Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
< February 10 February 12 >

February 11[edit]

Category:University of Exeter Halls of Residence[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) 07:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category only containing the eponymous article Aloneinthewild (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no need to merge, since the one article is already in the potential target. Even if the article were split, the article on each hall could conveniently be in the University category. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:33, 12 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:Voting systems[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: Procedural close as premature. Much better to open a new CFD to reflect the outcome of the Requested Moves discussion, whenever that happens.
This discussion was opened only minutes after the linked Requested Moves discussion was opened. However, the RM will remain open for at least 7 days, and possibly a lot longer (the discussion may be relisted, and even if it isn't, the backlog of RM discussions can be big). So by the time thge rM is closed, this discussion will be stale. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See the discussion at the category's main article, Talk:Voting system#Requested move 11 February 2017 Homunq (࿓) 23:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, whatever the outcome of the RM, the category may just follow the article name. This discussion should't be closed before the RM is closed. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:43, 12 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:Lego 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: merge to Category:Lego since neither of the discussants was giving a rationale why the two articles and the subcat should disappear from the tree of Category:Lego. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category includes only two pages, which are seemingly unrelated apart being about a Lego topic. I guess it was created to unify articles about Lego board games, however, none of the games in the series has an independent article rendering the category useless. Lordtobi (✉) 22:06, 11 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.

Hotel buildings on the NRHP[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. The supporters have successfully answered most of the points raised by the opposers. I don't accept the suggestion that "hotel buildings" is ambiguous. – Fayenatic London 12:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: per convention of Category:Hotel buildings on the National Register of Historic Places by state. This was a contested speedy (see discussion below), but as far as I can see the convention is clear. If someone wants to do a group nomination to rename Category:Hotel buildings on the National Register of Historic Places by state and all its subcats, then go ahead ... but in the meantime, there is no point in retaining these two as exceptions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion at WP:CFD/S
A lot (most?) of the NRHP listings on the mainland are former small inns that are no longer active hotels so that may be where the "buildings" naming came from. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for Now 48 of the 50 subcategories in Category:Hotel buildings on the National Register of Historic Places by state have the "hotel buildings" format. We can have a broader discussion about whether that should or should not match the "hotels" format used almost everywhere else in Wikipedia but, right now, these two are the odd ones out. RevelationDirect (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikiproject I tagged WikiProject National Register of Historic Places to get more input. RevelationDirect (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • remame I created these category names in error, not following the pattern; they should be fixed. Hmains (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming these, oppose use of the word "buildings", and use "Hotels on the National Register of Historic Places" for all the other 48 or so categories, which should be fixed. Per Nyttend's comment in the wp:CFD/S discussion. The topics are hotels, which are both organizations/businesses and are buildings. Yes, the NRHP-listed ones are buildings that might not be operating as hotel businesses currently, but notability is not temporary and their having been hotels never changes. It is awkward especially when the place is still being operated as a hotel, and yet the category is showing it as a "hotel building". Consider, wouldn't it be weird to change all categories for all hotel articles to "hotel building", as if there are going to be separate articles about the hotel vs. the hotel building. This is like similarly awkward article titles and perhaps categorizing I have seen about churches, where some editors want to call something a church building when there is obviously always going to be just one article about the church as a congregation/organization which has a history itself as well as covering the architecture of its current or former building(s). I don't follow CFD and came here after seeing notice at WikiProject NRHP. --doncram 19:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Doncram: It seems to me that you entirely miss the purpose of this category.
      This is not a category of hotels. It is a category of hotel buildings.
      This is a category of historic buildings, not historic businesses, so it is irrelevant whether or not the businesses are still operating ... because it is not the business which is being categorised here.
      Sure, in many cases the wikipedia article on the building also covers the business, but that shouldn't blind us to actual purpose of this category, which is that the building is of historic significance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nonsense. I did not "entirely miss" anything. If the category is named "hotel buildings" then yes the category is about hotel buildings, duh. However the category should be named "hotels" and it should be about hotels. That is what this CFD is about, what it should be named, right? Note that none (i think, i am not checking, except that I note Volcano House is an article clearly about the hotel business as well as a building) of the NRHP-listed places are named "X Hotel building", they are named "X Hotel". Churches, and hotels, and other things are of historic importance and get to be listed on the historic registries often without their being in any architecturally significant building. What is often important is the organization, the business, the persons and events, not the building per se. A building can be an artifact of the hotel, and it is the hotel that is important and is noted by the historic registry listing. It is not as simple as me entirely missing something. I think it is thou who entirely misseth stuff.  :) --doncram 02:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Doncram: you are still missing the point. If the hotel business moved to a brand-new premises at the far end of town, would the building be de-listed, or the "historic" designation transferred to the newbuild?
