Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 29 October 1 >

September 30[edit]

Category:Sports at McGill University[edit]

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 both to Category:Sport at McGill University (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm having trouble figuring out if one should be a parent of the other, if they're siblings, or duplicates or what. I've gone to the US categories to see if there's a clear model and there doesn't seem to be -- at least to me. Is some kind of merge in order, here? My proposed target is the new category, I should point out. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree there should be a merger/single category. Athletics is a narrow field however and I think "Sport at..." is wider and more encompassing title. Is there similar categories for other Canadian universities and if so what title do they go by ? Djln Djln (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be much of a set structure to go by, but maybe I'm just tired. I'd be quite happy if these two can happily coexist -- and I'd happily withdraw if so. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:Sport at McGill University. We definitely do not need to categorize "athletics" separately from "sports" — but the correct target category is "sport" rather than "sports", per the parent Category:Sport in Canada and the fact that the overarching organization at the university level is Canadian Interuniversity Sport rather than "Canadian Interuniversity Sports". That said, I do not like Category:University and college sports clubs in Canada, either — sports "clubs", to my ear, does not include organized varsity sports, but implies the casual intramural sports teams that students who aren't on the real football or hockey or basketball teams might join for recreational or exercise purposes. But that's a separate matter. Bearcat (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As nominator I would support Bearcat's proposal (who I was rather hoping would happen along and sort this out). And as noted this of course has implications not just for McGill, but Brock U. and the whole tree. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:19, 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.

Don Davis to Don Davis (composer)[edit]

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. – Fayenatic London 13:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the categories is Don Davis (composer). Armbrust The Homunculus 16:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
  • Oppose In this case "(composer)" does not serve for disambiguation purposes. "Compositions by a composer" is redundant. Dimadick (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – the category name should follow the article name unless the article name is ambiguous. (Then one doesn't need to look at all other Don Davis articles to make sure that none of the others have composed anything.) Oculi (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per WP:C2D The categories should blindly follow the main article name. No opinion on having the main article renamed. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In this case, disambiguation is not needed. In addition, the lead has a link to 'Don Davis (composer)'. Tijd-jp (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I understand the argument that disambiguation is unneeded, but unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on POV) names in categories like this follow the name that is used in article-space. These type are processed speedily quite regularly so I'm surprised it was opposed by a regular "CFD-er". Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a related nomination, however for a rename the other way around, can be found here. Similar to this discussion, the votes are mixed. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 18 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:Burmese Hakka people[edit]

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. Renames will allow them to conform to the category naming standard. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. Categories should follow the convention of Category:People of Hakka descent. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
Support, for the reasons listed.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:54, 9 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:Nagorno-Karabakh Republic stubs[edit]

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: speedily delete the first; rename second template to {{NagornoKarabakh-geo-stub}}, and merge category to Category:Europe geography stubs and Category:Asia geography stubs. – Fayenatic London 07:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-implementation note: I removed the stub from 4 articles, including 3 towns that have more specific stub tags for Azerbaijan Districts which are wholly controlled by NKR.[1] – Fayenatic London 08:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Nominator's rationale: Re-creation of category and stub type approved for deletion in May. Same reasons. Her Pegship (talk) 14:55, 30 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:Organizations based in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is a former British colony, and as such, it tends to use UK English. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:53, 30 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:Organizations based in Sierra Leone[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Sierra Leone is a former British colony, and as such, it tends to use UK English. Note that a number of other sub-categories already use the "organisation" spelling. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, english is a big thing there. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:50, 30 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:Androgens/anabolic steroids[edit]

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. – Fayenatic London 19:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Previously, Category:Androgens and Category:Anabolic steroids existed as separate categories. Recently, the nominated category was created and User:Medgirl131 redirected the two old categories to the new one. I don't really know enough about the topic to say whether they should be combined or re-separated. There are basically two options:
(1) Reverse the changes are keep Category:Androgens and Category:Anabolic steroids separate; or
(2) Keep the new combined category, but rename to Category:Androgens and anabolic steroids to avoid the slash in the category name, which causes issues. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. It's reasonable (though I have no opinion on whether it is preferable) to combine the two categories. "Androgens and anabolic steroids" is more consistent with category naming standards than the slash. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:03, 30 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[edit]

