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 those for sponges, amphibians, cnidarians, crustaceans, echinoderms and gastropods, which are not broken down by year; but with permission to re-create some of those if it is worth building a structure for them by year. Rename others ending "by century" to "by century of formal description". Keep the rest but mark as container categories. (I know there is one year-category already for crustaceans; that does not yet justify the hierarchy. Anyone is welcome to ping me if I have missed any other inconsistencies.)

It is interesting to note that the direction of this consensus is different from many others in year categories, where we have been moving to year categories for broader history topics and century categories for specific topics (e.g. 2017 June 1). Apparently when it comes to fauna, there is still support for the older pattern of narrower intersections, i.e. year categories for specific topics. – Fayenatic London 10:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Sponges by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Deletion of the following categories per rationale at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Formal_description_categories_should_be_by_year_only

• Category:Sponges by century
• Category:Sponges described in the 19th century
• Category:Sponges described in the 20th century
• Category:Sponges described in the 21st century
• Category:Amphibians by century
• Category:Amphibians described in the 20th century
• Category:Amphibians described in the 21st century

• and maybe few others? Snek01 (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete most. Any of these holding articles should go. However, some of these are container categories holding subcategories by a particular year. Container categories should be kept. The "Animals", "Birds", Beetles", "Insects" and "Moths" ones are container categories. Birds and Insects can go directly under Animals, with Beetles and Moths under Insects. There is no point to increasing the depth of the category tree with Deuterostome, Vertebrate, Tetrapod between Animal and Bird or Protostome and Arthropod between Animal and Insect. Plantdrew (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Plantdrew. Most should be deleted, but the mentioned container categories should stay. M. A. Broussard (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are 117 categories, that are completely redundant. The purpose is to have an article of species described in a certain year categorized in one category only. And also have category structure as simple as possible. Also container categories of birds are very easy to simplify:
• Category:Species by year of formal description
  • Category:Animals by year of formal description
    • Category:Birds by year of formal description - This is one already existing container category for birds, instead of 4 redundant ones.
      • Category:Birds described in 1758
      • Category:Birds described in 1761
      • etc.
    • Category:Insects by year of formal description
      • Category:Insects described in 1758
      • etc.

Those categories normally exist already! So why to have 4 container categories, when we can have one only? --Snek01 (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this would allow for an easier access (requiring only 2 clicks for any year, rather than 3 or more due to one overcrowded category). --Couiros22 (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the categories under discussion should be blue-linked so editors can look at them easily (I have linked a few). I myself created most of the beetles, insects and moths ones (as container categories) so I would be greatly distressed by their deletion. (The rationale behind the moths ones was that the animals by year categories were completely overwhelmed by moths and to a lesser extent beetles.) Oculi (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have blue-linked the remaining categories. I disagree that there is anything redundant about Category:Species by year of formal description, Category:Animals by year of formal description, Category:Birds by year of formal description. Category:Eukaryotes by year of formal description might well be excessive. Oculi (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not worry. Categories you mentioned in your last comment are not listed for deletion. They are mentioned in the discussion as a good example. --Snek01 (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely standard throughout the category system to group 'by year' categories into 'by decade' and 'by century' trees: see eg Category:Deaths by century. Why is Category:Moths by century redundant, and to what is it redundant? Oculi (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation, hhy are those categories redundant:

• 1) Wikipedia:Overcategorization simply states: "Do not create categories for every single verifiable fact in articles. This only makes the category system more crowded and less useful." That means that more categories is not always better.
• 2) That is also simply explained at Wikipedia:Categorization dos and don'ts: "Don't categorize based on trivial characteristics." The fact, that the year 2017 belong to the 21st century is very trivial fact.
• 3) The Category:Deaths by century is the only category. It is used for categorizing of the single subject by time. - But for categorizing species in the same way there would be necessary much many unnecessary=redundant categories. Compare the following examples:
  • Category:Deaths by century, Category:18th-century deaths‎, Category:19th-century deaths‎, Category:20th-century deaths‎, Category:21st-century deaths‎.
  • Category:Arachnids by century, Category:Arachnids described in the 18th century, Category:Arachnids described in the 19th century, Category:Arachnids described in the 20th century, Category:Arachnids described in the 21st century
  • Category:Beetles by century, Category:Beetles described in the 18th century, Category:Beetles described in the 19th century, Category:Beetles described in the 20th century, Category:Beetles described in the 21st century
  • Category:Cnidarians by century, Category:Cnidarians described in the 18th century, Category:Cnidarians described in the 19th century, Category:Cnidarians described in the 20th century, Category:Cnidarians described in the 21st century
  • Category:Deuterostomes by century, Category:Deuterostomes described in the 18th century, Category:Deuterostomes described in the 19th century, Category:Deuterostomes described in the 20th century,

Category:Deuterostomes described in the 21st century

• • etc. Do you see the redundancy? Deaths are on one row. But it would need hundreds of rows for various groups of species. This every row is redundant.
• 4) There is no Definingness in those century categories. WP:DEFINING#From Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Non-defining characteristics. Categorization of species description by century lacks Definingness.
• Notice, that we also do not have Category:Animals by millenium of formal description, Category:Animals described in 2nd-millennium, Category:Animals described in 3rd-millennium. Those are obvious examples of categories lacking Definingness.
• Moreover, the category name Sponges by century violates general naming conventions of categories. Per Wikipedia:Categorization#General conventions names of categories should be "that can stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories." This means the name "Sponges by century" is wrong. Correct would be "Sponges by century of formal description".