          No, of course not. So this is a category of buildings. They may be significant for their architecture or for the history of their usage, but either way it the building is the attribute which is categorised, not the business. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per User:Doncram. Hotel building isn't really anything, we have hotels and we have former hotels and that's basically it. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lack of an en.wp building on a topic is no evidence of its non-notability. If anyone wanted to write an article on hotel buildings, there are plenty of scholarly sources available at JSTOR and Google Books. I am sure that the specialist architectural and commercial journals would provide many more sources than even the large set found in those simple searches. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Part of the rationale for the "hotel buildings" wording is because some NRHP listings are for individual buildings that were part of a larger hotel complex, e.g. rental cabins. These listings themselves were not hotels, just hotel buildings. Also this way seems to me clearer that the category is for all properties that offered overnight accommodations, as there are many NRHP-listed inns, taverns, lodges, and resorts which should be grouped together but aren't, strictly speaking, hotels. -McGhiever (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with no prejusice against renaming the entire Category:Hotel buildings on the National Register of Historic Places tree to "Hotels". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support National Register of Historic Places is for building and not for businesses. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, and nominate other "Hotel buildings..." categories for renaming to "Hotels..." categories. The top of the category tree is Category:Hotels, not Category:Hotel buildings (the latter doesn't even exist), and "Hotel buildings" isn't even normal English. If the idea of "this is about the building, not the establishment" were true, it would be necessary to have separate trees for hotel companies and hotel buildings. "Hotel buildings on the NR in KY", having a separate scope from "Hotels in KY", would not be allowed to be a subcategory if we maintained even a basic consistency, and that would be no less absurd than this proposal. Remember that any decent article about a hotel building will also cover the hotel company (at least for the time the company used the building), and since we categorise based upon the subject and not the article itself, we know that a place that was once a hotel in HI or KY (whether or not it is now) would belong in the Hotels in HI or KY tree and should be in categories that are named accordingly. And finally, if an article covers a subject that isn't strictly speaking, a hotel, the article shouldn't be in this category tree. Nyttend (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nyttend: the clue is in the name. The National Register of Historic Places is a register of places. A company is not a place; it is legal entity which may exist simultaneously in many different places.
      Wikipedia categorises articles by an attribute of the article, and in each case here the attribute which is being categorised in these categories is the building.
      Per my reply above to Doncram, there's a simple test here: If the hotel business moved to a brand-new premises at the far end of town, would the building be de-listed, or the "historic" designation transferred to the newbuild? No, of course not. So this is a category of buildings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those who argue that this is not a category of buildings should read the NHRP's National Register Criteria for Evaluation. The opening para reads, in full:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and.
Note that businesses are not part of the list. The NRHP's scope is districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects ... and a company is none of those 5 types of entity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nyttend, far from being irrelevant it is absolutely central. The articles may indeed cover many things, but this category is not trying to cover all those other things. The general category is Category:Hotels in Hawaii, but the NRHP categ is a sub-grouping of hotels which have one particular attribute: that their buildings are historic. This is a common occurrence throughout the category system: that a sub-category will group a sub-set of the broader category by a particular attribute.
    The houses comparator misses the point, because the term "house" refers to a building not to usage. A house may be used for many purposes, but it remains a house.
