to be nearly as haphazard as we sometimes assume they could be. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strongly oppose all these changes, and especially Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the former capital of the United States and not the one in Mississippi or in 4 other states, and not Philadelphia, Tyne and Wear, named to commemorate the capture by the British army in 1777. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 ( talk • contribs) 23:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  •  Comment: I would like to remind to all those opposers on the ground "this is the standard for US cities" that disambiguations in Wikipedia are the exception, not the rule. If a place name is undoubtely identified with a given city with no margin of error, disambiguation is useless (and harmful, because it inferes that London, England, sits at the same rank as London, Ontario, with the due respect for the latter). Thus Los Angeles, Atlanta, Detroit, Salt Lake City, Miami, etc. etc. do not need disambiguation at all, because no one in good faith could tell that when one talks about Hollywood anywhere in the world apart Hollywood, Florida, they are talking about just... Hollywood, Florida. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 17:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hong Kong pan-democrats

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a followup to WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 3#Splitting activists and politicians. It was decided that we split activists from politicians. While activists remain in Category:Hong Kong democracy activists, this is the politicians category, and should be accordingly named. The "(Hong Kong)" disambiguation is necessary because there is also a "Pan-democracy camp" in Macau, see Pan-democracy camp (Macau). PanchoS ( talk) 12:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support in principle, but would a parent category that encompasses both the politicians and activists be desirable? ~ Rob Talk 17:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, the "pan-democracy camp" in Macau is called "pro-democratic camp". If this renaming is adopted, then "pro-Beijing camp" in Hong Kong should be renamed into "pro-establishment camp", and "pan-establishment camp" in Macau should be renamed into "pro-establishment camp (Macau)". UU ( talk) 15:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The proposal does contain a split, not at the biographies level, but at group level. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is stale, but I think reviving it might lead to a consensus. I think we're close to achieving consensus, but not quite there yet. I'll notify WP:HK as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 15:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Checkuser requests to be listed

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Requests for Checkuser has been superseded by WP:SPI. Chickadee46 ( talk| contribs) ( WP:MCW) 23:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Question shouldn't the content of the category be merged somewhere? Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll inform the WP:SPI folks about this, they'll probably know what to do about it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 12:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Presumably the above question is meanwhile redundant. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speaking as a checkuser, this category has not been in active use for at least 6 years. Deletion of this category will not have any effect on the processes used today on WP:SPI. I support deletion. Risker ( talk) 13:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Livins people bhind

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted, gibberish. -- Tavix ( talk) 12:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only used on the creator's user page. This category cannot be used on articles and contains typo (Living people behind?). NgYShung huh? 11:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tomorrow's World presenters

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:PERFCAT Rob Sinden ( talk) 09:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - "Raymond Frederic Baxter OBE (25 January 1922 – 15 September 2006) was a British television presenter and writer. He is best known for being the first presenter of Tomorrow's World, continuing for 12 years, from 1965 to 1977". The nom needs to find a relevant rationale for presenters; presenting a weekly programme for 12 years does not fall under WP:PERFCAT. Oculi ( talk) 12:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Per WP:PERFCAT: "This also includes categorization by performance—even for permanent or recurring roles—in any specific radio, television, film, or theatrical production" -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 12:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Top Gear people

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Despite the previous discussion, this is still a WP:PERFCAT, and is non- WP:DEFINING for the majority of the included individuals. Rob Sinden ( talk) 09:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – as pointed out in the previous cfd it fails WP:PERFCAT for some of these such as Jeremy Clarkson. The best solution would be to create Category:Top Gear presenters for the presenters (for whom it is a long-term, many-performance job) which will avoid the problem of editors placing random once-seen people into it. Oculi ( talk) 09:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure that is a solution. Clarkson was a presenter, so editors would just keep adding him to that category too. Matt LeBlanc too. How many of these people are really defined as a "Top Gear person"? Any of these (and any subcat) fails WP:PERFCAT. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 09:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Per WP:DEFINING, Clarkson belongs in Top Gear presenters. That's how RS refer to him; even now he is referred to as "former-Top Gear presenter". If it wasn't for Top Gear, Clarkson would be unknown outside the UK. LeBlanc not so much. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 10:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
