Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
< September 13 September 15 >

September 14[edit]

Category:Collective consciousness[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. If WP:OTHERSTUFF is desired to be deleted or merged it can be nominated accordingly. The Bushranger One ping only 22:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category appears to be entirely the creation of one user. He is in the process of applying the term very broadly, connecting it from everything from Category:Social work to Category:Fascism to Category:Online dating for specific interests. It's all a bit much. - Eureka Lott 23:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Related discussions at CfD 2012/Sep/18 New Categories synonymous with Category:Propaganda.- choster (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Head article is at Collective consciousness. No comment until I have reviewed it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination rationale doesn't justify deletion, but there could well be unacceptably overly broad application going on here. Mainspace categorisation, as unreferenced implication of facts, should be done conservatively. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can show that this term is actually used as broadly as its used for this category, its being overworked here. the inventor of the phrase may have created social sciences, but i have never heard this term before, and i really dont think its so common as to be used such a high level category here. its a form of WP:Synthesis.(mercurywoodrose)76.254.33.184 (talk) 05:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't see how one could arrive at an appropriate categorization level. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It should be noted that there are two issues here. One is the utility and appropriateness of the category itself. The broad application of the category comes directly from the main page, with references.
The other point is the application of classification to categories within that broad tree. I will happily revert my classification additions if consensus supports a revert, though perhaps that would be better discussed within the category talk page. (I authored both the category, and the classifications, but not the main page.) --Andrewaskew (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears consensus is against me. If this category is deleted then we should also probably propose deleting Category:Occult collective consciousness and propose merging Category:Fictional collective consciousnesses to Category:Fictional superorganisms.
I still would argue that the main and the category synopsis provide clear boundaries to this category. But I am happy to bow to the public will. --Andrewaskew (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see any reasonably objective and non-arbitrary way of defining the boundaries of this category. The nominator's addition to it of Category:Sociology and also of Category:Organizational culture suggests to me that he sees its scope as extending to pretty much anything to do with groups of people. I see some justification for that, but this exactly what makes the category unworkable: it could include most of the human experience, and if it's that broad it is simply useless clutter. It would be much better to expand the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Note that User:Andrewaskew|Andrewaskew also has created Category:Societal engineering, Category:Social engineering (political science) and Category:Media manipulation and has a questionable "Classification" heading linking them to the existing Category:Propaganda which he has changed in a questionable fashion. I was getting ready to do a deletion for those also and will refer back to this. Someone has to to explain categorization policy to this fellow. CarolMooreDC 01:16, 18 September 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:People from Joliet, Montana[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. The Bushranger One ping only 22:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT Category has just one entry ...William 22:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator and per WP:SMALLCAT. If a category is broken up into a lot of tiny categories, it is much less useful for navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and consensus in many other similar recent cfds. Oculi (talk) 14:54, 15 September 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:People from Bluffdale, Utah[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. The Bushranger One ping only 22:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. All categories have 3 or less entries ...William 22:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nominator and per WP:SMALLCAT, without prejudice to recreating any categories which can be populated with more than 6 articles. Some of these settlements have expanded a lot on recent years (e.g. North Ogden & Herriman), so there may be more notable residents whose location has not yet been recorded on WP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and consensus in many other similar recent cfds. Oculi (talk) 14:55, 15 September 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:People from Raytown, Missouri[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 all but Richmond. The Bushranger One ping only 22:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. All categories have 3 or less entries ...William 22:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nominator and per WP:SMALLCAT. None of the target categs are in any danger of becoming overpopulated: the biggest is Category:People from St. Louis County, Missouri, with only 90 articles. However the categories for these small towns are all underpopulated, and impede navigation.
    Please note that the status of the place is irrelevant here.
