Talk:Haplogroup CF/Archive 1

Archive 1

Move requested

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Haplogroup C+F (Y-DNA) → Haplogroup CF (Y-DNA) — Dispute over undiscussed previous renaming. DMacks (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Brout8 had moved Haplogroup CF (Y-DNA) → Haplogroup C,F (Y-DNA) and shortly thereafter Haplogroup C,F (Y-DNA) → Haplogroup C+F (Y-DNA) with a summary that does not explain why the renaming was done. 4.242.174.183 moved it back "revert... this nomenclature is the accepted for these types of compounding of haplogroups; there is no attested reasoning for doing what user Brout8 has done. It must be attested to, not unsourced." That revert was a cut'n'paste, which I have undone as bad-process (I'm not taking a position on the dispute). So now the article is as Brout8 has done and with which 4.242.174.183 disagrees. DMacks (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I regret changing the article. I got the information from the ISOGG latest change. However, I now disagree with the name change. It is actually quite confusing. The YCC has yet to officially name P143 or P9.1, M168, M294. I actually prefer to change it back to the old name. --Brout8 (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger proposal

I propose that Haplogroup_CF_(Y-DNA) be merged into Y-Chromosome haplogroups. I think that the content in the Haplogroup_CF_(Y-DNA) article can easily be explained in the context of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups, and the Haplogroups article is of a reasonable size that the merging of this article will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. RebekahThorn (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose strongly for the following reasons at least:

1. Wikipedia is not paper.
2. Separate articles on macrohaplogroups enable lay readers to easily understand lines of descent, through one mouse click/screen touch.
3. We should avoid any tendency towards presentism. Each "new" macrohaplogroup actually represents a significant event in human prehistory and genealogy. Knowledge about macrohaplogroups will grow (and in some cases basal members may even be found – if they haven't been already).
   Grant | Talk

Strong claim with weak support

The second paragraph of the lede says However, haplogroup CF has been observed at a low frequency in a small Tai-Kadai population (5%). The paper referenced has a table that shows this appearing to be the case, but there is no mention of it elsewhere in the paper. I don't think this could be basal CF (CF*) since it's not aDNA from a fossil. Could this be a previously undiscovered haplogroup that sprung from CF? Maybe someone who knows more about this could take a look. Zyxwv99 (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)