Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

< April 27 April 29 >

April 28[edit]

Category:Scottish Gaelic-language films[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Either rename this or rename the rest of similar categories in Category:Scottish Gaelic language to have the world “language” included. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2020 (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:Traditionalist Catholic magazines[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For the bulk of items in these categories, it appears that inclusion is determined through some subjective judgement of editorial line. I believe that WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and possibly WP:OPINIONCAT apply here; we shouldn't have separate categories for progressive, conservative, liberal etc. publications. It's true that for a small number of the items the categorisation seems more clearly fitting (The Angelus (magazine) is the official publication of the SSPX, a traditionalist group; The Remnant (newspaper) describes itself as traditional and promotes Lefebvre and other prominent traditionalists), but then the issue is WP:SMALLCAT. Cheers, gnu57 08:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the categories were created after this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I seriously wonder whether that split was in fact appropriate. These are periodicals and it makes little difference whether they are in broadsheet/tabloid format or presented as magazines. The problem if there is one is that this is mixing traditional Catholicism (in communion with Rome) with splinter groups. I note that there is already some overlap. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Are they in communion with Rome at all? Based on the title, I thought that the main article is Traditionalist Catholicism, Catholics who refuse to accept the decisions of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Several of them consider every Pope since the 1960s to be a heretic. Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Broadly speaking, anyone who promotes pre-Vatican II religious customs and practices such as the Tridentine Mass, the priest standing ad orientem or women wearing chapel veils in church can be considered a traditionalist. Ultra-traditionalists/"rad trads" are the ones who might regard Vatican II as invalid, break from Rome, and/or believe that there hasn't been a real pope since Pius XII. (For the canonical status of the various groups, see Template:Traditionalist Catholicism). Regular, non-radical traditionalists tended to support Benedict XVI, who wrote Summorum Pontificum and was a proponent of ressourcement (rather than aggiornamento) and the "hermeneutic of continuity". Cheers, gnu57 14:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the above comments it becomes clear that Traditional Catholicism is a far from homogeneous group, hence I support the nomination now. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: should these not also be selectively merged to Category:Traditionalist Catholicism? – Fayenatic London 15:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 18:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Traditionalist Catholic is a defining editorial stance, and a notable one. Note that these categories (their predecessor, actually) were also mentioned in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 3#Category:Catholic traditionalism, which seems to show that they have stood for quite some time without being challenged. This is not a reason not to be deleted, but not a reason to delete them either. Place Clichy (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Traditionalist Catholic seems to provide sufficient rationale for coherent sub-categories of the 2 target categories. Oculi (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Traditionalist Catholic media outlets differ significantly from other Catholic media, especially in regards to Tridentine Mass and other topics. "Traditionalist Catholic" is therefore a defining characteristic to these magazines and newspapers. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Fayenatic london's question makes me doubt if it might not be better to keep these categories after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Traditionalist Catholics aren't Roman Catholics as they reject statements from the pope that are binding on the Roman Catholic Church. Another reason why all the "Catholic" categories that pertain specifically to the Roman church, should be renamed "Roman Catholic". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that is the confusing thing, traditional Catholics remain Roman Catholic unless they decide to leave in free will. Even disobedience or excommunication does not nullify their membership. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Traditionalist" is a broad category which includes both canonically irregular or splinter groups (e.g., the SSPX) and groups in full communion with Rome (e.g., the FSSP and the ICKSP). Raymond Leo Burke and Athanasius Schneider are often described as traditionalist. gnu57 05:19, 3 May 2020 (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 military personnel by descent[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. bibliomaniac15 21:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All of these categories fail WP:OCEGRS as intersections of nationality, ancestry, and occupation. User:Namiba 12:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom as unnecessary intersections of descent and occupation. @Namiba: I took the liberty to present your nomination in a slightly more readable format, per the example given at WP:CFD#HOWTO for bundled nominations. Place Clichy (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (exept the Sri Lankan category) in the case of Uday Singh Taunque, Humayun Khan (soldier), and Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, their role as a member of a minority in the American armed forces is essential to their notability. Therefore deleting these categories would be inappropriate as WP:OCEGRS does not apply. The Sri Lankan category though only has one article in it, so I think WP:SMALLCAT applies there. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How does this not apply? "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." In other words, how are these intersections of Nationality, occupation, and ethnicity recognized as distinct and unique topics in their own rights?--User:Namiba 15:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another intersection and the unfathomable "descent" category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Carlossuarez46. Yet another set of descent categories which fail WP:OCEGRS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. All unnecessary. Only descent itself is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2020 (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:Animal industrial complex[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 (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Creating this (edit:recent) category populated with every human use of animals or animal products seems like an exercise in POV to me. If it only contained articles about animal rights that would be ok, but we already have category:animal rights. SpinningSpark 11:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Agriculture's text says "Agriculture, also known as farming, is ...". DexDor (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the articles grouped by this category (e.g. Silk and Zoo) are not about similar topics. DexDor (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a rename would also involve changing the articles in the category, the category text and the parent categories (which currently include e.g. Crime) then it's better just to delete. DexDor (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the rename, the far majority of articles could be kept though. But you are right, the parent categories should be adapted as well. Request to closer of discussion, if there is consensus about renaming, could you put this on the CFD working page for manual work? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment, in the end it does not really matter whether the discussion closes as delete(merge) or rename, because like DexDor says if deleted(merged) I can (re)create the category as Category:Animal keeping by humans with the right articles and the right parents, unless there are specific objections against a category like that. But I do not see any such objections yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The WP:POV nature of this creation is shown by some of the parent categories it has been put in; category:abuse, category:crimes, category:cruelty, category:discrimination. None of these are defining features of "animal industrial complex". It is clear that the editor wants to say, in Wikipedia's voice, that all commercial use of animals by humans is a bad thing. That's besides the question of whether all these disparate things can neutrally be grouped together as something amounting to a "complex". SpinningSpark 08:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This attempt to create a bridge between Beekeeping, Silk, Selective breeding or Animal-powered transport on one side and Crimes, Cruelty, Discrimination and even Capitalism on the other side, and calling it an industrial complex, shows how POV and fringe-leaning material this is. This redirect discussion may be worth reading, in which the authors of this category and eponymous article explain that what they call the 'animal industrial complex' is the non-human analogue of capitalism. As suggested in the RfD discussion, authors should probably establish in the article realm how reliable sources link this notion to capitalism, exploitation, cruelty, prejudice etc. before they can be considered defining enough for a Wikipedia category. Place Clichy (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think that the base article articulates a point-of-view but putting a category seems to endorse that point-of-view. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is an ATTACK category. It is legitimate to have the main article (as an article), but the whole concept is a highly fringe political POV one and should not have a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2020 (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:Priyanka Chopra[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 (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content for an eponymous category ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:53, 28 April 2020 (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:People from West Berlin[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. bibliomaniac15 19:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Very few articles. None of the subjects are really defined as "from West Berlin". Clearly it would be possible to populate the category, but I'm not convinced it's useful. There is a similar Category:People from East Berlin‎ and that has a lot more articles and many of the subjects clearly have a defining relationship with the political situation of East Berlin, so I do think that should be kept. Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but this should be a historic category for notable people who were resident in the decades before the removal of the Berlin Wall in 1989. In the period when Berlin was divided which part a person was in was highly defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge unless it is feasible to restructure this to a container category. Politicians of the West Berlin government would be part of it for a start, but I do not know if any other types of subcategories would fit. Other than that, most West Berlin people will also have lived in an undivided Berlin part of their life, either before the division or after the reunification, so that "people from Berlin" makes perfect sense for them. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At present it is not a category for notable people who were resident. Its a category for people who are notable for something they did elsewhere but were born in West Berlin. I've been through several hundred articles of people from Berlin. "West Berlin" is hardly ever mentioned, even for people who lived there while the Wall was there. However the situation is different for people who lived in East Berlin at that time, as many of those articles talk about East Berlin, and so I am populating Category:People from East Berlin‎. Clearly West Berlin was much less isolated. Coming from East Berlin was defining. I'm not convinced that coming from West Berlin was. People from West Berlin could and did move to other places. People from the East got shot when they tried to do that. There dont seem to be any separate categories for East or West Berlin politicians or institutions. The Abgeordnetenhaus of Berlin article and its members category runs on from 1951 to today. Rathfelder (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 06:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge while it might be useful in theory, categories are supposed to make navigation easier and, as described above, this does not. Perhaps Category:People of West Berlin would be more useful.--User:Namiba 13:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - there are only 5 articles and no subcats, and none of the 5 seems to have been connected in a defining way with West Berlin. Oculi (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2020 (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:St. Francis Yacht Club[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 (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the spirit of WP:C2F, categories with only one eponymous article
The only things in these categories are the main articles (which don't mention the sailors) and two biography articles each (that don't even mention the club and should therefore be removed from the categories). I didn't feel able to use a speedy nomination for a category I just purged though. All the biography articles about Olympic sailors so I'm assuming they either trained at, or received an award from, or were members of these clubs. But, even if you added that connection, it would leave us with either WP:PERFCAT, WP:OCAWARD, or WP:OCASSOC. I listed the current contents in each main article talk page, here and here, so no work is lost if anyone wants to pursue whatever this is. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic of the biographies. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We do not usually categorise by club membership. Possibly listify the sailors in the main article. It is different where the club membership is in fact membership of a professional sporting team. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2020 (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/2020_April_28