Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
< August 7 August 9 >

August 8[edit]

Category: Fireboats of Halifax Fire Services[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 17#Category: Fireboats of Halifax Fire Services

Category:Mek'ele[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 08:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Mekelle is the current name of the city's article and of several of the items in the category. If someone thinks that Mek'ele is better, IMHO this should be discussed at the leading article. gidonb (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2019 (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:Godagari births[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 08:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Undefined, uncategorised. Only one article. Rathfelder (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Other option to consider is merge into Category:People from Rajshahi District but sole item is already include in this cat. Hence delete. gidonb (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think "births" categories on Wikipedia are typically used to describe people born in certain places; only births in a certain year. –Sonicwave talk 21:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2019 (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:Bildungsromans[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: do not rename. MER-C 09:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COMMONNAME. Although bildungsroman is the standard technical term for this genre of literature in academic literary criticism and analysis, it's not widely used in everyday speech by the general public, who instead are much more likely to speak of "coming-of-age novels". This is also demonstrated by the fact that I just had to recategorize a very large cluster of novels that had been filed in the parent Category:Coming-of-age fiction instead of here: in other words, people were expecting "coming-of-age novels" and not finding it, and thus using the parent instead of noticing that what they were looking for was located at a technical German term instead of the common usage. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose This is the standard name within the study and coverage of the novels as a genre-- instead we should establish a redirect from Coming of Age novel to bildungsroman. Sadads (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME trumps technical terminology. This may be the standard name within academic literary criticism — which I admitted right up front — but it is not the genre's standard name among the general public. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A change should be discussed at article level, to begin with. Category names usually follow article names. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, technical term is perfect for category precision and matches the article title. —Kusma (t·c) 08:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical oppose – I strongly agree with Bearcat that coming-of-age anything is better than bildung anything for en.wiki, since both concepts are used in the English-language literature and one is much easier to grasp for the wider public. My only objection is that this should be discussed in the article space. gidonb (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical correctness here is misleading to most editors. Rathfelder (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2019 (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:Marketing performance measurement[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 17#Category:Marketing performance measurement

Category:Non-standard portal pages[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 08:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Outdated, unnecessary category at this time. At the previous CfD discussion here, a rationale was provided defining a "standard" portal page as being "a one-page or automatically created portal". However, this is 1) outmoded and 2) not the case, because:
  • Most of the automatically created portals have been deleted at MfD. As such, the automatically created portals are no longer the standard.
  • While some portals are being converted to a one-page layout using various newer portal templates, portals that use subpages are still the standard style.
– North America1000 14:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging participants of previous CFD: User:Legacypac, User:Auric, User:Dreamy Jazz, User:Marcocapelle, User:Waggers. DexDor (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there's a process that uses this category (I've not found any such process). Note: The previous CFD was only a few months ago but the (NAC) closure of that CFD looks inappropriate (more recently much clearer cases have been relisted). DexDor (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Now outdated.--Auric talk 19:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless, per DexDor. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2019 (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:Canadian zombie web series[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. MER-C 08:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a WP:SMALLCAT with only two entries, and the proposed merge target only has 18 other entries (and no other subcategories) besides this, so subcategorizing by nationality isn't necessary at this time. The sole entry here was left in Category:Canadian web series directly alongside this, so no upmerging is needed in that direction. If and when there are several dozen zombie web series with Wikipedia articles, then subcategorizing them by nationality would be useful -- but if there are only 20 in total, it's not needed yet. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2019 (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:Former shopping streets and districts in the United States[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 08:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: supposedly a sub category of Category:Shopping streets and districts in the United States - which does not exist. Rathfelder (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the categorization, it’s part of Category:Shopping districts and streets in the United States, so I don’t think there’s a reason to delete itKeizers (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely an improvement, but I'm not very happy with the notion of former districts. Is that defining? Are we saying that there are no longer any shops in these places, and there will never be any more? Rathfelder (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the idea was to categorize those streets which (at least in the US) formerly were "main shopping streets" of a city with the major department stores, and no longer are. Many more could be added in cities where there is no major downtown shopping district any longer, such as Baltimore, Atlanta, etc. This is likely to continue as physical retail shrinks its footprint. Now of course there are "some shops" but Broadway and 7th would not qualify as "main shopping streets" of Los Angeles (in fact, there aren't any in the city proper... only malls) Keizers (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only two items and not former shopping streets, just streets that have become less trendy for shopping. In other words, neither precise nor defining enough to categorize. gidonb (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2019 (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:Honda Center[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 16#Category:Honda Center

Category:Custódia family[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 08:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article, about an actor whose family is not mentioned. Rathfelder (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Creator Wikisempra (talk · contribs) has multiple questionable page creations, including two other family members whose articles were deleted by AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:20, 9 August 2019 (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:Maju Holdings[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 08:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No actual contents. Just a couple of redirections Rathfelder (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support no there there. The company article existed, was prodded, and deleted. gidonb (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2019 (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:Warner Bros. Records[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 09:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As of May 28, 2019, Warner Bros. Records has been rebranded as Warner Records, this category page should be moved along with its subcategories related to Warner Records. Ridwan97 (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only If something was issued with a 'Warner Bros.' label then that's what it was, you can't change that. It doesn't change because the name of the company changes it's name. Consequently there is an argument that BOTH categories should exist where appropriate. Equally some might argue that this would lead to surfeit of meaningless categories. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Richhoncho – Wasn't Warner always a short for Warner Bros? It's perfectly ok to use short unambigious and current names. gidonb (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gidonb. I would think so, but if a label says 'Warner Bros' then we have black and white indisputable proof that is what the label should be, irrespective of what 'the man in the street' might say. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User: Richhoncho. This "man in the street", well or little educated, is our user. It's who we make the encyclopedia for and the entire point of thinking through our categorization. By concentrating on the trees (or even branches), we would miss the forest, and pay a disservice to our users. gidonb (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gidonb. Then you are saying the information may be an approximation, not as factually true as can be confirmed. Not sure I would agree an encyclopedia should be written that way, but realistic enough to see both sides of the argument, which is why I made a comment and not posted a !vote on the discussion. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per leading article, nom, and me ("It's perfectly ok to use short unambigious and current names"). gidonb (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2019 (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:Cadet Corps of the Russian Empire[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 08:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Orphan category. Had one article, better put in Category:Military schools in Russia Rathfelder (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 15:39, 9 August 2019 (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%2F2019_August_8

Leave a Reply