If this is the case, then the couple of people who could possibly be considered truly defined by their performance in Top Gear could be included in the parent category. Category:Top Gear presenters and Category:Top Gear people are liable to be filled with any number of individuals, as we have seen. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 10:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It was only today that a CfD was closed with the decision that Category:Top Gear presenters be upmerged to this cat. To nominate this cat only 9 hours after the previous CfD closed is ridiculous. I do agree though with Oculi's suggestion. That was the reason that Category:Top Gear presenters was created in the first place. Given the recent close of the CfD, the outcome and comments by participants there must be considered here. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 09:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
I upmerged it based on that discussion, and it became clear whilst doing that that both this and the previous category were nothing more than WP:PERFCATs. No-one here is WP:DEFINEd by their performance in this TV series. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 09:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
WP:DEFINING: "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having". Clarkson: "He is best known for co-presenting the BBC TV show Top Gear with Richard Hammond and James May from October 2002 to March 2015". So it is obviously defining for Clarkson (and more so for Hammond and May). Oculi ( talk) 12:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The defining category is Category:English television presenters, not the specific programme, per WP:PERFCAT. In the same way, someone who is famous for being on EastEnders is defined as Category:English soap opera actresses, not Category:EastEnders actresses. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 12:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
There is no such thing as a defining category. This argument would dismantle Category:Manchester United F.C. players and Category:The Beatles members. Perfcat doesn't apply: get another rationale. Oculi ( talk) 17:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
No it wouldn't, being members of a band or a football team has nothing to do with WP:PERFCAT. We're talking about appearances/performances on a TV show, so WP:PERFCAT is completely valid. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 11:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Per WP:PERFCAT: "This also includes categorization by performance—even for permanent or recurring roles—in any specific radio, television, film, or theatrical production". -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC) reply
For whatever reason, PERFCAT is pretty narrowly scoped to exclude athletic categories, and Category:Musicians by band categories fall under People by organization. A media title is a performance; the organization in this case is the BBC. So Category:BBC people is an appropriate place for these pages (though I note there are a few more perfcats in that tree that should be dealt with). Ibadibam ( talk) 19:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep; akin to other franchises where on-air, off-air, owners, producers, directors, etc. can be - if they all ought to go, let's discuss them collectively. DO NOT RECREATE THE RECENTLY DELETED, as that would be disruptive and limited to on-air folks (which is clearly PERF). Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Clearly a PERFCAT. Some of the presenters are far more notable for other television work than for this. I would not object to a list in the articled, though the information appears that a template. The 2002 article needs to be renamed 2002-15, since its successor appears to be a shadow of that series. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The presenters are already listed in the related articles (there are 2), the cat combines the list. Renaming the 2002 series article would be contrary to the naming convention. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 18:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Selectively upmerge to parent categories only if the parent category is defining. Clarkson may be upmerged to both parent categories because WP:PERFCAT does not apply to him but many others should just be upmerged to Category:BBC people (or maybe not upmerged at all) because WP:PERFCAT is applicable to them. This is a clearly not a 'one size fits all' issue. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or listify, and selectively upmerge to appropriate subcategories of Category:BBC people. Do not upmerge to Category:Top Gear. Perfcat is quite clear that it applies "even for permanent or recurring roles", and precludes upmerge where it tells us that "performers should not be categorized into a general category which groups topics about a particular performance venue or production (e.g. Category:Star Trek), when the specific performance category would be deleted (e.g. Category:Star Trek script writers)." Ibadibam ( talk) 19:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Beaches in

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: In line with similar categories Rathfelder ( talk) 08:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. Ditto similar ones below. Oculi ( talk) 12:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nominator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I've bundled several similar nominations so discussion can be centralized. -- Tavix ( talk) 16:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. Iazyges ( talk) 05:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Object "in" is certainly appropriate to the Aarhus item. In UK, strictly, the place would only extend to the high-water line, but that probably only applies to UK. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support for consistency. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose we want to identify beaches by location not ownership. While the later interpretation of "of" might not lead to excluding privately owned beaches, it is more likely to do so. Addtionally some beaches are owned by governments other than the one where they physically are. We should not change their classification. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • rename per nom. The reason for the otherwise universal 'of' use is that these follow the WP rules for all types of landforms. Beaches are no exception. Hmains ( talk) 02:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Beaches in Turkey

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge, noting that there is a specific guideline on this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: In line with similar categories Rathfelder ( talk) 08:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Faith-based literature

