Category talk:Animal rights activists
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This category was nominated for deletion, renaming, or merging with another category on 2007 January 5. The result of the discussion was no consensus to recreate. |
[edit] Animal rights subcats
Discussion continued here. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- The non-existence of this category is just beyond ridiculous. There are no more problems with it than with other activist categories, but it seems to be plagued by people with bizarre POV agendas. It needs to be recreated now. Pretending that a subject area category is an acceptable substitute for a people category is unprecedented and just plain ridiculous. Piccadilly 14:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please do not unilaterally decide to do something. There has been debate on this issue and so far there has not been an agreement on it. Your actions are premature.-Localzuk(talk) 17:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- You have also ignored the CFD discussion posted above which had a no consensus outcome...-Localzuk(talk) 17:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the history of this category, as I understand it, is that the category was created; then basically disbanded without going to a CFD; other people asked why that had happened on the Animal rights movement project page, and got no consensus; and then I took it to a CFD to get more opinion. Technically, CFD should have been raised for the disbandment; and any lack of consensus would have left the category in place. CFDing the recreation was simply me & Viriditas (and Piccadilly too I guess) being very polite & trying, and failing, to find consensus with the folks on Wikiproject Animal rights. There is no need to seek approval for new categories. --lquilter 01:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it is the people who are against this category who have misbehaved. Their motives are bizarre past understanding. Piccadilly 18:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry but you are out of line there. We have presented our case multiple times. The case has been taken to CFD and the result was that there was no consensus to recreate. This is not carte blanche to rebuild the cat. It is a result which indicates that the category is not needed and not wanted. Stating that we have misbehaved is uncivil and makes it like you are a child throwing toys out of the pram because you didn't get your way. As has been stated many times, your case for this category's use is weak and unsupported by those people who know something about the subject matter.
- Also, the category was depopulated because the pages that were added to it were added incorrectly... This doesn't need a CFD. If the cat is empty for 7 days it can be speedy deleted as unused too.-Localzuk(talk) 18:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is absolutely nothing wrong with this category. Get it deleted if you can. Otherwise, it is just as much suitable for use as any category of activists. It is silly that this is the only area of activism that does not have a biographical category. Anyway, using this category does not involve moving anything out of Category:Animal rights movement, just moving things into a subcategory. There is a clear majority in favour of the category throughout this sorry saga. "Activist" is a normal English word, and it is being used the same way here as for any other category. It isn't relevant that some people with special interests choose to tie themselves up in nuances of meaning. And the key point is, that there was never a consensus not to use this category. Honbicot 22:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Also, the category was depopulated because the pages that were added to it were added incorrectly... This doesn't need a CFD. If the cat is empty for 7 days it can be speedy deleted as unused too.-Localzuk(talk) 18:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry but you are out of line there. We have presented our case multiple times. The case has been taken to CFD and the result was that there was no consensus to recreate. This is not carte blanche to rebuild the cat. It is a result which indicates that the category is not needed and not wanted. Stating that we have misbehaved is uncivil and makes it like you are a child throwing toys out of the pram because you didn't get your way. As has been stated many times, your case for this category's use is weak and unsupported by those people who know something about the subject matter.
- Yes, it is the people who are against this category who have misbehaved. Their motives are bizarre past understanding. Piccadilly 18:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the history of this category, as I understand it, is that the category was created; then basically disbanded without going to a CFD; other people asked why that had happened on the Animal rights movement project page, and got no consensus; and then I took it to a CFD to get more opinion. Technically, CFD should have been raised for the disbandment; and any lack of consensus would have left the category in place. CFDing the recreation was simply me & Viriditas (and Piccadilly too I guess) being very polite & trying, and failing, to find consensus with the folks on Wikiproject Animal rights. There is no need to seek approval for new categories. --lquilter 01:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- You have also ignored the CFD discussion posted above which had a no consensus outcome...-Localzuk(talk) 17:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please do not unilaterally decide to do something. There has been debate on this issue and so far there has not been an agreement on it. Your actions are premature.-Localzuk(talk) 17:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
