Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
< September 4 September 6 >

September 5[edit]

Category:Temple Towns[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. Whether the articles should be included in Category:Hindu holy cities will be a question for each article. (Category:Hindu holy cities and Category:Holy cities were also called into question, but neither were nominated as part of this discussion.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Will avoid duplication. Shyamsunder (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • tentative merge to Category:Hindu holy cities if it needs to be merged at all, which isn't clear. I'm not too clear on the distinctions (or not) between these but given the size of the Hindu subcat it's the more obvious target of a merge. Mangoe (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Hindu holy cities. We have an article on Holy city, Temple town redirects to an article on part of Philadelphia close to Temple University.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. "Holy cities" is purely subjective; are any of these cities "holy" in any objective sense? Does Wikipedia dispense and adjudge holiness? Or are we buying into some, but not all, sources to ascertain what's "holy"? Holy City, California seems quite holy - it's even in its name, but alas Wikipedia's Gods don't buy it. And "Temple Towns" is every town with a temple, which is too broad to be useful as "Temples" are in literally thousands of "Towns". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify as Hindu Holy Cities. The extent to which this designation is defining to the place will be different based on city size and history. This is more based on a Hindu view that the places are Holy Cities, than anything about the cities themselves. A list will better link to reliable sources and explanations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Indian Temple Towns or (better) Category:Indian temple towns, making this a subcategory of Category:Holy cities, which should be purged accordingly. The two articles I looked at both called the place a temple town in the lead. This seems to be a specifically Indian (possibly Hindu) category, so that Indian should appear in the name. There are certainly enough for a worthwhile category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are actually very few articles in this category mentioning "temple town", so I'm not really convinced about this. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tend to delete, a town having a Hindu temple seems hardly a defining characteristic in India. No objection against listifying. If not deleted, a merge to Category:Hindu holy cities is a good alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2015 (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.

Stars with Proper Names[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) 03:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only 2-3 articles in each category. Minuscule categories merely hinder easy navigation to related articles. Praemonitus (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Proxima Centauri" is replicating Category:Alpha Centauri tree since Proxima Centauri is part of Alpha Centauri, and all contents are already in other categories in the Alpha Centauri category tree. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess the intention of this nomination is to upmerge rather than delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all The only useful content in these are the "in fiction" sub cats, and these are all in Category:Stars in fiction parent already. All that's left are the stars themselves, a single planet, and a redirect to Sirius. No upmerges needed. Mangoe (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2015 (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:1977 in Moldova[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. – Fayenatic London 15:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per other members of category:Years of the 20th century in the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic. I didn't put this as a speedy as I couldn't find any previous CFD discussions on Moldova/Moldova SSR. Tim! (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2015 (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:1807 disestablishments in the Holy Roman 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 as proposed. If users feel to move the articles to the "in Germany" subcategories that might exist, they could do so, and then we could see what happens next in this long-running saga. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Holy Roman Empire was dissolved in 1806 Tim! (talk) 09:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. No such state in the 1810s. Dimadick (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative merge to Category:1807 disestablishments in Germany etc. In a very long discussion we did not reach consensus about deleting the German categories in earlier centuries, so as these Germany categories still exist they should be the target for this merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to register my agreement with the alternative that Marcocapelle proposes. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Europe. That is the only accurate generalized way to describe these locations. Some may them be put in more specific categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -per nom. No such state existed after 1806.GreyShark (dibra) 06:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If no consensus, I suppose it's better to have a double merge rather than to keep as is, because there is no doubt that the Holy Roman Empire was dissolved in 1806. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:17, 19 September 2015 (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.

