< 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 London 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]

  • "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]
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]
  • 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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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.
Category