Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
< July 13 July 15 >

July 14[edit]

Category:Film incomplete lists[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) 05:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both are hidden categories, and there is no intended difference in meaning or purpose. {{Incomplete list}} only requires the unlabelled parameter |film for the target category, but if the parameter is instead labelled |type=film, then it populates the first category instead. There seem to be no other instances of "type=" being used in this template, so I propose to remove that part of the template. (For template editors: the "TMCDA" line at the end can be removed, and "type" parameter merged with the unnamed first parameter the "type" parameter can be removed from the "TMCDA" line at the end, and merged with the unnamed first parameter. There is now a working version with the required changes at Template:Incomplete list/sandbox.) – Fayenatic London 20:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 21:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom; I've been trying to wrap my head around these categories for ages. XD Her Pegship (?) 06:01, 15 July 2022 (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:1500 V DC multiple units[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Split, i.e. do not merge but keep the new Japan sub-category. – Fayenatic London 20:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'd like to preface this discussion with the fact that I don't want these categories to be split, but whatever the consensus ends up being, I will respect it.

In April, QuarioQuario54321 proposed that these two categories be split at Category talk:1500 V DC multiple units with the following rationale:

So many trains and we need a subcategory. Maybe Japanese units in their own list since they make up the majority?

They did not gain consensus before eventually beginning splitting them off in early July - almost three months later. I'm mainly listing this here (and will be linking this discussion at WT:TRAINS and WT:TIJ) because I feel that a recategorization on such a scale (there are over 300 articles within these two categories, mind you) requires consensus and can't simply be WP:BOLDly done. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as lister. I'm not even sure if now is the time or if this is the appropriate way to segregate Japanese 1500V units from those from other countries; there are significantly fewer that aren't from Japan than from Japan, and I feel that it'd be far more feasible to split off those from other countries first. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Splitting the smaller countries off first would make it look more awkward that we aren't doing it to the biggest one. What other way would we even split them? I've already split off the categories for Kinki Sharyo and Nippon Sharyo Rolling stock into multiple units and other. Nippon Sharyo already had a category for locomotives anyway. QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment: in fact nominator proposes to merge back Category:1500 V DC multiple units of Japan, I will tag this category too because this category is really what the discussion is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments. I do not understand nominator's reasoning. If there are significantly fewer that aren't from Japan than from Japan, then obviously Japan is the first country to split off. By the way, I do not have an opinion on whether or not we should have this kind of intersections at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the vast majority of the trains within said category to be Japanese trains. To the extent I cannot tell what country is in second. QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, but there are also non-Japanese. The only thing that needs to happen (if the Japanese category is kept) is to populate it further. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'm doing that QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are so many entries in a category from one country that they are overwhelming the entries from other countries I don't understand why we would not split the items from that country into their own subcategory? In other words, I support the subcategory existing but I can't work out whether this is supporting or opposing the nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2022 (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:Villages in New York (state)[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) 05:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While the specificifity of (state) is often relevant to avoid confusion between city and state of New York, there are no villages in New York City, because it's a city. ~TPW 17:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I believe it is Wikipedia policy that a category tree name has to be carried down to ALL of its subcategories regardless of whether one of the more precise subcategories makes it unnecessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- How do we determine which places are villages and which are towns or cities? For that reasons, the categories are all at Populated places in foo. In this particular case the disambiguator (state) might appear unnecessary, but does not New York City have a Greenwich village? Peterkingiron (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Each US state charters municipalities which gives the legal status/term for that state. Greenwich Village used to be a village before it was added to NYC. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2022 (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:CGI characters[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) Qwerfjkltalk 21:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While a character being animated can perhaps be defining, I have no idea how a character specifically being computer animated is defining for that character. Especially given the existence of stuff like CGI anime where the goal is to mimic traditional animation as much as possible. I believe this category should be merged into nonexistence, with Category:Video game characters being outright removed. (Video game characters are NOT necessarily CGI). Category:Disney CGI characters should likewise be merged into Category:Disney animated characters and so on. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge In common usage, this refers to 3D computer animation, but 2D animation is increasingly computerized as well, using such programs as OpenToonz. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:18, 14 July 2022 (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:Animated characters in film[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 7#Category:Animated characters in film

Category:Austrian ceramicists[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 by renaming the older page over the new target page. – Fayenatic London 20:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the discussion below. These two categories are identical. Given that other mainland Europe categories seem to be at ceramist, it's the more likely target, despite it still sounding wrong :) Grutness...wha? 04:50, 14 July 2022 (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.

Ceramists[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 20:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Local usage in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand - possible in other Commonwealth countries too, I'm not sure (I've checked and added a few others where "ceramicist" is the norm). As an arts reviewer I was surprised to see the term "ceramist", which looked like a typo, is actually used in some countries! Oddly, there doesn't seem to be a separate English women category... Grutness...wha? 04:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - "ceramicist" is the norm in the UK and probably in much of the Commonwealth. Oculi (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2022 (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/2022_July_14

Leave a Reply