Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
< September 20 September 22 >

September 21[edit]

Category:1959 establishments in Upper Volta[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. – Fayenatic London 17:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is to reverse the discussion from August 2013. Now, Upper Volta is split into Republic of Upper Volta and French Upper Volta. Category:Establishments in the Republic of Upper Volta by century is a mix of it while Category:Establishments in French Upper Volta by century is all French Upper Volta so I'd rather clarify it and put it all under Category:Republic of Upper Volta ultimately. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: In view of the volatility of this region, it might be a good idea to wait and see what happens there next. So far both divisions have Upper Volta in their name so it will do no harm. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How does the volatility today change the name used from 1958-1984? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is nothing gained from the longer title. The common name was Upper Volta. There is no need for more precision when there was only one place known as Upper Volta. The name is also not unstable. It has been stably Burkina Faso for 30 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But Upper Volta isn't clear. According to it, the split is French Upper Volta (1919–1932, 1947–1958); Republic of Upper Volta (1958–1984) and Burkina Faso for 1984-present so this is related only to the 1958-1984 period. Wouldn't it be clearer to use the longer name? Else why shouldn't French Upper Volta be merged into Upper Volta? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Upon review of this June 2013 discussion, I see your logic. I disagree but I understand it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The existing names are sufficiently clear not to need expansion. By convention, we use the names of the polities of the period, but the parent will have the name of the present polity. Where the old and new polities are of significantly different extent, there is merit in a split. There is considerable precednet on this. Furthermore, cat-names should be short where possible. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: There is some logic here. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pointless disambiguation. The common name of the country was Upper Volta throughout this period, so that should be used for all categories. The articles on French Upper Volta and the Republic of Upper Volta are effectively "history of" articles referring to various stages of the country's history. Number 57 20:32, 14 November 2014 (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:Radio Manà Manà[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Article Radio Manà Manà was deleted in December 2013 as A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event): Expired PROD, concern was: cross-wiki spam by an agency, non "stand-alone" notability nor *real* third-party sources. – Fayenatic London 16:54, 21 September 2014 (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 Guadeloupe[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 match contents. Those who prefer the opposite did not feel strongly enough to make a counter-nomination tagging all the contents. – Fayenatic London 18:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The whole of this tree is in the form "Guadeloupean X" and the parent should be moved to match. SFB 11:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – as this category is in accordance with everything else in Category:People by region in France, it could be argued that its contents should all be renamed instead (speedily). Oculi (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. I would like this discussion to resolve that discrepancy (which ever way people feel right). SFB 15:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess there is no right or wrong here. Personally I would favor 'People from Guadeloupe' over 'Guadeloupean people' because the name (Guadeloupe) is "original" while the adjective (Guadeloupean) is a derivative. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for sub-national entities, which a department of France is, we use "People from X".John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Guadeloupean is enough like a nationality unto itself that I think we should use the standard FOOian form that applies to nationalities. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2014 (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 French Guiana[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 for Guadeloupe (see above). – Fayenatic London 18:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The whole of this tree is in the form "French Guianan X" and the parent should be moved to match. "French Guianan" is not ambiguous as there are no other types of "Guianan" in English. SFB 11:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – as this category is in accordance with everything else in Category:People by region in France, it could be argued that its contents should all be renamed instead (speedily). Oculi (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for sub-national entities, which a department of France is, we use "People from X".John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. French Guianan is enough like a nationality unto itself that I think we should use the standard FOOian form that applies to nationalities. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2014 (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 listed in the Domesday Book[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. Marcocapelle, please tag and list categories in future. – Fayenatic London 18:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being listed in the Domesday Book is not a defining characteristic of a place. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With over 13,000 listings, being in the Domesday Book is hardly a defining feature of a place. Furthermore, the book was broken down into the fiefs of the time, not specific settlements. That means the current settlement may often not be a good indication of the area being described in the book 1000 years ago. SFB 11:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the number of listings in the Domesday book is irrelevant. I would say this is certainly defining, and would (or should) be mentioned in any brief description. Oculi (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Something that's in the Domesday Book means it existed in 1086 and the Normans thought it was worth mentioning. Does it signify anything else? RevelationDirect (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's really it, as far as places are concerned. The Domesday Book mainly had an economical purpose, to assess the value of property, on behalf of taxation. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but per WP:ARBITRARYCAT. This basically categorizes things in England based on whether they existed in 1086. If anyone is looking for establishments before a specific cutoff, the establishments in England by year tree is a better tool. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that my home town is in the Domesday Book but as the date of its establishment isn't known it will never appear in the category tree you suggest as an alternative - what do you suggest? BencherliteTalk 16:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a good point; many places don't have a known establishment date so being in the book is certainly relevant as a firm date in the article. But I don't see a category based on what existed in 1086 as workable. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- It is far too common a characteristic to merit a category. Equally, I would discourage the use of "establishment" categories for the plethora of English places which are first mentioned in Domesday Book, but may well have existed for centuries - lost in the mists of time. On the other hand, an establishment category is appropriate for a planted market town. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2014 (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:Proposed laws of the Kingdom of England[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. – Fayenatic London 21:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:40, 21 September 2014 (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:Kingdom of England politics-related lists[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. I will however merge the page to Category:Kingdom of England. – Fayenatic London 21:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. The one article in this category has been sufficiently parented, no need to upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I assumne that we do not need to upmerge, because the one article is well-categorised: I have not checked. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2014 (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:Male alpine skiers by nationality[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. – Fayenatic London 22:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to the parent, which is just an empty category save for this intersection. Intersections should only be used when there is a need to divide up different material (not here). SFB 08:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC) SFB 08:25, 21 September 2014 (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:Comptrollers by nationality[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. – Fayenatic London 22:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is the only entry of its parent Category:Comptrollers, so an unnecessary categorization level. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "by intersection" types categories should only be used when there is a need to divide content. SFB 15:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge as the nominated category has "by nationality" parents, and should be kept in the hierarchy of people by occupation and nationality. Note: both should be kept if the small categories in the nomination below are deleted.– Fayenatic London 18:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support elimninating one category. As so many of the sub-categories are also nominated for merger, I suspect there is limited value in maintaining a "by nationality" category. Historically, there were two officials: one fulfilled an office (such as collecting Customs dues) and the other controlled them, by checking what the other was doing. They each had one half of the coquet seal, so that they had to act together to seal a coastal bond. Comptroller is (I think) a variant on controller; alternativey is may be related to an archaic version of count. The proposal below is for upmerger to comptroller and to the relevant nationality of Accountant. That is a good solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2014 (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:Comptrollers in Australia and other countries[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. – Fayenatic London 21:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:: WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not a major position in itself in these jurisdictions. No navigational value in such dead ends. SFB 15:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the exception in SMALLCAT, as part of people by nationality and occupation. – Fayenatic London 18:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, how far should we go with this exception rule? In this occupation tree there are only three countries with >5 articles, is that enough to call this a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. I have commented on the title in the separate nom for "by nationality" above. It may be that we need more upmerging to accountant categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge This doesn't fit WP:SMALLCAT's exception for being "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" RevelationDirect (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2014 (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:Comptrollers General of Colombia[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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 21:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:: WP:SMALLCAT-issue in parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comptrollers in Colombia is narrow enough for this topic area. SFB 15:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. IMO, four articles is more than enough for a category for this government position. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2014 (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:State Comptrollers of Israel‎[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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 21:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:: WP:SMALLCAT-issue in parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comptrollers in Israel is narrow enough for this topic area. SFB 15:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. IMO, six articles is more than enough to have a category about this government position. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2014 (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:Textiles education[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) 02:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is conceptually fine but all 17 articles in it are about specific schools, not education in general. This proposal just matches the category name with the actual contents. (I also removed the "s" from Textiles to bring the naming format in line with the rest of the tree, per speedy WP:C2C). RevelationDirect (talk) 04:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh. – RevelationDirect (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]
  • Support both Although the naming is fine, one would expect to find this content grouping in the schools tree. The lack of broader topic material (e.g. as in Category:Agricultural education), makes this a sensible move. No opposition to maintenance/recreation of this category should broader topic articles appear such as Textile education. SFB 16:01, 21 September 2014 (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/2014_September_21

Leave a Reply