    Per WP:CAT#Overview, "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential - defining - characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." If a category is broken up into a lot of tiny categories, it is much less useful for navigation
    What matters is solely whether there are enough articles for these categories to be useful for navigation. If the categories-by-counties were equally underpopulated, I would support upmerging them too ... and if we only had 50 biographical articles for the whole of the USA, I would oppose spreading them across 50 by-state categories.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I withdrew Richmond, Missouri. There may be as many as 10 notable people from there. I've added two persons, so the category has four now....William 00:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and consensus in many other similar recent cfds. Oculi (talk) 14:57, 15 September 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:People from Puerto Rico[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 22:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge and leave a redirect. This is a new category, and the old one contains a substantial set of sub-cats. Nevertheless I did not take this to the Speedy page as the rest of Category:People by territory in the United States has "People from...", so a reverse merge might be in order. Note that Puerto Rican people is the lead article, but it states that "Puerto Rican people" can include people from elsewhere with PR heritage. – Fayenatic London 19:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge. The "People from Foo" format avoids adjectives which can be non-neutral in some cases (tho not, I think, this one), and it avoids confusion/dispute about who qualifies under the adjective. (To be a Fooish person, do you need to be a citizen of Fooland? Have been born there? etc). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per BHG -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. This is more about ethnicity than geography. The category is a member of the Category:People by nationality tree and fits the naming convention there. Category:Puerto Rican people includes subcategories like Category:People of Puerto Rican descent, which would not fit in Category:People from Puerto Rico. - Eureka Lott 23:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge -- This is a common format, whose precise nature is purposely fuzzy. A person can be from where they were born; where they now live; where they used to live; etc. As long as it is a sub-cat, there is no reason why a "descent" category should not also appear. Mixed race people can have several such categories. Attempts to define these too precisely end off with arguments over semantics. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge. First time I've agreed with BHG. Well said. :) Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge The main issue I see here is that at present Category:Puerto Rican people is misued in many cases for people of Puerto Rican descent who have never been residents of the island, some of whom have never set foot on the island. This category is meant to be limited to those who at one point were residents of the island, and we need to name it in a way that people will use it according to its intent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 18 September 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:Modern Physics[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:Modern physics to match head article. There's a strong desire for a different name, but no workable ones have gained consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A thinly and arbitrarily populated subcategory of Category:Physics, created as part of the now-deleted hoax Nullo Space article. McGeddon (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to having no defined inclusion criteria. Would this be physics theories first proposed in the 20th and 21st centuries? where does "modern" start? and what was modern in 1920 may be considered differently now.(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. See the head article Modern physics, which defines the term. I am not sure that it is a sufficiently precise distinction to make for a viable category, and even it is tightly-defined I wonder whether the technical definition will be sufficiently understood by readers and editors who will infer a looser plain English meaning.
    I will seek input from WikiProject Physics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Physics has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in any case it would be "Category:modern physics". But Relativity is a classical physics theory... and it's being included in the category... -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note I removed some "piping" from the last comment. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The situation seems idempotent. Most people think of "modern physics" as 20th century physics: quantum mechanics, chaos, and (special/general) relativity, which are of course included. If they're deleted it's not like much damage is done. Maschen (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Special relativity is both classical and modern, and should be listed in both. General relativity is modern. Special relativity is classical in that it operates perfectly well with Newtonian mechanics, and modern, in that it works perfectly well with general relativity and quantum mechanics. That's what makes special relativity special - it's the bridge. Bridges have to sit on both ends. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or find a better name). I normally dislike "modern" categories, but this concerns the new physics of post-Newtonian discoveries. Yes the theories are now well-established, but they still differ from the simpler physics that is a good approximation at the level at which we live, where Newtonian physics reain a good description of what happens. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The divide between Newtonian and non-Newtonian Physics is pretty well understood. It ends with the Michelson/Morely experiment and begins with Einstein and the relativistic/quantum physics era.Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename, but do not keep under the present title The last two comments make a good case for the viability of the concept, but the fuzzy terminology will cause endless confusion, leading to persistent miscategorisation. Would Category:Non-Newtonian physics or Category:Post-Newtonian physics be workable titles? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment BHG - as a non-physicist, if someone asked you what 'classical physics' refers to, would you understand the definition? Modern physics is really the best word to describe this particular concept. What we should do is write a descriptor in the Category explaining what the category is about. That would reduce miscatergorisation without discarding the term preferred by the literature and preserving the classical/modern distiction. Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Benkenobi, I hope that my secondary-level physics education was enough to teach me a rough grasp of the distinction, and I am sure you are correct that "modern physics" and "classical physics" are entirely appropriate as the titles of articles.
        However, category names are used differently to article titles. They appear at the bottom of articles without explanation, and are usually added through the very useful WP:HOTCAT, which sadly does not display any of the explanations which may be present on the category page. For those reasons, there is long history of adding greater precision to category names ... because ambiguity leads to miscategorisation, which is a maintenance nightmare. (One example is that the city of Birmingham in England is the primary topic for that title, but it is categorised under Category:Birmingham, West Midlands because of the ambiguity with Category:Birmingham, Alabama).
        In this case, it is quite reasonable to expect that competent but non-specialist editors will be inclined to use the category according to the plain English definition of modern as "recent", rather than according to the technical definition. Topics such as the Green–Kubo relations, Johnson–Nyquist noise, the Sears–Haack body or the (disputed) Mpemba effect, appear to me to be classical physics, despite being within the era of modern physics. That's why I think that this category is viable only if it can have a less ambiguous name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Classical physics includes relativity. It is a classical theory, and not a quantum theory. "Modern physics" is vague since it is frequently used to denote quantum theories versus classical theories, but this category contains relativity, which is not quantum. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems a valid distinction though I have nothing against finding a better name.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 18:30, 11 October 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:Box office bombs[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: bombed. The Bushranger One ping only 22:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Arbitrary inclusion criteria/original research. And per the sister nomination here of the template. Lugnuts And the horse 10:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons given at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 14#Template:Box office bombs navbox. The arguments there apply equally here. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as the article Box office bomb states, there is no accepted definition or strict criteria, thus this categories arbitrary cutoff for qualifying renders the category too subjective to stand. with no clear inclusion criteria, the category becomes a pejorative label for articles, which, if this was a category for people (say, "directors of box office bombs") would be a violation of BLP for those alive.(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apart from the slangy title (which could be changed), the insurmountable problem is that the inclusion criteria for this category can only be either WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE or WP:OC#ARBITRARY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per the reasons given at the template discussion: arbitrary criteria for the definition of a box-office bomb. Lists are much better for compiling this sort of thing since they can contextualise the claim. Betty Logan (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OC#ARBITRARY....William 00:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SNOW.
