Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

< March 20 March 22 >

March 21[edit]

Category:People involved in outsourcing[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article. There were 2 others but they were about companies. Rathfelder (talk) 22:06, 21 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:CPO (group) albums[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: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This musical group released one album, 29 years ago. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - part of the overall accepted scheme Category:Albums by artist. " Please note that all single-artist album articles may have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded." Oculi (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the WP:SMALLCAT exception. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:51, 22 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:Bankroll Mafia albums[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: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This musical group released one album three years ago. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:59, 21 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.

Places of worship[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/rename using option B, i.e. to "religious buildings and structures". Places of worship that do not fit here may belong elsewhere within Category:Religious places, e.g. in sub-cats of Category:Sacred sites (currently nominated for renaming to Category:Holy places), if it is WP:defining in each case. – Fayenatic London 07:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category list for Places of worship[edit]
Propose merging/renaming:
OPTION A: use "religious buildings"
For the full list of 1014 categories to be renamed in OPTION A, see WT:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 21#OPTION_A
OPTION B: use "religious buildings and structures"
Note that this option involves renaming all the existing "religious buildings" categories to "religious buildings and structures"
etc
etc
For the full list of 2057 categories to be renamed in OPTION B, see WT:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 21#OPTION_B
Rationale for Places of worship[edit]
Nominator's rationale: To create one consistently-named and all-inclusive set of broad categories for the bricks-and-mortar aspects of religion, whether by time or by geography.
Effect
This huge nomination rename all "places of worship" categories to "religious buildings" (option A) or to "religious buildings and structures" (option B). This proposal will not rename any categories of types of religious buildings. So e.g. Category:Synagogues in London will not be renamed, but its parent category will be renamed from Category:Places of worship in London to Category:Religious buildings in London (option A) or Category:Religious buildings and structures in London (option B).
Why?
The distinction between "places of worship" and "religious buildings" is small, and for except the parent Category:Places of worship, it is a hindrance to navigation.
At higher levels, this category is no more than a fork of the existing Category:Religious buildings. At lower levels, it has an unhelpfully slightly-narrower scope than religious buildings. The consequence is that is that it excludes some items which would more helpfully be included alongside places of worship.
So far as I can see, the difference is that:
  • Category:Religious buildings may be read as excluding places of worship which are not actually buildings, such as mass rocks. However, mass rocks are overwhelmingly human constructions, so it's reasonable to categorise them under buildings. Similarly, shrines and other outdoor places of worship overwhammingly involve human constructions. same with pilgrimage sites. So in practice I don't see any exclusions, even with option A.
  • Category:Religious buildings and structures seems to me to unambiguously include all places of worship
  • Category:Places of worship seems to excludes a range of religious buildings such as convents and monasteries, clergy houses (rectories, vicarages, manses etc), Episcopal Palaces, religious cemeteries, etc.
The exclusion of those other types of buildings creates unhelpful glitches in the category structure, e.g. Category:Places of worship in Sheffield excludes Monastery of The Holy Spirit, Sheffield. It would be much more helpful to group it with the other religious buildings in that cit, by renaming the cat to Category:Places of worship in Sheffield, which I propose renaming to Category:Religious buildings in Sheffield.
Commmons
Wikimedia Commons avoids the "places of worship" categorisation, and uses "Religious buildings" throughout. e.g.
Two options
It might be better for en.Wikipedia to use the slightly more verbose format of Category:Buildings and structures, which in this case would be Category:Religous buildings and structures. That would remove any dispute about whether the categories can include structures such as standalone shrines, crosses and statues, which might not fit everyone's definition of a "building". So I have included that as OPTION B. Note that OPTION B involves renaming the subcats of Category:Religious buildings, such as Category:Religious buildings by year and its many subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion for places of worship[edit]
Support/Oppose/Comment here
  • Comment, regardless of the names of the nominated categories it seems odd to include residences of clergy in the tree of Category:Religious buildings insofar they are not used for worship. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle, the whole point of the nomination is to slightly widen the category beyond places of worship, to include other religious buildings. The current structure leaves the residences lumped in with all the secular buildings in the area's "buildings and structures category". That's not helpful to readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • But isn't that odd? Why pollute these categories with residential buildings? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle, I came to this by looking at the commons category, and asking the opposite question: why does en.wp exclude religious buildings just because their purpose was not worship?
For most cities and other areas we have a category of religious buildings, currently called "places of worship", but no category for "other religious buildings". I suppose we could have a separate category for "non-worship religious buildings", but why not just have one category which includes episcopal palaces, convents, monasteries etc?
