Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 13



Category:Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute academic journals

 * 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: Symbol move vote.svg Relisted at Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 4. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute academic journals to Category:MDPI academic journals
 * Nominator's rationale: To match the article, MDPI and the actual name of the publisher. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment it would probably be better to split the article. Then we could keep the category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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:Fictional characters with extra-sensory perception and communication

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters with extra-sensory perception and communication to Category:Fictional characters with extrasensory perception
 * Nominator's rationale: Per article Extrasensory perception, but not quite speedyable. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support in the spirit of WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.

Estonian military physicians

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Rename Category:Estonian military physicians to Category:Estonian military doctors
 * Rename Category:Maltese military physicians to Category:Maltese military doctors
 * Rename Category:Russian military physicians to Category:Russian military doctors
 * Rename Category:Swedish military physicians to Category:Swedish military doctors
 * Rename Category:Tunisian military physicians to Category:Tunisian military doctors
 * Rename Category:Ukrainian military physicians to Category:Ukrainian military doctors
 * Nominator's rational The parent category is Category:Military doctors by country. There is no ambiguity. There is no reason to have these as outliers in a much larger category scheme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support renaming all of these per the Austrian one below. It's a routine and uncontroversial bit of maintenance. Reyk YO! 10:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support to match new name of parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support We dont want both terms used together without good reason. Rathfelder (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.

Austrian military physicians

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Rename Category:Austrian military physicians to Category:Austrian military doctors
 * Nominator's rationale the ultimate parents has been renamed to Category:Military doctors. This is because this is the much more common term and not at all ambiguous. I thought I had included this category in an earlier attempt at a rename, but I missed it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support- this seems like a routine and sensible bit of maintenance. Reyk YO! 10:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support to match new name of parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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:Native American fashion designers