  • Delete not only is there no defined criteria for inclusion, but no one knows what exactly to look at to try to decide inclusion. Is it just level of reciepts, level of reciepts to cost of movie, or do we add in anticipated earnings, so that if I make a movie with the intent of no one wanting to see it it is not a bomb, only if I actually thought people would like it could it ever be a bomb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 18 September 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:American oil industrialists[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. The Bushranger One ping only 22:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. As a result of the current CfD discussion, all oil industrialists categories were renamed Businesspeople in the oil industry categories, except this category. Propose to upmerge it as the upper category American businesspeople in the oil industry does not have any other entry that just this category. If it will be decided to keep this category separately, also categories like British oil industrialists and Russian oil industrialists should be re-created to follow the unified categories structure. Beagel (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. if there is a razors edge difference between the two, i cant see it matters, at least for our purposes.(mercurywoodrose) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.19.66 (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. There is no objective way of distinguishing the boundary between businesspeople and industrialists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would have preferred "reverse merge", but will stand by the recent precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge there is no reason to have these two categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 18 September 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:Shopping malls in the United States by county[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 for now. If no other states gain mall-by-county categories within a month or so, then this mid-level container category can be deleted.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: not needed. we have Category:Shopping malls in the United States, which is basically a container category for "shopping malls in the United States by state". "United States by county" is not a very useful category structure. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Any categorisation by country should be below the state level. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this is one of 13 "by type" sub-cats of Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by county. These in turn seem to be valid members of Category:Counties of the United States. Given that the contents of the nominated category are sub-catted by state, I think this should be kept as part of a wider hierarchy. The important question is whether this one is worthwhile, as only California is sub-catted by county; none of the other state sub-cats of Category:Shopping malls in the United States currently have a "by county" level; indeed, none of them currently need it because they have rather few county sub-cats (Arizona has 2, Washington has 3, most have none). Nevertheless, I would not delete the sub-cat Category:Shopping malls in California by county, because it is well-populated and a useful member of Category:Buildings and structures in California by county; and therefore I would keep the nominated category. Illinois, New Jersey and New York are well-populated and may be worth sub-catting by county too. – Fayenatic London 17:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fayenatic. This type of category is well-established, and this example of it should be developed. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, reconcile with Category:Shopping malls in the United States, which is organized by state, not county. Given the size of the various state categories, I would tend to find the county level organization unnecessary; California may be the only state where it can be justified. I would also note that other states which break up into subcats below the state level do so on other bases besides county (typically city or mtero area). Mangoe (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This has a single category (on California counties). That must effectively duplicate the California item in Category:Shopping malls in the United States, which provides a satisfatory parent. Any further "county" categories can be sufficiently parented through the state category, without building a separate tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Would be worthwhile to populate rather than delete. Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most states that have a county only have one. It seems about as popular to subdivide the shopping malls by metro-area, and many states do not have any subdivisions at all. The by state, and then subdividing the state as needed works. There is no reason to create this category which will encorage by county categories, when most US counties have no shopping malls at all, and ever Macomb County, Michigan with over 800,000 people, more than at least 5 states, has only 4 shopping malls.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and discussion. This does not remove the subcategories which may well be justifiable. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this is an important distinction. We are not suggesting that any existing by county category be removed, only that in general a by county for shopping malls scheme should not be encoraged in all cases as the default.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems a valid way of sorting such buildings.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 18:31, 11 October 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:Shopping centers in the San Francisco Bay Area[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: speedy rename (G7, author consents). – Fayenatic London 18:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: for consistency with all the other categories for shopping malls in the US, including this ones subcategories. I do note that some of the included articles are on retail districts which are neither open air centers or enclosed malls. These could go in a new category just above this one, Category:Shopping districts and streets in the San Francisco Bay Area, as a subset of Category:Shopping districts and streets in the United States. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created this category. I have no objection to the proposed reorganization. —Stepheng3 (talk) 16:23, 14 September 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:Places in California[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per my other proposal on the San Francisco Bay Area, this seems to be an unnecessary layer between Category:Geography of California and the subcategories and pages found in these two categories. Category:Lists of places in California is really for sets of specialized lists, and it doesnt need to go away, as they bunch all types of places together and it serves a purpose (list of geographical locales in california would be an awful name for a category). all the rest of the items here can easily fit within Geography. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, that makes sense now.(merc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.19.66 (talk) 17:12, 14 September 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:Places in the San Francisco Bay Area[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. The Bushranger One ping only 20:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems to be an unnecessary layer between Category:Geography of the San Francisco Bay Area and all the subcategories and pages found in these two categories. I dont see much use of "Places" as a descriptor (except in england). I think all the pages could fit into Geography of the SFBA easily. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:17, 14 September 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_September_14

Leave a Reply