Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
< May 12 May 14 >

May 13[edit]

Category:Palaeologus dynasty[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) 16:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Palaeologus dynasty to Category:Palaiologos dynasty
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the form used in all articles on members of the Palaiologos family. Constantine ✍ 20:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename: supporting this for consistency with the main article "Palaiologos", which referred to the Byzantine period. In doing so I am noting that the move of the associated pages from Palaeologus to Palaiologos was contentious and that both forms are used in the articles' intros. And also I am noting that post-Byzantium, those who settled in UK used Palaeologus/Palæologus, those in the US mostly used the simplified Paleologus forms. Ephebi (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Cavaets noted. Proceed anyway. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:02, 16 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:Books about politicians of 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: Rename to Category:Books about American politicians. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Books about politicians of the United States to Category:Books about United States politicians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Overly complicated name. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:44, 13 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:Autobiographical military books[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) 16:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Autobiographical military books to Category:Military autobiographies
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Matches the format of its siblings which use "autobiographies" and not "autobiographical books". Harley Hudson (talk) 19:33, 13 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:Architects who worked in Oxford[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: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 25. Dana boomer (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Architects who worked in Oxford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Working somewhere is not defining. Moreover there are no other 'who worked in' categories. Further the parent categories are all incorrect: architects are not buildings, and working in Oxford does not make one 'from Oxford' or confer Englishness. Finally the description states 'Architects who designed buildings in Oxford' which is quite different (and also not defining). Occuli (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, the difference being that London and New York are eyesores and aren't particularly architecturally distinctive, unlike the "city of dreaming spires" - identifying characteristic of Oxford, per Matthew Arnold in reference to the distinctive and "harmonious" architecture.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I said Paris & Rome too - are they eyesores? Not that I agree about London & NY. Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, I deliberately left Paris and Rome to see if someone would volunteer that they might be as architecturally harmonious as Oxford. You did. What does that tell us about the nomination? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On the contrary, I find this connection to be precisely what categories are fantastic at. What an excellent way to build a description of the "city of dreaming spires" - and what an exciting list of architects whose works you find there! And if there were equivalents for other architecturally notable places, then so much the richer. Unless and until someone makes a definitive list, I would like to see this category kept.(Which suggests to me that the CfD process will rub it out!) Ephebi (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm happy for the category to be refined, but it seems to me that this draws an instant picture of the diversity of Oxford - which is a small enough city for such a list to be interesting. Sjoh0050 (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, who presents far more convincing arguments than the "keep" votes above, which essentially amount to "it is interesting". If this is meant to be for architects who designed buildings in Oxford, it is grossly misnamed. If it is just for architects who worked in Oxford, it is trivial and not defining. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the CfD process deletes category 'merely' because they are interesting then perhaps we should step back and reflect what the purpose of this is. Ephebi (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Good Ol'factory. Either of GOF's parsings of the category name lead to the conclusion that this is trivia. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the rational "Working somewhere is not defining" is self-evidently wrong; "working somewhere" is exactly what defines architects since their work (unlike books, paintings) stays put in one location after they are gone. Further, this nomination seems to be one of a series of recent badly thought-through delete nominations that goes against the basic principles of usability of categories. What User would use such a category? Obviously one who is doing research into the diversity of architecture in Oxford. If it were just per Andrew Saint Three Oxford architects 1970 there might not be a need for a subcat, but pages in category "Architects who worked in Oxford" has 44 entries: John Billing, Arthur Blomfield, George Frederick Bodley, Edward George Bruton, Charles Buckeridge, Herbert Tudor Buckland, John Chessell Buckler, William Burges (architect), William Butterfield, Charles Robert Cockerell, Frederick Codd, T. Lawrence Dale,... etc. who "worked" there, i.e. who designed buildings in Oxford, since that is the work architects do. Why should Wikipedia editors be in the business of preventing Users with an interest in finding "architects who worked" (as architects obviously not as fishmongers) in Oxford from finding them? Where do Wikipedia criteria state that Users should be prevented from finding individuals through useful subcategorization? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — working in a city such as Oxford where the architecture is such a significant part of the cityscape with many listed buildings, including the Oxford colleges, making it an international tourist destination, is very defining. This is just the sort of category that makes Wikipedia such a wonderful resource. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the category is misnamed. If we do not have this category for larger cities with many more architects having worked there like Paris, Rome, Florence and Berlin there is no reason to have it for Oxford. The other problem with this category is that if we had enough to justify having the one for Oxford, many architects would be in multiple categories, which seems to be a way to create over-catregorization. Do not go there, that way is madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 23 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:Xichuan[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: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 25. Dana boomer (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Xichuan to Category:Xichuan County
Nominator's rationale: per Chinese naming conventions, we always append "County" at the end of a county's name. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:08, 13 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:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_13

Leave a Reply