Look at that example above of Sheffield. Why leave Monastery of The Holy Spirit, Sheffield out in the cold in the secular Category:Buildings and structures in Sheffield? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS residences of clergy are already under Category:Religious buildings.
The tree is Category:Religious buildings → Category:Christian buildings → Category:Clergy houses
But because we don't carry the broad "religious buildings" tree down to the local level, they are excluded from the local category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Monasteries are fine to include of course, they (also) have a worshiping purpose. The question is: do we divide buildings based on purpose (worship vs residential) or based on ownership (a church vs private). Usually the former is well-documented, ownership less so (except in case of clergy houses and episcopal palaces). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, I don't agree that there is any neat use/ownership distinction. Ever single clergy house which I have ever entered (Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Jewish) has been used not just as a dwelling but also as a location for meetings, prayer groups, pastoral support, private counselling and a range of other religious purposes.
The same goes for all the religious denominations (Christian and otherwise) which I am familiar with.
So I am unclear why you think it is helpful to try to draw a hard line around the set of buildings who primary purpose you seem be to defining as public worship. Even the current division doesn't meet the public test, because it includes e.g. private chapels which have much less of a public function than a clergy house. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The oppose votes below are related to this early discussion. However it is important to note that the aim of the nomination is to create consistency in this category tree, which should be much appreciated. The question rather is what the best way to realise this consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Option B - seems a neat idea to follow the existing "buildings and structures" format. (A vicarage seems to me to be a fine example of a 'religious building'.) Oculi (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Option B While less common, outdoor chapels like the Cathedral of the Pines and the Cross in the Woods aren't "buildings". RevelationDirect (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Option B - my main interest is monasteries, and it would be great to be able to include them along with churches, shrines and so forth. Either A or B would work for them, but Option B is wider so would be more useful (as per User:RevelationDirect.) - Ingratis (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some of the discussion I'm reading here causes me to wonder if some of you should perhaps not spend so much time on categorization matters and instead emerge for a breath of fresh air every now and then. Many people know that I frequently work on content pertaining to WikiProject Alaska and it was through that project's article alerts page that I found this discussion. My home church in Fairbanks meets in a hotel ballroom. An article published by the Episcopal Diocese of Alaska in 1975 detailed a service atop Mount Roberts where Episcopalian and then-lieutenant governor Lowell Thomas Jr. explained his conservationist views in the context of dominion as outlined in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis. So does this mean that we should categorize hotels and mountains as places of worship? Seems as though those categories are a can of worms when viewed in that context. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure what your point is, @RadioKAOS. That what we shouldn't have categories are at all? That we shouldn't try to resolve anomalies? Or merely to note that in this huge set, there some edge cases?
We have a long-standing principle to resolve for such cases: WP:DEFINING. I'm sure you can give your own eloquent answer to the question of whether hosting a single religious service which was not widely reported is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of Mount Roberts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The comment I made about some people needing to emerge for a breath of fresh air was expressed generally so that no one can have the excuse of trying to dismiss it by throwing out WP:NPA. Still, it's all too obvious. We have countless biographical articles where the subject's notability is defined by their activities in one place, with the article not categorizing them according to that place and instead categorizing them solely according to some other place because they happen to have been born there. If the community is not willing to tackle that problem, which has existed unchecked for untold years, then any mention of "defining characteristics" is hollow and meaningless. As for your characterization of a "single religious service", here's what the article actually said:

Nearly a hundred persons...representing a dozen Juneau churches...climbed above the tree line on Mt. Roberts Sunday afternoon, July 13, and shared together in the third annual (emphasis mine) "Sermon on the Mount" service sponsored by the Juneau Ministerial Fellowship.

Looks to me like this was an ongoing thing and not a "single service". Judging from the article, the Episcopal Diocese took notice of this year's service because the rector of Holy Trinity Church led the service. Anyway, you really want my point? I don't have time to scrutinize thousands of categories. From what little I've seen, though, this is yet another example of categorization geeks creating untold numbers of categories for the sake of satisfying the desires of categorization geeks, not for enabling effective navigation for readers who are stuck wading through excessive levels of underpopulated categories. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RadioKAOS, I responded based on your mention of a single service, so please don't try to cast me as the originator of that point or to discredit me for taking your comment in good faith and accepting it at face value. If you want to make an assessment of the WP:Definingness of that service in relation to the mountain, please share it ... but otherwise it's all a pointless diversion.
