Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
< February 9 February 11 >

February 10[edit]

Category:Fictional characters with borderline personality disorders[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) 08:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category currently contains zero articles. There are few fictional characters with borderline personality disorder (and even fewer notable enough for a Wikipedia article) so this category will remain underpopulated. Furthermore, the very few articles about fictional characters with borderline personality disorder can be placed in the "Borderline personality disorder in fiction" category.2602:30A:2ED1:2EE0:111F:6C70:503E:46FD (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete diagnosed by fictional psychiatrists, no doubt? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is the category empty since its creation, or has someone emptied it prior to deleting it? Dimadick (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It has been mostly been empty since its creation. There was one article in it before I nominated this category for deletion, but I removed it because there was no evidence in the article that the character was supposed to have borderline personality disorder; I assume it was the editor's opinion that the character has this disorder. Like I said before, there are articles that could be in this category (Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader, Dennis Reynolds from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Ruth Pearce from Doctors) but it will remain underpopulated because there are so few characters with this disorder. Plus, there is a "borderline personality disorder in fiction" category that will suffice for this purpose.2602:30A:2ED1:2EE0:111F:6C70:503E:46FD (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2017 (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.

Subcategories of London Boroughs[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 using Option A, and keep the redirects. Additional redirects may be added where they appear useful. Note: this extensive nomination and this close should be sufficient grounds for using WP:C2C to speedily rename further categories in this hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 10:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming 596 sub-categories of Category:London boroughs to an unambiguous format, which includes the word "borough".
I see three ways to do it, each with precedents
Note that this nomination covers only the first-level subcats of Category:Categories by London borough. There are may be a few hundred more categories at lower levels, but I hope that this sample of "only" 596 categories will be enough to establish a consensus on the whole category tree.
Nominator's rationale: Most London boroughs are named after one of the districts within the territory. This creates ambiguity in category titles such such as Category:Churches in Southwark. It can reasonably read as referring to churches in the London Borough of Southwark, or to those in the much smaller district of Southwark, which is merely one of two dozen districts in the borough.
Similar ambiguities are replicated across all the other London boroughs, except perhaps those named "place1 & place2" (Barking and Dagenham, Hammersmith and Fulham and Kensington and Chelsea), which I have omitted from this nomination. There is arguably no ambiguity in those two-place names, but if there is consensus to rename the categories nominated here, I will followup with a separate nomination of the two-place boroughs to see if there is a consensus to rename them to the format chosen here.
Notes:
  1. This is a followup nomination to a CFD 2016 December 20 proposal to do this for 3 subcats of buildings in Lambeth. That proposal received a sortof consensus in principle, but there was also consensus to maintain consistency, and not make piecemeal changes. (The categories were not tagged, hence the "sortof").
  2. On the same CFD page, there was a consensus to reject a proposal to rename London pub categories from their current "Pubs in the London Borough of Xyz"
  3. The sub-categories of Category:City of Westminster are excluded from this nomination. They already use the unambiguous full title (e.g. Category:Defunct schools in the City of Westminster)
  4. The London Borough of Greenwich is officially called the Royal Borough of Greenwich, and its main category is named Category:Royal Borough of Greenwich etc. So option A above uses "Royal Borough of Greenwich" rather than "London Borough of Greenwich".
    The same applies to the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames/Category:Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames.
