Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
< December 3 December 5 >

December 4[edit]

Category:Ephebophilia[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) 07:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category currently empty; created solely to include James Levine, demonstrating the presumed purpose of listing people accused of sexual misbehavior and potentially violating WP:BLP. HalJor (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on the current purpose. There don’t seem to enough articles for an eponymous category, the main article of which would be Ephebophilia. 165.91.12.221 (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2017 (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:Paintings illustrating the Song of Songs[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles currently. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2017 (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:Counts of Brussels[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) 18:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, overlaps with Category:Counts of Louvain. See also article Counts of Louvain in which Louvain and Brussels are always listed in conjunction. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure which three counts you are referring to. Lambert I, Count of Louvain was the first count of Louvain and he acquired the county of Brussels. So possibly there were counts of Brussels before there were counts of Louvain, but for sure that applies to none of the members of this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since all article names are consistently including "Count of Louvain", I would assume that this Louvain was considered to be the main property of these counts. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2017 (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:Roman Limes[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: split to Category:Roman frontiers and Category:Roman fortifications as appropriate in each case.
This will ahve to be done manually, so pinging the particpants, who may want to do some of the work, @Black Falcon, Laurel Lodged, Fayenatic london, Marcocapelle, SMcCandlish, Narky Blert, and Peterkingiron. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just spotted that the subcats have already been merged elsewhere per WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 18#Roman_līmitēs_by_country, so The result of the discussion was:moot.
I don't like the fact that the same set of categories was the subject of two simultaneous CfDs, but there it is. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: According to Limes and wikt:limes#Latin, the plural form of "līmes" is "līmitēs". (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
speedy discussion
  • Support -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT 1 Rename to Category:Roman frontier fortifications. There was a long discussion on the Roman Limes talk page. I don't think that it went in a definitive direction. This is my current favourite. Not many people would know that limes is singular. One source says, "The word limes here does not mean 'boundary' or 'fortified line' and the context is one of conquest, not defence.". Also, as @Marcocapelle: wrote "...it may be better to seek consensus about a rewritten version of the article first.". Also @Narky Blert: makes a good point when he says "The multiple possible confusion in British English with Lime (fruit) and Lime tree settles the issue for me (not to mention Birdlime, Lime (material), Quicklime and Slaked lime, all often just called "lime"). Yes, you and I know that limes is pronounced differently in Latin. But, a non-specialist who has just come across "limes" probably does not – and he or she is Wikipedia's target audience. Not us.". Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Pedantically the nom is correct, but few people will know that limites is the correct plural. However in WP pedants usually need to give way to common usage. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    [F]ew people will know that limites is the correct plural You're right, of course, but few people will know that "limes" refers to frontiers and not the citrus fruit. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    [F]ew people will know that limites is the correct plural 'You're right, of course, but few people will know that "limes" refers to frontiers and not the citrus fruit.' Or, indeed, the species of tree under which you should not park your car. Unless you enjoy washing sticky gunk off your car. Narky Blert (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split to Category:Roman frontiers and Category:Roman fortifications as appropriate in each case. I can't see the justification for using a foreign word with an ambiguous scope, except for WP:SHAREDNAME which is explicitly against our guideline about over-categorisation. – Fayenatic London 21:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 05:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because category names are supposed to be plural, not singular. "Roman limes" sounds like fruit trees, just like Black Falcon says. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean the speedy discussion? I was referring to Black Falcon's comment of "You're right, of course, but few people will know" 208.95.51.38 (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: What is your opinion regarding the alternative view in this discussion that we do not need an ambiguous foreign word while we have common words available ("fortifications" and "frontiers")? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)he[reply]
I do not think "fortifictions" is satisfactory, as limēs are were rather different from fortresses; indeed, I am not sure that all of them were fortified. Frontiers were probably do. The English limit is derived from the word. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Works for me. We have a case here where the same Latin word was used for dissimilar things; since this isn't la.wikipedia we don't need to care, and should categorize as makes the most sense in English for the subject at hand. There may be cases that end up both the frontiers and fortifications categories, and that's okay (for cases that actually qualify).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  14:13, 2 January 2018 (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:Lawyers of Commonwealth of Nations member countries in the Caribbean[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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For the life of me, I can't fathom a reason why this would represent a separate class of topic from the rest of the Caribbean and/or from Commonwealth of Nations member countries outside of the Caribbean. Are they some unique class of lawyer, radically unlike other lawyers, somehow? Bearcat (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a trivial intersection category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible keep -- There is a common Appeal Court for several islands in the West Indies, so that this category is potentially about those entitled to practise in that court. However I do not know who has rights of audience there. If this were about accountants or doctors, I would probably support deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 05:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The common Caribbean Appeal Court is perhaps a far-fetched argument, also because information about the Appeal Court is not very easy to find, e.g. Commonwealth of Nations does not mention anything about a common organisation structure for legal affairs. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an unneeded container category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 26 December 2017 (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:South Korean K-pop singers[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant. It's likely that 98% of the contents in Category:K-pop singers would fit into this subcategory. It would make more sense to categorize non-natives by genre (like Category:Japanese K-pop singers, Category:Chinese K-pop singers, etc), but not by native South Koreans. ℯxplicit 04:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – any musicians in North Korea would most likely get censored and executed by the government. We’re left only with South Korea. 165.91.13.236 (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge - Basically the same. Already stated here, but any exception should have their own category. Lonedirewolf 21:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge - redundant as the vast percentage of of K-Pop is done by South Korean artists. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2017 (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%2F2017_December_4

Leave a Reply