Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

< July 23 July 25 >

July 24[edit]

Category:Professional wrestling jobbers[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. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, it appears that many of the articles in this category are miscategorized. Many of the articles don't even mention them as being a jobber including 5 of the first 10 articles in the category (Mikey Batts, Siva Afi, Omar Atlas, The Batten Twins, and Bobby Blaze). Moreover, many wrestlers are booked to consistently lose at various points throughout their career, but this is rarely defining. This facet of their career is not part of the lead in any article I looked at and it probably should not be since it is usually a temporary and relatively less notable portion of a career. 2018 discussion on the topic resulted in no consensus. User:Namiba 18:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reasons that I gave last time to have this category kept. I also think that a separate subcategory called "jobbers to the stars" should be created and linked to the Professional wrestling jobbers category, so such wrestlers as Koko B. Ware and Johnny Rodz who clearly didn't have the defining roles of a regular "jobber" and are considered to be "superstars who were briefly given the roles of a jobber" would fit strictly under that subcategory. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subjects are often miscategorized, that does not mean that this category itself should be deleted. As in the previous, this was (rarely is anymore because jobbers are increasingly rare) a defining role for a professional wrestler. If sources do not identify them as having been jobbers then they should be removed. Wrestlers who had losing streaks were not necessarily jobbers. LM2000 (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing has changed relative to my comments from the previous "discussion." Even calling it a discussion is a euphemism for what is really an attack on the category. In this subject, jobbers, a euphemism, also have other euphemisms, such as "enhancement" talent, which the NOM missed. Undercard, mid-card and preliminary wrestlers, or wrestlers doing "dark" matches are not highly regarded, whether winning or losing. Certainly when they are elevated to wrestle against the "pushed" talent, they are jobbers or storyline flukes. A lot more wrestlers than appear in this category have episodes in their career when they had to "lay down" for a living. Your artificial standard of seeking the term jobber to be in the article in order for it to be included is unreasonable. Wrestling articles, in fact, all articles across wikipedia--your quality may vary. However, for every wrestler in this category, a case can clearly be made that they served as a jobber. Trackinfo (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is still a notable category. Jobbers are a needed cat. BabbaQ (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This category gets abused all the time, we need to make sure it doesn't get added to inappropriate people, but it's still a defining trait for many wrestlers.★Trekker (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge any articles that do not belong here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 26 July 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:Trolls (film)[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 The rest of the discussion about contents is best handled separately. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only three articles in this category directly relate to Trolls (film), with one being the film itself. Suggesting upmerge of all content into the parent, although that category seems to contain articles not related to the films including troll dolls and Trolls (video game). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note I moved the items not related to the franchise to Category:Trolls in popular culture. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and also note that the franchise should include all the Troll doll stuff in my opinion, the current animated franchise is based on those dolls (which also have earlier adaptations, uncluding the game mentioned above).★Trekker (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and repopulate with all articles related to Troll dolls, because the animated franchise is based directly on the dolls. bibliomaniac15 05:26, 24 August 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:Bad News Bears 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: rename. bibliomaniac15 04:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article is the franchise article as the category contains more than just the films, including a TV series. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:55, 24 July 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:Jewels of the Nizams[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. MER-C 18:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, to align with Nizams of Hyderabad and Category:Nizams of Hyderabad. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:31, 24 July 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:Establishments of the Nizams[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. MER-C 14:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, the convention for establishment categories is to name them after the state, not after the rulers of the state. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Abbasquadir: please do not remove the CfD tag. If you do not agree with the rename, you should take part in the discussion that the tag links to (which is right here) instead of removing the tag. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 26 July 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:Donations by Nizams of Hyderabad[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. MER-C 18:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:25, 24 July 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:16th-century BC establishments in Mexico[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 to Category:16th-century BC establishments Timrollpickering (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename and reparent, anachronistic category, Mexico did not exist yet in the 16th century BC. Alternatively rename to Category:16th-century BC establishments in Central America. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) I do not have an objection against merger either. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:04, 25 July 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:Sasanian governors of Gurgan[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 05:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No need to homogenize all these categories. I find this one pretty relevant. Also, there two's two articles, not one. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HistoryofIran: Vistahm has been added to this category after this nomination was filed. He was apparently spahbed of the East, encompassing Tabaristan and Khorasan, so a much bigger territory than Gurgan. Besides the usual threshold for a category is five articles, not two. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:00, 5 September 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.