As to your broader point, you seem to have misread this nomination: it will not create a single new category. Its purpose is to slightly broaden the scope of existing categories, which will help to slightly reduce the problem you describe of underpopulated categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- When I go to church, I go to worship God, not to "do religion": it is not a charade or performance. "Places of worship" is thus an accurate description. I would not want the term used for an outdoor venue, unless regularly used for worship. The buildings themselves are not Christian (or Muslim or Jewish) though they may be designed to conform to the worship practices of these religions. I see no objection to "buildings" being used at a higher level, where other species of building may be included (such as Bishops' Palaces). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Peterkingiron: you seem to have misunderstood the nomination. This is not about what you or anyone else does when they go to church/mosque/synagogue/temple etc. It is about whether en.wp's categories work better by separating places of worship from buildings used for other religious functions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually this comment has convinced me that the proposal should be supported. You've just highlighted the fact that the current terminology implicitly gives credence to religious practice, and in-line with WP:NPOV, it should be changed. It's not Wikipedia's job to affirm or deny religion - "places of worship" has a slight bias towards belief. How about "Places of Blessing" or "Places of Transubstantiation"? Best to make it neutral. Cnbrb (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Either A or B seem a better option than the current. Not fussy about which - both would work. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Partly per Peterkingiron; a building can be a place of worship without being a religious building. (My church has rented space from a school for several years; merely being a school doesn't make it a religious building, but it's a place of worship.) Partly per RadioKAOS: the Russian Bishop's House, the Conference Center (LDS Church), and St Anne's Guest Home are religious buildings but not places of worship, and the same is true of most buildings on a religious college's campus. Monasteries, convents, etc. are generally places of worship due to the nature of the institutions that use them (if you spend your whole life somewhere for religious reasons, you'll need a place of worship there), but there are lots of religious institutions that erect buildings for specialised purposes (particularly parachurch organisations) without including places of worship within them. Merging all kinds of religious buildings into a single tree, whether they're used as places of worship or exclusively for other purposes, removes a useful distinction as well as risking merging places that aren't primarily religious buildings into the religious-buildings tree. (If places of worship are already in the religious buildings tree, that's a separate problem that needs to be resolved.) It wouldn't make a logical mess of the category tree, but it would reduce its usability by the large majority of us who focus on categories as a navigational device. Finally, I'm fine with the third section of the proposals; the well-established nature of the category tree means that you could have probably done speedy nominations to add "and structures" to these names. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're extrapolating. Is your rented school likely to merit a Wikipedia article? Probably not. Cnbrb (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nyttend, the example of your church doesn't really add up. If being used as place of worship is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a building, then the religious building category would be appropriate. OTOH if a few hours a week of rented use is a non-defining characteristic, the building should not be characterised as place of worship, any more than a few hours of classroom rental by a co-counselling group makes mental health a WP:DEFINING characteristic.
The rest of that comment misunderstands what is proposed. There is already a prolific number categories for churches, mosques, synagogues etc. This proposal won't merge any of those categories.
However, this renaming does resolve the problem that we have at small city/county/region level, where the usual category tree is
"Buildings and structures in Footown" --> "Places of worship in Footown" --> "Churches in Footown".
In many cases the "Places of worship in Footown" category is omitted because it would contain only one or two articles plus the churches category, placing the mosque, synagogue, bishop's palace and notable vicarage in the secular "Category:Buildings and structures in Footown".
This slight expansion of the scope will allow a few more religious buildings to be grouped together, and thereby increase our ability to have a distinction between religious and secular buildings. That increase the usability of the category tree, rather than a category tree. I really don't see how usability is improved by retaining a structure which makes it less likely that the places of worship will be grouped together rather than being pushed back to the secular category.
