Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

< February 18 February 20 >

February 19[edit]

Category:18th-century Polish people by occupation[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:18th-century Polish–Lithuanian people by occupation. bibliomaniac15 03:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Poland did not exist from 1569 to 1795. For that period all the categories should be moved to Category:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth people and renamed. NB this is the start of an attempt to disentangle anachronistic Polish categories. Advice and assistance would be most welcome. Rathfelder (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2022 (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.

Semitic people categories[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 all. This seems to represent the main consensus, and is also the only action that requires an administrator. Other suggestions to purge, split, and create new categories do not require a CFD to be opened and can be done by anyone. bibliomaniac15 04:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Semitic people is an obsolete and unused grouping of people. It might be valid for an encyclopedia written in the 19th century, but by 1900-1950, "Semitic" had become a synonym for "Jewish" exclusively (hence terms like antisemitism), and by the 1950s, nobody thought this categorization was valid anymore. It wasn't a contemporary term either; all of these various 2nd century BCE Semitic people would have had no idea what the term was. It was something cooked up in the late 1700s. Categories were only recently created and populated in the last year or so. Delete the container category and upmerge the by-century subcategories. As a second choice option, they could be renamed something like "15th century Middle Eastern people" or the like then modified to remove European Jews and the like. (Note that "Semitic languages" is still a term that hangs on in linguistics, barely, so I'm not nominating categories related to that sense. But the usage here is clearly as an ethnicity, and that sense is no longer used). SnowFire (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, The categories are simply a 'people by century' for Category:Semitic-speaking_peoples. If the category name itself "Semitic people by century" is the issue here, then a rename to "Semitic-speaking people by century" will basically clear things up for readers and eliminate confusion. --MWahaiibii (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Note: MWahaiibii is the category creator whom I discussed the matter with before filing this nomination after he stopped responding.) No, it won't, because you yourself made this category a subcategory of Category:People by ethnicity and century. That's very directly about ethnicity. More generally, these categories are obviously about ethnic / national groupings from inspection (Take a look at Category:20th-century Arabs which you've added to this: Egyptian Arabs, Yemeni Arabs, etc.). Many people in Category:20th-century French Jews might have barely spoke any Hebrew at all with French as their main language. Or people in the Arab categories who spoke Mozarabic language which despite the name is actually a Romance language, not a Semitic language. Claiming that this is a language classification doesn't match its use at all. More generally, while we do have categories for languages for authors who produce a literary work in a language (Category:French-language writers and its subcategories, etc.), we don't tend to classify non-writing people by language spoken - i.e. people like Pope Benedict XVI who speak 10+ languages don't get 10 categories noting this fact. SnowFire (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nom instead split. Category:14th-century BC people has several subcategories, to which Hebrew (for Judah and Israel) might be added and perhaps a subcat for Mesopotamia. When categories are appropriately purged, there will probably be some articles left which can be merged as nom. Accordingly WAit. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Note that the further suggestions of User:Peterkingiron may be implemented regardless whether the merge goes ahead or not, so waiting is not needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge now per nom and also Split later per @Peterkingiron: . Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since both Laurel Lodged & Peterkingiron brought it up, if it looks like there's consensus for "merge but thin the categories first", I'll go ahead and move some out to new subcategories like 14th century BC Mesopatamian people or the like in a few days. (I personally am fine with One Big Category by year, but if that's what it takes, sure.) SnowFire (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have created Category:Ancient Near Eastern people by century and Category:14th-century BC Near Eastern people, since these categories already seem to exist. Checking, basically everyone in the base "Semitic peoples" category qualifies for this in ancient eras (and in modern eras, there's nothing in the base categories), so perhaps that would work better as a merge target? Don't want to move everything out of process, so I just moved a few sample articles for now as a proof of the idea. If there's a desire to "keep" this information, then renaming the categories in 6th BC and earlier should work, since they're where most of the "uncategorized" entries are. Also, procedural note for the categories later in time: the subcategories probably want to go to Category:16th-century people by nationality and the like (e.g. Category:16th-century Jews, while the actual stray articles (Maron) should go to just "Xth century people" as originally proposed. SnowFire (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Jews are otherwise categorised as a religion and as an ethnicity, but not as a nationality. – Fayenatic London 20:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • {@Fayenatic london: I agree, but if this is referring to the various Jewish subcategories, I think that's outside the scope of this nomination? It's possible some of them should be recategorized too, just this nomination is strictly focused on "Semitic" categories. SnowFire (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was referring to your example of Category:16th-century Jews being moved into Category:16th-century people by nationality. – Fayenatic London 23:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good point. I'd be happy to go "clean those