Category:Mainline Electric Multiple Units of India
[edit]Category:<Animal>s described in <year> with very confined scope and small size
[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Anemones (6 cats)
- Ants (6 cats)
- Aphids (4 cats)
- Bees (4 cats)
- Caddisflies (1 cat)
- Centipedes (1 cat)
- Cicadas (2 cats)
- Damselflies (6 cats)
- Dragonflies (9 cats)
- Fleas (1 cat)
- Flies (6 cats)
- Lacewings (1 cat)
- Mantises (1 cat)
- Scale insects (1 cat)
- Sea cucumbers (1 cat)
- Stink bugs (1 cat)
- Termites (2 cats)
- Ticks (3 cats)
- Urchins (4 cats)
- Wasps (6 cats)
- Nominator's rationale: While I am for the creation of useful subcategories to the Category:Animals by year of formal description tree and below, those listed above have the following criteria:
- contain 9 or fewer total categories across all years,
- contain a small number of articles (the largest being Category:Ants described in 1858 (0), and next largest Category:Flies described in 1859 (0)),
- due to #1 & #2, they fail to meet the consensus reached at the Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description, and finally,
- were created between February–June 2018, giving them many months to be sufficiently populated and/or expanded.
- If any of these trees have promise for expansion from the associated WikiProject, then they can be reassessed in a few months. Otherwise, I think their contents can be safely upmerged now. Ping to Pvmoutside, the sole creator. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 21:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WT:ANIMALS, WT:ARTHROPODS, WT:MARINELIFE, & WT:TREEOFLIFE notified. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 22:21, 4 November 2018 (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:Mites described in 1959
[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 as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose merging
- Propose deleting
- Nominator's rationale: We don't even have a Category:Mites, so this seems an inappropriate way to categorise their taxonomic history. Zoology is not my field, so I would welcome suggestion for a better merge target. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Notifications: WikiProject Tree of Life and WikiProject Arthropods. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I notice that the corresponding crustacean and spider categories are sparsely populated. Rather than pull this all the way up to animals by year would it make more sense to introduce an arthropod or arachnid category? Lavateraguy (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (merge or rename) … to something like the proposal above. The category contains names of systematic classification, which resolves the informal term 'mite' to an eponymous value in the meaningful communication of facts, so I can't imagine how resorting to vernacular is helpful in the categorisation of them. cygnis insignis 20:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- BrownHairedGirl, I'm working on a larger nom that contains many sparsely populated cats such as these. Perhaps we can merge this one into it if I get it done soon, or maybe I'll omit mites from it if it falls on Nov 5th. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 21:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per nom. One reason is that we've seen too often that categories of this kind need to be associated with a reasonably active Wikiproject if they are to be maintained. There's no Wikiproject for mites. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - merge the mites. Oculi (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and delete as described, per nominator's rationale. Softlavender (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2018 (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.
- 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: The category has already been deleted by User:Michig. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a musician who does not have the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant one. As always, every musician does not automatically get one of these just to parent his WP:BLP -- they're created only in unusual cases, such as Category:Leonard Cohen or Category:Prince (musician), where it's needed for navigation purposes as the musician has a high volume of related content. But this musician doesn't have that. Bearcat (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Even if we need this category (and I suspect we do not), we cannot allow it to survive with this obscure ambiguous abbreviation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E.M.S. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Even if the head article is kept, there is absolutely no reason to keep a single-item eponymous category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Recreate when other potential content merits inclusion, 'eponymousness' is not a circular reference and creation was, at best, premature. — cygnis insignis 20:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. Nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2018 (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:Candian people by province or territory by occupation
[edit]Category:Women murder victims
[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: It includes (e.g.) Tammy Alexander who was a girl. Since female children are not women, the category should be renamed: it's not exclusively about adult females but females in general. Honestly, this is a big change for many, many categories that include boys along with men and girls along with women but I had to start somewhere to get feedback. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as per the nominator, some of these people are children (and so not women). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps it is unavoidable, but the term 'female' and 'male' are sometimes regarded as at least potentially obtuse, and some suggest avoiding it outside of a biological context. Sociologically, this is territory fraught with complications. I would have more to say if there wider discussion of categorization split by a gender datum instead of a subject or other encyclopaedic arrangements, and more consideration and reading (others have probably considered this deeply already), but for the time being I'm linking Category:Domestic murder victims and pondering the result—red or blue—against what is known about frequency, gender and its notability. — cygnis insignis 21:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as inaccurate and also a malapropism. Softlavender (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The main article is woman: "A woman is a female human being. The term woman is usually reserved for an adult, with girl being the usual term for a female child or adolescent. The term woman is also sometimes used to identify a female human, regardless of age" Dimadick (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You pretty much proved the point: "Woman" is usually reserved for an adult. You'd be hard pressed to find a reliable source or medical source that calls an infant, baby, toddler, or child a "woman". Softlavender (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a woman is a adult female human being. When I hear someone call a youth a person from the ages of 13–17 or 13–18 a "child", I find it insulting as a child is someone 12 years old or younger, as once you turn 13 you are no longer a child. I'm sure most youths would not like to be referred to as a child, so yes a female child or adolescent should not be called a woman either. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do you get this definition of a child from? Rathfelder (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2018 (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:Geobox usage tracking for beach type
[edit]