Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

< July 17 July 19 >

July 18[edit]

Category:African migratory birds[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. Timrollpickering 08:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are a number of problems with these categories. (1) They are named "African ..." etc rather than "... of Africa" which is inconsistent with similar categories (relevant CFD) and slightly misleading. (2) With the current category structure they cause incorrect categorization (e.g. Cape cormorant is in Category:Migratory birds (Northern Hemisphere)). (3) Articles appear to have been categorized regardless of the content of the article e.g. here where the article doesn't mention migration. (4) In previous discussions (example) difficulties with categorizing birds by their migration status have been identified.
Note: I'm proposing a straight delete (rather than upmerge) per the points made by other editors in this CFD for a similar set of categories (mostly created by the same editor). DexDor (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ta - now included. DexDor (talk) 05:29, 19 July 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 volleyball players[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. The primary argument for keeping was a sensible distaste for an upmerge, but as noted by another contributor, no such upmerge is necessary. Marcocapelle also notes that one of the two articles probably shouldn't be in the fictional sportspeople category tree at all. ~ Rob13Talk 15:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles in the category. Just not a popular theme in fiction JDDJS (talk) 16:17, 18 July 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.

Foo in films --> Films about foo[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. Timrollpickering 08:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Category: Foo in film, rename these categories to make it more clear that they are to be used only in cases where the category is a central focus of the film, not merely an element of it. DonIago (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete merely having a mass murder, a prom, telekinesis, or a rape in a film isn't defining for the film and may not be what the film is "about" by any stretch. Films "about" something suffers from the inherent problem of how much "about" the subject must the film be, and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that amount. Seriously, how many of the films in Category:Proms in films are about proms rather than some scene, perhaps memorable, happens at a prom where the prom is merely the setting for something else arguably about which the film is. Like saying the film Casablanca is about a bar. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and check articles. Agree to a certain extent with Carlossuarez that the categories may currently contain films merely having mass murder or telekineses etc but not primarily about it. Those articles need to be purged. However I would understand about as being primarily about and a deletion goes too far. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not trying to be overly picky, but if primarily about were used as a recognized meaning of "about" in these sorts of categories, they should never be in more than one "about" category, and what reliable sources are there to tell us what is the primary topic. I recall having a conversation here about this with @BrownHairedGirl: where we bandied about what was the primary topic of the film Titanic: a ship, a disaster, a love story, or as she put it, perhaps best, "hubris". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I agree that a film can't have more than one primary topic, especially if one feels (and I'm not saying you do) that a film can have more than one primary genre. DonIago (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I saw this proposal at "Rape in film". A film with a rape scene in it will be fit for "Rape in film", but that does not at all mean that it is a "film about rape". The rape may be incidental to the plot. Same thing for the other categories. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please notice that this was discussed at Category talk:Rape in film, and the unilateral redirect by User:MagicatthemovieS mentioned above ("as the latter already exists but redirects to the former") circumvented that discussion, so the discussion was never really concluded. Debresser (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That may have been the case at the time, but the most recent discussion, linked to in my rationale, leans in the direction that just because something occurs in a film doesn't mean it merits being in a "foo in film" category, and that consequently making the category names more clearly indicate that they are intended to be used for primary topics, not just incidentals, was a reasonable approach. Otherwise we could have "food in film" with thousands of entries; I don't think that's what we really want. DonIago (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A film with a rape scene in it will be fit for "Rape in film", but that does not at all mean that it is a "film about rape". That is the perfect argument for supporting the nomination per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 20 July 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:Films scored by John Barry (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: reverse merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: redundant. Tijd-jp (talk) 14:02, 18 July 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:International Shrines of the Roman Catholic Church[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. Timrollpickering 20:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "International shrine" - unclear, arbitrary term. No definition or classification explained by any main article. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:38, 18 July 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:Roman Catholic shrines[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. ℯxplicit 00:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundancy. Along with the merging above for convenience. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Catholic shrines serves as diffusion category for Roman Catholic shrines and Eastern Catholic shrines. This level of distinction should be kept and the two should not be mixed. Place Clichy (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Place Clichy: Roman Catholic merely serves a synonym of Catholic. If we would really want to make a distinction here between west and east we'd have to rename Category:Roman Catholic shrines to Category:Shrines of the Latin Church. But I doubt if the distinction is meaningful. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: With all due respect, in the current context Roman Catholic is not synonymous with the global Catholic Church. I agree that, outside the Catholic world, in many contexts, people will use both terms interchangeably, whereas in Catholic context, especially in Eastern Catholic circles, the Roman Catholic precision explicitely refers to Roman-rite, Western, Latin Catholicism. Non-Catholics are in general not even aware of the existence of Eastern Catholic Churches and it is natural that the difference does mean much to them. Eastern Catholicism and Roman-rite Catholicism are topics distinct enough (despite being linked inside the global Catholic Church) not to be merged in a disorderly way. I am not convinced that the "Latin Church" term is more notable than "Roman Catholic" for the same meaning, and Category:Latin Church is currently extremely poor. However, if it ever develops in a coherent hierarchy, why not then. My opposition is to mix everything Roman Catholic (in the meaning of Roman-rite Latin Catholicism) with the level above, leaving Eastern Catholic topics stranded. I am however all in favour of renaming topics relative to Catholicism at large, or the global Catholic Church, from "Roman Catholic" to just "Catholic", but it is not the case here.
    Re: Latin Church, a quick search on Scholar for publications more recent than 2010 returns 5310 results for "Latin Church" and 30200 results for "Roman Catholic Church", so I believe that the former term is not quite as popular as the second. Adding "Eastern Catholic" for context, "Latin Church" returns 244 results while "Roman Catholic Church" returns 457 results, still twice more. Results are similar with other contextual terms linked to Eastern Catholicism: "Greek Catholic" (189 for "Latin Church", 1380 for "Roman Catholic Church"), "Melkite" (198 for "Latin Church", 357 for "Roman Catholic Church") or "Maronite" (279 for "Latin Church", 674 for "Roman Catholic Church"). Place Clichy (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course Roman Catholic Church is mentioned much more often than Latin Church, because Roman Catholic Church is mostly used aa a synonym of Catholic Church. The real question is: how often is Roman Catholic Church used with the intention to refer to the Latin Church only, in contrast to the Eastern Catholicism? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflict) Comment There is a sibling "Eastern Catholic shrines". Eastern Catholics are in communion with Rome. That category should also be merged, or better distributed into the by country subcats. Alternatively keep per Place Clichy. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but it seems this whole Latin Church ("Roman Catholic?") and Eastern Catholic Churches name controversy needs an overview. Perhaps an individual case like this one does not suffice, but would need a more central location. Please feel free to contribute at: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Catholicism). Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:51, 5 August 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:Roman Catholic missions sui iuris[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:Missions sui iuris. Timrollpickering 20:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per consistency with parent category and entries included in the category. "Missions sui iuris" would perhaps be even more according to the category's entries, but a little precision wouldn't hurt. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would support that as a secondary best alternative. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marcocapelle's version unless the term is used beyond Roman Catholicism, in which case the article needs a rename.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Missions sui iuris as the term seems to be specifically Catholic according to article: no need to disambiguate. Place Clichy (talk) 13:16, 27 July 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.

