Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

< June 27 June 29 >

June 28[edit]

Realtor and Real estate agents categories[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 Category:British real estate agents to Category:Estate agents (people) per WP:OVERLAPCAT, without prejudice against a future nomination to rename the target; no consensus about the other nominations. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To have a subcategory for realtor or real estate salespeople by country for America, Britain and Canada, with people from other countries in a broader subcategory of Category:Businesspeople in real estate by nationality; and to move American and British businesspeople to an American or British subcategory. Hugo999 (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2015 (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:1967 by day[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. MER-C 07:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There was a previous discussion for Category:1897 by day at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 22#Category:1897 by day. Based on that, I think that Category:1967 by day should be deleted as well. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course not, because those categories contain significant content. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I just wanted to see where you were going here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2015 (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.

4th-century BC establishments[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/delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:4th-century BC establishments

the rest of the 4th-century BC establishments
Nominator's rationale: Merge and delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article per category. It is a case of doubt whether to merge to ten decade establishments categories or to a single century establishments category. The proposal as formulated here is more conservative (decades), though a few decades end up with 1 article after all, so I would not object to one total century establishments category (with some 40 articles) either. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is getting repetitive. Regardless of your comments, your proposal is to eliminate the country and continent distinctions entirely. As a preliminary matter, Ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome (Italy) can and should be kept as distinct from each other and as separate categories. It would be much more useful to see what historical things are from those three areas at the same time rather than to merge all them together just because our articles don't have the full archaeology behind every article from here. The Italy and Roman Republic ones I created barely a day ago and I don't even think any of Category:Populated places established in the 4th century BC has been copied somewhere. SMALLCAT doesn't mean every category that hasn't been fleshed out should be deleted, just categories that could never be large enough should be. You're basically requiring everyone to have everything completed instantly or else you'll have all the work deleted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
* Strike out the language that's not needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like there are two misunderstandings here:
  1. It's definitely not the case that there is a deliberate hunting of recently-created categories, it's entirely coincidental if there are recently-created categories among the nominated categories. The first nominated category is six years old to begin with.
  2. The proposal is not to drop country and continent distinctions. In contrast, they're all double or triple merge proposals, in order to keep the country and continent distinction. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- We have a lot of ancient annual categories, which the nom has been dationalising: C4 BC in Egypt, in Italy, in Greece, etc will have enough to make them worth having; equally a worldwide 340s BC establishments category may be big enough to keep; similarly, there may be enough content for a 303 BC category, though I am far from sure. Ricky81682 has run into a rationalisation process that has been going on for some thing to merge thin filament trees inot something worthwhile. The deletion noms are suggested becasue they are redundant. We are never going to be able to populate a lot of these categories enough to make them an aid (not a hindrance to navigation. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Marcocapelle: you have omitted some categories e.g. category:330s BC establishments; is this intentional because they are not SMALLCATs? If any decades are to be kept in this century, is it not appropriate to keep the structure for the whole century? – Fayenatic London 15:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently I've made a mistake, because the merge nominations and delete nominations now contradict each other. I meant to merge to decade level, rather than to century level, as a more conservative nomination. Thanks for spotting the inconsistency! I'll strike the wrong lines. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2015 (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.

5th-century BC establishments[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/delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:5th-century BC establishments

the rest of the 5th-century BC establishments
Nominator's rationale: Merge and delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article per category. After merging, the establishments category of this century will contain less than 20 articles (too little to split by decade). This nomination is very similar to this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is getting repetitive. These were either just created or just now being populated. Regardless of your comments, your proposal is to eliminate the country and continent distinctions entirely. As a preliminary matter, Ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome (Italy) can and should be kept as distinct from each other and as separate categories. It would be much more useful to see what historical things are from those three areas at the same time rather than to merge all them together just because our articles don't have the full archaeology behind every article from here. SMALLCAT doesn't mean every category that hasn't been populated out should be deleted, just categories that could never be large enough should be. You're basically requiring everyone to have everything completed instantly or else you'll have all the work deleted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
* Strike out the language that's not needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like there are two misunderstandings here:
  1. It's definitely not the case that there is a deliberate hunting of recently-created categories, it's entirely coincidental if there are recently-created categories among the nominated categories. The first nominated category is three years old to begin with.
  2. The proposal is not to drop country and continent distinctions. In contrast, they're all double or triple merge proposals, in order to keep the country and continent distinction. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- For reasons under 4th century (above). I am not convinced of ther merits of a continential level at this remote period, when we have less than six national categories in the world. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2015 (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:1906 establishments in the German Empire[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 to Category:1906 establishments in the German colonial empire. – Fayenatic London 13:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unlike 1905, 1906 already exists so this requires a merger. Again, this does not refer to the German Empire but the German colonial empire. CFD has decided that the German Empire and Germany are synonymous. There is already a Category:Establishments in the German colonial empire by year where this fits better. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Peterkingiron's suggestion to rename on top of the merge nomination (not instead of). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2015 (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:1905 establishments in the German Empire[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:1905 establishments in the German colonial empire. – Fayenatic London 14:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This does not refer to the German Empire but the German colonial empire. CFD has decided that the German Empire and Germany are synonymous. There is already a Category:Establishments in the German colonial empire by year where this fits better. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2015 (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:Jackson metropolitan area[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:Jackson, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area per lead article. Next, any interested editor should either propose renaming the main article, or speedily rename the sub-cats to match. – Fayenatic London 14:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This, and all of its subcategories (and their subcategories as appropriate) should be deleted as ambiguously titled. There are five Jackson metropolitan areas in the United States. It appears that the creators are using this to refer to the Jackson, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area, which comprises five counties in Mississippi: Copiah, Hinds, Madison, Rankin, and Simpson. Each of those counties should already have categories with the appropriate subcategories. Should a new, disambiguated category for the MSA be created, all someone would have to do is add the existing county categories to it and be done. Imzadi 1979 → 04:52, 28 June 2015 (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/2015_June_28