Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
< December 7 December 9 >

December 8[edit]

Populated adjective places[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. and nominate the relevant sub-cats for speedy renaming. – Fayenatic London 10:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This proposal includes all child categories with "Populated ADJECTIVE places" as the core part of the name, e.g. "populated coastal places", "populated riverside places", and "populated lakeshore places". I've tagged these three child categories, as well as Category:Populated waterside places by country, but there are so many child categories that it would take an inordinate amount of time to tag all of them.
Why this odd wording? I'd never use this construction, and it isn't normal English — it's similar to Tolkien's "green great dragon" (link, if you don't know what I'm talking about). "Populated place" is the core of the term, so the adjective should come first. Nyttend (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's also a reasonable idea. I remember the "Settlements" ==> "Populated places" debates (I think we'd be better off with "Settlements", but I don't think I'd get much support...), but thanks for mentioning in case I wasn't aware of it. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subcategories Fishing communities and Ports don't quite fit in "by waterside". Would you then suggest to remove them from the category? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile I see what I was confused about. Sorry for bothering, just forget about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2016 (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:Cut (cards)[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) 01:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only 2 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umperge for Now with no objection to recreating if we ever get to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2016 (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:Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This needs either deleting or a major overhaul. A category that puts both Taiwanese bands and thermometers under category:Dutch physicists has severe problems SpinningSpark 19:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge -- The bands are being placed here due to shared name, which is contrary to policy. I would suggest a rename and restructure to Category:Fahrenheit. It should perhaps be reparented to "categories named after scientists" or such like. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:SHAREDNAME. I'm not seeing any viable kernel to purge down to. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since purging would lead to a very small category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the same editor has created at least 2 if not more similar word association categories (ie not tied by a specific subject but connected by the name association) and has been blocked (temporarily) as a sock. Strongly suggest this CFD needs to be followed for the other as yet unexamined categories created by the same editor JarrahTree 03:58, 17 December 2016 (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:Sega Genesis 4 player games[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category that is also excessively specific. Also fails WP:DEFINE. Should be upmerged to the two separate parent categories. Izno (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have combined these, as they raise the same issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2016 (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:Ghost Ship (2002 film)[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category appears to have been created to link all items associated with a single film. Not a typical use of categories, and I doubt that this film in particular is a good precedent to set. DonIago (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2016 (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: Northward flowing rivers[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) 01:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Poorly defined, unmaintainable, arbitrary category that reinforces the much repeated misconception that rivers flowing north are unusual. A current discussion at the Rivers project shows that there are strong feelings about its usefulness. Previous related lists were summarily deleted due to similar arguments here and here...Jokulhlaup (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I would expect countries with a predominantly northern coast to have rivers flowing north, as a general rule. Egypt is unlikely to have rivers flowing south, for instance. Rivers in Brazil will view the Andes with dismay and shun a westerly route. Oculi (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I fail to see how such a category will reinforce the notion that most or all rivers flow south — by adding counterexamples, i.e. rivers that flow north! As for being "poorly defined", that can be separately addressed, but not by deletion!

    Please note that I populated the category by listing articles that said that a particular river "flows north". Should those sentences be elided? This, by the way, suggests a method of defining/maintaining the category, does it not?

    (-dav4is (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

  • (-dav4is (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)) I have addressed your concerns (mostly, I think) by rewriting the category description, on my sandbox: User:Dav4is/sandbox I think that it is now a pretty clear definition. Is it OK for me to replace it? (not sure of the protocol)[reply]
  • Per WP:DEFINE, delete. --Izno (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Izno Which measure of WP:DEFINE do you feel the category violates? (-dav4is (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]
    Erm, that should originally have pointed to WP:NON-DEFINING, but I think WP:TRIVIALCAT also suffices. --Izno (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; it lacks a clear definition. Does the Ohio River belong in this category because it flows north at a few points, e.g. 38°56′N 81°54′W / 38.93°N 81.9°W / 38.93; -81.9, or should it be omitted because its overall trend is west-southwest? Or see File:Ob watershed.png; is its flow northward enough, or should we exclude the Ob because it's too much of a northwestward-flowing river? Yes, it's pure trivia too, but even if we categorised on trivial levels, it doesn't work to categorise without a clear sense of what belongs in the category. Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks a clear definition, perhaps — but could be given a better one, yes? No reason to delete! (And Ohio: no; Ob: yes. By virtue of "the general south-to-north direction" in the Ob article, and "a roughly southwest and then west-northwest course" for the Ohio.)
(-dav4is (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]
  1. a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. Each river identified by finding "flows north", usually in the lead section of wikipedia articles.
  2. if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, See previous.
  3. if the characteristic falls within any of the forms of overcategorization mentioned on this page, Too broad!
  1. Avoid categorizing topics by characteristics that are unrelated or wholly peripheral to the topic's notability. Again, note that the specific articles chosen for inclusion in the category mentioned that they flowed north!
Attempts to dispel the notion that all or most rivers flow south by forbidding listing of contrary evidence just doesn't work!
@Dav4is: You appear to have commented with a keep !vote above. Please avoid !voting twice. --Izno (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! (-dav4is (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete – I can imagine a child thinking rivers must flow downhill from north to south, because a map on the wall has north above south. The idea has some charm, and perhaps a note mentioning the confusion could be included in River. But this odd category is not the way to dispel the myth. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeDelete, poorly defined category. That some people have misconceptions is not a good rationale. older ≠ wiser 11:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bkonrad: Are you really opposing the proposal, which was to delete the category? --Epipelagic (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, was writing from phone and forgot which forum this was.older ≠ wiser 21:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – A well-sourced article about the myth would be worthwhile. That's what I and others have suggested instead of this category. Finetooth (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repurpose as an article. The myth is discussed in book sources, e.g [1][2], so can get past WP:V. Could this myth explain how Canada managed to stay British? The American rebels just couldn't find it! SpinningSpark 18:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (-dav4is (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)) since editing the category, I feel that I have answered all objections:[reply]
  1. Category is now well defined.
  2. Category is as maintainable as any.
  3. Category is no more arbitrary than "18th-century occultists".
  4. Category will dispel the misconception that rivers flowing north are unusual.
  5. Category deletion should not be governed by past mistakes.
    • You do realise that your specification of of less than one part East/West for every eight parts North is only 7°? That's less than one compass point. Unlikely that even the Nile will qualify for that. Besides which, it is blatant WP:OR to invent our own delimitations. So no, the category has not been adequately defined, and consequently is still not maintainable. Categories are not the place to dispel misconceptions, and Wikipedia in general is not the place for Righting Great Wrongs. Honestly, as I said above, the best hope for this is as an article on the myth. A list can be included in the article, the only criteria for inclusion necessary is that reliable sources identify it as North flowing (and possibly major as well to keep the length in bounds). SpinningSpark 19:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (-dav4is (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)) OK, Sparky! The Righting Great Wrongs article convinced me to change my vote! Especially the part about being a tertiary source.[reply]
    • (ec) @Dav4is: You haven't addressed the principal objection. This is categorization by meaninglessly arbitrary quality. There is nothing distinctive about rivers that flow northwards for some or even a majority of their course. Absent that, categorization based on misconceptions that some people have really isn't much of a criteria. older ≠ wiser 19:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining criterion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2016 (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:Noise[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: split as proposed. As noted, in uncertain cases individual articles could be double categorized in both. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: split per the two very different main articles Noise and Noise (electronics). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support splitting, although there might be some difficult edge cases around sound systems that will be problematic to decide, or maybe belong in both categories. SpinningSpark 12:21, 9 December 2016 (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/2016_December_8

Leave a Reply