Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
< September 22 September 24 >

September 23[edit]

C2E[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: speedily deleted. – Fayenatic London 07:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Call for speedy deletion, creator requests deletion, the "French" at the start is superfluous. PatGallacher (talk) 23:58, 23 September 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:American bi-monthly magazines[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: American topics use American English, and "bi-monthly" is not a word in US English. Per Merriam-Webster, the word is "bimonthly", spelled solid, and "bi-monthly" is not even a secondary spelling. It simply isn't spelled that way in English, like "colour". We wouldn't have a category called "American colour magazines". Tenebrae (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about British spelling. I do know that "bi-monthly" is not a word according to U.S. dictionaries. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:04, 9 October 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 midwifes[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Spelling correction. Opposed speedy nomination. – Fayenatic London 20:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy nomination
* Category:Fictional midwifes to Category:Fictional midwives – C2A, spelling, and C2C within Category:Midwives. – Fayenatic London 14:02, 16 September 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:American bimonthly magazines[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: speedy close. See replacement nomination above. – Fayenatic London 07:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Propose deleting page I created. While US spelling is "bimonthly" rather than "bi-monthly", manually changing the category name at every magazine in this category is time-prohibitive. I restored the original category name/page, "American bi-monthly magazines".--Tenebrae (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tenebrae: you had moved and tagged the old page, so the process you initiated here would have deleted the page history, and unlinked it from Wikidata. I have moved it back under WP:C2E. Why don't you use the cfd process and nominate the category for renaming to the American spelling? If agreed, the heavy lifting will then be done by a bot. – Fayenatic London 20:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oy. Sorry. My fault. It is a complicated process.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:42, 23 September 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:Demons in the Apocrypha[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The contents are mostly from the Book of Enoch, and none are from New Testament apocrypha. – Fayenatic London 20:14, 23 September 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:Darts non-player personalities[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. See similar nomination, as that rationale applies. Specific diffusion, as noted below, is always an option. ℯxplicit 05:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:OCMISC, this is typically a category containing "all others". Marcocapelle (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: It isn't going to be helpful to readers to imply that the main content of Category:Darts people are the people listed there, rather than the players. If anything, we should be doing what this category structure and a few others like it are doing, across other sports, in the cases where we don't yet have quite enough articles for more specific non-player categories (referees, commentators, league executives, yadda yadda). We could do that subtopical category split right now, but it would result in rather thinly populated subcats (other than players) under the people one. This isn't really quite OCMISC, but a specific distinction between player and non-player roles, which is sensible in a sport context. If you're certain it is an OCMISC case, then consider it an IAR and common sense exception.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a biography is in a 'higher' category it simply means that it is a more vague connection than if a biography is in a 'lower' category. It surely does not imply that biographies in the higher category are the main content. I don't think that this is different in sports than it is in any other field that Wikipedia covers. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is going to proceed, at least a couple of more specific subcats should be made for the people presently in this category, rather than dumping them all willy-nilly into the parent cat. (This is what was done with the old Category:Cue sports non-player personalities, with Category:Cue sports people now being well subdivided occupationally). Still, I don't think you're getting my main point. There's a rationale to specifically label these as non-players within the sport (either directly as such or by giving them more specific occupational subcats., e.g. for referees, etc.). That is lost if it's flat-out upmerged. No one knows there's a specific subcat for players unless they go look. It is different in sports, because the default presumption of the average reader is that someone notable for a sport is going to be one of its players. Regardless, there's a side thing to fix: the television personalities parent category of this cat. isn't actually accurate for all of them. One of the national subcats. of TV personalities should be put directly on the articles (for those who are actually TV personalities, which some of them probably are not, being refs or league people or whatever).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  06:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Remove Container Tag From Parent This just serves to empty the parent category which is not a container category and doesn't aid navigation. No objection to renaming this to one or more categories that better explains what these people do. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I have no objection per se to creating specific subcats, e.g. for referees, presenters, and other roles; however, there is no need for Category:Darts people to be purely a container category. Players can already be distinguished from non-players by virtue of the former being moved to Category:Darts players. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:06, 9 October 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:People from Etowah, Tennessee[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one-county community with just 3 entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now Until if/when it gets up to 5 or so articles. In the mean time it's not aiding navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it now has five articles.--TM 19:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You hit my magic number. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:43, 1 October 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:Horse racing venues in Hempstead, New York[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:Sports venues in Hempstead, New York as well. No articles and only one category. TM 13:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual upmerge -- Few cities will have more than a couple of racetracks. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:51, 24 September 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:Horse racing venues in New Orleans[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:Sports venues in New Orleans as well. Contains only redirects and a single category. TM 13:41, 23 September 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.

