Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin
< December 3 December 5 >

December 4[edit]

Category:Media documenting survival skills[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Media documenting survival skills to Category:Survival skills media
Nominator's rationale: per convention and a little shorter. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:11, 4 December 2011 (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:Songs about bridges[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) 08:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs about bridges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information amongst other guidelines. There are 5 members to this category, of which only one is actually about a bridge, London Bridge Is Falling Down and that is open to interpretation, Ode to Billie Joe actually references a bridge, but the song is emphatically not about a bridge, the other 3 members refer to a bridge in a metaphysical way, so therefore are not about bridges in the first place. Richhoncho (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment. I note that another editor has been adding members to this category, one of which is Golden Gate Bridge (song), the text of that article does not mention what the lyrics are about, therefore could only be added because the word "bridge" appears in the title. This is NOT what the category name suggests. This proves in the specific, and in the general, too, that "Songs about bridges" is not only non-defining but misleading too. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems easy to find independent discussion of bridges in song such as this. The objections to this obvious category just seem to be a personal opinion or whim rather than being based upon such independent evidence. The nomination is therefore contrary to core policy. Warden (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Accusing me of personal opinion is fine, I guess if it wasn't my opinion that I am supported by guidelines I wouldn't have made the nomination. Here's another guideline that supports the nomination from WP:SONGS which says, Per WP:CATEGORY, a song may be categorized by a characteristic (such as producer, composer, record-label, etc.) only if it is a defining characteristic of the song (i.e. reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define the song as having the characteristic—not just mention it in passing or for completeness). In addition to this there is, taking Ode to Billy Joe as an example, if this category stands, then the song, could be in addition, to Category:Songs about suicide and the present nomination, be classified as Songs about Mississippi, Songs about Rivers, Songs about news, Songs about apple pie, Songs about preachers, Songs about Tupelo and Songs about paternal deaths. Hence why categories should be significant or defining and WP:OVERCAT also applies. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – none of the songs included are 'about a bridge'. Some mention a bridge, others have a bridge metaphor, yet others include bridge in the title. (Golden Gate Bridge (song) might be about a bridge, but the article makes no such claim.) Occuli (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete once again, an "about" category. Is there a genre "bridge songs", no one has shown that there is, so what's included is wholly arbitrary: what's a song about, how much about it must the song be, and what reliable sources tell us that its at least that much? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2011 (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:Comics navbox purge[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Comics navbox purge to Category:Comics navigational boxes purge
Nominator's rationale: Per many other "navigational boxes" changes. This, however, is a tracking category for a particular project, and may not be subject to the same requirements. If folks object, this can stay the way it is.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a bit of a "meh" with the biggest issue being that it will require code digging rather than a straight 'bot run if changed. The category is maintained by parser function in the navboxes proper or a sub-page. - J Greb (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2011 (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:Wikipedian Farmers[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 and rename to Category:Wikipedian farmers. Jafeluv (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian Farmers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I doubt that this category is helpful in collaberation for creating an encyclopedia, except possibly as original research. If kept, should be renamed to Category:Wikipedian farmers. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:25, 4 December 2011 (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:California's Great America rides[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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:California's Great America rides to Category:California's Great America
Nominator's rationale: I feel this is overcategorisation. No other amusement park category has this distinction nor do they needs. Therefore I propose this category be merged up into its parent category California's Great America. Themeparkgc  Talk  07:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seems reasonable. Re the parent category Category:California's Great America (and others?) the category as well as the lead article should be also be in the appropriate country/state category as well as the "by company" category; here Category:Amusement parks in California. Hugo999 (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Category:Amusement parks in California to the parent category and have done a quick run through similar categories for missing categorisation of the same type. It should be better now. Themeparkgc  Talk  01:55, 7 December 2011 (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:Amusement rides with single rider lines[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) 08:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Amusement rides with single rider lines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not defining for the rides. This feature is more WP:NOTTRAVEL as a feature that controls access time to rides for single riders. Note that this is a version of Category:Amusement rides with lines for disabled individuals since that performs the same function but on a more limited basis. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as the creator of this category I feel that it is a relevant characteristic of the amusement rides it categorises. Also, I don't quite see the relevance of the nominator linking to Wikipedia:WikiProject Travel and Tourism - I assume this must be a bad shortcut link. Themeparkgc  Talk  08:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I left off the NOT, WP:NOTTRAVEL. In any case, I fail to see how being relevant as a characterization of the ride makes it defining. How is this encyclopedic as opposed to something that belongs in a travel guide to aid a park attendee to navigate easier or more quickly in a park? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOTGUIDE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2011 (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:Facilities of the United States Air Force slated for closure[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) 08:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Facilities of the United States Air Force slated for closure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unneeded category that falls under the "temporal seperation categories" thing we're discouraging, and that is also one things would be "in flux" passing through. In a nutshell: unneeded and unnecessary OC. The Bushranger One ping only 06:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete -- This is effectively another variety of the present/former distinction, which we do not like. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2011 (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:LSD[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. If anyone cares to create a disambiguation or redirect page at the old name, feel free to do it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:LSD to Category:Lysergic_acid_diethylamide
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I would say keeping a category redirect would be fine. Or it could be a disambiguation category if there are other categories that could be so abbreviated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The abbreviation is ambiguous, as it could also refer to the former sterling currency £sd. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2011 (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:College football team awards and honors[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:College football awards. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:College football team awards and honors to Category:Team-specific college football awards and honors
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is intended to contain college football awards that are awarded to members of a specific college football team/program; not to be confused with conference or national awards that are awarded to teams/programs at large. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2011 (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:Former RAAF Bases[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 merge; rename to spell out acronym and fix capitalisations. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Former RAAF Bases to Category:Royal Australian Air Force bases
Nominator's rationale: Another "former" category that should be merged into its parent, as "present"/"former" aren't categorisations we go for. The Bushranger One ping only 01:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: (Perhaps rename) We do have a number of "defunct" categories (e.g. from one article: Category:Defunct speedway venues Category:Defunct sports venues in Australia Category:Demolished buildings and structures in Australia). Mark Hurd (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure about "demolished", but the "defunct"/"former"/etc. is something we're trying to phase out. That takes time, so there will be other stuff to compare to as it happens. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough. Can you point to the policy (or other discussion) describing this? Depending upon how this is enacted, it may reduce the useful functionality of the encyclopaedia, even if it is more correct (i.e. I can see the idea of "once a RAAF Base, always a RAAF Base", but how then do you distinguish active bases from inactive ones? -- presumably only in lists and articles, and yet it seems to be a perfectly acceptable use of cats to me... ). Mark Hurd (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure if there's a specific note or specific discussion that establishes this - it's consensus established over the course of many CfD discussions. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, contra the nom I don't think it's correct that we are getting rid of all such categories or that we should be. That would simply make the category system far less useful in many instances, such as here where the bases are "former" because they don't exist. One can imagine the mess Category:European countries would be if Category:Former countries in Europe were merged back into it. I can't think of a possible benefit to doing that, or getting rid of similarly useful categories like Category:Former buildings and structures of New York City. That these things no longer exist is rather a defining feature of them. postdlf (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah -- I'm unstriking my Keep on your suggestion this not consensus, and you've pointed to the sorts of examples I was thinking of when suggesting this would "reduce the useful functionality of the encyclopaedia". (It is however a current issue that we can't search on categories inclusive of sub-categories, but that must change at some time in the future.). Mark Hurd (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2011 (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/2011_December_4

Leave a Reply