 * 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 Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 6. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Native American fashion designers to Category:Indigenous fashion designers of the Americas
 * Nominator's rationale: Due to the semantic ambiguity of Native American, i.e. the question of whether it refers to all indigenous peoples of the North and South American continents or only the ones from the United States, Wikipedia has a standing practice of using the term in the latter, uncontroversial sense rather than the former, highly loaded one -- if a category is meant to be inclusive of everyone from Ellesmere Island to Tierra del Fuego, then we use the wording "Indigenous X of the Americas" (as witness parent category and its other subcategories) rather than "Native American". It would also be acceptable to create the proposed rename as a separate category, and then move the four Canadians to it while retaining this as a US-specific subcategory, but with just 15 people filed here so far I'm not convinced that national subcategorization would be necessary yet. But what cannot happen is this category staying at this name, and being filed as a subcategory of US-specific categories, while simultaneously staying inclusive of Canadian Inuit and First Nations people. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Seperate out the First Nations individuals. THe reason this category is not being used for people from south of the Rio Grande is because in fashion design there is just not a long standing, transnational practice of the art in the sense that makes it a logical sub-cat of the generalized indigenous Americas artists category. I have to admit I am less than convinced that this is a case where the intersection of ethnicity and occupation is defining. In a category like Category:Native American potters the people involved often are using or at least highly influenced by ethnic practices, I am less than convinced this is the case in fashion design.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, to be fair, one of the people who's been added here (the one who I was already familiar with, because I created her article in the first place through my work with WikiProject Film) is a costume designer who has worked exclusively on films in which what she had to design was traditional Inuit garb — and I just spotchecked several of the other articles, all of which explicitly stated that the subject incorporated indigenous influences into their clothing design, such as beadwork and fabric patterning. So I'm more comfortable with calling this a validly defining characteristic — and I don't believe the creator actually intended this to be restricted exclusively to Canada and the United States, either: I suspect that the real reason this isn't being used for people from south of the Rio Grande is just that either we don't have articles about indigenous clothing designers from south of the Rio Grande yet or we do and the creator just hasn't found them. I don't see any evidence that the creator intended to restrict its scope to "Canada/US only" — the usage note on the category page, in fact, says it's for designers from North and South America. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As creator of the category, I must say I intended it to be able to cover native fashion designers from anywhere in North and South America. For me, Native American (see here) is therefore the appropriate term but that may not be the case for North American usage. (I see, you, are Canadian.) I just created the category yesterday and have populated it primarily with people from the United States and Canada as I am more familiar with their traditions. At WiR, we are in the process of expanding coverage of fashion designers and I expect that sooner or later we will have biographies of native fashion designers from Latin America too. I therefore have nothing against a change in line with the proposal although I think "Native American" is a more familiar term for users. Furthermore, it allows straightforward inclusion in Category:Native American people by occupation and Category:Native American artists. If it is to be moved to "Indigenous...", then probably all the other Native American occupation categories should be moved too. I note, btw, that there are only 13 subcategories in Category:Indigenous people of the Americas by occupation compared to 23 in Category:Native American people by occupation. who proposed the category and  who has been involved in earlier discussions may also like to comment.--Ipigott (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources which refer to the topic clearly use Native American fashion designers with over 3 million hits for the topic. For indigenous fashion designers in the Americas the result is 963,000 hits, but note that the majority are titled Native American fashion designers. A narrowed search with quotations results in 177,000 articles for Native American fashion designers and 0 for indigenous fashion designers (and for First Nations fashion designers 5,540). In researching the article I am writing on the topic, it is very clear that the movement encompasses all of the Americas, with designers from the entirety competing in major fashion centers across the region. In fact, most of the South American designers I have been able to find information about was through the search for Native American fashion and their inclusion in fashion shows. The term "Native American fashion" refers specifically to people participating in haute couture, not artisans producing traditional clothing. Initially all the designers used a pan-Indian focus including recognizable elements of native cultures, to create a broad "market appeal" and acceptance for their work. As they gained acceptance, the trend has been to move away from broad focus and now design as representatives of their individual communities. Their designs may or may not include elements of their tribal heritage, but the defining characteristic is that they must be producing goods for the fashion industry (not craftwork) and must belong to a recognized indigenous identity. As both the museum industry and the fashion industry have recognized that this is a specific subgroup of fashion designers, I hardly see why we would not, to address 's concerns. The potential for designers in the category is fairly substantial. I understand the logic of 's proposal and would have no problem with adding an additional category of indigenous designers, but as the sourcing validates the current naming scheme it seems illogical to eliminate it. SusunW (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ipigott, just to be clear, we have some category trees where there's a more finely developed scheme of subcategorizing indigenous North American peoples more specifically than just one Ellesmere-to-Fuego sweep — "Native Americans" is an entirely appropriate term when the category is US-specific, but not when it's meant to be inclusive of Canadian First Nations, Inuit or Métis or Central/South American indigenous peoples. So we don't necessarily need to rename all "Native American" categories — most of them are already US-specific and parented by a broader continental "Indigenous X of the Americas", and the few that aren't need to be fixed. "Native American" is an entirely acceptable name when the category's scope is US-specific, it's just not appropriate for a category that's meant to include Canadians and Brazilians and Peruvians and Mexicans too. So we need to either rename the category if consensus would prefer keeping everybody all together in one transnational category, or create a transnational parent for it and move the non-USians up to there if consensus would prefer two categories. I'm fine with either solution, just not with leaving Canadians in a category whose name remains "Native American". Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support one transnational parent with creation of additional categories for specific groups, based on the rationale presented. As the topic expands, it may well be that First Nations fashion designers, Puruhá fashion designers, etc. will be a large enough group to support their own category as well. SusunW (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment we currently have both Category:Indigenous people of the Americas and Category:Native American people‎. This probably requires a broader nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. is the country-specific subcat for the ones from the United States specifically, while  is the transnational parent category for Native Americans and Canadian First Nations/Inuit/Métis and Central and Latin American peoples all the way down to Tierra del Fuego. There's no conflict between that and this; in fact, it bolsters this rather than contradicting it, because it proves that we use the terms the way I described in my nomination statement. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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:Pisa-class cruisers of the Hellenic Navy

 * 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: upmerge (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting pisa-class cruisers of the hellenic navy


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete and upmerge; single-member category of zero value. Constantine  ✍  14:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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:Pandalapaka