up" and remove such categories post-upmerge - it seems they were only added to that subcategory structure in the past two years or so. I'd rather just the deletion/move happen first at this point, and cleanup to ensure consistency with guidelines afterward. SnowFire (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think the reason this is still open is the discussion went several directions and with the fixes throughout. And looking over the discussion, I dunno if consensus could be be determined now. If Category:Ancient Near Eastern people by century (and subcats) - or some other target - is now the plan, then maybe a followup renom would be clearer? I realise that this postpones implementation at least another week, but since this has been open since February, perhaps it's a more clear way forward? - jc37 23:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not really that complicated. If the closer wants to simply delete these categories and let come what may, that's fine by me. If they want to simply merge or rename the categories as suggested, that's fine, I'll clean up the stuff that no longer makes sense and it can be settled via talk page discussion. Restarting the discussion would make it harder to find consensus, not easier. SnowFire (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing has really changed since the start of the discussion. As I noted before, creation of the new (other) categories can be done irrespective of the outcome of this discussion. Merge is still the most appropriate action imho. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2022 (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:Bishops from Northern Ireland[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:Bishops in Northern Ireland. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are only 2 sub-categories and no articles. Each sub-category is "Foo bishops in Northern Ireland", not "from" Northern Ireland. Many bishops serving in NI are from the Republic of Ireland of from the UK or Italy etc. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The objective should be to categorise people by where they minister, not where they were born. Thus missionaries should be excluded. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We need to think about which categories are really appropriate to be categorised by nationality and which by location. We have Category:Bishops by nationality and Category:Bishops by country. Without some guidance editors will find this very confusing. Rathfelder (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per nom. Also a parent is Category:Bishops in Ireland. Oculi (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as where why hold office is more significant from wherever they have been from before holding the office.--Mvqr (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2022 (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:January 2022 events in New York 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: soft merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category layer. There is no Category:2022 events in New York City nor Category:January 2022 events in New York (state). Nothing to upmerge as the sole page is already in Category:2022 in New York City and Category:Events in New York City. ✗plicit 14:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And upmerge to Category:January 2022 events in the United States ````
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:Burial sites of Serbian dynasties[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. ✗plicit 13:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, it seems they are duplicates. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2022 (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:New Zealand academics[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: remove the category page header. Consensus is that the category should be a diffusing category. bibliomaniac15 03:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting the category page header
Nominator's rationale: New Zealand academics has been turned into an 'all included' cat. Other similar categories, like Category:American academics , are diffused categories. I think this approach is misguided. Many of the biographies in the numerous subcategories are not New Zealand nationals. No arguments have been advanced as to why academics in New Zealand should be treated differently from the rest of the world. Rathfelder (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removing header. I added this after discussion on User talk:Rathfelder with other WP:WPNZ members. Paging discussion participants User:MurielMary and User:Canley; I'll post a notification on WT:WPNZ Stuartyeates (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the core of this is that are far fewer NZ academics than American ones, and many of those categories would likely only be a page or two. Until the article space around academia in NZ gets expanded, maybe an overarching category is better? Turnagra (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, implementation of this header would lead to a very oversized category, and there is no good reason to deviate from diffusion as usual anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the addition of the banner has come out of a wider issue in which Rathfelder has been removing [[:Category:[nationality] academics]] from biography articles if they are categorised as staff of a university within that country (e.g. removing Category:New Zealand academics from a biography because it is in Category:Massey University faculty). Some discussion of that here (I'd missed the discussion on Rathfelder's talk page). This doesn't solve the problem as I understand it and has other issues as Rathfelder and Marcocapelle have mentioned. Furius (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I understand that Rathfelder has issues with nationality vs country. We've spoken many times on this in relation to Bishops from a country (i.e. nationals) as opposed to Bishops of a particular diocese which is geographically located in that country. In many cases, foreign nationals are bishops in various overseas dioceses. Nevertheless, I do think that he is correct in this nomination. As Marcocapelle says, there is no good reason to deviate from diffusion as usual. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this is precisely the type of category that should be diffused.--Mvqr (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2022 (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.

