Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin
< July 2 July 4 >

July 3[edit]

Category:Golden Age of Porn actors[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) 01:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a triple intersection of occupation, genre and time period. There do not appear to be any other similar triple intersection categories for actors; indeed it is extremely rare that actors are categorized by genre at all (porn, Westerns and silents appear to be it but I may have missed something). There is no concrete start or end date to the "Golden Age of Porn" so inclusion is subjective. It is also not defining for the actors. Lots of people appeared in porn films during the era who had nothing to do with creating or promoting the so-called Golden Age. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The only possible justification for this category was a ref to a book. When I saw it, a while back in April 2012, I checked the link to the ref. It was a dead link. I tagged it as a dead link, hoping someone could salvage the justification by replacing the ref or at least eyeballing the book to see if it stood for the proposition it purported to back. No such rescue occurred. Sufficient time has passed. It's time to give this cat a decent burial. David in DC (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still think the cat needs burying. But userfying it so that some volunteer can turn it into a list, per Guy1890's suggestion, might be another, less drastic, way to proceed. Not that I'm volunteering, mind you. Guy? David in DC (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are 85 names currently in this category. Since this discussion appears to not be going particularly well so far, I was thinking of copying some of the names (that weren't already mentioned in the Golden Age of Porn article) over to that article's talk page for at least temporary storage. In lieu of that, I'll volunteer to take possession of the names in this category here via userfication if this discussion ultimately results in a delete vote. I'm guessing that a bunch of different people spent some time over the years building up the names in this category, and losing all that work would be a loss to Wikipedia IMHO. Guy1890 (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - FYI, I fixed the reference, that was in question above, both in this Category and in the article that goes with it. It's from a notable journal, and one can read what appears to be the first few sentences of the actual journal entry here. It's also referenced in Loren Glass' Department of English, University of Iowa CV that one can view if one searches for "LorenGlassCV2013.pdf". The Golden Age of Porn is obviously a notable genre of adult films, and, therefore, this associated category should exist. Guy1890 (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as either subjective or a published list. How do we decide who is part of the "Golden Age?" Andrewaskew (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, what's under discussion here isn't a "list" per se, and it's definitely not a "published list", either here on Wikipedia or elsewhere that I'm currently aware of right now. Could this category be merged into a List article here on Wikipedia? Sure, and that's the very most that should be done here, if anything at all. Guy1890 (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete There is no clear definition of what exactly falls into the designation even for films, and with actors the problems of deciding what meets the inclusion criteria is even worse.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Category:Porn actors, assuming this is about Porn Actors of (some alleged) Golden Age. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2013 (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:Actor of Red Ranger[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) 01:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another category from the editor who brought us Category:Japanese Actor. Given that we also have the badly worded {{Actor of Red Ranger}}, which seems to do a better job of navigation, the category does not appear to be needed. These are from a new editor who does not seem familiar with the en wiki and probably does not have English as a primary language. If renamed, the template should follow. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the user's talk page is full of warnings, a block and multiple successful speedy deletions. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until there is an article on Red Ranger, and then delete it on other grounds. Oculi (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete performer by performance -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a classica case of categorizing actors by role, something we avoid because of the potential clutter it would create.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- REd Ranger seems to be an award given to an actor in Power Rangers:see this page. Unless this all means somethign else in Japanese, it appears to eb a classic case of overcategorisation. Some one has created a template with many red links in it. Tnhat templatre should also be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2013 (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:List of Nadars[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) 01:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is a long-standing consensus that we do not categorise people by caste. For example, see this discussion. Sitush (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we do not categorize people by caste. Beyond that, even if we did, this is a category containing bio articles, not lists, so there is no reason to have list in the name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2013 (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:Pseudophilosophy[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) 01:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pejorative category that is almost impossible to apply without controversy. Unlike the more commonly used term "pseudoscience", there is little consensus for the application of the term "pseudophilosophy" to particular subjects. The description for the category declares that "if an article belongs in this category, the article's lead will contain a well-sourced statement that the subject is considered pseudophilosophy", but I did not find any actual instances of such a statement (much less well-sourced) where the category has been applied. And as one might expect, attempts to place the category are frequently being reverted. RL0919 (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify or delete with no bias against recreation later on. At present this category looks subjective as the main is underdeveloped, and we need more sources for inclusion. However it is not impossible for a descriptor like this to be neutral; like pseudoscience and fringe theory, this could be a useful category. Andrewaskew (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a pejorative attack term used by people who want to marginalize the thought of others. It has no place in an encyclopedia that seeks balance and neutrality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy with no prejudice against recreation. It seems to me that the concerns above could be addressed (as they have been for pseudoscience). Please also see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy#Pseudophilosophy. Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The whole debate about what constitures "pseudoscience" is difficult enough for the people that care about it. I am not one of them, for the reason that for me the problem is not important enough to deserve the full application of my mental effort. But Philosophy and History, the two fiels I am mostly interested in, are not sciences or "Science." Not to my mind, and to the mind of philosophers and historians I study or respect. The people introducing such concepts here (and pushing for such a category within Philosophy) are the people who believe that Philosophy is "Science." I hope the majority of editors here know that the fields of inquiry are rather different. warshy¥¥ 20:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The very term "pseudophilosophy" seems somewhat contrary to the whole point of philosophy. It seems there's philosophy regarding what constitutes philosophy, and by any number of philosophical schemes that dictate what "real" philosophy is (yo dawg, I heard u like philosophies), there could be any number of "pseudophilosophies". Regardless, it doesn't seem as if "pseudophilosophy" has any real application or even any real potential at all. LazyBastardGuy 00:16, 8 July 2013 (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:App stubs[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/merge templates. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. App is a popularized abbreviaion for what is essentially any application on a mobile device. The permanent category nomination passed, and the stub category should follow. Propose renaming the category, picking up the existing {{mobile-software-stub}}, and making {{app-stub}} a redirect to {{mobile-software-stub}}. Dawynn (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2013 (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 by capital[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) 01:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This container category (although not tagged as such) does not appear to serve a useful purpose - is being from a capital city a WP:DEFINING characteristic ? E.g. someone from Edinburgh (in this cat) is much more likely to have things in common with someone from Glasgow (not in this cat) than with someone from another capital city. DexDor (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as a {{container category}}. If this was directly categorising people, I would agree with the nominator's concerns ... but as a container category, it's purely a navigational device to group other categories. I'm not sure that it's wildly useful (tho it may be of interest to some ppl), but it doesn't cause any category clutter on articles, so I'm not sure that WP:DEFINING is relevant here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it may be a container category, as noted by BHG, but the association of "capital city" is no more valid a container category than people from cities founded in the 1800s (collecting all the "people from" categories of cities that match), or people from cities beginning with "L" (so that people from London, Los Angeles, Lisbon, and Lahore can be found together quickly, or people from cities having 3 vowels, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – agree with Carlossuarez46. Seems a very indirect way of asserting that XXX is a capital city. Oculi (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not really a meaningful way to categorize people. Anyway, we have two problems in definition. 1-it is unclear if this would include Lansing, Michigan, Albany, New York, Sacramento, California etc. And if so, would it not also include the catpitals of states in India, Germany etc. 2-What of Category:People from Lagos, Category:People from Rio de Jainero, Cateogry:People from Philadelphia and other palces that once were national captiatls and no longer are? Or people who came from a place before it became the capital? I do not thin we have a workable way to define this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is pointless even as a container category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2013 (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:Military vehicles of the United States Marine Corps[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) 01:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't normally categorize mass-produced items such as vehicles by which armed services use them. Many vehicle types are used by many operators (e.g. Humvee#Operators) which makes it not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Instead, vehicles are normally categorized by the country that designed/produced them which is defining. For info: There is a list at List of vehicles of the United States Marine Corps. DexDor (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've been watching many of my categories becoming casualty to this apparently new policy/interpretation of policy and while I haven't been motivated enough to object to a single one, I still want to know what makes defining a vehicle by its export country any different? In most capitalist countries it is a private military contractor that does the designing, not the government. It would make more sense to me to categorize them by make (i.e. C:General Dynamics tanks). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus Qwertyus (talk • contribs)
Reply to User:Marcus Qwertyus: We shouldn't be "defining a vehicle by its export country" either. Categorizing by designing company would be fine - e.g. like Category:BAE Systems land vehicles, Category:General Dynamics aircraft and other categories under Category:Products by manufacturer. DexDor (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that a mass produced viehcle could be purchased by 100 militaries makes it not a defining characteristic of the vehicle.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-defining attribute that if used consistently would lead to some articles being in numerous trivial categories. The list article is the appropriate way to cover this for those who are interested in what vehicles a particular service uses. --RL0919 (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I assume the Marine Corps, whn operating on land uses much the same equipemtn as the army. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2013 (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/2013_July_3

Leave a Reply