Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
< May 13 May 15 >

May 14[edit]

Category:American military chaplains[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: keep Category:American military chaplains, rename Category:United States military chaplains to Category:United States military chaplaincy. I picked the latter option from several choices below. If anyone prefers something else, feel free to renominate that one.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:American military chaplains to Category:United States military chaplains
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These are essentially two different names for the same topic, which causes confusion because some articles/cats are in "Category:American military chaplains" while other articles are in "Category:United States military chaplains". Eagle4000 (talk) 19:55, 14 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:RuneScape[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 to Category:Jagex. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:RuneScape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small and unlikely to grow, plus it's redundant to Category:Jagex, which is broader in scope and can include all Jagex-related articles and images. Note that Category:RuneScape Images should be made into a sub-category of Jagex if this goes ahead. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:19, 14 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:Hyde United F.C. managers[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) 00:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hyde United F.C. managers to Category:Hyde F.C. managers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Hyde United F.C. reverted their name back to Hyde F.C. in June 2010, and this category includes people who have managed the club since that renaming. Furthermore, all of the other subcategories in Category:Hyde F.C. use the Hyde F.C. name. – PeeJay 17:04, 14 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:Battery inventor[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 as nominated, with no prejudice against a separate nomination to deal with the possible ambiguity of the word "battery". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Battery inventor to Category:Battery inventors
Nominator's rationale: Plural is commonly used in categories such as this. Favonian (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Singular oder plural is considerd to be a long term discussion. In international wikipedia chapters there are different evatlutions about what is to be the exact handling for an encylopedia. I don´t mind if you want it to be in plural - i just refer to the rules of the german chapter. Regards --Alternaiv (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Battery isn't ambiguous in this usage. People invent artillery, not gun batteries. - Eureka Lott 18:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment since an artillery battery is a configuration and fortification of a set of artillery, then you can invent such things. mix, placement, breastwork configurations, etc. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Other changes can be seperately nominated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 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:Narrow gauge railways of Mexico[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) 00:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Narrow gauge railways of Mexico to Category:Narrow gauge railways in Mexico
Nominator's rationale: Most countries in Category:Narrow gauge railways by country use "in" not "of" Hugo999 (talk) 14:42, 14 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.

Elections in the United States by state[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: keep. We have a great many "state" categories that contain non-states, not the least of which is the District of Columbia.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States federal elections by state to Category:United States federal elections by location
Propose renaming Category:Elections in the United States by state to Category:Elections in the United States by location
Nominator's rationale: Rename. It's more than just states. It also includes territories, etc.. I'm not fixed on the new name. Anything would be fine: "location," "place," "jurisdiction," etc.—Markles 13:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as is. The single sub-category with territories has been removed. Including the District of Columbia with the 50 states is done throughout WP without changing the parent category name to anything other than 'by state'. The United States consists of 'states' not 'locations' or anything else. Hmains (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell, DC hasn't been removed, it's still contained in these categories. Furthermore, this category isn't intended to be a statement about what United States consists of. It's just about geographic subcategories.—Markles 11:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to use "state or territory" phrasing. Many of the subcategories contain subcategories for DC, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we do better than "Category:United States federal elections by state or territory"? It sounds too cumbersome.—Markles 13:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The precedent is to ignore the fact that we have non-states in these categories. We accept that "by state" includes a very few non-state, state level entites. It is much easier and less cumbersom, and has served us well for a long time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 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:King George Island (South Shetland Islands)[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: Keep. The article has been renamed to King George Island (South Shetland Islands) per the RM discussion. Jafeluv (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:King George Island (South Shetland Islands) to Category:King George Island (Antarctica)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article is at King George Island (Antarctica). I suggest matching the category to the article name. (If renaming goes through, the subcategories also can be speedily renamed to match.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not rename the category, rename the article instead. King George Island is one of the South Shetland Islands and should be named as such. It is not part of 'Antarctica'. I would have renamed the article myself but there is already a redirect that must be reversed Hmains (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course it is "part of Antarctica". Antarctica is a continent, and the South Shetland Islands are islands that are included in that continent. As the first sentence in South Shetland Islands states, "The South Shetland Islands are a group of Antarctic islands ..." If you want the article renamed, then it should be nominated for renaming through WP:RM, which has not been done. So if that is not going to be done, the category name should match the article name. We can't rename an article via a proposal to do so in CFD. I think everything I have said is non-controversial and well-established conventions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the current name is consistent with other subcategories of Category:South Shetland Islands, eg Category:Smith Island (South Shetland Islands). Antarctica seems commonly to refer to the mainland while Antarctic refers to the region, so the use of Antarctica in the category name seems inappropriate. I have nominated a move for the article through WP:RM. Cjc13 (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for starting the RM discussion, which is what should be done initially when users are convinced an article is misnamed. If the rename of the article goes ahead, I have no objection to this discussion be closed with no action taken since that would mean the article name would match the current category name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, being "Antiartic" and "being part of Antiartica" are not the same. Rename the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would dispute the substance (and spelling) of what you said, but if you want the article to move, you need to place your comment at the article move proposal, since comments made here will have no effect on whether or not the article is moved. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 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:George Wythe College alumni[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:George Wythe College alumni to Category:George Wythe University alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The article is at George Wythe University. George Wythe College redirects there. I suggest matching the category name to the article name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. This is one of several recent renames we have done to reflect recent changes of educational names from college to university.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 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:Presbyterian churches built in the 19th century[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 to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 8. Jafeluv (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Presbyterian churches built in the 19th century to Category:Presbyterian church buildings established in the 19th century
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the parent building category Category:Church buildings established in the 19th century. I have been creating some sub categpries that match the parent and this is different. Now, having said that, I wonder which form is better since we have names like Category:Anglican church buildings established in the 19th century, Category:Presbyterian churches built in the 19th century, Category:Church buildings by century consecrated and Category:19th-century Eastern Orthodox church buildings. I'm not sure that I have a preference, but I wonder which is the best choice here. Once a consensus is determined, that we can change to whatever form is determined to be best. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One other comment on possible names, these are all somehow under Category:Religious buildings. So maybe we should use that name further down into the category structure. I think it would be logical to group mosques, synagogues, churches, monasteries and chapels built in the 19th century into one category. Say Category:19th-century ... religious buildings. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A building isn't "established," a congregation is— buildings might be designed, approved, started, consecrated, occupied, etc. but in the English I speak, organizations are established, objects are not. The wholesale move of "churches" to "church buildings" was roughly equivalent to moving Category:Parliaments to Category:Parliament halls, was overall incredibly ill-conceived and is to be resisted.- choster (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no objection if all of the other categories are renamed to match this one or the Eastern Orthodox one. However when I started in this tree the proposed name was the most common. I'll note that synagogues follow the Eastern Orthodox naming format at the century level. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:27, 7 June 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.

