Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin
< March 22 March 24 >

March 23[edit]

Category:Wikipedia recent changes patrollers[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) 09:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clearly duplicative category * Pppery * it has begun... 23:26, 23 March 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.

Centuries in Savafid Iran[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 per Option A. Manual merges would be preferred, as the contents may be in suitable sub-cats of the targets already. I will put Category:People of Safavid Iran by century into Category:History of Safavid Iran; it should probably have a fresh nomination now. I am also putting the 16th-18th century categories for Iran, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Bahrain and Georgia into the that History category. – Fayenatic London 07:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option A
Option B
Nominator's rationale: merge preferably per option A - but option B is better than the status quo. The categories are largely overlapping. Option A is more consistent with the general tree of Iranian history. Note I have tagged categories of both option A and B. The nomination is a follow-up on this earlier discussion which ended as no consensus. By leaving out the people categories and by offering two options I hope to reach consensus this time. @Fayenatic london, LouisAragon, Cplakidas, and HistoryofIran: pinging contributors to earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B as it is ahistorical to speak of the modern Republic of Iran as if it had an unbroken continuity to the 16 century. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A -- Laurel Lodged seems to regard every change of boundaries or of regime as creating a not country. This is WRONG. Persia/Iran has a continuous history with a state covering most of the present Iran for perhaps 2000 years, with a few breaks when it was conquered and incorporated in a larger empire. I am not suggesting that the present republic existed in 1700; of course it did not but there was a predecessor regime that ruled much the same country, though this suffered loss of territory to Russia in the 19th century. We are not being asked to merge to Category:17th century in Islamic Republic of Iran, which would clearly be a gross case of anachronism, but that seems to be the basis of her objection. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A few corrections: we are not female; it is not true to say that " Persia/Iran has a continuous history with a state". It is true to say that what we may now call Persian or Iranian peoples have lived in the fluctuating borders around the present day state of the Republic of Iran; that's not the same as saying that those people or peoples were at all times in the same state. Closer to home, Irish people were occupied by a foreign power for 800 years. During that time, they were forcibly part of several states (Lordship of Ireland, Kingdom of Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). Despite this, the Irish people, as a a people, were one. Where the category structure differs from the Iranian people is that Ireland, conveniently, is an island so we can categorise things that happened in the island, not just the various states that drifted through that island. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply @No Great Shaker: it's more than a regime change. People of 16th century England or France would have recognised and affirmed the names of England and France. It's unclear if the same is true for the peoples of the Safavid Empire. Go back further in time. In the 1st century AD, would the people occupying those lands have recognised and affirmed the names of England and France? Yet wiki persists in having such categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • True. And there were Angles in what is now modern Denmark before ever they migrated to what is now England. But what does that prove? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • People of 16th century Iran would have recognised and affirmed the name of Iran. Note that "Safavid" is merely the name of a dynasty, not part of the country name. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)The names of countries change over the course of centuries and we need to ensure continuity in a categorisation series. For example, Category:1st century in England really means Category:1st century in what became England and is by no means correct, but for practicality it is necessary to use a recognised geographical identity instead of fluctuating through the Celtic, Roman, Northumbrian, Wessex, Viking, Saxon and Norman variations until finally reaching the English one. Marcocapelle is right that the Safavids were a dynasty (like the Tudors, Bourbons, Habsburgs, Romanovs, etc.) and that cannot be part of the geographical identity. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"it is necessary to use ". Actually, it's not at all nececessary to have Category:1st century in England. Wiki will get by fine without it. The contents would fit nicely into the island category of Category:1st century in Great Britain. Nothing more is needed until something resembling an English state comes into existance. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine in Some Form I'll defer to others on A vs B, but either merge is better than the status quo. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:47, 26 March 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 who like Ashes to Ashes (TV 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: speedy rename. – Fayenatic London 21:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Disambiguate TV series GoingBatty (talk) 16:39, 23 March 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:Ashes to Ashes (TV series) user templates[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 rename. – Fayenatic London 21:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Disambiguate TV series GoingBatty (talk) 16:35, 23 March 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:Archbishops of Santo Domingo[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) 03:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To complete the North America tree. Per form of all other Roman Catholic diocese and bishop categories. Whatever about the correctness of the form, for the sake of consistency the form ought to be followed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as unnecessary, because there is no other archbishop with this title. Category names should be kept short to lessen category clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per the adjoining tree and the article Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Santo Domingo. Oculi (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per the points made by nom and Oculi. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename we need to stop acting as if the Catholic use of the term bishop is "correct" and the Amish/Latter-day Saint?Pentecostal use of the term is "wrong". Categories like this that in their name form normalize the Catholic use of the term need to be ended.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 13 April 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:American Burlesque performers[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. It is true that most of the categories were not tagged with Template:Cfr, but I am going to do something I hardly ever do and pull an IAR exception here, mainly because I cannot foresee any reasonable argument opposing the proposals. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Burlesque is not capitalized. The same objection applies to Category:British Burlesque performers and probably Category:Neo-Burlesque performers. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment, please tag and clearly list the categories you would like to discuss. Is it one, two or three categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then please tag the category pages. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm following WP:CFD#HOWTO for bundled nominations. Besides, if I add a subst:Cfr template, it links to a different day's nominations. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can save one, then edit it by changing the date and section title |1=Category:American Burlesque performers| then copy it to the other categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 25 March 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:Fictional hacker groups[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) 03:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The only article in the category is a redirect. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:41, 23 March 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:Austrian military personnel of World War II[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I find it a bit bizarre that these categories exist. Austria was not an independent country during World War II. Lettlerhello • contribs 00:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, even while fighting in the German army these people might still be regarded as Austrians. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regardless if Austria was or was not an independent country at the time, the subjects are Austrian. Picking a few entries at random: Franz Böhme was an Austrian general, Felix Imre was an Austrian soldier, Hans Koller was an Austrian jazz tenor saxophonist and bandleader, Karl Sudrich was an Austrian fencer, and so on. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this category shouldn't exist as all these people served in the armed forces of Nazi Germany, their pre- and/or post-war Austrian citizenship doesn't seem relevant. National identity of Austria was fairly complicated at that point with many people from Austria identifying as Germans, as well. (t · c) buidhe 10:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lugnuts. The status of Austria as a country from 1938 to 1945 is immaterial. The category is about nationality (Austrian) which did not change after the Anschluß. Großdeutschland (Greater Germany) incorporated numerous nationalities who did not become German, any more than the Polish and Czech pilots in the RAF became British. While it is true that some Austrians identified as German, many did not and, as Buidhe says, the subject is complex. That being so, it would be wrong to categorise all Austrians as Germans because then you would be including the many who did not identify as German. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree with No Great Shaker. People who sympathised with Germany did not become German. Oculi (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom; Austria didn't field military in WWII, Germany did. These are categories about in whose army they fought not what passport they held in early 1938 or after 1945 (some didn't live until then). This is as anachronistic as having Category:Free City of Danzig military personnel of World War II or Category:Sudetenland military personnel of World War II. Those folks who fought in the German military are properly in the German categories, not in the Polish or Czechoslovakian categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, they still held Austrian nationality and the category is about nationality, not about being in the service of the Wehrmacht. There were Austrians in the Allied forces too. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lugnuts. These people were never Germans. Dimadick (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge there was no Austria during WWII, this is an anachronistic category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There might not have been a country called Austria from 1938 to 1945 but there were Austrian nationals because they did not become Germans. There was no change of nationality and that is the key element in these categories. How are you going to merge those Austrians who served with the Allies? Many did. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:00, 25 March 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:Recipients of the Order of Glory (Ottoman Empire)[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) 03:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD and WP:PERFCAT)
When VIP guests visited the Ottoman Empire or vice versa, the Order of Glory (Ottoman Empire) was given out as souvenir. German Emperor Wilhelm II, American inventor Samuel Morse, and Norwegian landscape artist Frits Thaulow are not remotely defined by this award. (There are not any Turkish recipients in these categories but there are three not very loyal Ottoman appointed local leaders: 1, 2, 3.) There wasn't a list so I created one 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:Recipients of the Order of the Griffon (Mecklenburg)[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) 03:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
The German Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin issued the Order of the Griffon (Mecklenburg) to local nobility like Frederick Francis IV, Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Duke Paul Frederick of Mecklenburg and Duke Henry of Mecklenburg-Schwerin who are already well categorized somewhere under Category:Mecklenburgian nobility. (There are also a few foreign leaders like Leopold II of Belgium, Grand Duke Sergei Mikhailovich of Russia and Louis Ferdinand, Prince of Prussia but I'm not sure if they received it as a diplomatic souvenir or based on distant family relations, since the royal houses were intermarried.) Either way, all the articles generally mention this award in passing with other honours so it doesn't seem defining. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 23 March 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_March_23

Leave a Reply