Local political office-holders by prefecture[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 (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, many articles, especially those about municipal councilors, are about national politicians who happened to be a non-notable local politician in a different stage of their career. Having them in a "politicians from" category suffices. Note that the nomination will not empty Category:Local political office-holders in Japan, since that category will still be kept with mayors and municipal councilors subcategories. Also note that many Japanese prefectures do not even have a separate local political office-holders category. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion in which User:Johnbod suggested the above merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per nom & my comments before. Thanks for doing this, Marcocapelle! Johnbod (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per nomRathfelder (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How so? To take an example closer to home, Theresa May was a councillor for the London Borough of Merton for several years before becoming an MP, but we do not regard that as defining & have no category for it. Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle, that's because we have only one category of Local political office-holders in the London Borough of Merton. That isn't the case with the broader categories nominated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Japan has only two types of local office-holders, how much difference does that make? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:23, 26 July 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.

Mayors of populated places[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 24#Mayors of populated places

Category:Old Testament editions[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#Category:Old Testament editions

Category:War Cross with Sword (Norway)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 24#Category:War Cross with Sword (Norway)

Category:Prime Time Entertainment Network[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 24#Category:Prime Time Entertainment Network

Archaeological sites by culture[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: Not renamed Timrollpickering (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, aligning with parent Category:Archaeological sites by culture and with the siblings that have not been listed. Just "sites" is ambiguous, it does not sufficiently capture that it is part of the Archaeology tree. If needed, purge content that is not about archaeological sites. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
earlier CFDS discussion
@Armbrust and Abductive: pinging contributors to earlier CFDS discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Clearer scope. Dimadick (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not so sure about this one. Not every modern country with Roman ruins appreciates its Roman heritage. Some are content to let them crumble into the desert as they are inconvenient reminders of foreign occupation. So it's quite likely that many Roman sites will not see any conservation efforts at all, let alone the careful ministrations of an archaeologist. The proposal would gloss over this embarrassing situation. Is this the right thing to do? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. Not every Ancient Roman building is an archaeological site. Many are just ruins or nice buildings. Archaeological site is a subset of Site. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not have a Category:Sites because that is way too vague. Again, if some of them aren't archaeological sites they should be purged, as these are categories for archaeological sites. Most categories contain a hatnote for that, and the categories are part of the archaeology tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: That's not usually how "site" is defined in archaeology. It doesn't have to be conserved or excavated. A site is any place where objects, features, or ecofacts manufactured or modified by human beings are found.[3] In that sense all ancient Roman buildings, including Pont du Gard, are archaeological sites, and I don't see any problem with them staying in that category tree. – Joe (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe: I'll take your word for it Joe. However, I'm not sure that that would be the common understanding of the term. By the definition above, my house qualifies as an archaeological site. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I understand the feeling that "Foo sites" is too brusque, but I also feel that "Foo archeological sites" is too limiting. Usage of plain "sites" is common, for example this travel article squib, Germany Five Incredible Roman Sites. And I stand by my objection that if a place is known from historical records but has never been found, it can't be an archeological site. Maybe they could all be "Foo historical sites" like Category:Kurdish historical sites? Or maybe "Foo prehistoric sites"? Abductive (reasoning) 11:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely agree that if a place is known from historical records but has never been found, it can't be an archaeological site. So then the article needs to be purged from this archaeology category tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Just doesn't seem necessary, or helpful. Johnbod (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is clearly some confusion on the fact that this is meant for archaeological sites, the proposed rename helps to clarify that. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as unnecessarily limiting, since these cats include unexcavated and abandoned sites, lost cities, individual structures, etc. none of which qualify as an "archaeological site". Removing those entries from these categories does not aim navigation, it hinders it. Overall, it seems this proposal creates a non-existing problem in order to solve it. Neodop (talk) 20:00, 15 September 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_July_24