    Finally, we already have a category tree for hotel buildings: Category:Hotel buildings on the National Register of Historic Places. This is the bottom rung of that tree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 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:Discoveries by institution[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:Astronomical discoveries by institution. In reply to the last objection below, category names should be unambiguous on their own, without having to refer to their position within a hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 12:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per the prior discussion: The category seems to be only about astronomical discoveries. At first I would have suggested to rename it to "Astronomical discoveries by organization" but looking at the category's entries that wouldn't be a good choice. Instead all (or most) of the category's subcategories should be deleted and moved to this broad category. It should contain all organizations that search for astronomical objects along with other things such as tools and methods used for this. Alternatively it could also be moved to "Organizations that search for astronomical objects" or alike. Or maybe someone else has a better idea? (Note that the subcategories contain mostly redirects and that there are almost half a million discovered minor planets.) Pinging the participants @BrownHairedGirl, Steve Quinn, RevelationDirect, Peterkingiron, and Marcocapelle: Fixuture (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specifying "astronomical" in the category name is a very good idea, but otherwise I'm confused by the rationale. Turning it to an organisations category would completely change the scope, we may then just as well delete the category and start from scratch. Besides the proposal (if I understand the rationale correctly) will require nominating all subcategories as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Well that was just a sidenote for an alternative approach - I'd prefer to have it moved to "Search for astronomical objects", not "Organizations that search for astronomical objects". And yes, all the subcategories are nominated as well and are up for deletion. --Fixuture (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Well, is there a script that adds the tag to all subcategories? If not I won't code it aorn and hence won't add the tags. But of course someone else could. --Fixuture (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can make requests here. You need to explain exactly what you want to have done because the people who are helping you are not familiair with CfD. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would find such a tool incredibly helpful for other nominations too. RevelationDirect (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt. Rename for Now I would favor Category:Astronomical discoveries by institution to make it clearer what types of discoveries we're talking about. The proposed "search" term could include all kinds of efforts though. (Note that I favor deleting this whole category tree though because objects in space are not defined by who discovers them, so take my input on the rename with a grain of salt.) RevelationDirect (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: How to avoid the problem of the countless potential and existing entries then? Have you looked at some of the subcategories. The category as of right now doesn't make much sense. And yes, the "search" term would expand the scope to include all kinds of efforts. --Fixuture (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, keep in mind that I would favor wholesale deletion because they're nondefining but don't feel able to vote that way because the subcategories aren't tagged. I'm not intentionally picking a rename that would harm this group but maybe my eventual deletion perspective skews my rename proposal. RevelationDirect (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is constant repetition that the discoverer is not defining but from details such as this it is clear that to astronomers the discovery and date thereof are the 2 most defining characteristics of such a body (comparable say to the birth and nationality of a person). Have astronomers been alerted to this cfd? Oculi (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we actually nominate all the subcats for deletion, that would be wise. The only thing on the table right now is a slight rename to the container category. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Astronomical discoveries by institution per the previous nom. I am not in favour of deleting the subcats as it seems a splendid way of categorising redirects to items in many lists. (Eg 8721 AMOS is categorised succinctly as a Main-belt asteroid discovered in 1996 by AMOS and I am supposing that it has no other known characteristics.) Oculi (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: But that ignores the problem of there being around half a million known minor planets. Do you want to create redirects for each of them? --Fixuture (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do they all have individual names? Picking Category:Discoveries by the Jarnac Observatory at random, it is not tagged and thus cannot be deleted; and I don't see anything wrong with it. The redirects are not all to the same list so it serves a purpose. Those of the 1/2 million not on a list will not have redirects. There are 200 million or so known Americans but this does not rule out Category:American people. Oculi (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We agree on procedure: the subcategories need to be tagged before they can be considered for deletion. RevelationDirect (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete who discovered some astronomical object is trivial with respect to the object - akin to places visited by Pope John Paul II, or George Washington slept here, or places in Ptolemy's Geography, people of Herodotus' Histories, and like categorization of notable things by those who wrote about them (first)? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Carlossuarez46: I am not so sure that is true. Places on this planet have many types of human interaction, but the human relationship with astronomical bodies is very different. We can't visit them, so our relationship with them depends almost entirely in scientific writing. In that way they have some similarity to fictional characters, who are defined by their creators, and categorised as such.
      Your analogies don't seem to me to work, because JPII, Ptolemy and Washington were not the revealing agents without whom we would remain unaware of those places. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @BrownHairedGirl: we wouldn't have remained in ignorance for long - whoever was first at these massive sky surveys is purely a matter of allocating sectors of the sky among various entities and which uses which resources. A distant galaxy isn't defined by whether group1 or group2 saw it first, presumably it's defined by where it's located, what it's made of, and other claims to notability. It may well be the case that group1 found it, but only group2's publication garnered the necessary coverage to meet WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Carlossuarez46: that collaborative division of territory may be the case now, but I'm not sure how long it has been so. When 9 Metis was discovered by Andrew Graham at Markree Observatory in 1848, my understanding is that he was working pretty much independently rather than in an allocated sector.
          That leads me to wonder whether the identity of the discoverer might defining only for astronomy of a particular area. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. 1) Category:Search for astronomical objects needlessly expands the scope of the target cat, and it doesn't match related categories.
2) Is this a solution in search of a problem? Is some other category in need of disambiguation because of the Category:Discoveries by institution?
3) Renaming to Category:Discoveries by astronomical institution or Category:Astronomical discoveries by institution is a reasonable alternative. I prefer the former, to maintain continuity with at least 3 related categories: Category:Discoveries by astronomer, Category:Discoverers of astronomical objects, Category:Discoveries by institution.