Gravesend & Northfleet 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: Rename and merge per nom. Jafeluv (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Gravesend & Northfleet F.C. to Category:Ebbsfleet United F.C.
Propose merging Category:Gravesend & Northfleet F.C. players with Category:Ebbsfleet United F.C. players
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Gravesend & Northfleet F.C. was renamed as Ebbsfleet United F.C. in May 2007. Gravesend & Northfleet F.C. redirects to Ebbsfleet United F.C., and the category's contents mostly refer to the club by its new name, so it makes sense that the category should be renamed as well. I also propose that the category Category:Gravesend & Northfleet F.C. players be merged with Category:Ebbsfleet United F.C. players, since the latter category already mentions that it includes players for its precursor clubs, Gravesend United F.C. and Northfleet United F.C. – PeeJay 02:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both - if I remember right, the precedent is to use the current team's name in a situation like this, and seeing as the redirects are already in place for the mainspace articles, it makes to do the same here. —BETTIA— talk 06:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support' 21:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Warburton1368 (talk)
  • Support, logical to follow the long-standing situation for the article. —WFC— 17:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Precedent is to the use the club's current name. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 20:48, 29 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:Land vehicles[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: Keep. Jafeluv (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Land vehicles to Category:Vehicles
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I'm not convinced that this defining or a needed class. In looking at the contents of the parent category, it looks like that most everything there could be moved to this category. I don't see that as aiding navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm not seeing why you wouldn't divide terrestrial vehicles apart from air vehicles (aircraft, etc), watercraft, space vehicles, tunnel boring machines, etc. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's see, do aircraft operate on land under their own power including moving backwards for certain models? Yes. To say that a tunnel boring machine is not a land vehicle may not be totally accurate. Is a hover craft a land vehicle? Well, it does move on land under its own power. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per IP address. --Σ ☭★ 19:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge – this serves no great purpose as it merely collects 5 out of 51 subcats of Category:Vehicles (and one is wrong since Category:Tracked vehicles includes amphibious ones). Occuli (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as is Per pattern established within the parent category Category:Vehicles. There is no reason at all to start eliminating the sub-cats, of which there are already too many. Siblings of the air and water sub-cats. Hmains (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I've added several pages now. There are 25 now, whereas Category:Vehicles has 50. If there's a Category:Aircraft, Spacecraft and Watercraft, there must be one for land vehicles. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:09, 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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_14

Leave a Reply