Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
< December 6 December 8 >

December 7[edit]

Category:Arabs in Ottoman and British Palestine[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:Arab people in British Palestine. There may need to be a CFD to make the naming of these categories consistent, e.g. Category:Arab people by occupation Category:Arab people by country of citizenship‎, Category:Arab people by ethnic or national origin‎, but Category:Arab citizens of Israel‎, Category:Arabs in the Roman Empire‎ and Category:Arabs in Ottoman Palestine.
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:People of the Ottoman 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: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2012 (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:Greek women of the Ottoman 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: merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2012 (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:Australian professional wrestling promotions[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. delldot ∇. 01:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Underpopulated and no chance of any more being added as there are no more notable promotions past or present. 121.214.113.49 (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Part of an established tree, most of which has no more articles per country than this branch. It is also the only parent of its child cat. --Qetuth (talk) 07:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Qetuth. This category forms part of a useful navigation structure. --Andrewaskew (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2012 (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:Belgian colonial people[edit]

Relisted. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 2#Category:Belgian colonial people. delldot ∇. 04:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gibraltarian people[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: reverse merge. The Bushranger One ping only 19:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Gibraltarian people to Category:People from Gibraltar
  • Nominator's rattionale They are the same thing. However we generally use the from form for places that are not independent nations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge to Category:Gibraltarian people. They are a distinct ethn-cultural group, and the article is at Gibraltarian people. "FOOian people" is the guideline standard for people who constitute distinct national or ethnical groups. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Good Ol'factory. --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 11:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The subject is effectively "people of Gilbraltar". The target is an expatriate ones. Contrary to some recent noms, Gibraltar is a dependent territory of UK, not part of UK. It has its own native population, who have been there since the British occupation of the headland over 300 years ago. Legally they are citizens of a British overseas territory. That is effectively an ethnicity. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The target is not an expatriate category. It is a standard name for people by place below a certain level. The "from" in no way implies the people are no longer there, anymore than does Category:People from Michigan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge to Category:Gibraltarian people, per Good Ol’factory. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really do not care which way we merge the category as much as I think we should merge it one way or the other.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per Good Olfactory Mayumashu (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • reverse merge to match the main article. 146.90.110.75 (talk) 07:41, 15 December 2012 (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:Roller coasters introduced in 2013[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. Some or all of the members of this cat are already in the under construction cat, but editors can add those that are not if it's appropriate. delldot ∇. 02:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category should not exist until a roller coaster has opened in 2013. Problems can lead to these roller coasters not opening in 2013 so the category shouldn't exist until there's a use for it. This has been the standard for the previous years. Astros4477 (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2012 (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:21st-century actors[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, but this decision does not preclude creating subcategories. This would be a parent category and would not need to get deleted. I think I do not see enough consensus here to go ahead and create the subcats as part of this CFD, but others can try to find a consensus to do that and go ahead themselves at any point. delldot ∇. 04:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not sure what to do with this category but it needs to split or it's going to become messy and useless. For the entire 100 years, Category:20th-century actors totalled 1,048 entries but, 12 years into the millenium this cat already has 1,460 and is going to become ridiculously large. AussieLegend (✉) 15:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. I fail to see how the category is useless when it grows. Dimadick (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What purpose does an extremely large category serve? How is it useful? There is a reason we have {{verylarge}} and why we don't have Category:All Wikipedia articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is it particularly large? "Category:American film actors" has about 15000 entries. Dimadick (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Very large categories defines very large categories as larger than 1,000 entries. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is not that the category is not needed but that it should be split. Saying keep does not make sense.
  • Keep although I have to admit I am not convinced that people by occupation by century is as useful a way to break categories down as some think.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Are people by occupation by century categories allowed to be broken down by nationality or is that too precise? If so, I could see breaking this category down.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split by nationality It makes sense to split a category like actors by nationality by century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has been done for the writers by century category, but only for French and Irish writers, at least in the 20th and 21st centuries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dimadick. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dimadick. I agree with everything Dimadick has said. I fail to see why the category shouldn't be kept as is. - And we drown talk · 8:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • As indicated above by somebody else, "keep" votes don't make sense as I'm not proposing that we delete the category, just split it into more manageable chunks. What are the advantages to not doing this? --AussieLegend (✉) 09:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the category is split, it will become an essentially empty category with multiple subcategories. So "Keep as is" votes do make sense. And the obvious advantage of any large category is giving an easy overview of its subject to anyone searching for the info. Numerous small categories do not particularly help from a reader's perspective. --Dimadick (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I said keep as is. Not only keep. And keep votes do make sense, sorry. The advantage of one big category for each century is that is makes things far easier for everybody. One should be able to look for actors by century and not have to then know what country they were from or something else in order to find them. I don't think more precise categories are going to do anybody any favors, and I think the burden of proof is on you here, AussieLegend to convince us why things shouldn't stay the same. These actors by century categories make sense to not be broken down into smaller categories, and clearly most of us seem to think that. - And we drown talk · 14:35 PM, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