Redate/rename all subcategories and sub-subcategories that contain a date range per MOS:DATERANGE[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. Apparently User:PBS has already taken care of the implementation of their own proposal, which is not how we settle discussions normally (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename/redate date ranges from ccyy–yy to ccyy–ccyy per MOS:DATERANGE. I have put in a bot request to do this with more details see Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 75#Change the name of sub catogories of Members of the Parliament of England and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NihlusBOT-- PBS (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DONEcheckY See Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 75#Change the name of sub catogories of Members of the Parliament of England -- PBS (talk) 08:00, 26 September 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:The Chain Gang of 1974[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) 08:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article, subcats. are interlinked. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per previous discussion from June–August 2017. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 09:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging @Oculi and Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: as participants in the previous discussion.
  • Delete. The navigation template Template:The Chain Gang of 1974 connects the main article, the songs and albums categories, i.e. all the members of this category except Category:The Chain Gang of 1974 album covers. – Fayenatic London 15:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As mentioned in the earlier discussion, {{The Chain Gang of 1974}} is a navbox template used on the articles themselves, while the categories are for categorical navigation. The two are separate worlds; there needs to be adequate navigation in both. One searching through via categories shouldn't be left with a dead end while users of navboxes get to go further. The two should have equal capability. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 17:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK to the last two sentences, but there are no dead ends. ALL the sub-categories link sufficiently to each other. The top category is not needed. – Fayenatic London 20:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reasons given in the previous (and very recent) discussion – the existence of navbox links is a novel but unconvincing argument against categories. Oculi (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary, categories exist primarily to aid navigation between related topics. Where the contents are already linked, there is no need for s category, and this has been a longstanding rationale at CfD for deletions. – Fayenatic London 07:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless there are a variety of topics from which to navigate for a musical act, there is simply no need for an eponymous category as described in WP:OCEPON. There is long-standing precedent that simply songs and albums subcategories are not enough to justify the eponymous category. A category of image files (of album covers that appear in the respective album articles no less) doesn't change that. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. Categories, lists and navboxes all contribute to navigation, but all three are not appropriate for all situations. In this case, there are not enough "directly related articles or subcategories" to warrant an eponymous category. Interlinking between the subcategories, plus the navbox, facilitate navigation quite well on their own. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:12, 9 October 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:Kidnapping in Malaysia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to delete. The final discussion of the value of this added layer of categorization pertains to Category:Kidnapping by country more generally, and a wider discussion may be appropriate. At this time, however, there appears to be no compelling reason to delete this category alone out of the 77 in the parent category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Identical to Category:Kidnappings in Malaysia Paris1127 (talk) 05:52, 23 September 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:Anime featured in the Super Robot Wars series[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is this category encyclopedic? It seems awfully fancrufty to me - and of little use to people, since it doesn't even say what specific games the anime appear in. It also fails WP:NONDEF. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:49, 23 September 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:Avril Lavigne products[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not needed for three articles and there is no Category:Products by person scheme. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:10, 23 September 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:Anime based on manga[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) 07:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category. Category:Anime series based on manga serves the exact same purpose. ChamithN (talk) 01:50, 23 September 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:Horse racing venues in Lexington, Kentucky[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, dual upmerge to Category:Sports venues in Lexington, Kentucky as well. TM 01:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual upmerge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual upmerge -- Few cities will have more than a couple of racetracks. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual Upmerge small with little chance for growth. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:34, 25 September 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_September_23

Leave a Reply