Fatimid[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. Timrollpickering 22:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename since Fatimid was not a nationality, but a dynasty (see Fatimid dynasty) after which the Fatimid Caliphate was named. The people in the Fatimid Caliphate were actually Egyptians, Syrians, Arabs, Turkic people etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. "Fatimid foo" implies a nationality or something akin to it; "... Fatimid people" is specially misleading.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fatimid was a dynasty, not a nationality. We have done something similar with Ottoman categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 20 July 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:United Nations non-governmental organizations[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 August 18#Category:United Nations non-governmental organizations. ℯxplicit 00:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, the current category name wrongly suggests these are organizations of the United Nations, which is not actually the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but not as suggested. The majority of the content is national (etc) United Nations Associations, which are organisations whose role is to be cheer-leaders for UN. I am not quite sure what the rest of the content is doing there: are they NGOs recognised by UN? if so, that is a separate category. My preferred target would be Category:United Nations Associations, with anything else purged to somewhere else. This needs more discussion: please relist. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 13:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 00:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) That is also perfectly fine. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excessively long and jargony, and I don't think the jargon "accredited" is actually supported by RS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use Category:United Nations associations. We do actually need a category for official UN organisations (UNESCO, UNICEF, etc.) if we don't already have one, but it shouldn't be commingled with national UN associations. However, it should not be "Associations" with a capital "A" per MOS:CAPS. In plural form like that, it's a common not proper noun (if you attended both Harvard and Oxford, you went to two universities not "two Universities").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:11, 19 July 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_July_18