Category talk:Stillingia
 | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Contested deletion
[edit]This category should not be speedy deleted as being unpopulated, because...
- it's not unpopulated. @Peter coxhead: I took your advice and created more taxon articles that fall within its parent, Category:Hippomaneae. It now has well enough children for several of the genera to have their own categories (e.g. see also Category:Sebastiania). Or is there another issue here? Thanks for the help. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 23:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- There were five or six articles in the category when I upmerged it to Category:Hippomaneae, which you reverted. That is far short of the number for a viable category. So we should discuss it at CfD. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Per your suggestion, I began creating and adding to genus categories once Hippomaneae reached >100 articles, including several newly created articles to Category:Stillingia. I think the only one I have changed back from Hippomaneae, as of this comment, is Stillingia lineata, which was after your comment here. The 5 you recently changed from Category:Stillingia to Category:Hippomaneae were all new articles. (I am about to go through and fix all the Stillingia spp. now though, so that they are in the same category.)
- If it is already known that a taxon has numerous diverse genera and species, it does seem more judicious to create categories for those genera as one is expanding the breadth of the subject on Wikipedia rather than to have to go through again and re-tag them later. Maybe that should be clarified somewhere so that users aren't doing unnecessary reverts?
- Related: do you know if this "small category rule of thumb" only applies to plant taxonomy categories? e.g. Category:Iranolacerta and Category:Dinarolacerta are some new reptile taxon categories that I noticed, but those genera only have 2 described species each. I personally don't see anything wrong with small taxonomic categories, but do want to be sure I'm following the community consensus if that's already been established somewhere for taxonomy categorization across the tree of life on Wikipedia.
- I'm happy to continue to discuss this wherever; I have not been involved in category deletion, beyond speedy ones, so I'm not sure what that entails. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 03:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- There were five or six articles in the category when I upmerged it to Category:Hippomaneae, which you reverted. That is far short of the number for a viable category. So we should discuss it at CfD. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)