- 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.
Timrollpickering
23:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Eukaryotes described in 1836 to Category:Species described in 1836
- Merge Category:Eukaryotes described in 2018 to Category:Species described in 2018
- Merge Category:Eukaryotes described in the 1820s to Category:Species described in the 1820s
- Merge Category:Eukaryotes described in the 18th century to Category:Species described in the 18th century
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary intermediate layer, mostly created by the blocked user:Caftaric. Oculi ( talk) 17:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support deletion. As per the proposer, this is an unnecessary intermediate, making the "Species described in YEAR" system of categories even harder to navigate. No consensus was ever sought and certainly not obtained for these categories, as was typical of Caftaric. Peter coxhead ( talk) 06:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Is this in accordance with the consensus at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description? --
Nessie (
talk)
20:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- It comes under "the system has become somewhat of a mess, with extra categories added without consensus". These "Eukaryotes described in" have been added without consensus. Oculi ( talk) 22:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly. Peter coxhead ( talk) 06:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Just wanted to make sure everything was on the same page. -- Nessie ( talk) 15:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Note that Category:Songs about women has also been deleted. Timrollpickering 13:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: It's about a man, so it needs to be categorised accordingly? I think not. If we can't delete this, can we at least turn it into a container category - in honour of the valid sub-cats? Richhoncho ( talk) 14:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: The thing is that there's also a category Songs about women. I do recognize the problem, but if one category has to go then they other should go too. A solution might be to specify these categories more. -
User:Kjell Knudde,
17:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC).
- Category:songs about women has also being nominated in precisely the same terms. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 22:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete typical problem of categories "about" something; how much about it must the article be, and what reliable source tells us that it's at least that much? Apart from that: (i) something as unwieldy as "men" or "women" (see below) as being about makes this particularly not useful for anyone searching about the subject. If this were so important and defining a characteristic, you'd expect a parent like Category:Songs about people or such, and a whole tree for works about people (whether individuals, groups, or the species); and (ii) we don't have an article Songs about men, and short of a list I'm not sure one could be written that isn't WP:SYNTH. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, possibly containerize, possibly merge to Category:Songs about people. The subcategories are a coherent set of categories that should have a common parent. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Just a mishmash of songs with no specific connection to make this category worthwhile. There is no reason I would navigate from The Candy Man to Let's Hear It for the Boy because of this category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 10:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Timrollpickering 13:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: It's about a woman, so it needs to be categorised accordingly? I think not. If we can't delete this, can we at least turn it into a container category - in honour of the valid sub-cats? Richhoncho ( talk) 14:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete typical problem of categories "about" something; how much about it must the article be, and what reliable source tells us that it's at least that much? Apart from that: (i) something as unwieldy as "men" (see above) or "women" as being about makes this particularly not useful for anyone searching about the subject. If this were so important and defining a characteristic, you'd expect a parent like Category:Songs about people or such, and a whole tree for works about people (whether individuals, groups, or the species); and (ii) we don't have an article Songs about women, and short of a list I'm not sure one could be written that isn't WP:SYNTH. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, possibly containerize, possibly merge to Category:Songs about people. The subcategories (excluding the feminist ones) are a coherent set of categories that should have a common parent. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Just a mishmash of songs with no specific connection to make this category worthwhile. There is no plausible reason I would navigate from Hey There Delilah to Eleanor Rigby through this category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 10:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Timrollpickering 23:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, the articles are already in Category:Ancient tribes in Dacia. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete the present Moldova is the part of Romania, which was ceded to USSR at the end of WWII. This is far too small an area to merit an ancient history category of its own. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Timrollpickering 23:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: merge unclear Romanian/Moldovan region that did not have its own separate history in ancient and medieval times until the Principality of Moldova was founded in the 14th century. For comparison, Carpathian-Dniester area in the Early Middle Ages redirects to Romania in the Middle Ages. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- The scope of the category is unclear. It is not wholly satisfactory to use a polity that has only existed in anything like its present form for 100 (arguably 150) years, but the alternative is worse. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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.