Tsunamis[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/delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only 1 (or 2) articles in each category. Minuscule categories merely hinder easy navigation to related articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Tsunamis are fortunately sufficiently rare for us not to need annual categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2015 (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:1722 establishments in Belgium[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 all. – Fayenatic London
Nominator's rationale: per Austrian Netherlands for years 1714-1797 Tim! (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, with two comments. First I think we should limit this to 1793 or 1794 because the (dis)establishments afterwards were initiated by the French occupiers. Second I wonder, since there are so very few articles directly in Category:18th century in Belgium and in these year categories, shouldn't we just upmerge the articles of the year categories to the century category, then rename this century category to Category:Austrian Netherlands and merge the year articles also to the respective ((dis)establishment) year categories of the Holy Roman Empire? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I refer the proposer to the discussion here. I agree that the proposed change would satisfyingly remove an anachronism, but my two main concerns are that the sources treat the events of the 1790s as part of the history of Belgium (not the history of France), and a user wanting to know what stuff in what is now Belgium was shut down by the French in the 1790s will not go looking for it in "disestablishments in the Holy Roman Empire" (or indeed "in France"). A further complication is that making this change will mean double checking which of these things actually were in the Austrian Netherlands, rather than in the Prince-Bishopric of Liège (a maintenance issue going forward); using "Belgium" retrospectively (as the sources do) avoids this. If we're going to be sticklers for accuracy, we have to use "United States of Belgium" 1790-1794, and "territories occupied by France" 1794-1797. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without offering an immediate solution, let's keep in mind that the 1790s problem in fact continues until 1815 (end of French occupation) or 1830 (when Belgium was really established). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The more I think about it, the more I think "Low Countries" (as a geographical term) is the only really workable alternative, using it as parent for things like "Austrian Netherlands" and "Dutch Republic" where that is possible. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Austrian Netherlands is the best description of the area at the time and the term used by historians to describe it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per nom.GreyShark (dibra) 06:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnpacklambert: @Greyshark: What is your opinion about the post 1794 categories when Austrian Netherlands no longer existed? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My view is that once the area is incorproated into France we should put the stuff in the France category. Any other action would create a division that did not exist at the time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm used to Wikipedia following the sources we have (histories of Belgium, etc.), not imposing it's own notion of what is appropriate. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - similarly to above Johnpacklambert, i'm in opinion that contemporary entities are to be utilized. However, the transition of Austrian Netherlands into French domain was gradual between 1794 to 1797; it is an expert question which year should we take as the last for this entity, but anyways either after 1794 or after 1797 it is to be referred as part of the French Republic.GreyShark (dibra) 14:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The usual English term for the Austrian provinces governed from Brussels is "Austrian Netherlands". Retaining "Belgium" for the parent will be appropriate. The previous series of categories (from the mid 16th century) should similarly be Spanish Netherlands, again with a Belgian parent. The period 1794-1815 when most of it was part of France and 1815-30 as part of the United Netherlands (also known as Belgium) will certainly present difficulties, but that is an argument for another day. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also this proposal on September 13 which gets rid of the difficulties with the prince-bishopric of Liège (which was not part of Spanish or Austrian Netherlands). The proposals (this one and the one of 13 September) aren't really conflicting, it is possible having an establishment in a year of the Austrian Netherlands within a century of the Southern Netherlands. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd pretty much put article creation from the on hold while waiting for this to be concluded. Today I've continued with articles on built heritage and used the old categories on them. Would it be better that I just didn't categorise until the categories have been thrashed out? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2015 (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.

Ancient earthquakes[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/delete as proposed. The follow-up discussion may result in further changes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only 1 (or 2) articles in each category. Minuscule categories merely hinder easy navigation to related articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Ancient earthquakes" is a horrible name, as "ancient" is ambiguous and can be construed to mean only the Mediterranean and Mesopotamian world. That category should be renamed to have a time horizon instead of being called "ancient" -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That category specifically states "China", which makes it include only China, and not using the ambiguous wikt:ancient alone (Relating to antiquity as a primarily European historical period; the time before the Middle Ages.) which has specific implications for region and time, not the same as what we are using it for. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Without objection to recreating if more content appears. Neutral on 70.51.202.113's suggestion to rename the target category. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to 1st millenia earthquakes. It's pretty obvious that 70.51.202.113 has a point. HeatIsCool (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- even if this may not be the final solution. The main point is that earthquakes notable enough to have given rise to an article are few enough for us not to need annual categories, and perhaps also not ones by century. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2015 (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:MundoFox network affiliates[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) 04:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Need to properly reflect the network in question having rebranded from MundoFox to MundoMax. Shiningpikablu252 (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per WP:C2D, facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per WP:C2D. If a thing changes its name, we can just speedy-revise the corresponding categories without really needing to debate it at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. Without a doubt it has to be renamed. HeatIsCool (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2015 (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:Three-digit Interstate Highways[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; leave a redirect. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:C2D, facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name, and the appearance of WP:SHAREDNAME.
Background: There are auxiliary highways in the US Interstate that are either bypasses, spurs or beltways to the main highway. The way the roads are named, the main trunk highway has 1 or 2 digits (Interstate 70) and the auxiliary roads have a number before that (170, 270, 370, 470 and 670). So there is a connection between the type of road and how it is numbered but there are also exceptions.
What's defining about these articles is that they are auxiliary or secondary to the main interstates; how they're numbered just reflects that status. That's why the main article is List of auxiliary Interstate Highways and the subcategory is Category:Unsigned auxiliary Interstate Highways. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified SPUI as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject U.S. Roads. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine leaving a soft redirect at the old name. (I wasn't able to get that template to work with a non-existent target though.)RevelationDirect (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could live with a soft redirect as well, if the cat is renamed. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. That category should probably be upmerged into the main U.S. Highway category, but that's another discussion. –Fredddie™ 17:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question. Let's see how this one goes and then I can nominate that one as a follow up. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency sake. Dough4872 14:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - Though I understand the rationale behind the rename, there's still the issue of the notoriously designated Interstate 238, which isn't an auxiliary interstate of anything. I also vaguely remember a discussion on other three-digit highways being given proposed interstate designations despite not being an auxiliary route of any other interstate. The other exceptions mentioned by the nom at least have some rationale to them. I will admit, that the "Auxiliary Interstate Highways" cat seems like it might also be good for suffixed interstates, though. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DanTD: I would favor removing Interstate 238 from the renamed category then based on WP:SHAREDNAME. I don't know if that makes you more or less favorable to the nomination though. (-: RevelationDirect (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could live with that. I'd feel even better if the designation was changed to a real auxiliary route, but that's a whole other issue. What I also think would fit in with the new cat would be the Category:Business Interstate Highways. You could make it into a sub-category. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • One route (I-238) shouldn't derail the entire discussion just because it doesn't fit the mold. Yes, it has a stupid route number, but in the whole system, it still serves the purpose of an auxiliary Interstate Highway. –Fredddie™ 20:43, 6 September 2015 (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/2015_September_5

Leave a Reply