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting pandalapaka


 * Nominator's rationale: This category only disambiguates two different villages with the same name. That's not something categories are for: we don't, for instance have a Category:Belmont containing all the numerous places called Belmont in the world <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 09:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I just converted Pandalapaka from a redirect to a disambiguation page. - Eureka Lott 18:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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:Bandini Automobili
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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: keep for now. This is related to ongoing discussions about at the topic at WT:WikiProject Automobiles, and about the nominator at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents (permalink) . When those those discussions have concluded and the dust has settled, a new nomination may have a different outcome. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting bandini automobili


 * Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, only 2 articles Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Maybe it's just empty because you've been off on a little crusade to blank all the Bandini articles first? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep At least until the recently started topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles has reached a fuller consensus. Eagleash (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as above -- >Typ932 T·C 13:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep also as above. Springee (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The FIA considers Bandini as highly significant amongst Italian sportscars. The articles do require a lot of work, but simply deleting them, then proposing the category is deleted seems more like lazy vandalism than anything else. Mighty Antar (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Question do I understand correctly that the blanked articles were an issue in the articles in Category:Bandini vehicles rather than in any articles in the nominated category? Marcocapelle (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Conditional support per nom if my impression is right that the keep votes are not referring to anything in the nominated category but rather to its subcat. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If your point is that we need one category here rather than two, I'd be happy with that. It should probably be this one though, Bandini Automobili, as Ilario Bandini isn't a car. However there will almost certainly be someone else who wants to split them, on that same basis. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it is sufficient to keep the subcat and list Bandini Automobili as the main article in the header of the subcat. There is no point in keeping a category for a single biography. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.

Years and decades up to 1500 in Asian countries
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 all per amended nomination, which will merge the Kingdom of Georgia to both Europe and Asia. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 *  Example
 * Propose merging Category:1005 in China to Category:1005 in Asia and Category:11th century in China
 * Propose merging Category:1020 establishments in China to Category:1020 establishments in Asia and Category:11th-century establishments in China
 * Propose merging Category:1034 in China to Category:1034 in Asia and Category:11th century in China
 * Propose merging Category:1048 disestablishments in China to Category:1048 disestablishments in Asia and Category:11th-century disestablishments in China
 *  The full list of categories to merged/deleted is on the talk page.
 * Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, most categories contain only one article. This nomination concerns China, the kingdom of Georgia, India and Vietnam. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The Kingdom of Georgia (1008-1490) covered much of the Caucasus, at the borders of Asia and Europe, and coastal areas in Ukraine. It was transcontinental, not simply an Asian country. Dimadick (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you insist I will add European merge targets, though it would be pretty anachronistic. In the Middle Ages Georgia was clearly part of the Middle East, its main foreign relationships were with the Seljuq Empire, the Byzantine Empire and the Ilkhanate. The Georgian Orthodox Church has emerged as a former subdivision of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge everything for these years in the a general 1034 in Eurasia etc category. The line between Europe and Asia is a matter of political geography and drawn based on assumed cultural borders. It is too hard to fix in this period, and any fixing imposes a world-view developed by European geographers of the 16th-century and later on an earlier time period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case, we might drop a diffusion by continent in the Middle Ages entirely, because in this period only Europe and Asia are sufficiently populated to have year categories. Note that we already dropped the diffusion by continent in the period before 500, so it's not a completely new thought. But frankly, let's leave this to a fresh discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support for China, India, Vietnam. leave Georgia for the moment.   Oppose Eurasia suggestion.  The boundary between Europe and Asia is debatable south of the Urals, particularly as certain Caucasian lands now wish to be called European.  My view is that Georgia is Asia; but that is my POV.  The answer may be to have Caucasus as a parent and to place it in both European and Asia trees.  This is an alternative solution to JPL's issue.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, I have added European targets as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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:Fish of Burkina Faso
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 all. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Fish of Burkina Faso to Category:Freshwater fish of West Africa
 * Propose merging Category:Freshwater fish of Ghana to Category:Freshwater fish of West Africa
 * Propose merging Category:Freshwater fish of Ivory Coast to Category:Freshwater fish of West Africa
 * Propose merging Category:Fish of Mali to Category:Freshwater fish of West Africa
 * Propose merging Category:Fish of Niger to Category:Freshwater fish of West Africa
 * Propose merging Category:Reptiles of Ghana to Category:Reptiles of West Africa
 * Propose merging Category:Reptiles of Sierra Leone to Category:Reptiles of West Africa


