Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
< May 16 May 18 >

May 17[edit]

Category:Grêmio Prudente Futebol[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Grêmio Prudente Futebol to Category:Grêmio Barueri Futebol
Propose renaming Category:Grêmio Prudente Futebol players to Category:Grêmio Barueri Futebol players
Nominator's rationale: Rename all to be consistent with the main article, named Grêmio Barueri Futebol. ----Carioca (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2011 (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:VSV EC players[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. Dana boomer (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:VSV EC players to Category:EC VSV players
Nominator's rationale: Merge Both names would make sense but the title of the corresponding is (currently) EC VSV. Pichpich (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom to match parent article. -DJSasso (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2011 (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:Unicode chart templates[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Unicode chart templates to Category:Unicode charts
Nominator's rationale: Some of the templates in this category have been renamed into lists. Rather than put those pages into a separate category, might be better to just rename this category. WOSlinker (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So long as pages can still incorporate the templates with {{Unicode chart foobar}} (Where foobar is the name of the block), I don't see an issue with calling them something else. But they really are templates.DRMcCreedy (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2011 (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:Films with Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Films with Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Incorrect categorization of films based on the people who acted in them. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Films should not be categorized by who acted in them. There's a precedant for this, but I can't find it right now. Lugnuts (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BAM!! There it is - thanks Occuli. And the important thing is that I'm right. Lugnuts (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2011 (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:Universal's Dracula[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Universal's Dracula to Category:Dracula films
Propose merging Category:Hammer's Dracula to Category:Dracula films
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I'm just not seeing the utility in splitting off these fifteen films from the herd. The films are already linked together through their own articles and through at least two templates for the Universal and at least two for the Hammer. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2011 (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:Mathematics articles with no comments[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. Dana boomer (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mathematics articles with no comments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:DCS says that comment subpages are depreciated, so this category is no longer needed. Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something else I have to do to get a decision on whether this category should be deleted? Guy Macon (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(...Sound of Crickets...)
Again, the category of Mathematics articles with no comments subpage is equal to the category of Mathematics articles (8,582 of them!), and the number of Mathematics articles that do have comments subpages is equal to zero. That's because we no longer use comments subpages per WP:DCS. Thus this category is useless, and should be deleted. Guy Macon (talk) 06:43, 26 May 2011 (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:Beauty pageant contestants from Caracas[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. Dana boomer (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Beauty pageant contestants from Caracas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization based on location. What country a pageant contestant is from is defining; what city she's from is not.  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:50, 17 May 2011 (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.

Leigh RMI F.C.[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. Dana boomer (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Leigh RMI F.C. to Category:Leigh Genesis F.C.
Propose renaming Category:Leigh RMI F.C. managers to Category:Leigh Genesis F.C. managers
Propose merging Category:Leigh RMI F.C. players to Category:Leigh Genesis F.C. players
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The club was renamed as Leigh Genesis F.C. in June 2008. Since precedent is that categories should be named after the subject's most recent name, this category and its subcategories should be renamed to reflect the club's new name (goodness, that's a lot of uses of the word "name"!). I am also proposing that Category:Leigh RMI F.C. players be merged with Category:Leigh Genesis F.C. players, since they are for players of the same club, only under different names. – PeeJay 15:40, 17 May 2011 (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:PD-Russia[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:PD-Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is now unused, as License tag which categorises here was deprecated and the media migrated to more specific categories. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2011 (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:Famous amateur chess players[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Famous amateur chess players to Category:Amateur chess players
Nominator's rationale: Rename. If they aren't famous, there wouldn't be articles about them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - none of these people are known primarily as chess players. None of their articles talk extensively about their chess playing and the only one that covers chess beyond passing mention is Nabokov's and he's already categorized as a chess problemist. As a general rule of thumb I don't think categorizing people based on hobbies is a good idea (and yes I know about Category:Hobbyists). Harley Hudson (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Harley has done his homework and makes an excellent point. If one looks at the four articles in this category to date it does seem like this cat generally falls under the banner of WP:OC#TRIVIA. While we do have some other amateur FOOian categories it's not quite the same thing: for example, Category:Amateur golfers and perhaps other amateur athletic categories must exist because of the amateur/pro parallel systems. But here, with the exception perhaps of Nabokov, these people are amateur in a different sense, it seems to me. Indeed, as the category description states: "This category is for people who were highly skilled but non-professional chess players and who are famous for some other reason." (italics added). Meaning that by its very definition this is a non-defining characteristic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a valid argument. A defining characteristic is one which is important to the individual, not a characteristic for which the individual is notable. (eg 'Alumni of', 'People from', Category:Vegetarians etc etc.) Occuli (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nomination. Neutralitytalk 00:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Yworo (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Occuli is right that someone does not have to be famous for a thing they are categorized under.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OC#TRIVIA. We don't categorize people by hobby or interest, which this seems to be in this case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Famous is not a good word, and removing it is better, although this is a fickle issue, so it is not the best solution.Curb Chain (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2011 (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%3ACategories_for_discussion%2FLog%2F2011_May_17

Leave a Reply