Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

< March 15 March 17 >

March 16[edit]

Scottish islands[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, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Like the categories of Category:Isle of Wight using "on" rather than "in" is more grammatically correct and natural. Maybe Category:Brochs in Skye, Category:Castles in Skye, Category:Whisky distilleries in Islay and Category:Burials in Iona should instead use "of" eg Category:Brochs of Skye. Note that I also think that the article Skye should be moved to Isle of Skye per the OS but that probably won't happen and renames of "Skye" to "Isle of Skye" can happen later if possible, while the renames of "in Skye" to "on Skye" happening now and if a move of the main article (or main category) later happens we can then rename "on Skye" to "on the Isle of Skye". The Commons category is at Commons:Category:Populated places on the Isle of Skye with the main category at Commons:Category:Isle of Skye (which I renamed from simply "Skye" last year) and I will change "in" to "on" accordingly as a result of this discussion. Note that most other Scottish islands don't have separate categories for settlements though. Out of Category:Villages on Scottish islands more than half use "on" not "in" such as Category:Villages on Jura, Scotland. There was discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 5#Category:Villages in Mull where "on" was agreed and more recently at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 15#Category:Lewis where I suggested using "on" but there was no discussion on that and that was mainly over using "Lewis" or "Isle of Lewis". Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There was a previous discussion about this which chose to retain the "in" convention for consistency. Category page area navigational device, not the text of a featured article, and grammatical perfection in category titles can be the enemy of good navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrownHairedGirl: Which previous discussion are you talking about? Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Crouch, Swale: Sorry, I wish I could recall. I'd have posted the link if I could remember it. I will do some burrowing now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Crouch, Swale: Sorry, no luck finding it. AFAICR, at the time I preferred "on", but the consensus was for "in".
Anyway, has WP:SCOTLAND been notified? Scottish editors would be best placed to advise on local usage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands. Indeed if all islands used "in" the that would be fine but if some use "in" and some use "on" (ignoring large ones and states per below) then its more confusing for navigation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Island Area
km2		 Approx
population
Lewis and Harris 2180 21000
Skye 10000 1650
Zanzibar 2500 1300000
Longyearbyen 30000 2100
Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego 48000 133100
Jersey 118km 100000
Lolland 1243km 62600
Zealand 7031 2300000
Bornholm 227 40000
Gotland 3200 58600
Sardinia 24100 1650000
@Crouch, Swale: thanks for that notification.
I agree that consistency is better for navigation (and for editorial categorisation), but:
  1. your proposal would still leave us using a different format for different geographical entities, which is not consistent
  2. Your suggested criteria of "ignoring large ones and states" is also problematic, because it is fuzzy in both respects. By states, do you mean sovereign states? Or do you include non-sovereign entities, and if so which ones? There are many well-founded definitions which could be used.
    Large is also a fuzzy concept, and could be defined by area or by population. Look at the table to the right of a few examples I dug out. How do you propose to apply consistent principle across that set?
I think that before categories are renamed, this needs a lot more thought and a lot more comparison across wider sets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: By "state" I was meaning a first order diversion of a country such as US state (like California), an English county (like Cornwall) or a French department (like Essonne). But this would of course include countries (ie sovereign states to). For England, Scotland and Wales this would mean that all islands (apart from Anglesey due to as noted it containing other islands) use "on" not "in". I'm less sure how it would work with other countries but I'd note that there is Category:Churches in Lolland and Category:Lakes of Zealand and most others do indeed use "in" but some (like Sardinia) are also administrative divisions and include other areas. For "large" I would only include Great Britain its self for England, Scotland and Wales. So yes consistency is desired here but in terms of the Scottish islands as noted more of Category:Villages on Scottish islands use "on" than "in" so its even more confusing to have some using "on" (like Jura) and some using "in" (like Islay). Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: thanks for that reply, but it all gets a bit theological, doesn't it?
It seems that Ynys Môn isn't an island cos it's joined to a much smaller isle by a 200-year-old causeway whereas Lewis and Harris is an island because despite being almost chopped in two, its causeway is natural. Lolland is an island and its not a govt unit, but its categorised as if it was an island, and so on.
AFAICS, any attempt to devise some set of rules to replace the ad-hoccery is going to get v complex. Why put readers and editors through such a rigmarole? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anglesey is the "parent" island to Holy Island so if we took that view then Holy Island (not Anglesey) would no longer be an island (Haswell-Smith doesn't list the Isle of Skye as an island due to the Skye Bridge connecting it to the mainland) but Middle Mouse is clearly not part of Anglesey anyway. Lewis and Harris indeed is and island (and not Harris and the Isle of Lewis, despite the name) but as noted "on" can also apply to other landforms so we might have a category like "Snow on Ben Nevis" anyway (presumably only on Commons). Lolland is indeed not a govt unit, that is the Lolland Municipality (my mistake). Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The setup in other countries was the best that I could find based on searches and existing category structure, as noted using "on" seems to be the long-standing setup for the Isle of Wight. As noted I'm fine with us using "in" for all islands but we have a mixture of both for Scotland which is even more confusing. Perhaps "in" v "on" also falls under WP:ENGVAR which would allow us to have different setups for different countries but I agree that that indeed would be confusing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Using "on" seems to make more sense. If the primary concern is consistency, we need to establish consistent usage first; it's easy to find lots of islands using "in" and lots of islands using "on". For example, all relevant subcategories of Category:Crete use "in", while the subcategories of Category:Populated places in Hawaii by island all use "on". After checking a bunch of island and island-group categories, I believe that we tend to use "in" when the island matches a jurisdiction (e.g. Category:Greenland) and "on" when it doesn't (e.g. Category:Long Island). But if we're making an argument based on consistency, we either need to formalise what appears to be the current situation, or we need to establish a different standard instead. Until we start to establish a standard, we'll have to go with what seems best, and "on" seems better than "in" here. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Greenland is also so large (like Great Britain) that most people would say "in" instead of "on". While these are major islands they aren't large enough that things on them would naturally be referred to as "in". Also none of these are states or equivalent of such as Tasmania (which has Category:Localities in Tasmania), Isle of Wight (which has Category:Villages on the Isle of Wight) and Anglesey (which has Category:Villages in Anglesey but the administrative unit is actually "Isle of Anglesey" and like Tasmania including Flinders Island and many others it also contains Holy Island and several others). Some are (or at least were) civil parishes such as Jura which also includes the islands of Colonsay and Scarba and if a category for Jura parish (as opposed to just island) existed (which it probably shouldn't since Scottish CPs don't appear to have much current status) we might have "Villages in Jura, Scotland". Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - seems to be the majority usage in Category:Villages in the Inner Hebrides. One would say 'village on the Isle of Skye'. 'Portree is on the Isle of Skye', not 'in' or 'of' or 'upon'. Oculi (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support" "on" is much better than "in" for a single island. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question about burials Being buried "on" an island sounds like a mausoleum; in ordinary cases, I'd be inclined to use buried "in" an island because one's underground, i.e. in the island. Same with geological features and other manmade subsurface features, e.g. "francium deposits in Skye" or "Cold War nuclear shelters in Skye". Do others share my opinion? Nyttend (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree buried "on" does seem odd indeed, though buried "in" doesn't sound much better, there is Category:Burials in the Isle of Wight (of which the county only consists of the island + The Needles) so I'd be inclined to keep Category:Burials in Iona as is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually think "buried on" is completely normal English if one is buried on an island. There are countless examples of it. Same with Nyttend's other examples. I would see the use of "in" as being exceptionally strange. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Necrothesp. "buried on the Isle of Skye" gets 39 hits, whereas "buried in the Isle of Skye" gets 0. Oculi (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "villages in the Isle of Skye" only seems to get 4 results, while villages on the Isle of Skye gets about 22,100. By contrast "villages in Suffolk" gets about 82,500 while "villages on Suffolk" gets about 423. "villages in Great Britain" gets about 329,000 while "villages on Great Britain" gets 0! This is decisive in which terms are preferred but I'm surprised even still that "villages in Great Britain" gets 0. "villages in Tasmania" gets about 42,000 while "villages on Tasmania" only gets 2. By contrast Long Island is much less clear with "villages in Long Island" gets about 46,200 with "villages on Long Island" getting about 17,000 (note that we have List of villages on Long Island). Note that by area, Great Britain is 9th, Tasmania is 26th, Long Island is 149th and the Isle of Skye is 234th. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Completely logical. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. Whilst "on" is sometimes used colloquially in connection with island place names, "in" is more common and formal usage in Scotland. Note also that of the above, not all are islands anyway. Lewis is the northern portion of a large island; Harris is the southern portion of that island plus several other islands, at least two of them inhabited; Skye would generally be understood to include a number of surrounding islands in addition to the main island. This usage may be connected to the fact that these places are thought of as geopolitical entities, not just islands: Harris is a parish, Lewis a group of districts, Skye the island part of the Skye and Lochalsh committee area and so on. I note that this usage is not restricted to Scotland either; we have for example Category:Populated places in Anglesey and its subcategories. --Deskford (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2019 (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:Tea Tree oils[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) 18:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT with one article. Per Tea tree oil it seems there are no other tea tree oils. Brandmeistertalk 17:54, 16 March 2019 (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:Nepalese Masculine given names[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Obvious typo. All other "X masculine given names" categories in this branch use sentence case. GermanJoe (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2019 (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:Non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 1#Category:Non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire

People by country of descent and occupation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 12#People by country of descent and occupation

Category:Religion in Morocco by city[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 both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete as redundant category layers, they both contain only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both Since there are not any direct articles, this isn't aiding navigation and growth potential seems limited. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2019 (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:Puerto Rico Economic Development Bank[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 both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT and, for the subcategory, WP:PERFCAT
No conceptual obection to the parent category but we only have the main article, Puerto Rico Economic Development Bank. For the subcategory, there is also just 1 article (Alberto Bacó Bagué) and Mr. Bagué has held a large number of different rotating offices so this one doesn't seem defining. (It also appears from the PREDB article that the top official is "President" not director but that may be a translation issue.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2019 (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:Recipients of the Order of Saint Peter of Cetinje[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) 02:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
The Order of Saint Peter of Cetinje is given to members of the Petrović-Njegoš dynasty and other royalty by Montenegro. Being in this family is absolutely defining which is why we already have this Category:House of Petrovic-Njegoš. The members of the category are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2019 (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/2019_March_16