  5. Sorry if it is confusing to list the categories in subpages. But listing 1788 renames on this page would overwhelm it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories all tagged --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aspro, Peterkingiron, Johnbod, Oculi, Ham II, and Pppery: pinging all the participants in the inconclusive CFD 2016 Dec 20. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WikiProject London has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Support Option A. It's consistent with City of Westminster categories already using the unambiguous full title, and with all the equivalent categories on Wikimedia Commons following the pattern of c:Category:Churches in the London Borough of Southwark. Note that Kensington and Chelsea and Kingston upon Thames are also royal boroughs. Thank you for taking on such a complicated nomination. Ham II (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Ham II. I was aware that Kensington+Chelsea and Kingston upon Thames are both Royal Boroughs, and had omitted to mention Kensington+Chelsea because it is one the "place1 & place2"-named boroughs which I omitted from this nomination. But I should have treated Kingston upon Thames in the same way as Sutton, and I will now fix that. Thanks for spotting my oversight. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Duh. I had actually done Kingston properly first time, but forgot that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A as least brackety option. Tim! (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Option A. It is the proper and officially recognized toponymy. It may be more verbose but it avoids ambiguities too. Also, remember the English WP is read by those that don't have English as their first language and the other options may confuse them. As an encyclopedia we should endeavour to make categories clear, correct and proper. --Aspro (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A per C2D; the articles on the boroughs have the "London borough of" in the title. Pppery 18:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Option A:Looks better organised. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 09:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Option A – this resolves any possible ambiguity and matches the article names. Oculi (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It has just occurred to me that there is one downside with option A. It places core of the borough name (i.e. Camden/Southwark/Ealing etc) quite a long way into the title. This will make it harder to enter the category names using HotCat, because more typing will be needed before reaching the core part of the name.
    If that's not clear, consider e.g. Category:Schools in Camden. I just tried to enter it using HotCat, and had to type "Schools in Camd" (15 characters) before it auto-completed. If we rename to Category:Schools in the London Borough of Camden, then HotCat won't auto-complete until I have typed "Schools in the London Borough of C", which is 34 characters. That could get tedious. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a serious disadvantage indeed. It could be solved within option A by creating 596 category redirects. But an easier solution may be to pick alternative B instead. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC) struck after discussion below[reply]
  • Couldn't the existing category titles just be turned into category redirects rather than deleted? Then "Schools in Camden" would appear in the dropdown menu on HotCat but it would correct to "Schools in the London Borough of Camden" after being selected. Ham II (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looking at what our brothers & sisters are doing on our sister project Wikimedia Commons, one enters (say) >ealing< and “Ealing, Borough of London” appears in the drop down list. Then some geeky magic turns it into the correct format of >Category:London Borough of Ealing< or for what ever London Borough one types in. Many of these snap-happy editors on WC don't even know how to program their own cameras properly yet they seem to have over taken us on-the-inside-lane when it comes to the ease of adding categories. So I say stick to A for correctness and not blame our WP 'work-flow' for making things too inconvenient. Maybe this category issue can be brought up on the help desk, as both projects use the same underling software. Any thoughts? P.S. This is soon about to roll off the top of the page and think BrownHairedGirl has bought up something that needs more time to contemplate and discuss due to its importance for maintaining correct encyclopedic categorization. So can it be re-posted?--Aspro (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just curious, about the solution at Wikimedia Commons, isn't that the same as creating category redirects that I mentioned before? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects. Picking up on the idea of redirects, Ham II's idea of turning the current titles into redirects is a zero-work option, because when the bots move a category page, they leave a {{category redirect}} from the old title. In fact, it's a less-work option, because it's easier than deletion of the 596 redirects which will be created anyway. Does that solve the problem?
Some of the redirects could be turned into dab pages. For example, the Camden categories are ambiguous with Category:Camden, Maine, tho since it is a much smaller place (1/60th of the population of the London Borough of Camden), that may not be appropriate.
I think that Aspro is right that this discussion should be relisted to allow a consensus to form on this point. There are too many categories involved to risk having to revisit the issue. Pinging a few regular closers: @Fayenatic london, VegaDark, Feminist, and Od Mishehu: would one of you be kind enough to assess whether you think relisting is appropriate here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I suggest re-listing, don't think my vote should be included here– but give it a positive vote anyway. We should strike whilst the iron is still hot and smooth the wrinkles out.--Aspro (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting is done at the discretion of a closer, rather than being something which needs !votes. We'll see whether any of the pinged closers feel that relisting this one would be an appropriate use of their discretion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get ahead of myself, but seems as if there's consensus in favour of Option A and the only new issue is whether to turn the existing category titles into redirects, which would fix that option's "one downside". Is more discussion needed for this or could it just be treated as an added bonus to what all !voters so far have voted for? Ham II (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl, Fayenatic london, Feminist, Od Mishehu, and VegaDark: Is my suggestion in the last comment workable? Alternatively, there could be a fresh nomination, this time proposing only Option A with redirects and no deletions. Ham II (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As creating redirects appears to be less work rather than more work, I've struck my earlier comment. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A, per namesd of the articles on individual boroughs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option A per C2D and the principle of natural disambiguation. Newham and Tower Hamlets are not ambiguous but they should not be treated inconsistently with those that are. Thryduulf (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2017 (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:Ruthenian princesses[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 Category:Ruthenian princesses to Category:Kievan Rus' princesses (note: with diacritic after Rus, for consistency within Category:Kievan Rus' royalty); merge Category:Kievan Rus women to it.