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. – Fayenatic London 08:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was discussed here with a "no consensus" result. The category was never tagged properly. Because of this, the nominator has asked that the category be re-nominated to have a discussion that follows all of the procedures correctly, and I agreed to post it on the nominator's behalf. I have duplicated below the nominator's original deletion rationale: Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)
  • Support per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Flyer. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment I suppose the closing administrator will also take the whole previous discussion into consideration when closing this discussion. Not properly tagging may result in insufficient participation in the discussion but it doesn't invalidate the arguments that have been given. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes—it's essentially a re-listing rather than a re-nomination. The comments in the previous discussion should be considered and given equal weight here, I would think. It looks like many of the participants are repeating their basic comments, but I think a closer can sift through the duplication. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, this discussion is gonna be held once again? Alright, my vote previously was to Keep because: 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) 05:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think Dereck Camacho makes a good case than keeping this category diffuses the "films about pedophilia", which was being filled with irrelevant articles. Dimadick (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To Dereck Camacho and Dimadick: I don't see how the "is not rocket science, every movie with sex between a teenager and an adult qualifies" argument is a valid one. For one, unless the film is about hebephilia, we should not be categorizing it as a hebephilia film. Doing so is indeed a WP:Original research violation. For two, it is not true that "every movie with sex between a teenager and an adult qualifies." Hebephilia is specifically about pubescents, especially early pubescents. A lot of mid teenagers (especially girls) are post-pubescent, and the vast majority of late teenagers are post-pubescent. Contrast hebephilia with ephebophilia. Third, all of these philias are defined by the sexual attraction. Sexual activity is only an aspect. A man can be a pedophile without sexually abusing a prepubescent child. A man who is not a pedophile might sexually abuse a prepubescent child. A man who has sex with a teenager is not automatically a hebephile. Hebephilia is about the sexual preference, meaning adults (usually men) who prefer pubescents over post-pubescent individuals. And, lastly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument in this case. Any film in Category:Films about pedophilia that does not belong there should be removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should 1- Purge the category better from any movie that doesn't belong there or eliminate also the "films about pedophilia" category that has the same problems. Eliminating the category won't solve the problem as immediatly after users would be putting the same movies that were in hebephilia in pedophilia and the problem will begin again. You are right in the ephebophilia part. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dereck Camacho, there is only one movie that belongs there. Why should we keep the category for one film? As for future films about hebephilia, it is doubtful there will be any...at least any time soon. And I still think that decisions about this category should not be based on misuse of the pedophilia category. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22 Reborn: whether only one movie belongs there I tend to disagree, yes the list can be purge, but only one? that's a big stretch. But that’s a different discussion. And no, if the category is eliminated it will be replace by the “films about pedophilia” category very soon, I bet won’t be two months before Lolita is put there. Which I find curious, why haven’t you propose to delete the “Films about pedophilia” category? Is even a worst mess, it has even more controversial connotations and I’m sure a lot of movies don’t belong there either. Shouldn’t be better to deal with the greater evil first? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a big stretch. Only one film in that category is specifically about hebephilia, and that's Are All Men Pedophiles?. Everything else is inappropriate categorization, per what I've stated above. I haven't proposed to delete "Films about pedophilia" because pedophilia is a widely researched topic, unlike hebephilia, and there are a number of films that are about pedophilia or pedophiles. Furthermore, see WP:Deletion is not cleanup. I don't see that your arguments for keeping this category are based on Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dereck Camacho, when it comes to stuff like this and this, you are supposed to notify everyone who was previously involved in the discussion, not just those who voted the same as you; otherwise, it is inappropriate WP:Canvassing. Here, I'll go ahead and ping those who voted delete: Iztwoz, Ozzie10aaaa, Oculi and Carlossuarez46. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Reborn well I have not finish notifying, but thanks for helping. On the other regard, no Are All Men Pedophiles? is not the only one there, that depends on your definition of hebephilia which at least I don't share. Lolita for example is a film (both) belonging there for example. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dereck Camacho, when it comes to the definition of hebephilia, we go by what WP:Reliable sources state, not our personal opinions. Going by personal opinion and not what the sources state is the problem with the category now. If this category is kept, I will remove all of the films except Are All Men Pedophiles?. If I am challenged on that, WP:Dispute resolution will follow. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is not my personal opinion, quoting the Hebephilia page on Wikipedia: Hebephilia is the strong and persistent adult sexual interest in pubescent (early adolescent) individuals, typically ages 11–14 (see the Tanner stage)., Lolita is 14 in the first movie and 13 in the second one, doesn't she enter then in that age gap, for example? And yes, I said that the category could be purge, I can help with that gladly, but I disagree with that only one movie belong there, so I'm welcoming the dispute resolution, though I'll prefer to get some consensus if possible. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dereck Camacho, it is your personal opinion. Above, I am quoted as stating, "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."
