Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 4

< April 3	April 5 >

April 4

Category:Domestic Passenger Vessel Templates

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: soft delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Domestic Passenger Vessel Templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary sub-category for two templates; both can be and are categorized in Category:United Kingdom waterway routemap templates or Category:Water transport templates. It's unclear what "Domestic Passenger Vessel" even means in this context. Mackensen (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2022 (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:Botanical collectors active in Australia

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 20:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Botanical collectors active in Australia to Category:Botanists active in Australia

Nominator's rationale: No obvious difference. No other categories of "Botanical collectors active in ...." Rathfelder (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For a person who is interested in Australian botanical history, there's an "obvious difference". I don't see how deleting this improves the encyclopedia. It seems that creating more such "Botanical collectors active in..." categories would. Hesperian 00:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain the difference? Its not obvious to me. Rathfelder (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe first you can clarify what you meant by "no obvious difference" -- no obvious difference between what and what? Hesperian 23:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plant collecting can also be done as a hobby. It seems some of the people in this category were hobbyists. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So are some of the others in Category:Botanists by location of research. Why should Australia be treated differently? Rathfelder (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Australia should not be treated differently, the discussion rather is whether Botanical collectors or Plant collectors categories should be started in other countries too, or whether the merge should go ahead as nominated. Both viewpoints have their merits. If merged, at least leave a comment on the category page that the category includes non-professional botanical collectors. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In botany there doesnt seem to be a big difference between amateurs and professionals. Plenty of people clearly started as amateur plant collectors and then went on to publish scientific papers. And most botanists collected plants. This is not defining. Rathfelder (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The articles must not be merged. The difference is not amateurs versus professionals. Collecting is a different task from identifying and classifying (tasks which make someone a botanist). Those who identify, classify and write articles about the plants they identify, classify and do taxonomy on, are botanists (whether paid or unpaid, amateur or professional). And while many (if not most) botanists collect, the converse is not true. (Many of Ferdinand von Mueller's collectors in Australia were settlers,who sent him their specimens to be identified. They were certainly not botanists. See e.g. Mary Ann McHard. MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge Support Hesperians and Margaret Donald's assertions - to assert the observed behaviours of collectors and ascribing hobbyists as being coterminous with botanists is a strange correlation - also to collapse the status into professional/amateur distinction is simply wrong, as is nothing to do with not a big difference, the field of people involved in the two different occupations is not as simple as asserted above. Merging is simply showing a clear misunderstanding of the distinctions between the two occupations. JarrahTree 13:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, same reasons as Margaret, collecting and classifying are two completely different tasks. Hughesdarren (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So do we take the articles about botanists out of this category? There wont be many left. Rathfelder (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the above discussion correctly, botanists should only be purged when they were not also a collector. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That makes it even less defining. The vast majority of botanists historically were collectors. We already have a well established set of Category:Botanists by location of research, and they are largely collectors. Most of the articles in Category:Plant collectors are about botanists. Rathfelder (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2022 (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:Miss Thailand

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Miss Thailand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Miss Thailand winners. There's only one main article (Miss Thailand) that warrants being in the intermediate category, which can be linked via catmain template instead. (If consensus is against deletion, then purge of all biographies.) Paul_012 (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Miss Thailand will make an appropriate main article for the other. The bios (my sample was all stubs) in this category belong in the winners category. I think this probably needs to be an exception to OCAWARDS as the women are probably notable for nothing else. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2022 (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:White horses in England

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 5#Category:White horses in England

Category:Deaths by person in Maine

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: soft delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Deaths by person in Maine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Contains only a redirect. User:Namiba 11:52, 4 April 2022 (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:Indian Freedom Fighters

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Indian Freedom Fighters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: scope is exactly the same as that of Category:Indian_independence_activists Hemantha (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Freedom fighter is a contentious label, similar to terrorist. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:45, 8 April 2022 (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:Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory people

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory people to Category:Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory people

Nominator's rationale: Dash like in Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory. Dicklyon (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support for consistency per WP:C2D. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2022 (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.