Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

< January 25 January 27 >

January 26[edit]

Category:Macroneon[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: speedy delete both per WP:G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). The categories are now empty, and User:Shvestko Dmitriy has been indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Also includes Category:Shvestko Dmitriy. Not a proper use of a Wikipedia category page : Noyster (talk), 23:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

why do you want to delete my page. I did not violate any rules. I'm a photographer from Russia. I figured out my own photo style-Macroneon.Stay prevent me from working! why do you want to delete my page. I did not violate any rules. I'm a photographer from Russia. I figured out my own photo style-Macroneon.Stay prevent me from working! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shvestko Dmitriy (talk • contribs)

Agree deletion: 28 web links → promotional. --Achim (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
28 web links? Not any more, there aren't. --Calton | Talk 15:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speedy delete. Not a proper category, obviously promotional, etc. --Calton | Talk 15:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, now both categories is empty.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2018 (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:Fictional pedophiles[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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 3#Category:Fictional_pedophiles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More inclusive; some characters listed are technically not pedophiles. --Samantha Ireland (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2018 January 13 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - I suspect they only appear overlapping because they have been approximated to an age in the discussion above. paedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescent children; hebephilia is attraction to pubescent children and adolescents. Those are quite distinct categories. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment People undergo puberty-related changes at different ages. "In the 21st century, the average age at which children, especially girls, reach puberty is lower compared to the 19th century, when it was 15 for girls and 16 for boys. This can be due to any number of factors, including improved nutrition resulting in rapid body growth, increased weight and fat deposition, or exposure to endocrine disruptors such as xenoestrogens, which can at times be due to food consumption or other environmental factors. Puberty which starts earlier than usual is known as precocious puberty. Puberty which starts later than usual is known as delayed puberty." Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category is quite problematic if you look at the articles in it. Based on the texts of the articles I would classify most of the characters as fictional hebephiles, but it regularly requires a bit of OR to make that call (victims are e.g. a student, a teenager). It's also often not clear whether there is an exclusive sexual attraction. Renaming per nom and splitting are both possible, but even plain deletion is a realistic opion because it becomes too subjective to classify a character along these lines. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2018 (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:Exact Witten Index in D=2 supersymmetric Yang-Mills quantum mechanics[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Purpose of category unclear - what is the scope? —swpbT go beyond 14:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – its creator has very few edits and half of them are frivolous. This creation has the edit summary "Created page with 'la di da di da di`d a d a')" and the creator has only added one page. Oculi (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2018 (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:Wikipedian econometricians[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 this one, but no consensus on the broader issues of "Wikipedians by profession" categories, which would probably be best addressed at an RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single user, inactive for several years. – S. Rich (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am unconvinced that the "Wikipedians by profession" category tree is useful in any way towards improvement of the encyclopedia. The entire point of user categories is to group users in a useful manner so that one can seek out those in the categories for improvement of the encyclopedia. In the case of Wikipedians categorizing themselves by their profession, the only possible inferences we can hope to make based on this categorization, insofar as improvement of the encyclopedia, would be either 1) Such users are more knowledgeable about topics related to their profession, or 2) Such users are more likely to be interested in collaborating on topics related to their profession. While the first inference may well be true, we run into WP:NOR problems if we are relying on such users to contribute to articles based on their personal experience. In truth, we should only really care which users are better at finding sources and citing that information in articles rather than any personal experience users may have in a particular field of study. I will absolutely concede that it's very likely that users who work in a particular field are, in fact, better at finding sources, on average, than those who are not working in that field. Then why am I still advocating deletion? Because, at this point in my logic chain, we are really only concerned about users who are more likely to be able to find sources on a topic rather than caring if they work in a particular field or not. If this is the true reason for keeping the category, then let's just cut to the chase and create a category that better reflects that expectation of the category members (that also has the added benefit of being inclusive of users who are interested in finding sources on a particular topic, but happen to not be employed in that field). The second inference of users being more likely to be interested in collaborating on topics related to their field may also be true, but again has a problem of excluding users who may be interested in collaborating on the topic at hand who happen to not be employed in that field. I would suggest a new category (should there be enough interest, which in this case, based on the nomination I would posit there is not) titled Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to econometrics to cover a broader range of users and to better convey the collaboration expectation of users in the category. Another way of putting it is that I don't think there is anything that Category:Wikipedian econometricians does better than Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to econometrics would do, but I'd be interested in hearing the arguments against that conclusion if anybody disagrees.VegaDark (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. On the broader discussion, I'm a bit hesitant. Editors who studied econometrics are not necessarily active in Wikipedia in their own field but they may still be prepared to advise fellow editors on econometrics topics if they'd ask, so as a more passive way of collaboration. For that purpose it makes (some) sense to categorize Wikipedians by educational background (as well). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, but you need to place yourself, and placing oneself in a collaboration category while not being active in that field is not likely going to happen. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2018 (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:Wikipedian health physicists[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single user, now blocked indef. – S. Rich (talk) 08:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am unconvinced that the "Wikipedians by profession" category tree is useful in any way towards improvement of the encyclopedia. The entire point of user categories is to group users in a useful manner so that one can seek out those in the categories for improvement of the encyclopedia. In the case of Wikipedians categorizing themselves by their profession, the only possible inferences we can hope to make based on this categorization, insofar as improvement of the encyclopedia, would be either 1) Such users are more knowledgeable about topics related to their profession, or 2) Such users are more likely to be interested in collaborating on topics related to their profession. While the first inference may well be true, we run into WP:NOR problems if we are relying on such users to contribute to articles based on their personal experience. In truth, we should only really care which users are better at finding sources and citing that information in articles rather than any personal experience users may have in a particular field of study. I will absolutely concede that it's very likely that users who work in a particular field are, in fact, better at finding sources, on average, than those who are not working in that field. Then why am I still advocating deletion? Because, at this point in my logic chain, we are really only concerned about users who are more likely to be able to find sources on a topic rather than caring if they work in a particular field or not. If this is the true reason for keeping the category, then let's just cut to the chase and create a category that better reflects that expectation of the category members (that also has the added benefit of being inclusive of users who are interested in finding sources on a particular topic, but happen to not be employed in that field). The second inference of users being more likely to be interested in collaborating on topics related to their field may also be true, but again has a problem of excluding users who may be interested in collaborating on the topic at hand who happen to not be employed in that field. I would suggest a new category (should there be enough interest, which in this case, based on the nomination I would posit there is not) titled Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to health physics to cover a broader range of users and to better convey the collaboration expectation of users in the category. Another way of putting it is that I don't think there is anything that Category:Wikipedian health physicists does better than Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to health physics would do, but I'd be interested in hearing the arguments against that conclusion if anybody disagrees.VegaDark (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2018 (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:Wikipedians who contribute to WikiWikiWeb[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 2 inactive users; questionable WP:USERCAT – S. Rich (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. It does not benefit Wikipedia to know which users happen to contribute to another website. VegaDark (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2018 (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:Wikipedians who contribute to Link Everything Online[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No active users (inactive >1 year); questionable WP:USERCAT – S. Rich (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. It does not benefit Wikipedia to know which users happen to contribute to another website. VegaDark (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2018 (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:Wikipedians who contribute to the Game Cloud[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single active user (Ftiercel), questionable WP:USERCAT – S. Rich (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. It does not benefit Wikipedia to know which users happen to contribute to another website. VegaDark (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2018 (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:Wikipedians who contribute to 3D Warehouse[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single user; questionable WP:USERCAT – S. Rich (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. It does not benefit Wikipedia to know which users happen to contribute to another website. VegaDark (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2018 (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:Wikipedians who contribute to BrikWars[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single entry; questionable WP:USERCAT – S. Rich (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. It does not benefit Wikipedia to know which users happen to contribute to another website. VegaDark (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2018 (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:Wikipedians who contribute to Wikitravel[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single entry; questionable WP:USERCAT – S. Rich (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as creator). I created this solely to remove a redlink from Special:WantedCategories. I have not formed a view view on its merits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. It does not benefit Wikipedia to know which users happen to contribute to another website. VegaDark (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2018 (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:Birds of the Miombo[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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 3#Category:Birds_of_the_Miombo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Few (if any) of the articles (e.g. Angolan lark, Upemba shrew) in these categories make any mention of Miombo; it appears that the creator of these categories has been categorizing articles based on an off-wiki list rather (rather than the information in the articles) - e.g. see this discussion.  We have categories such as Category:Fauna of Southern Africa which form a more comprehensive set of categories and are easier to categorize articles in as articles about species usually list the continents/countries in which the species is found. See also this list where miombo isn't mentioned. DexDor (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Miombo is a Savannah habitat zone. Such zones are likely each to have their characteristic fauna and flora. Sub-Saharan Africa is far too big an area to make a useful category. The fact that the creator is using a non-Wiki list probably adds to its merit, though he might have done better by starting with a list, which would enable his sources to be cited. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - all the birds are noticeably present across the region : http://datazone.birdlife.org/home
    - it would also be fairer to include 'Miombo' in every article rather than to supress the whole category (talk) --Couiros22 (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/upmerge – if Miombo is not mentioned in an article it cannot possibly be defining. A list would be viable, a category is not. Oculi (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2018 (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/2018_January_26