Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin
< October 21 October 23 >

October 22[edit]

Category:10th-century Roman consuls[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. – Fayenatic London 23:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:10th-century Roman consuls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Nominator's rationale: Only has a single page (Leo VI the Wise), and the consulship had been abolished by 901, so there were no 10th-century holders of this office. Category was apparently created because there's a succession box at the bottom of the page saying that the subject was consul throughout his entire reign until 912, but this seems to be a mistake. Avilich (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (It's also doubtful that the recently-created 7th, 8th, and 9th-century counterparts have any use, since they all but duplicate the corresponding emperor categories.) Avilich (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • But several emperors of this period never had a consulship. Dimadick (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As long as the article states that the consulship ended in 912. Dimadick (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, not a defining characteristic since the 7th century (and it does not link to any other article in the 10th century). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why do you consider later consuls less important than previous ones? Dimadick (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • For example Constantine V was not particularly known for being a Roman consul and that applies to all consuls of the later period. It had become a meaningless title in the course of time. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Leo's government abolished several archaic institutions, including the senate and consulate, which were hangovers from Roman times. Not sure when but certainly during his reign and perhaps before 901. Leo's article doesn't date the legislation but the source for the information is Timothy Gregory's History of Byzantium (2005). I have seen that book, years ago, but no longer have access to it. Even if Leo still held the title after 900, it no longer had any importance and I can't see a rationale for keeping a WP:SMALLCAT on such a minor consideration. Leo's membership of Category:9th-century Roman consuls is sufficient. We should amend the succession box and I suggest a range of 886 – c. 900, which is near enough until an exact date can be confirmed. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most emperors usually were consuls only in their first full year--thus Leo VI would only have held the office in 887, not 886–912. The reforms which supposedly abolished the office are dated by Wikipedia to c. 892, so there's basically no basis to assume there was a 10th-century consul. The eponymous consulship itself was discontinued in 541, and the office became only a honorific afterwards, so I doubt there's even a need to have categories for after the 6th-century. Avilich (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Might be best to raise a separate discussion for the 7th to 9th centuries given that the office did still exist then, whereas it did not in the 10th. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- There is no person other than emperors in Category:7th-century Roman consuls or any subsequent one, making these useless categories currently. If there are non-emperor members, the categories can be recreated. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:11, 29 October 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:Territorial entities by type[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. – Fayenatic London 23:41, 22 November 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:Brâncovenesc style architecture[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. – Fayenatic London 23:39, 22 November 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:Clinical psychology tests[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 to Category:Mental disorders diagnostic procedures. Perhaps the second word should be singular, i.e. Category:Mental disorder diagnostic procedures; if anybody else thinks so, please nominate this under WP:C2A. – Fayenatic London 23:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Clinical psychology tests to Category:Psychiatric instruments
  • Nominator's rationale: manually merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, almost every article in this category is also somewhere in the tree of Category:Psychiatric instruments because they are diagnostic instruments that can be used by psychiatrists and clinical psychologists alike. When merging, only very few articles need to be manually added to the target. This nomination is without prejudice to renaming the target and its subcategories to something with "diagnosis instruments", i.e. less exclusively "psychiatric". Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe Marcocapelle is right about further renaming. "Psychiatric" implies medicine, whereas some of these psychological tests may have nothing to do with clinical care. The "psychiatric" category currently has 119 items and 13 subcategories, and the "psychology" category has 44 items. These sizes are fine to merge, but if there really were some distinction here, it is nice to have this amount of content separated also. I do not think there is an obvious distinction between the contents of these right now though. I think "psychological tests" would be an appropriate category name for the content in both of these categories. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to mental disorder assessment. These should be merged - they're basically the same thing. However, psychiatric instruments is not an appropriate name. I'm partially flexible on the final name, but it definitely needs to use assessment rather than tests, instruments, etc.
      Bluerasberry - unfortunately psychological tests is unusable. People would expect it to also contain other psychology tests, such as personality or intelligence tests. It's an umbrella term. Also, the current parent category is Category:Psychological tools and it would create a lot of confusion to have both (honestly I may propose for the parent to change to psychological tests). In sources, general delineation would be psychological testing -> clinical testing/assessment, and clinical psychology -> clinical testing/assessment.
      This is partly why I want to use assessment, because it makes a clearer distinction from general testing (and if you really want to get into the weeds, from subclinical testing). It's also approximately equally used in literature, and is the most common term in lay sources. The other major reason I want assessment is that it would mimic the psychiatric assessment article.