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: /Rename but I don't have a suggestion to what. I'm not sure what this is supposed to be... It's a subcat of Category:Religious literature and it seems like the two names are interchangeable. If these are all about the topic of faith, then rename to Category:Books about faith. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, this is an incoherent collection of books that each belong (and mostly already are) in different places lower in the tree of Category:Religious literature. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete hard to say what literature is based on what faith in what. If one has faith in science, perhaps any science book qualifies; perhaps if you have faith in Satan, a different set of books than those in this category would be there. Subjective pure and simple. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- after checking that nothing will be left orphaned. I checked a number of items. As far as I could see the "faith" is always Christian, though the writer's perspective is not always clear. It seemed to be a mixture of inspirational Christian books, books on relationships from a Christian point of view, and even a novel. The odd one may be exploring the Christian understanding of faith, but most are not, possibly relating to its application. Certainly the whole thing lacks the coherence required for a category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I just want to mention that the library at which I volunteer has a "Faith" section, actually, two, one for large print books, and it is all Christian fiction. Since we, at least I, am not willing to define it like that here, that "faith" = "christian" I favor removing the whole thing. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 18:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete POV category that only includes Christian books. Dimadick ( talk) 19:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hebephilia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at 2016 SEP 29 CFD. Category was not tagged with Template:Cfd, so I have tagged it and relisted it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:Original research violations. Pederasty‎ is not hebephilia. And there are no sources in the Breast ironing or Sexual cleansing articles tying breast ironing and sexual cleansing to hebephilia. Hebephilia is not simply about the age range; it is specifically about adults sexually preferring early to mid-pubescents, and there is not much out there about the characteristics of hebephilia. Furthermore, the concept of hebephilia is significantly debated, as seen in the Hebephilia article. All of this makes it clear that hebephilia categories are a matter of POV not supported by the sources; instead, they are a matter of editors attaching anything to the term hebephilia that they personally view as being covered by the term. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for reasons stated by nominator -- Iztwoz ( talk) 07:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Categories are for navigation, not for definition. If there are more than a couple of articles related to this concept, and if a reader who is interested hebephilia would be interested in those articles, then they belong in the category. Or, to put it another way, it doesn't actually matter that pederasty isn't the same thing has hebephilia (although the nom is correct that there is a small difference between "an adult man having sex with a teenage boy" and "an adult man preferring sex with a teenage boy"). For the purposes of categorization, it only matters that if you're looking for articles on this subject, then here are some articles that you'll very likely be interested in.
    I'm dubious about the inclusion of a couple of the current articles listed in it (which should presumably be discussed at each of their talk pages), but not about the overall validity of having a category on the subject. I'm also willing to compromise on an informal "merge" to Category:Pederasty, e.g., by placing a note at the top of that category that says editors have agreed to include subjects about hebephilia there, rather than having a separate category with significantly overlapping content. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 08:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • delete per nominators rationale-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 10:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per whatamidoing. Pwolit iets ( talk) 10:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – there has to be a sourced statement in the article which justifies inclusion in any category. Deducing from an article that it belongs in a category is exactly WP:Original research. Oculi ( talk) 12:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Actually, if you read WP:NOR, it says "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." with a footnote that says "By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy". There is no requirement that a sourced statement exists. There is only a requirement that it would be possible to source a statement, if some editor were willing to expend the necessary time, effort, money, and skill to find a reliable source. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF, the content of this category isn't about hebephilia. If not deleted, oppose merging since pederasty since this is something completely different than hebephilia. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Is deletion the best way to clean up the contents of a category? Disagreeing with the current contents of an article is widely consider an invalid rationale for deleting an article. It seems to be that it ought to be an equally invalid rationale for a category, unless perhaps the category were turning into a sort of attractive nuisance. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