--Snek01 (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Insects by century is a subcategory scheme for Category:Insects and does not appear on any articles. Most of your remarks are accordingly irrelevant. I am going to oppose all these until a more coherent rationale is produced. Oculi (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all – the nomination is entirely confused. Deletion of a subcat scheme leaves subcats adrift without adequate parents and instead should be an upmerge; the nom does not say what the upmerge targets are. Moreover disparate categories have been bundled together. Some are obvious keeps, others may well not be. It is for the nom to split these out rather than leave it up to other editors. Oculi (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Oculi: For our proper understanding, can you give some examples of subcats left adrift with the proposal? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything in Category:Birds described in the 18th century is removed from a 'birds by time' scheme, as Category:Birds by year of formal description is not populated. Nearly everything else was the same as some editor had emptied and redirected Category:Insects by year of formal description (and 'moths' and 'beetles') but I have repaired those. (The nom does not seem to be objecting to the 'by year' schemes.) Oculi (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• So it's the same issue as User:Plantdrew mentioned before, right? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep most Year of description is an important feature. Please no millennium categories as we have had formal descriptions only for a few centuries. It is appropriate to split species into broad classification mammals/birds/reptiles/amphibians and beetles/moths/etc, but ideally the century categories should be containers for years, generally not having speicies articles directly in them. Sponges may need to be merged into some wider category for invertebrates without a hard shell. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all that are not container categories. Century categories should only be containers for the corresponding decade categories, which in turn should only be containers for the corresponding year categories. When there are no year categories, there should be no decade or century categories. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep most, per Peterkingiron. The century categories should be retained as containers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 28 May 2017 (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: keep. ℯxplicit 00:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Kings to Category:Rulers

Nominator's rationale: Substantially similar. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · ) 06:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• no not marge not at all the same. Kings are just a subset of rulers, by definition and by category contents. Hmains (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, "king" is a very defining descriptor in many cases. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- The target should be Monarchs - normally hereditary rulers holding office for life. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I might be willing to consider merging kings with monarchs, but kings and queens are a particular subtype of "rulers", not an interchangeable term for the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As others are saying, target should be Category:Monarchs. The nominator is getting ahead of him/herself by treating the merger to Category:Rulers as if it were already fait accomplit.Newimpartial (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2017 (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: keep. ℯxplicit 00:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Monarchs to Category:Rulers

Nominator's rationale: Substantially similar. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · ) 06:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• no not marge not at all the same. Monarchs are just a subset of rulers, by definition and by category contents. Hmains (talk) 05:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Open to the idea of merging. To begin with, if merged, it better be merged to Category:Heads of state. It removes a layer in the tree that is pretty complex at the top. And I don't think it'll be particularly harmful to have presidents, emperors and kings as siblings in Category:Heads of state. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This (and the last suggestion) is going too far. Monarchs are typically hereditary and hold office for life. This is different from most presidents who hold office for a fixed term and have to be re-elected to continue. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Open to the idea of merging to Category:Heads of state per Marcocapelle logic. What King is not also a monarch (with the possible exception of Sparta)? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not all rulers are monarchs. This proposal denies the fact that supreme executive power should derive from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. If I went around saying I was an emperor ...Newimpartial (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Is that a fact or a wish? Did Louis XVI derive his mandate from the masses? Or Idi Amin? (Nice example that kings and presidents can be treated similarly.) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Most monarchs are anointed with oil, not water; I'm not aware of any aquatic ceremony but would be fascinated to read of one. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2017 (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: merge. ℯxplicit 00:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Economic theory to Category:Economics

Nominator's rationale: merge, this is just a hodgepodge of subcategories and articles that don't have any relationship with each other except that they are about economics. For what it's worth, the category also doesn't have a JEL classification code. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2017 (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: merge as WP:SOFTDELETE. – Fayenatic London 23:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Economic theory stubs to Category:Economics and finance stubs

Nominator's rationale: merge, this is a hodgepodge of economics articles, and too few of them to keep this stub category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2017 (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: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Aviators killed by being shot down (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category, as none of the subjects are notable for having been shot down. Appears to be a case of WP:PERFCAT: being shot down is an occupational hazard for military aviators, not something out of the ordinary. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Defining attribute for all those individuals. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my comments on above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Carlossuarez46: Which comments are you referring to exactly? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_17#Category:Road_incident_deaths_by_country (previous day's CFD). DexDor ^(talk) 20:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• correct. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nom's comment -- I don't see this being defining for the subjects in question; it would be similar to Category:Infantry soldiers killed by bullets or Category:Personnel of armoured troops killed by a hit on their tank. This is rather routine and is to be expected for the military profession in question. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as deleting this category would remove articles from the parent categories (e.g. Category:Military personnel killed in action and Category:Shot-down aviators) to which (as long as those categories exist) the articles belong (assuming the current categorization is correct). A CFD proposing deletion of a group of these categories (and any upmerging where necessary) might well get my support (at Category:Military personnel killed in action this category is an oddity). DexDor ^(talk) 20:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @DexDor: thanks for the feedback. The Category:Shot-down aviators seems rather pointless itself -- of course it's to be expected that aviators would be shot down in the course of military operations. It's probably quite rare for an aviator not to have been shot down. It's a parent category of the category under discussion. Any suggestions on how to tackle this one?

Specific to the present discussion, I see that the Category:Military personnel killed in action contains only one sub-category along the lines of "Military profession by type of death". I think an upmerge would make sense, as other branches of the military do not have this type of category.K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure about "to be expected" and "rare ... not" (especially as some articles about people categorized as aviators may be about those who served in peacetime). I'll have a think about a way ahead (although I only have limited time for wp at the moment). There are some articles (e.g. James Muri) in these categories that suggest we need a clear definition of what shot-down means. DexDor ^(talk) 06:13, 22 May 2017 (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: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Ostvolk Medal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category for an obscure award. None of the subjects are notable for having received this decoration (see: WP:CATDEF). K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2017 (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.