Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 June 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 31 June 2 >

June 1[edit]

Category:Flora and fauna on Indian postage stamps[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. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. That an organism appears on a postage stamp from India is not a defining characteristic of that organism; see WP:NONDEFINING. Listifying the category would also be an acceptable outcome. Rkitko (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The category was created from an Indian philately point of view rather than the other way around. Listing would also serve the purpose but development of the list would be easier if the category stays. --jojo@nthony (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand the motivation behind the category and I think it would be a fine one with the name tweaked a bit and if it were applied to articles on individual postage stamps if we were to have any (WP:GNG, being a problem for many). However, categorizing articles on species or genera -- plants and animals -- by which postage stamps they appear on is beyond the guidelines on categorizing. That a subject appears on a stamp is not something that defines that subject. I would think a well-referenced List of flora and fauna on Indian postage stamps (or similarly-named article) would do nicely to display your efforts so far. I don't think listifying would hamper the development of such a list, especially in cases where animals or plants are featured on a stamp but we don't yet have an article for it. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List and category both can coexist.Shyamsunder (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_2#Category:People_on_Indian_postage_stamps. DexDor (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2015 (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:Terrorism in the name of atheism[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. MER-C 12:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No corresponding article Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 14:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete empty category Bazj (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, in order to judge this nomination properly it is important to know which article(s) was/were in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC) Struck after discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete This is going to get into way too many debatable isues. Is a general antagonism towards religion atheism, or should such motivating actions be called "Terrorism in the name of anti-religion". The whole concept is problematic, and it will be unclear there is truly such a thing until an article is created that uses reliable sources to demonstate it is a recognized topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --It is always going to be questionable what the motive was - whether against religion generally, or a particular religion, or a more political one against a party adhering to a particular religion. The whole thing gets far too close to POV issues for me to like having it. If it can be populated (apart from that) I would not object to having it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Peterkingiron: If anybody actually tried to populate the category we would have serious POV problems. We've been here before, with all the drama around "militant atheism" &c a couple of years ago. bobrayner (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.



Category:Biography articles without persondata[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. MER-C 13:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Persondata has been deprecated by this RfC Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as long as the post-deprecation cleanup efforts aren't still temporarily dependent on it. We don't need to keep categories for deprecated templates/processes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose: Can we be absolutely sure that it's not being used by any of the people who are working on post-deprecation cleanup? I would happily support deletion once there's some assurance that it's no longer needed. Although I'm happy for persondata to go, the decision to make it go ASAP has caused a lot of trouble - let's not compound that, there's no particular rush to remove a maintenance category just because it might have been left behind by procedural changes. bobrayner (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's empty. MER-C 13:03, 17 June 2015 (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:Laboratory mouse breeds[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. MER-C 12:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Lab mice are rodent strains not breeds. See Laboratory mouse#Genetics and strains, and Laboratory rat#Stocks and strains. Cf. Category:Laboratory rat strains for comparable category.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • support It's clear from looking at a few articles that these are specific lines from a single progenitor, not the results of breeding programs. Mangoe (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2015 (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 Consultants & Therapists[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. Looks like everything here was added by User:179.232.6.8, so I'll feed it to the bot. MER-C 12:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Scope is definitely unclear. We already have Category:Psychiatrists and Category:Psychotherapists so this extra category is bound to result in confusion. Pichpich (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The entire point of the category system is specificity in a hierarchical tree, and this is a redundant commingling of two extant categories.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Neutralitytalk 16:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manually empty then delete if that is the consensus -- The nom seems really be to split the present category. Most (if not all) belong in Category:Psychiatrists, but Antonucci is said to have questioned the basis of the subject. Some are already in sub-cats of my potential merge-target, such as Category:American psychiatrists, and should thus not be added to the parent. If we agree that this category should be removed, the contents needs to be manually recategorised, thus emptying it. When empty, it should be deleted. It is not fair to ask the closing admin to do this.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_1&oldid=1074815008"