    • All three people who have voted for keep. That is hardly "most" of anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- A split by time (e.g. decade) is difficult, because a typical actor will be active for several decades. A 19th century category may be appropriate, but about a year ago, we had a large scale cull of categories making a 20th/21st century. I think the answer is that they shall all be distributed to appropriate (probably national) subcategories of "actors". Accordingly the initial action will need to be a merge (without retaining redirect). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wish the person had come up with a clear split plan before the nomination. I think the best way to split is by country, and we can retain the century. If we have Category:19th-century French writers, Category:20th-century French writers and Category:21st century-French writers, I see no reason why we should not do similar categories for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is actually an extremely underutlized category, and if anything Category:20th-century actors may be even more underutlizied. I went through the first 10 entires in Category:American film actors and none of them had been put in an actors by century cat. The fact that Category:American film actors has 15,000 articles directly in it while Category:20th century actors and Category:21st century actors both have 1,700 or so articles in them, suggests that this is an extremely underutilized category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. These are underpopulated categories. I am also uncertain why the cull of categories mentioned by Peterkingiron took place. Just to make articles more difficult to locate? Dimadick (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the logic is that we are not supposed to split people into present and past categories, and that is what is essentially going on when you only have two categories. However since we do have Category:19th-century actors, Category:18th-century actors, Category:17th-century actors and so forth, this is not an issue here. It would probably be a good reason not to subdivide into film actors, television actors, radio actors etc., since those categories will at present be limited to mostly just two century cats (how many films were made in the 19th century?). I think we should also work to make sure that people only get placed in actors cats for centuries in which they actually acted. If someone was born in 1082, but did not appear professionally until 2001, they should not be in the 20th-century actors cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Several hundreds of (short) films were created in the 19th-century, but since most of them were non-fiction documentaries the people depicted could hardly be listed as actors. The 19th-century category should be dominated by stage actors. Dimadick (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either split actors from actresses, or split by nationality. Statυs (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it seems that there is no support for deleting this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Could we keep the category and then split it into subsections such as nationalities?--5 albert square (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since that is what has been done with both Category:19th-century writers and Category:20th-century writers, although never as agressively built than this category and the 20th-century actors categories, I see no reason not to. In fact, technically the splitting out nationalities could be done without CfD endorsement, but it is better to seek a consensus on the matter before acting, although the lack of many comments seems to indicate not many care. My guess is this category could be brought to about 10,000 entries without any new articles added to wikipedia, maybe not quite that many, but close. I would urge people to caution, and to not add people to a century category unless they acted in a forum at least widely viewed during the century involved. I thought of saying "professional forum", but would not limit it in all cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2013 (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:Taishanese people[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:People from Taishan and Category:People of Taishan descent. No objections to the change of target from the nom. Thank you much, Nlu, for offering to help carry out the split, I will list it at WP:CFD/W/M#Other (and thanks to anyone else who wants to help as well). If the article doesn't give a clue about which new category to place the person in, it probably shouldn't be in either. delldot ∇. 00:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is trying to serve two different purposes, and I think as one single category, it does not serve its purpose particularly well. People who are born from Taishan should be dealt with distinctively from people with ancestry from Taishan. Split. --Nlu (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split per nom, we should not have such indiscriminate conglomeration of people categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment shouldn't this also have a category for Category:Taishanese speakers (Taishanese/Toisanese/Hoisanese -- first from Mandarin, second from Cantonese, third from the language itself) ? -- 70.24.245.172 (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the second target should be Category:People of Taishan descent, which is the normal format for expatriate categories. If a split is to be undertaken, the nom will need to do the work, by adding the right target category to each article. It is not reasonable to ask the closing admin to do this. When that is completed, the subject category can be deleted or become a dab-category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be willing to do that to the extent I can tell from the article contents themselves. --Nlu (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment nominating to split is however totally acceptable. It is much better that the person bring the issue here for discussion instead of trying to implement their idea and then present us with a rename nomination and a fait accompli.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should I go ahead and start doing this? Is there enough a consensus even though the discussion isn't closed yet? --Nlu (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2012 (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:Typhoon 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: merge Category:Typhoon templates and Category:Hurricane templates into Category:Tropical cyclone templates. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Remove Redundancy since we do not need 3 categories for the same thing.Jason Rees (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Typhoons are not hurricanes, and vice-versa. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presidentman: Actually they are the same things, Tropical Storms, Typhoons, Hurricanes, etc are all regional names for tropical cyclones, so as i said do we really need 3 categories for the same thing?Jason Rees (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. We do need disambiguation because we cannot justify having only Category:Hurricane templates or only Category:Typhoon templates as subcats. People refer to them differently. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually we can justify it because these are the top level categories for tropical cyclone templates and there are 7 subcats within Hurricane templates that takes care of any templates related to basins. We could also merge them into each other and redirect them.Jason Rees (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Under Category:Tropical cyclone templates, typhoons may be in different basins than hurricanes, but they are all tropical cyclones. They should be subcategories, potentially. I'd rather have 1 category than 3 categories of the same thing in different names. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 00:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, no need to split by basin, there aren't enough. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge under Category:Typhoon templates, there's not reason to preferentially use "hurricane", since the most severe ones are Pacific Typhoons, which also have a much longer written meteorological history. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Tropical cyclone templates, matching main article and main category structure. --Qetuth (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2012 (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:Psychiatry community services[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) 03:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the distinction is too fine to break it out. ps. if kept it still needs to be renamed "Psychiatric community services". Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - category was meant to encompass care in the community type services but probably ill conceived. Also, as noted, noun used instead of adjective - doh - sorry about that. FiachraByrne (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as better wording146.90.110.75 (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2012 (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:Latin Americans YouTube Channels[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: self-close; category was speedily deleted as empty after contents were all deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Since YouTube is on the Internet, I think it makes more sense to divide YouTube channels by language than by area of the world that they originate from. (Some of the original contents of the category have been deleted, so deletion/upmerge to Category:YouTube channels is another possibility.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2012 (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/2012_December_7

Leave a Reply