Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
< May 11 May 13 >

May 12[edit]

Category:Rocky De La Fuente[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) 01:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, this category contains only two articles and two redirects. De La Fuente is a businessperson and perennial political candidate with no success thus far. User:Namiba 19:33, 12 May 2021 (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:Michele Bachmann[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) 07:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, this category contains only 4 articles (including the main article) and a redirect. Bachmann at one time looked like an up and coming politician but has been out of public life for almost a decade and there is no indication that more articles about her career in the near-future. User:Namiba 19:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The category also contains three media files. (I don't oppose deletion, but 4 articles + 3 media files = 7 items.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2021 (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:16th-century Belgian 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: merge to Category:People of the Habsburg Netherlands, since it already exists. I will place a redirect on Category:Habsburg Netherlands people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Belgium did not exist until 1830. If this approach is agreed I hope to be able to follow up with some speedy nominations of similar categories, if I can disentangle the rather complicated history of the region. Rathfelder (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, with two caveats.
  1. It is possible that after the rename maybe one or two articles should be removed from the Habsburg NL category and added to 16th-century Holy Roman Empire people, e.g. prince-bishops of Liege.
  2. Some 16th-century Dutch people (but not all) may be added to this category after this rename (but they should not be removed from the Dutch category unless that category is nominated too).
Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly. And we need to disentangle the Hapsburg Netherlands people from the Spanish Netherlands people.Rathfelder (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think so. Spain was ruled by the Habsburgs, so I can't imagine how we might disentangle that. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Habsburg Netherlands gradually grew into Spanish Netherlands due to the Eighty Years War. Just for convenience in our categories we may distinguish 16th-century people from the Habsburg Netherlands and 17th-century people from the Spanish Netherlands. Then we do not need to disentangle anything. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- However, I would want the Dutch removed from a date around 1570 (not 1579). I accept the point as to the Liegois, who probably need a separate category (rather than being rolled into HRE. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peterkingiron is right, but when it comes to biographies these things are generally not very precise. Rathfelder (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that it does not matter so much for biographies. But a cut-off as early as 1570 would be a very strange choice, that was even before the Capture of Brielle which was the first permanent success of the Dutch rebels. Even in 1579 when the Union of Utrecht was established the situation was still very fragile. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename categorization should not use national identies created centuries after a person's death to categorize them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2021 (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:Kid Icarus video 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT, Kid Icarus is almost purely a video game franchise. (Oinkers42) (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about this, as the two categories each have a different and large set of parent categories. Having the parent over 3 subcats seems OK to me.– Fayenatic London 10:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Merge per nom. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Not a big enough series to require a subcategory for games.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:17, 16 May 2021 (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:Wikipedians by ancestry[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 per policy arguments stated here and in the precedent CFD.– Fayenatic London 14:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and subcategories
Nominator's rationale This category tree is a recreation, almost entirely by one editor who has also created many other user categories that ended up at CfD or were speedy deleted per G4, of a set of categories that were originally deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/April 2008#Wikipedians by ancestry. As far as I can tell, the guidelines on what user categories are acceptable have not changed since April 2008, and the only part of the rationale of that discussion that doesn't apply today is that these are no longer [w]ithin Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality, but instead have crept into their own tree. (This nomination only includes subcategories of the form "Fooian ancestry Wikipedians" or "Wikipedians of Fooian descent", there's a bunch of other stuff in this tree, some of which doesn't belong there in the first place and others of which will be left to a separate discussion) * Pppery * it has begun... 15:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagging requested at User talk:DannyS712#CfD tagging request * Pppery * it has begun... 15:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Given that this category has 234 subcategories and over 1,000 users, it does not seem that this is a recreation tree. I believe this category contributes to collaboration. I also believe that this deletion request borders on harassment despite this user's helpful intentions. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 16:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a non sequitur. The number of categories (especially when you created most of them -- see Wikipedia:Fait accompli), and the number of users (especially when they are all added by userboxes) do not influence whether it is a recreation. And you do not explain why [you] believe this category contributes to collaboration, whereas Black Falcon clearly explained why they do not back in 2008 and you have not refuted his argument at all (and thus, by extension, not refuted mine). And this nomination is not at all harassment; I've been slowly cleaning up the user category system since August 2020, regardless of who created them. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Black Falcon clearly explained why "ancestry" of Wikipedians is not very relevant or appropriate categorization (t · c) buidhe 20:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is only relevant insofar editors want to collaborate on the (country) topic, but we already have "interested in" categories for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This appears to be a scam perpetrated by User:Danadoesedits and User:Buaidh. Rathfelder (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Fine. I'll let you folks deal with the 1000+ users who think these are legitimate Wikipedia user collaboration categories. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 15:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet another misunderstanding. The users in this category do not think these are legitimate Wikipedia user collaboration categories, because they didn't deliberately add themselves to the category in the first place, but instead added a userbox which you made that happens to populate this category. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now tagged the subcategories using AWB (since the CfD mass tagging bot is down). It may make sense to extend this nomination for a day longer than usual to account for the delay in tagging. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: isn't there a guideline that discourages creating user categories by means of scripting in userboxes? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I'm aware of. In fact, the Wikipedia:User categories guideline includes a section on how to add categories to userboxes, which strongly implies that it is encouraged. I don't see a problem with it myself, as long as the userboxes actually state the user belongs in the category, which is the case here (these are almost exclusively populated through Template:User in region variants 61 through 64, which say "This user is of Fooian ancestry", "This user is of Fooian descent", "This user is of Fooian heritage", and "an ancestor of this user was born in Foo", all of which are accurate statements of ancestry). This nomination is about the merits of the user categories themselves, not how they are populated. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and TROUT: Keep for all the cats, because you all have nothing better to do with your time? TROUT for the OP because...you have nothing better to do with your time? It was a CfD in 2008! If it was 2018, I could see your argument, but 2008? 13 years ago? Seriously? Things change. Go find an article to edit. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:40 on May 14, 2021 (UTC)
    Do you realize that you are not providing any actual argument for keeping other than personally attacking me? The guidelines for user categories have not changed meaningfully since April 2008, so this nomination is still just as valid now as it was then. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please refrain from personal attacks. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 14:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Of which of the following points are these categories in violation of Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories?
Inappropriate types of user categories:
  1. Categories that are all-inclusive
  2. Categories that are broadly or vaguely defined
  3. Categories that are overly narrow in scope
  4. Categories that are not-based
  5. Categories which group users by dislikes of any type
  6. Categories which group users on the basis of irrelevant likes
  7. Categories which group users by advocacy of a position
  8. Categories that are divisive, provocative, or otherwise disruptive
  9. Categories that are jokes/nonsense
I don't see any of these points that apply. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 22:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Of which of the following points do these category follow from Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories?
  1. Categories which group users by participation in Wikipedia
  2. Categories which group users by ability to improve the encyclopedia
  3. Categories which group users by knowledge or understanding of a topic
  4. Categories which group users by interest in a subject
I don't see any of these points that apply.

