Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

< June 26 June 28 >

June 27[edit]

Category:University hospitals[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. University hospital is a redirect to teaching hospital, so this appears to be a grouping by name. In any case, there seems to be total overlap between the two categories so we only need one to improve navigation. If this is merged, the subcategories would also need speedy merges. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to match lead article. If there is a non-teaching hospital out there somewhere owned by a university, it should be purged. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2014 (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:Observing the Moon[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 to Category:Lunar observation. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. WP:NOUN and more concise. Brandmeistertalk 22:02, 27 June 2014 (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:Nicole Kidman[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 07:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. Nymf (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I don't find it that small category at all. Besides, it reflects the topic itself, while collections of subarticles are also good reasons to keep this eponymous category which has a potential to grow further. MiewEN (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding the category to Tom Cruise and Keith Urban is arbitrary at best. What's next? Tom Burlinson and Robbie Williams? Or do they need to have been married to be included in the category? Nymf (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If Madonna may have also spouses included in her own category, why not another business woman as Kidman. Anyway, there is a number of other more important topics to talk about, so I'd rather ask you to stick with the subject, not to nominate the things that you do not like yourself for their constant deletion. Kidman has a solid number of articles/subcategories in her own category, including biography, filmography, awards, a company, works produced by her, songs. There is no particular need to delete it. Simple as that, if that sounds "arbitrary at best" to you, we don't care. MiewEN (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Purge Has 5 legitimate articles in the category so it doesn't meet my definite of small (4 or less). The 3 biographical articles recently added should be removed though. (Note: I don't think WP:OC#EPONYMOUS is useful nor do I think it has consensus with current editors so it wasn't factored in my analysis.) RevelationDirect (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moved my rant about eponymous categorization to the correct forum to revise the consensus. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient content to justify an eponymous category. I generally disagree with the practice of listing spouses and non-progeny family in a person's eponymous category – the vast majority of the content at Tom Cruise and Keith Urban (and that includes the most important material) is nothing to do with Nicole Kidman. Nicole Kidman is not a defining aspect these articles (or vice-versa). @RevelationDirect: I think wider discussion is also required on this aspect of personal categories as well. SFB 11:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on family members; her journalist sister is also not defined by this catgory. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for now I'm on the fence, but I think there are enough for now to merit inclusion. While Tom may regret being here, I'm not convinced he should be removed, their marriage was a topic of much discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Obiwankenobi: I think that logic would firmly stand for an article such as Marriage of Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise, but I don't think it extends to Tom Cruise himself. If you asked a lay person for terms to define Tom Cruise at a basic level, you would be going for some time before they said "Nicole Kidman". In our category system, this arrangement also kind of suggests Tom Cruise is a sub-type of the topic Nicole Kidman! SFB 10:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
no, that's not how categories work. Eponymous categories like this are topic categories, so it's just saying 'Tom Cruise is relevant to the topic of Nicole Kidman' - the same way she is in Tom Cruise's category - husbands/wives are always placed in eponcats. We don't have a clear guidance on ex-husbands however...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would place spouses in a family cat rather than the eponymous one. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The guidelines are clear that we very heavily discourage eponymous categories. This one does not pass the test of needing a large amount of clearly linked content.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2014 (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:Wimpy Kid articles by importance[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: delete (note that the categories were empty upon deletion). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wimpy Kid (2nd nomination), it seems like the WikiProject has been merged away. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Feels like a speedy, but there doesn't seem to be an instance for "WikiProject merged". RevelationDirect (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:G6? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2014 (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:Somalia articles by quality[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The WikiProject articles should be distinguishable from the actual articlespace Somalia. Very few of the wikiproject article category are named this way but I think it should be clear. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Neutral: "WikiProject" does not seem to be a defining characteristic. All Somalia articles are within the scope of WikiProject Somalia. – Wdchk (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, this would take something intended as a navigation aid for readers and unnecessarily introduce a self-reference. – Wdchk (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But there are also articles that are not Somalia per se (individuals, etc.) The convention of using WikiProject is done with some WikiProjects and not others. I'm just trying to see a reasoning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. There is such a thing as a "WikiProject Somalia article" (Category:WikiProject Somalia articles) and also, but defined separately, a "Somalia article" (Category:Somalia). Which brings us to RevelationDirect's comment following: this distinction is not specific to Somalia. – Wdchk (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing my opinion to "Neutral" in the light of further discussion. Ideally the decision would reflect a standard to be determined across all WikiProjects, but if this is unrealistic, at least a consensus of WikiProject Somalia members (of which I am not one). A fundamental point to be decided is whether the categories are for the benefit of the project (in which case a self-reference is OK) or for readers. If for readers, a self-reference may or may not be desirable. Normally we try to avoid self-references, but if we don't mention the WikiProject, it does leave the question dangling, "Who says this article is X class?" (I posted a link to this discussion at WT:WikiProject Somalia.) – Wdchk (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broaden Nomination This feels more like a meta-WikiProject discussion to me than one specific to Somalia. There probably should be a standardized naming convention for these but I'd almost look to the editors over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council to give guidance here and we could implement it with a speedy noms. I honestly have no preference between including/excluding "WikiProject" but I think it should across-the-board.RevelationDirect (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good point. What's being proposed seems like changing a category from a readers' navigation aid to a project maintenance category. Which is not to say that either is right or wrong, but I feel we should recognize that they have different objectives. It could be argued that both are valid, and then it could be argued that making such a distinction is an unnecessary complication. The result of that discussion would have wider impact than just the categories in this nom. – Wdchk (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My intention is to start with this specific wikiproject and then move to an RfC since that's the appropriate remedy for the larger discussion. I just couldn't find a place where the rationale behind one or the other was discussed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting the link on the Wikiproject Council. I agree with Wdchk's analysis above but have no opinion as to which purpose these categories should server. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that these are WikiProject Somalia articles and thus the subcategories are WikiProject Somalia articles of various type (which includes Somalia but isn't limited there). Articles that related to Somalia are different than this maintenance category about a series of articles that belong to said WikiProject (for example, categories and templates wouldn't be part of the Somalia articlespace category but fit here since this is for editors and not readers to work with). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support WPSomalia's purview is not the same as the topic "Somalia". These are Wikipedia maintenance categories (and only categorize talk pages, not article pages), and as such, should indicate that they are not content categorization, rather Wikipedia maintenance categorization. These are solely WPSomalia's rating of articles. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this proposal and broader nomination. The WikiProject controls what articles fall within its remit, not the scope of the topic itself. This would also resolve an issue for WP:WikiProject Athletics, whose scope is ambiguous to some with the current format of Category:Athletics articles by quality. This would be a natural change as the parent for these types of category is "WikiProject [X] articles", which suggests that this change should not logically affect the scope. SFB 11:25, 29 June 2014 (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:Saints by nationality[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
  1. By far the largest amount of the content of this category is about Christian saints
  2. Category:Christian saints is the parent category of this category
  3. For one exception (namely for Indian saints of Hindu religion) an alternative categorization has been posted (see other CfD of today), to move them out of this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, subject to the Indian one being dealt with as proposed. We may need a parallel tree for Muslim saints, if we do not already have one. Sai Baba may cause a problem since he was a Muslim, but is revered by Hindus. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom -Lenticel (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2014 (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:Indian saints[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: Split & delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. All single articles to be merged into Category:Hindu saints
  2. Child Category:Indian Christian saints to remain separate, as a child of Category:Saints by nationality
Nominator's rationale:
  • All single articles in this category are about Hindu saints, but they aren't all classified as Hindu saints. By merging we easily reach a uniform classification of all Hindu saints. The fact that these Hindu saints are of Indian nationality isn't really interesting to keep, since by far most Hindus live in India anyway.
  • This move allows the rename of Category:Saints by nationality into Category:Christian saints by nationality without the need to create new parent categories (see other CfD of today). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

  • Support in conjunction with the Christian saints nom (above). Peterkingiron (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2014 (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.

Subcategories of Category:Public domain files ineligible for copyright[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To restore consistency between the category names and the names of the templates that populate them. Template:PD-textlogo moved to Template:PD-logo; Template:PD-text moved to Template:PD-simple. – Wdchk (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2014 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_27