Hebephilia is about the sexual preference. I've made it explicitly clear that an adult being sexual with a 14-year-old, for example, does not automatically make that adult a hebephile. The Hebephilia article explicitly states, "While individuals with a sexual preference for adults may have some sexual interest in pubescent-aged individuals, researchers and clinical diagnoses have proposed that hebephilia is characterized by a sexual preference for pubescent rather than adult partners." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the description of Lolita's plot says this: "Obsessed from boyhood with girls of this age (whom he calls "nymphets"), Humbert is immediately smitten with Lo and marries Charlotte just to be near her." Doesn't that qualifies as sexual preference? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see how that can be considered hebephilia. I still think it's inappropriate to classify that film as a hebephilia film, unless it's classified as one in reliable sources. This is because hebephilia is a specific, relatively new and challenged category (with regard to its current proposed diagnoses). It is not widely accepted in the medical field, which is why I argued, "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." What you are doing with regard to Lolita is like assigning the term pedophile to a person from ancient times when the pedophilia diagnosis did not exist; at the top of Talk:Pedophilia, there is a FAQ about why we don't do things like that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, probably better than how was before [films about pedophilia] but as I said earlier when Peterkingiron suggested and also a couple of lines above this same discussion, I'm in total disposition of purging the category and getting a consensus on what articles should go there. But I think you're underestimating how much "debate" is over the issue, the term is widely use in the medical community (I know, I'm a psychologist). On the other regard the mere fact that we already know about two films that go there is significant that there’s a space for such a category IMHO.--Dereck Camacho (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the term hebephilia is not widely used in the medical community. I should know; I've thoroughly studied pedophilia, other paraphilias and atypical sexual interests, and I have commonly conversed with psychologist/sexologist James Cantor about the matters. Other such psychologists and sexologists too. In fact, it is James Cantor who provided the following sourced text in the Ephebophilia article: Researchers state that hebephilia, erotic interest which centers on young pubescents, has not come into widespread use, even among professionals who work with sex offenders, and may have been confused with the term ephebophilia, which denotes a preference for older adolescents. It is concluded that "few would want to label erotic interest in late — or even mid — adolescents as a psychopathology, so the term hebephilia may have been ignored along with ephebophilia".
Yes, there was recent significant debate with regard hebephilia. The Hebephilia article is clear about that. The term hebephilia, however, is still not widely used in the medical community, and there is no official diagnosis for hebephilia. As for two films belonging in that category, I maintain that only one does; we will have to agree to disagree on that matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you’re misinterpreting my point. Hebephilia is not necessary something pathological and I agree with that, nor I think hebephiles are sex offenders by de-fault (of course that doesn’t mean I endorse in anyway having sex with people on that age gap), even less in the case of ephebophilia which is even legal in most jurisdictions and I can understand why. So, the debate is not about if the term exists, is about if the term refers to something pathological which is a completely different discussion and for another space, not about the existence or not of the category. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misinterpreting my point. Either way, we don't agree and we've noted why. I see no need to keep debating each other. I've already noted above what will happen if this category is kept. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22 Reborn I don't think that treats are the correct way to deal with Wikipedia, saying: if you don't do what I want I'll made an edit war, is wrong, and I'm pretty sure is against Wikipedia policies. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean "threats," not "treats." And I made no threat or stated that I would edit war. I stated that "If this category is kept, I will remove all of the films except Are All Men Pedophiles?. If I am challenged on that, WP:Dispute resolution will follow." I stand by that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, then I guess you and I will be seeing us a lot. Because I do would challenge that. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 05:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think articles and categories should be treated the same. One is for easing navigation, the other for info. Therefore I think the above discussion between two editors is somewhat fruitless and pointless. Pwolit iets (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons I stated at the prior go round on this. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think is very useful and accurate with the movie's subject matter. --TV Guy (talk) 21:04, 10 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_30&oldid=1090392247"