This is in neither the explicitly-listed allowed categories nor the explicitly-listed disallowed categories, so it falls to us to interpret the underlying principle of [...] a user category is appropriate if it has the capacity to facilitate coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement of the encyclopedia. You still have not made any attempt to refute the argument (originally presented at the April 2008 UCFD) that these categories do not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration, since they do not reflect any encyclopedically-relevant ability, activity, interest, knowledge, or skill. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly these are categories which group users by interest in a region of the world or their ethnic group. Users of common ancestry can collaborate on the region of their ancestry and their ethnic group.
Perhaps WikiProject Genealogy and WikiProject Ethnic groups should also have a say in this discussion. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 14:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians by interest in a region and subcategories already exist. Besides, you have provided no evidence for the claim that [u]sers of common ancestry can collaborate on the region of their ancestry and their ethnic group, whereas the April 2008 nomination, quoting an earlier discussion in 2007, did refute that argument, saying that [j]ust because someone is of a specific ancestry does not mean they can reasonably be expected to collaborate on topics relating to their ancestry. ... You can choose your interests, but you can't choose your ancestry * Pppery * it has begun... 15:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least #2 clearly applies. Being e.g. "of Finno-Ugric decent" (sic) or more widely of Fooian descent is as broad and vague as something can be. Place Clichy (talk) 07:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 07:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't delete a category simply because you don't personally like it. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 14:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ... that's not all why I (and by extension Place Clichy who agreed with my rationale) want to delete these categories. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not voting because while these categories don't really bother me in any way, and I don't think they do any harm at all to the project, I don't know if there is a defense of them that would satisfy the nominator. My comment is that if they are deleted, I think editors will recreate them, not all at once but eventually. I know that is probably not considered to be a valid factor in considering whether they should be kept or deleted but if this nomination to delete is approved, this won't be the end of these types of categories. Some editors like to identify themselves by their interests and position in society (where they live, where they went to school, etc.) and this is an extension of the desire to do that self-tagging. Deletion will prompt more red link categories popping up on Special:WantedCategories. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I don't believe all category page creators have been notified of this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I notified the user who created some of them, including the parent category, above. Most of the others were created by a user who explicitly asks not to be notified of things like this on their talk page, or Special:WantedCategories patrollers, so I elected not to notify anyone else. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User categories are explicitly not for self-tagging, but instead to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia, per Wikipedia:User categories. In short, in order to satisfy me, one needs to make some attempt to refute the argument originally raised at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/April 2008#Wikipedians by ancestry. I've instead seen a series of bare assertions of utility, borderline personal attacks, and blatant contradictions of guidelines.