Death in Gilgit-Baltistan‎[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 and delete as nominated. ✗plicit 13:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete, 5 categories for one article is a bit too much. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2022 (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:Hereditary Grand Dukes of Oldenburg[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. ✗plicit 13:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:OVERLAPCAT and not a defining distinction. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:08, 19 February 2022 (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:Merocracy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus (this implies returning to the status quo ex ante until consensus is reached in any next discussion) (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Extremely obscure 16th century word not even defined by modern dictionaries. It's basically made up. Unbh (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merocracy is a made up word. It's not been used for 500 years. It doesn't even have it's own article. It's not listed in dictionaries. Using a Wiktionary list is not enough justification for having this as a categoryUnbh (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Merocracy is a made up word." contradicts your second sentence "It's not been used for 500 years."(both with no proof). Merocracy is a word from dictionary. Wikipedia is not about things, which appear to you. Wikipedia is about facts and stop stalking me!--Geysirhead (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A word can be both made up and then not used. This word is not used as an overarching term in any literature for the category that you're proposing.Unbh (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true. By made up, you suggested, me and MaitreyaVaruna made it up. Otherwise, every word is made up. It is a shorter dictionary name for this category. Did you already read Help:Category during your 2 month wikipedia experience?--Geysirhead (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did no such thing. Show me a legitimate dictionary definition of this word. Show examples of it being used in reliable sources as an encompassing term Unbh (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote Merocracy is a made up word. and Shaban, Masoud (2016). "Social Welfare Functions on Political Compass توابع رفاه اجتماعی در قطبنمای سیاسی". doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.18068.32648. wrote that merocracy is government by a part of the citizenry. It is much easier to prove that something exists, than to prove that something does not exist. I know your next answer "It is not notable". My answer: "Does not matter in case of shortcuts for categories".--Geysirhead (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/question, the content is currently in Category:Rule by a subset of population. So I wonder is this a renaming discussion or a deletion discussion? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and go ahead and delete Category:Rule by a subset of population too (Created by the same user, no article, no reliable sources, seems trivial) if nominator is willing to expand the nomination. SnowFire (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The content is currently in an appropriately named category. I am not sure I like that name and would consider a rename if something better was offered. The existence of the category is certainly appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Peterkingiron, thank you very much for the subject related comment in this thread! My motivation was to use the shorter greek word, suggested by MaitreyaVaruna. It might meet scant love from other productive editors. I am open to suggestions.--Geysirhead (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment this word is in the modern OED, defined as "Government by a small number out of the whole." It's a perfectly good term. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/question, I'm the user who originally suggested the category name Merocracy. I created the word Merocracy because I thought the name of the category added to some articles I made was too long and awkward, and then saw it was a real word. I think the category is worthwhile and should be kept, and ideally under the name Merocracy, but I have no literary references to support it MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2022 (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:Year of Birth missing (living 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 (there aren't currently any articles in it, so there is nothing left to merge) (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant with Category:Year of birth missing (living people), needlessly clutters the pop-up menu when using HotCat. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2022 (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/2022_February_19