 * Nominator's rationale: That a species (e.g. Hormonotus or Chiloglanis occidentalis) is found in a particular West-African country is WP:NON-DEFINING. Example similar CFD: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_23. DexDor(talk) 07:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And example of a previous fish CFD DexDor(talk) 17:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Are all the fish in the Burkina Faso. Mali, and Niger categories freshwater fish? Dimadick (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Those 3 countries are not on the coast and their categories are already in the freshwater fish category. DexDor(talk) 09:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment In some cases, if you look at the articles in the category, the categorization should be higher still. The real problem is the random creation of distribution categories by type of organism (fish, freshwater fish, moths, reptiles, protostomes, etc.) and by geographical location (states or provinces within countries, individual countries, biogeographical regions, politically defined regions, etc.). It's a total mess. However, I support small steps! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. With rare exceptions, plant and animal species are not confined or defined by political borders — they are constrained by broader regions, such as continents and climate zones. So we have a long-established consensus not to categorize plant and animal species by individual country, because that causes extreme category bloat when a plant or animal that's found in 15 countries gets added to 15 categories — we categorize plant and animal species by broad geographic regions such as West Africa, not by individual country within West Africa. And I see no reason to believe that consensus has changed on this — what I do see, however, is a lot of other flora/fauna categories for other West African countries that were also created against consensus and also have to go. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * absolutely right. There's been gross over-fine categorization of distributions, and a few editors have been creating categories without displaying any understanding of guidelines and without attempting to reach a consensus. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support -- Biota boundaries do not generally conform to political ones. If we need a split it should be between climatic regions: Tropical Forests, savannah, the Sahel, and Sahara.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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:Fictional pedophiles
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 26. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Fictional pedophiles to Category:Fictional hebephiles and pedophiles
 * Nominator's rationale: More inclusive; some characters listed are technically not pedophiles. --Samantha Ireland (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose A bit of the apples and oranges here. Pedophilia is an exclusive sexual attraction towards "prepubescent children", typically younger than 13-years-old. Hebephilia is persistent sexual interest towards children in the early stages of adolescence, typically between 11 and 14-years-old. The study we cite from the Prevention Project Dunkelfeld noted that about 2/3 of those questioned expressed interest in the young adolescents, while interest in the prepubescents was less often. Pedophilia is currently classified as a psychiatric disorder, while hebephilia is not and is considered likely to be far more commonplace in adults. Dimadick (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * While all of that is true, the problem is that people regularly conflate the two — e.g. while most (though certainly not all) media sources about the Roy Moore allegations were correctly more careful in their terminology, in everyday conversation people just incorrectly called him a pedophile. So articles about non-pedophiles keep getting added to this category, and readded again if they get removed, so we would need to either add "hebephiles" to the name for clarity (libel not an issue given that we're talking about fictional characters here) or create a separate category for the hebephiles. I don't know which of those is the better solution, but we definitely can't just leave the category at its existing name without doing something about the repeated addition of non-pedophiles to it. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment the ranges "younger than 13-years-old" and "between 11 and 14-years-old" are partly overlapping, that might imply that hebephiles and pedophiles are also partly overlapping. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.

Bluefield State Big Blues
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Bluefield State Owls to Category:Bluefield State Big Blues
 * Propose renaming Category:Bluefield State Owls football to Category:Bluefield State Big Blues football
 * Propose renaming Category:Bluefield State Owls football coaches to Category:Bluefield State Big Blues football coaches
 * Nominator's rationale: The athletic teams at Bluefield State College are known as the "Big Blues", not the "Owls". Jweiss11 (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - looks like someone's confusing Bluefield and rivals Warren Wilson College. Grutness... wha?   01:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.