Timrollpickering
23:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Eukaryotes described in 1836 to Category:Species described in 1836
- Merge Category:Eukaryotes described in 2018 to Category:Species described in 2018
- Merge Category:Eukaryotes described in the 1820s to Category:Species described in the 1820s
- Merge Category:Eukaryotes described in the 18th century to Category:Species described in the 18th century
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary intermediate layer, mostly created by the blocked user:Caftaric. Oculi ( talk) 17:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support deletion. As per the proposer, this is an unnecessary intermediate, making the "Species described in YEAR" system of categories even harder to navigate. No consensus was ever sought and certainly not obtained for these categories, as was typical of Caftaric. Peter coxhead ( talk) 06:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Is this in accordance with the consensus at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description? --
Nessie (
talk)
20:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- It comes under "the system has become somewhat of a mess, with extra categories added without consensus". These "Eukaryotes described in" have been added without consensus. Oculi ( talk) 22:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly. Peter coxhead ( talk) 06:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Just wanted to make sure everything was on the same page. -- Nessie ( talk) 15:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Note that Category:Songs about women has also been deleted. Timrollpickering 13:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: It's about a man, so it needs to be categorised accordingly? I think not. If we can't delete this, can we at least turn it into a container category - in honour of the valid sub-cats? Richhoncho ( talk) 14:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: The thing is that there's also a category Songs about women. I do recognize the problem, but if one category has to go then they other should go too. A solution might be to specify these categories more. -
User:Kjell Knudde,
17:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC).
- Category:songs about women has also being nominated in precisely the same terms. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 22:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete typical problem of categories "about" something; how much about it must the article be, and what reliable source tells us that it's at least that much? Apart from that: (i) something as unwieldy as "men" or "women" (see below) as being about makes this particularly not useful for anyone searching about the subject. If this were so important and defining a characteristic, you'd expect a parent like Category:Songs about people or such, and a whole tree for works about people (whether individuals, groups, or the species); and (ii) we don't have an article Songs about men, and short of a list I'm not sure one could be written that isn't WP:SYNTH. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, possibly containerize, possibly merge to Category:Songs about people. The subcategories are a coherent set of categories that should have a common parent. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Just a mishmash of songs with no specific connection to make this category worthwhile. There is no reason I would navigate from The Candy Man to Let's Hear It for the Boy because of this category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 10:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Timrollpickering 13:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: It's about a woman, so it needs to be categorised accordingly? I think not. If we can't delete this, can we at least turn it into a container category - in honour of the valid sub-cats? Richhoncho ( talk) 14:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete typical problem of categories "about" something; how much about it must the article be, and what reliable source tells us that it's at least that much? Apart from that: (i) something as unwieldy as "men" (see above) or "women" as being about makes this particularly not useful for anyone searching about the subject. If this were so important and defining a characteristic, you'd expect a parent like Category:Songs about people or such, and a whole tree for works about people (whether individuals, groups, or the species); and (ii) we don't have an article Songs about women, and short of a list I'm not sure one could be written that isn't WP:SYNTH. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, possibly containerize, possibly merge to Category:Songs about people. The subcategories (excluding the feminist ones) are a coherent set of categories that should have a common parent. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Just a mishmash of songs with no specific connection to make this category worthwhile. There is no plausible reason I would navigate from Hey There Delilah to Eleanor Rigby through this category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 10:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Timrollpickering 23:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, the articles are already in Category:Ancient tribes in Dacia. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete the present Moldova is the part of Romania, which was ceded to USSR at the end of WWII. This is far too small an area to merit an ancient history category of its own. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Timrollpickering 23:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: merge unclear Romanian/Moldovan region that did not have its own separate history in ancient and medieval times until the Principality of Moldova was founded in the 14th century. For comparison, Carpathian-Dniester area in the Early Middle Ages redirects to Romania in the Middle Ages. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- The scope of the category is unclear. It is not wholly satisfactory to use a polity that has only existed in anything like its present form for 100 (arguably 150) years, but the alternative is worse. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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.