    If these categories get re-created, then I will be around to tag the recreations with {{db-g4}} (I'm not bluffing here, I do actually look at all newly-created user categories and have G4-ed several of them). * Pppery * it has begun... 14:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep no persuasive rationale for deletion - allow users to categorize themselves as they like. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet another rationale for keeping that provides no argument other than flatly contradicting established guidelines. There's clear consensus that, in general, users should not be allow[ed] to categories themselves as they like, or otherwise I would not have been able to nominate dozens of user categories over the past few months and have almost all of them deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:30, 5 June 2021 (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:Blu-ray articles needing expert attention[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: in light of this discussion, I'm closing this as "keep". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Already overly specific, the tag on the sole article BD+ was removed for being unclear and likely having been resolved since its addition in 2008. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:35, 12 May 2021 (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:Color articles needing expert attention[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: in light of this discussion, I'm closing this as "keep". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contained two articles, but is now empty. The tag on Colorfulness seems to be based on an issue that the lead had in 2011, which may already have been resolved. The tag on HCL color space lacked a reason or talk parameter, but has been replaced by {{Unfocused}} based on the talk page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:23, 12 May 2021 (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:Philosophy/Science articles needing expert attention[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: in light of this discussion, I'm closing this as "keep". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Sole article was Philosophy of color, where the {{Expert needed}} tag was tag-bombed based on a misunderstanding of modern color science. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:14, 12 May 2021 (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.

1902 establishments in Lithuania[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, but WP:TROUT the nominator for bringing separate nominations for one year at a time while leaving multiple siblings untouched. It also appears unhelpful that he expresses himself unnecessarily strongly about these instances of the wider phenomenon of anachronistic categories, knowing that in some cases other similar series of pre-independence establishments categories have been kept by consensus as useful. As for another editor's suggestion to merge with Category:Lithuanian nationalism or a new sub-cat thereof, it is not clear to me whether a party advocating autonomy counts as "nationalist", so I am not implenting that as part of this close. – Fayenatic London 15:09, 14 June 2021 (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:Giant Panda (group) songs[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) 00:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one entry which is a redirect. No assistance to navigation Richhoncho (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2021 (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:Vermont Mariners[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) 00:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry and one subcategory. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:42, 12 May 2021 (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:Members of the Bridge Alliance[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) 00:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:TRIVIALCAT)
The Bridge Alliance is an industry trade association for mobile phone providers in Asia and Africa. Simple membership in an organization is rarely defining and that's the case here: neither of the articles in this category even mention this association beyond this template. The category contents are already lsitified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. -
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:World federalists[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, but only include the 19 articles identified (purge the rest). Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OPINIONCAT and WP:OCASSOC)
According to the header on the category, this is for people who favored a democratic world government or people associated with the World Federalist Movement. Maybe musical stage lyricist Oscar Hammerstein II, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, or science fiction author Isaac Asimov held that view/association but their articles make no mention of it and only a single sentence mentions the topic in the articles for physicist Albert Einstein, philosopher Bertrand Russell, and presidential candidate John B. Anderson. But about half of the articles do seem defined by this movement like Joseph E. Schwartzberg, Emery Reves, and Grenville Clark so a more narrow category seems appropriate. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2021 (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/2021_May_12

Leave a Reply