      • If an article or category gets entirely empty because of lack of content it is deleted. In case of categories, in addition, WP:SMALLCAT may apply. So if you know a reasonable number (e.g. five) of other articles that do fit in this category, please share the names of these articles and we'll discuss it further. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- The two articles in the category seem to have little to do with the subject. I am prepared to accept that the article should survive. The two subcategories may need re-parenting. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films about hebephilia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (Category was not tagged with Template:Cfd; nominators, please remember to do so, otherwise no changes can be made as a result of the discussion when a consensus is reached.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Same rationale as the one for the proposed deletion of the hebephilia category. This category is a WP:Original research violation. How are we to judge what is a film about hebephilia? If reliable sources don't state that the film is about hebephilia, we should not be categorizing it as a film about hebephilia. Like I argued for the deletion of the hebephilia category, "Hebephilia is not simply about the age range; it is specifically about adults sexually preferring early to mid-pubescents, and there is not much out there about the characteristics of hebephilia. Furthermore, the concept of hebephilia is significantly debated, as seen in the Hebephilia article. All of this makes it clear that hebephilia categories are a matter of POV not supported by the sources; instead, they are a matter of editors attaching anything to the term hebephilia that they personally view as being covered by the term." Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for reasons stated by nominator. Also topic is a totally pointless 'concept' imo. -- Iztwoz ( talk) 07:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Anyone who looks at a search engine can easily verify that the main subject of films such as the 2012 documentary Are All Men Pedophiles? (which is not currently in that cat) is "pedophilia and hebephilia". Including such a film in this category does not require original research (==impossible to verify in reliable sources). It may, however, be appropriate to spend some time determining whether all of the current entries in the cat belong there. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 09:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • delete it does seem to be original research...IMO-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 10:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    • How did you conclude that this a WP:NOR problem? Look at sources like [1] and [2], which contain statements such as "A discussion of pedophilia and hebephilia (which the film spells “hebophilia”) from Are All Men Pedophiles?" Why do you think that it's original research – which means something that is not present in reliable sources – to conclude that this is a film about hebephilia, when reliable sources directly say that it is a film about that subject? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
      via the same rationale used by the nominator [3]-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 20:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
      Sure, she says "if reliable sources don't state that the film is about hebephilia". But reliable sources actually do "state that the film is about hebephilia", using the exact word hebephilia. It cannot possibly be "original research" under that circumstance. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 07:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • keep upon considering WAID's point, I therefore strike my prior opinion to "keep"...-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 10:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    WhatamIdoing, I considered that someone would bring up the Are All Men Pedophiles? film, and I thought about bringing it up as well, but it was not in the hebephilia category at the time that I proposed the category's deletion. And even if it had been, it would have been the only film about hebephilia in that category. So this is a WP:OR case indeed. Ozzie10aaaa was correct to support deletion, and I hope that that Ozzie10aaaa reconsiders going back to his deletion vote. We shouldn't keep a category for one film about hebephilia. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    It's not OR to have such a category (although it might be a SMALLCAT problem, depending upon how many such films exist). It sounds below like a rename would make more sense, since this seems to be meant to separate "films about sex between adults and older minors" from "films about sex between adults and children" rather than actual hebephilia (and actual pedophilia, for that matter, and we seem to have a cat on that which could probably benefit from similar investigation). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
WhatamIdoing, I agree that it's not OR to have such a category. But that wasn't my argument. My argument is that it's currently being used in a way that is WP:OR, except for the Are All Men Pedophiles? film that you added to the category, and that there is not much out there in way of films about hebephilia (aside from Are All Men Pedophiles?) to have such a category. Editors would simply be applying this category to films that have involved an adult being sexual with a pubescent. Some editors would be focusing on the 11 to 14 age range, when that age range is just an outline since 9-year-olds (especially girls) can be pubescent too. At this time, I consider the existence of this category problematic. And, yeah, Category:Pedophilia and Category:Films about pedophilia also need to be under scrutiny. They are on my watchlist, but when people add those categories to articles, the watchlists don't pop up to alert anyone to the change. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Edited to make more tweaks to my post. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
You can show category changes. Watchlist the cat page, then go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist and un-tick "Hide categorization of pages". Then you'll see items in your watchlist that say things like "(diff | hist) . . Category:User essays‎; 14:48 . . ‎Target360YT (talk | contribs)‎ ( User:Target360YT/Anti-Racism added to category)". WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I presume that the creator of this category, User:Dereck Camacho created it in order to ease navigation. If so, I agree with that premise. Also, its a form of disambiguation. Pwolit iets ( talk) 10:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    Pwolit iets, none of the films, unless we include Are All Men Pedophiles?, are about hebephilia. That is a WP:OR problem. I got wind of this problem because I saw you misapplying these hebephilia categories. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, my rationale was this: there is a very similar category for "films about pedophilia" which basically included every single film were a person under 18 have sex with a person over 18, as a medic I know the category listed most movies wrong as pedophilia is a very specific conditions for attraction/sex with pre-pubescent children, with such films as American Beauty and even Lolita not belonging there. Of course, retire them from the category would cause an editing war in some cases or constant reversions in other as a lot of people do not have the clinical difference clear enough and would insist in the inclusion. As for original research, well, is not rocket science, every movie with sex between a teenager and an adult qualifies. But the original research can also be applied to the "films about pedophilia" category. So if this category is eliminated I think the pedophilia category should go to. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 12:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    • It sounds like you meant to create a "Category:Films in which adults have sex with young but post-pubescent teens". This title is more like "Films about adults being sexually attracted to younger teens, regardless of whether anyone ever has sex at all". WhatamIdoing ( talk) 07:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
      • The idea was to take a lot of movies out of a wrong category made by people with no clinical knowledge of the terminology. Now, if some of the movies in the new category belong there, that's another discussion. I did my best reading the synopsis of each movie to see why was put into "filsm about pedophilia" in the first time, it could be of course that some skipped my effort, but in general the movies in the category are suppose to be the ones were an adult and a teen have sex and is some sort of important point in the movie. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 08:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Dereck Camacho, if the films are not about hebephilia, we should not be categorizing them as films about hebephilia. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – The Damned (1969 film) does not mention hebephilia, sourced or otherwise. (Most 'Films about' categories should be deleted. The Damned (1969 film) is about all sorts of things.) Oculi ( talk) 12:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Tend to keep, if hebephilia is defined as adults with a certain preference per WP:RS and the films are about adults with that preference per WP:RS we don't need to require that RS explicitly mention that the film is about hebephilia. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete suffers the same problems nearly all faults of the "films about" categories; how much about the film must it be and what WP:RS tell us it's at least that much. I am recalling a conversation here about what the 1999 movie "Titanic" was about: a shipwreck, a love story, hubris, upstairs-downstairs conflict (class warfare?), depravity, scarcity of resources, or (as some of these off-beat categories merely a mention of the subject makes the film about) maybe the whole thing was about chamber music. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but purge and it needs a more appropriate parent, perhaps relating to paedophilia. Hebe was the Greek goddess of youth, so that I take this to be about men loving young girls. Pederasty is the equivalent for men loving boys, so that it is not an appropriate parent. If it becomes physical, it is illegal in my country (UK) until the girl is 16; but others have other ages of consent. Paedophilia is a broader concept, referring to children of all kinds. Lolita (according to what I have heard of it) is specifically about this subject, so that it is a legitimate category. Periodically, we get real life cases of teachers running off with their female pupils; and sometimes this ends in a stable marriage, years afterwards. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Peterkingiron, see the Hebephilia article. Hebephilia is not simply "about men loving young girls." It is about adults (who happen to be men, when going by the documented literature) who are primarily sexually attracted to early to mid pubescents (whether a boy or a girl). A man with a sexual preference for young pubescent boys is a hebephile. Pederasty is not a hebephilia counterpart. Pederasty is about sexual societal customs that took place between men and adolescent boys in ancient times (mostly ancient times anyway). Pedophilia, as noted in the Pedophilia article, is (usually) about the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Pedophilia is not about all sexual attraction to children, unless the term is misapplied. 16-year-olds, for example, can be pedophiles since 16-year-olds are usually post-pubescent individuals and their brain development aligns more with an adult's brain development than with a child's brain development. 16-year-olds normally do not find little kids sexually attractive. A 16-year-old being primarily sexually attracted to little kids is no different than an 18-year-old being primarily sexually attracted to little kids. The only difference is that age 18 is legal adulthood in most countries. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
I have to agree with Flyer22 Reborn as a psychologist. Paedophilia is not a broader concept, not for us at least. It is a very specific concept for a very specific age gap (attraction toward prepubescent children) not in any case attraction toward teenagers even when in the popular speech is use like that, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such should go for the scientific definition. This is just a cold medical position, not a moral one, I personally and as a therapist think that hebephilia is still wrong and that a relationship between a grown adult and a teenage person is still unhealthy for many reasons. And also medically the people involved also need to have a certain gap of age between them disregarding the legal age, I doubt any psychologist o psychiatrist would considerer a 18, 19 or 20 year old man with a 16 or 17 year old girlfriend a hebephile (much less a pedophile) even when is still illegal en many jurisdiction. The age gap may vary in literature but it’s generally considered between 5 to 10 years depending on the expert.
PD but I do agree that should be purge, I probably made a lot of mistakes while applying it. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 11:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
I stand corrected on the meaning. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:List notification templates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Same thing, near-total overlap, but the merge-from name is confusing, and the merge-to is not.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_6&oldid=1191151604"