      And now for the biggest problem - someone would be surprised to see psychiatric testing under clinical psychology testing or under clinical psychology, and only slightly less surprised to see clinical psychology testing as a subcat of psychiatry. As I see it, there are two solutions. We could use a term that refers to what's being tested rather than to the field administering the test (e.g. mental disorder assessments, following the mental disorder article). Or we could do a combined name (e.g. psychiatric and clinical psychological assessments). Both feel at least a bit clunky, but they will be clear. My preference is for mental disorder assessment (or similar) because it's concise, and subcategory names could easily mimic it - e.g. depression assessments. The current subcategories of Category:Psychiatric instruments are ridiculous; have a look if you want to have a bad time. --Xurizuri (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought there were more non-clinical tests in this category because I the non-clinical Attribution questionnaire near the beginning, but looking again, I think this might be the only one that would not belong in a clinical category. In that case giving the category a more medical name works. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:16, 25 October 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:Celebrity doctors[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 10#Category:Celebrity doctors

Category:Light TV affiliates[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 to Category:TheGrio affiliates. – Fayenatic London 13:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Light TV affiliates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Nominator's rationale: Why maintain a category for a network that no longer exists? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And also, the channel is now "TheGrio". User:Shamonte Webster (User talk:Shamonte Webster|Talk) 14:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamonte Webster (talk • contribs)
  • What about renaming/rescoping to "TheGrio affiliates"? The affiliate list in the main article is absolutely huge and might be worth spinning out to its own page. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt rename to "TheGrio affiliates". --Just N. (talk) 21:37, 29 October 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:Psychiatric diseases and disorders[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. I will redirect the old page. – Fayenatic London 07:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 20:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:15, 22 October 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:Texian[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: Disperse and delete. – Fayenatic London 16:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 20:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:15, 22 October 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:Paraguayan musical groups by genre[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/delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 30 October 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:Manitoba communities with large francophone populations[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 to Category:Manitoba communities with majority francophone populations. The decision on whether to keep/delete the category is pretty heavily contested, but it's also pretty clear that the current name isn't quite appropriate either. No consensus defaulting to keep doesn't seem to be the best close here. No prejudice towards a deletion discussion about the cat on its own merits in the future. bibliomaniac15 06:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Manitoba communities with large francophone populations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Nominator's rationale: Category with subjective inclusion criteria. There's no stated definition of how many francophones a community has to have, either in raw numbers or as a percentage, in order to have that community be categorizable as "large" — for example, should Winnipeg be directly included in the category, or is it sufficient that its individual St. Boniface, St. Vital and St. Norbert neighbourhoods are? — which means that inclusion comes down to personal opinion rather than an objective or quantifiable standard. Note also that an equally subjective parallel category for Ontario was deleted in 2018 per a CFD discussion. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I am not against deletion, an alternative could be to replace "large" by "majority" (i.e. more than 50%). There are many of these categories around (e.g. in West Asia) and "majority" could set a precedent for categories for which there is little consensus to delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inclusion is bound to be subjective and I can't see that categories like this add any value. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to its subjectiveness and WP:OR-nature. Hwy43 (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose' To have categories like this is IMHO doubtless usefull. Admitting that 'large' is more or less subjective. The reasonable solution could be to replace 'large' by 'majority' just as Macro has proposed. --Just N. (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or rename using "majority"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to majority. Provides a clear criterion for inclusion, per Marcocapelle. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to majority. --Just N. (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the Government of Canada talks about OLMCs [1] and Francophone communities [2]. Officially recognized communities by the Government of Manitoba should be included, whether or not they are majority franco. [3] -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We do have Category:Communities by ethnic group, but Category:Linguistic minorities doesn't seem to contain such categories grouping communities by language. This is a case where a list would be better, see WP:CLT. I thought there were other precedents for deleting categories of communities by language group in Europe, something like "Czech-speaking communities in Germany" (but it wasn't that); can anyone remember? – Fayenatic London 22:02, 27 November 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:Muhajir[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, but the consensus is not a strong one, so Disperse and disambiguate. I suggest that the contents be manually dispersed within Category:Human migration, and the category page be disambiguated.– Fayenatic London 17:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Muhajir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SHAREDNAME, Muhajir may refer to any type of migrants in the Islamic world and Muhajir is a disambiguation page. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SHAREDNAME refers to "Unrelated subjects with shared names". But various muhajir people are related in the same that they are all Muslim refugees. Their Muslim-ness and refugee-ness both seem to be a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Otherwise they wouldn't be called "muhajir".VR talk 06:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps needless to say that I do not agree with User:Vice regent. Mujahir is just an Arabic word that translates to migrant. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, on second thought, I think this category would fail WP:OCEGRS "If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created" because I can't find sufficient sources to connect this phenomenon together (only one source so far that doesn't give significant coverage[4]).VR talk 16:17, 22 October 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:Muhajir 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: no consensus. The objection carries some weight, and a stronger consensus would be desirable for a move, especially as there are multiple like-named sub-cats which have not been nominated. – Fayenatic London 16:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) since there is no new RM, the category should be renamed as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:21, 17 November 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:Board game gameplay and terminology[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: manual upmerge to Category:Board games, selectively rename the rest to Category:Board game terminology. bibliomaniac15 06:22, 10 December 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:Gongsun Du and associates[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:Gongsun family (Three Kingdoms) as only one editor opposed, and the basis of the opposition was addressed by the disambiguator. (non-admin closure) Levivich 20:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A simmering consensus to rename, but to which title?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:36, 22 October 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:LGBT legislators in Spain[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. – Fayenatic London 14:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have struck my vote, realizing this is an issue of the whole tree rather than exclusively of Spain. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:18, 22 October 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:Wikipedia Librarians[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: manual merge to Category:Wikipedian librarians. bibliomaniac15 06:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:32, 22 October 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:Kazakh women in politics[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/rename (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
The two subcategories were not tagged yet. I have done that now. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 22 October 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:World conquest 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 to Category:Wargames. The guy who suggested doing the same for 3 of the 4 subcats can open their own CfD. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:World conquest games to Category:Grand strategy wargames
  • Nominator's rationale: While we have the article on Grand strategy wargame we don't have one for world conquest wargame. Descriptions of both categories seem very similar. For GSW, it's "category for wargames in which the object is conquest of the world, or entire continents; i.e. rather than winning a specific scenario within the game, or a specific battle or scenario." For WC, it's "A category for games in which the object is conquest of the world, or entire continents; i.e. rather than winning a specific scenario within the game, or a specific battle or scenario." Once the merge is done, we will need to merge subcategory Category:World conquest video games to the corresponding Category:Grand strategy video games, and rename Category:World conquest board games to the yet non-existing Category:Grand strategy board games. I am not sure what to do with the Category:Space conquest games subcategory (it could be merged to Category:Space opera games, but arguably they represent different themes. Actually, it could be also argued that 'world conquest' is a subtheme of 'grand strategy games' too (as arguably not all GSGames are about conquering the entire world - some are limited to a continent or two...), and therefore the other reasonable outcome could be that it is kept as such (reversing the child-parent relation; right now GSW is a child of WC), but I am concerned about OR in all those names/thematic categories... thoughts appreciated. Also, we probably need Category:Wargames by theme (or would it be Category:Wargames by genra)? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. Respectfully, actually the two catergories are in fact totally different,. the cat description for "Grand Strategy Wargames goes on to say This category would include games that are actual wargames; i.e. games where individual units are given their own specific attributes, and game combat is simulated in a manner that tries to approximate some simulation of real-world battle conditions, terrain, and individual units' combat strengths, rather than board games like e.g. Risk, which treat combat in a highly abstract manner.
the whole point is to distingush actual wargames like Rise and Decline of the Third Reich, where units are represented by detailed cardboard counters as is customary for most real wargames, meaning that all units have their own numerical strengths and weakness, and where counters are detailed and provide individual unit attributes, even amongst units of the same general type, and where game turns and game rules try to approximate real-world conditions; from games like Risk, where inidivudal units are literally represented simply by identical game pieces, and where there is absolutely no indication or procedures to reflect individual unit strengths, battlefield conditions, terrain, unit or weapon attributes, etc etc ---Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 00:15, 28 October 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:Planned cities in England[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. – Fayenatic London 14:34, 20 November 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:Psychiatric institutions[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:Psychiatry organizations. Since the medical organizations category tree contains hospitals, the merge is not completely inappropriate. It may be better to split the professional associations to another category instead. bibliomaniac15 06:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aren't hospitals and research institutes as different from each other as they are different from professional associations? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:50, 26 October 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:User apc[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 WP:SOFTDELETE -1, -2 and -4 until needed. – Fayenatic London 20:43, 27 November 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.
@Pppery: Template:User apc-LB-1 is putting itself in Category:User apc-LB-1. I have tried a few null edits on the template but it is still populating the non-existent category. – Fayenatic London 21:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. For the record, Template:User x apparently does not check if categories exist before populating them. Those edits would need reversing if the templates are used. Anyway… Next, can we resolve the incoming links at Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:User_apc (from {{Babel|apc-N}} ) and Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:User_templates_apc? – Fayenatic London 21:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The categorization I removed in those edits didn't come from Template:user x, it came from Template:userbox-level (which I was already aware would need to be updated and mentioned above). And I've now handled the backlinks to Category:User apc. The backlinks to Category:User templates apc are all #ifexist checks rather than legitimate links and don't need handling. Sorry for causing such a mess here. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: I beg your pardon. Thank you, that's fine, and so's that! – Fayenatic London 21:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_22

Leave a Reply