Nominator's rationale: merge the parent and child category and rename them by "merging" the two names to what the categories actually contain, namely Kievan Rus princesses. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nationality" is an anachronistic term in this discussion; useful distinctions are by ethnicity (based e.g. on common language) and by polities. The ethnicity term initially was Rus' people and later moved to Ruthenian people, but the nominated categories are about princesses, hence about polities, and Kievan Rus' is the term for the federation of polities under the Rurik dynasty until 1240, which is exactly what these princesses categories are about. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match our article names of the subject. The issue is not how accurate of a name Kievan Rus is, the issue is this is the common name for the polities involved, and being princesses is the unifying and defining characteristic of those involved. Incidentally Category:Kievan Rus women like all other women by political entity/nationality categories should be a container category, only holding sub-categories and not directly containing any articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2017 (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:Serbian period in the history of the Republic of Macedonia[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: relisted at April 3. – Fayenatic London 10:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In the previous discussion (closed as no consensus) we were actually very close to a consensus to rename, since "create a new category and remove the old one" as commented in that discussion may well be interpreted as renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was part of Yugoslavia, but there is nothing against creating a subcategory for a historical region. It makes sense to do especially since we meanwhile know that an independent republic grew out of it and it may be important to understand its roots. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2017 (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:British Army appointments[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: relisted here. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Means exactly the same thing, so a complete duplicate category. I think the latter title is the better of the two (see Category:Military ranks of the British Army‎), but wouldn't object to a reverse merge if preferred. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The scope is not quite the same one is about offices to which people are appointed, the other about ranks, some specialist ones. However the distinction is a narrow one. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what you mean. I'm not suggesting appointments should be merged to ranks. They are different things. I'm suggesting two categories about appointments which differ only in the wording of their titles should be merged. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2017 (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:Musical ensembles with no original members[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 as trivia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Completely trivial. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This category contains over three dozen musical ensembles whose original members have all parted ways with the ensemble. This is by no means trivial. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - plumbs new depths of triviality. Oculi (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's like the opposite of WP:PERFCAT: bands by who isn't performing. I'd be open to a sourced list article though. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and likely a "current" category since this attribute comes and goes as groups split, reform, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I reviewed this and in my opinion, this is definitely trivial. There is no need for a category. It seems similar to WP:OCASSOC Horizonlove (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2017 (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:North Asian people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 10:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, overlaps with Category:People from Siberia. Side comment: currently the categories only contain Category:Jews and Judaism in Russia most of which is not North Asian but European instead. If it is desired to have a Jewish North Asian category, a better solution would be to create Category:Jews and Judaism in Siberia that would not include the European Russian Jews. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment note the creator of the category is blocked JarrahTree 09:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or plain delete North Asia is Siberia. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete North Asia is Asian Russia. Actually Siberia normally does not include the Russian Far East, although some uses of the term are synonymous with Asian Russia, and the Sibir Khanate was an even smaller area. The big problem is that Jews/Judaism in Russia are not currently subdivide along the Urals. It is even less clear that subdividing the category along the Urals would be useful or paying attention to defining characteristics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2017 (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:Funny-sounding words[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Funny-sounding" is entirely opinion-based and thus not appropriate for an encyclopedia. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 10 February 2017 (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/2017_February_10

Leave a Reply