We simply don't have vast swathes of articles on other religious buildings to swamp the places of worship. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't understand how they are the same thing. A place of worship is more correct. "Religious building" makes me wonder if the building itself is religious, like the building is big or small. It is a nomination that requires a lot more discussion.--Level C (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is extrapolation. Have Scientific buildings been to college to study science? Do Military buildings and structures wear uniform? I think it's obvious what is meant.Cnbrb (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The two terms are not the same. Per Peterkingiron, Nyttend, and Level C. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, @Inter&anthro, the whole point of the nomination is that the two terms are not the same. The point is that "Religious buildings" is slightly broader, which allows for a more inclusive grouping at the local category level where religious buildings such as shrines, monasteries, clergy houses etc are currently left with the secular parent category "buildings and structures in Foo". Why do you think readers are helped by leaving them in a local secular category? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think re-naming for consistency is a good idea. Broadening the category is a double-edged sword: benefits have been outlined by @BrownHairedGirl: above; but many hospitals, cemeteries, universities (with domitories, lecture halls, sports venues, and other potentially notable buildings and structures) are potentially "religious buildings" because of the nature of their owners or the regular display of religious symbols and holding of religious meetings therein. Moreover, because categories are not only for currently religious buildings, many museums, palaces, and other notable buildings/structures originally religious in nature will be swept in. Another rub: there are buildings/structures arguably religious and arguably not religious (a government cemetery in a secular state) including arguably any government building in a state with an official religion. And lastly: there are buildings/structures that are not religious by design but have because so because of association with a religious figure or event. All that leads me to believe that we should have a broader discussion on what the enlarged category ought to contain. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that thoughtful comment, @Carlossuarez46. However, I think your concerns are misplaced, because in many of the examples you list, religion is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the building.
For example, the WP:DEFINING characteristic of a hospital is that it used for medical purposes, not that it is owned by a religious body. Similarly for universities: even when owned by religious body, v few of the buildings have a WP:DEFINING religious use (except in the case of a seminary or theological college). Similarly for govt buildings of states with official churches: the UK has a state religion, but I really don;t think that anyone is going to try to categorise 10 Downing Street as a religious building, or Nelson's Column, the M1 motorway or their local tax office.
I don't see a problem with former uses, if that use was WP:DEFINING. If a building was a church for decades but is now a museum, then both uses are WP:DEFINING, and the building will should already be categorised as a church building. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl; I have a few UK examples: is Windsor Castle a religious building? Is Frogmore? Hampton Court Palace, as Cardinal Wolsey place of power? the Tower of London? the articles in Category:Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries - where the vast majority of grave markers are "religious" and the interments were often "religious" affairs and commemorations seem to always include God. I fear: how we divide these may very well not be articulable in an objective way. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlossuarez46, I'll take those one at a time:
  1. Windsor Castle is easy: it has always been a fortified palace for the monarch, so it's very clear that it is a secular building. Obviously, its private chapel St George's Chapel is a church, and is rightly categorised as such.
  2. Hampton Court Palace, being first owned by Thomas Wolsey might initially look more complex, but it's actually simple. The Place was built for Wolsey in his role as the Senior Minister, not as a priest. So we don't even need to consider that it was Wolsey's for only 7 out of its 700 years; it was not a religious building even in those 7 years.
  3. Frogmore is a private burial ground. It is used for the family of a church leader, but not owned by a church.
  4. Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries are like most state-owned cemeteries, used for a mix of religious and secular purposes
So the only question marks are over cemeteries. Category:Cemeteries is a subcat of Category:Religious places, and also of Category:Burial monuments and structures which doesn't seem to be in any religious category tree.
I am not aware of any solely secular cemeteries, where no religious rite is permitted (tho may be France has some). So it seems to me to be appropriate to class them as religious, since they will be used for religious purposes a significant proportion of the time -- many people who only go to church for weddings and funerals have a religious burial. It would still probably be helpful to have an RFC on that issue regardless of what happens to this CFD, because cemeteries could be placed in Category:REligion in FooTown. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike fuzzy categories, which is probably more pronounced in the cemeteries. Having religious events (be they revivals, prayers, or funerals), in my mind doesn't transform the nature of the edifice - the US Congress starts its sessions with a prayer, the Capitol is secular; when the pope visits, he uses various stadiums as venues for mass, they remain secular. Standing crosses (like the Eleanor crosses) and Mount Davidson (California)#The cross are religious structures, and many cemeteries notably contain row after row of them (even, supposedly "secular" cemeteries). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Option B: the current situation is clearly not reader-friendly. The individual cases that are being raised seem unlikely to be an issue, since the lower levels of the category tree (which aren't changing) will actually have decided the issue. E.g., the hall used for Christian services in a hotel, will already have been categorised (or not) as Category:Christian buildings. Moreover, there seem to be very few places in the places of worship tree which aren't already categorised as churches, mosques, synagogues etc (and thus already in the religious buildings tree). People who are opposed to this should be identifying actual articles (not theoretical cases) that currently exist and that are currently categorised as places of worship, which are not already categorised as religious buildings. That said, I think adding 'and structures' is a good idea for covering Cathedral of the Pines and the Cross in the Woods, as mentioned, and also things like Christ the Redeemer (statue)). Furius (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and retain "Places of worship." Other than the obvious outlined above, some places of worship may not necessarily be constructed buildings but sacred grounds especially among certain, none-Abrahamic religions who belief that the Divine/God is everywhere and nowhere and does not need a building to pray to him/her/it. Some of these places may be anything including sacred groves, rivers, mountains, hill, trees, etc, and followers of the faith may see those places as dwelling places of an ancestor, spirit or saint, etc. Therefore, how do we treat these places of worship which were not by human construction?Tamsier (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - categorisation makes more sense, terminology is also more in-line with WP:NPOV (as demonstrated by Peterkingiron's comment above). This will make category navigation more logical, as currently, Category:Places of worship cannot be easily found within Category:Buildings and structures by type. Slight preference for Option A as it is more succint, but I can see the rationale for Option B too. Cnbrb (talk) 08:32, 16 April 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:Phases of matter[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: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article: State of matter. Note also Portal:States of matter (not Portal:Phases of matter or Portal:Material phases, etc.) and List of states of matter. Speedy nomination was opposed, suggesting a full CfD. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • [You neglected to repost my comment from Speedy or to notify WikiProject Physics]:
    Oppose speedy - They're closely related, but they are not the same thing. I was looking over these and other related categories a few days ago, and suffice to say that it's rather complex, so a full-blown discussion would be necesssary -- and input from WikiProject Physics would be required.
Anomalous+0 (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose as nominated. This is not my field of knowledge at all, but I note that:
The title of the portal is no guide to anything. It one of several thousand creations by a portalspamming editor who has complained that portal creation is so time-consuming that it takes between one and two minutes per portal (Have you tried creating 500 portals? It is rather repetitious/tedious/time-consuming (from 500 to 1000 minutes). This semi-automated process involved so little scrutiny that it even involved creating at least one portal with precisely zero articles in its scope other than the head article: see WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:University of Fort Hare#Portal:University_of_Fort_Hare. The nominator seems to have missed that this flood of portalspam is currently the subject of several raging debates elsewhere.
I am of course open to changing my mind if someone who actually has expertise in physics can assure us that the two topics are identical, and are better referred to as "States of matter". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notification: WikiProject Physics has been notified.[1] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remain Opposed to this misguided proposal. I have to say, I am surprised that this was taken to full CFD, in light of my remarks at Speedy. Frankly, I am mystified as to why an editor with (obviously) limited knowledge of the field would mess around with this subject. Anomalous+0 (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Oppose -- If there is a need for a change at all it is to Split but I suspect that Keep is the better option, because the distinction is a fine one. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until a rationale is provided that convincingly explains that they are the same thing, as to my understanding they are not. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:56, 27 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:American championships[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:International sports championships in the Americas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was tagged by an anon editor for speedy renaming to Category:Pan American Championships, but not listed with a rationale. That proposal would be consistent with the article List of Pan American Championships. However, some of the contents do not cover all of the Americas, but North + Caribbean, North + Caribbean + Central, or Central + South. The current name is consistent with others in Category:Continental championships, but I think the best name might be Category:Sports championships in the Americas, following another parent Category:Sports competitions in the Americas. – Fayenatic London 10:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:International Sports championships in the Americas. I am generally in agreement with Fayenatic london. "Pan American Championships" could easily get confused with the Pan American Games and its affiliates, while "Sports championships in the Americas" is more inclusive for non affiliated sports such as sailing (already in the category). The additional word "International" excludes domestic or generic championships. Otherwise a national championships, the beer pong championships or even a tri-county championship might be able to be included if it were to attain notability in some way. Trackinfo (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2019 March 13 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 21 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:Arabic language speaking people[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) 08:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is already Category:Arabic-speaking people category seems the same to me SharabSalam (talk) 02:38, 21 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 Ismail[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) 08:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
When foreign leaders or even diplomats visit Egypt, or vice versa, before 1953 one of these awards is given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Kigeli V of Rwanda and Quintin Brand of South Africa are not defined by this award and such foreign recipients are most of the category. If you want to see the clutter these categories create at the article level, just look at the train wreck at the bottom of this article. I listified the contents of the category here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 21 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:USA Shooting Hall of Fame inductees[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) 08:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
Of the six people in this category, three don't mention the award at all, two mention it in passing, and one in the lead so it doesn't seem defining. There is no main article on this award so I created a redirect, pointed it to USA Shooting organization article, and added a section listifing this category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:37, 21 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_21