4) I don't see why child cats would require the 'Astronomical' prefix, since that is intuitive given the "Observatory", "Telescope", "Survey", survey acronym, etc. at the end of each child cat name, and the "main article" ({{Cat main}}) line at the top of each subcat.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to Category:Astronomical discoveries by institution. It makes more sense than "Search for astronomical objects". — Huntster (t @ c) 22:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to Category:Astronomical discoveries by institution. Note that we have Category:Astronomical surveys, which is different from this category, but "Search for astronomical objects" would heavily overlap with it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Voting should not simply be a pastime. Changes in this category-tree need to be approached from a top-down, and not from a bottom-up perspective. "Discoveries by institution" and "Discoveries by astronomer" are both complementary subcats of parent Category:Astronomical objects. Why would you want to add "Astronomical" – a word, that the parent category already contains – to only one of these two sibling-subcats? This is detrimental and very unconsidered, because you cannot just pick one category out of context. Voting should not simply be a pastime... Rfassbind – talk 01:38, 31 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:Ruthenian women[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 22:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, duplicate of Category:Kievan Rus women. The only content, the subcategory Category:Ruthenian princesses, is already in Category:Kievan Rus women as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:25, 11 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:Rus'[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. Although there has not been much participation here, the category talk page is already tagged with several relevant projects, which should therefore have been notified. The current name is ambiguous, and the proposed new name seems broad enough to cover all the current contents. – Fayenatic London 10:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename for more clarity on the scope. Note that Rus' is a disambiguation page that redirects, among others, to Rus' people. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:47, 11 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:Fictional healthcare occupations[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 unopposed. Due to the lack of participation here, this is a WP:soft delete. – Fayenatic London 10:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, neither of the two subcategories is really about occupations. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 11 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:Norwegian 2. Divisjon players[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 11:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Useless category, a non-professional tier. Geschichte (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
I've taken the liberty to add the 3. Division category to this nomination because it wouldn't make sense to delete the 2. Division and keep the 3. Division. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 08:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete playing at this level is not enough to gain notability, so we will have too few articles to make it worth categorizing by. Categories are not meant to cover every detail in an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 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.

Sports in the United States by state and year[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: Option B. Timrollpickering 10:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming 237 sub-categories of Category:Sports in the United States by state and year:
Nominator's rationale: The current "YYYY sports in FooState" format implies that the category is about which sport was invented in YYYY. There must be a concise form of words which avoids that.
This a followup to CFD 2017 January 11#Category:1997_sports_in_Arizona, where only one category was nominated. There seemed to be agreement there that the category name was flawed, but that it would be wrong to rename only one category out of a wider set.
Option B is the format proposed at that CFD. Option A is slightly a more concise format, though it is less grammatically correct. Grammar purists would probably prefer that option A should use an adjectival form of the state name, but as far as I can see no other US State categories use demonyms.
I'd be happy with either option. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging the participants in the January 11 CFD: @HandsomeFella, Carlossuarez46, Marcocapelle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories all tagged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and neutral between A and B, per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support Option A or the original titles. IMO, there's too many "in"s in Option B. FallingGravity 08:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support B. It's no more [State] sports than it's [Year] sports. What happened in sports in California in 1997 is no more 1997 sports than it is California sports. There's a difference from for instance :Category:2017 in Californian politics, if such a category would exist (it doesn't), because what occurs in California, occurs there, and nowhere else (similar events elsewhere would be categorized in :Category:2017 in Fooian politics). I think part (or maybe all) of the problem lies in that it is "sports" in American English, while it is "sport" in British English. In the former case, that makes it look like a set category, which it isn't. And frankly, too many "in"s is a weak argument. (Btw, @BrownHairedGirl: thanks for the amount of work you've put in. I should've done that a long time ago.) HandsomeFella (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support B the sports are not particular to a given state, they just happen in that state, so both the year and the state are modified by in. It might be different if we had sports leagues that operated just in one state, but most of the leagues and sports are multi-state with the events connected with a specific state. Most articles are by a specific team which was based in the state, but all these teams were playing in either the NCAA or professional sports leagues, so the sport involved is not a California sport, it is a sport in California, and in a specific year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B. Better solution is 2017 in sports in California. 194.50.51.252 (talk) 10:35, 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:Moveable holidays (Easter date based)[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 11:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The previous discussion having died for lack of interest, I'm going to try again as suggested. I have left out the word "Moveable" because it's implied: if they were fixed, they wouldn't be based on Easter.Mangoe (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
previous discussion here. Mangoe (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The word "moveable" is indeed superfluous.
    Looks like previous nomination stalled because because the set of 4 categories turned out to be more diverse than it first appeared. Hopefully this single-category discussion will be more straightforward. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think "Easter-related movable holidays" might be better, but Perfect is the enemy of good; the proposal is better than the current name, and I don't want to see this nomination die for lack of interest. Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they aren't merely Easter-related, or else Passover would be in the list. They are specifically derived by adding or subtracting some fixed period of time from the date of Easter. Mangoe (talk) 11:03, 22 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_11

Leave a Reply