Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 26

January 26

Category:Oxynotidae

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Oxynotidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2025 (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:Pristiophoridae

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pristiophoridae is the only family in the monotypic order Pristiophoriformes. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2025 (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:Anacanthobatis

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Anacanthobatis is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2025 (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:Heteropneustidae

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Heteropneustidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2025 (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:Austroglanididae

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Austroglanididae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2025 (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:Astroblepidae

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Astroblepidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2025 (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:Years of the 19th century in the Kingdom of Hanover

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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename and redirect. Kingdom of Hanover only existed 1814–1866. Redirect as {{R from template-generated category}}. – Fayenatic London 14:27, 26 January 2025 (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:Parazacco

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Parazacco is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2025 (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:2030s in Africa

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 18:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Yet another underpopulated category for the future. The two articles contained within Category:2030 in Moroccan sport are already in the subcategory. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:34, 26 January 2025 (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:2027 in Africa

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 18:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only contents are those in Category:2027 Africa Cup of Nations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:27, 26 January 2025 (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:Acanthorhodeus

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Acanthorhodeus is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All of these monotypic taxa CfD's should be bundled. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:04, 26 January 2025 (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:Chromobotia

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Chromobotia is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2025 (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:Gymnocharacinus

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Gymnocharacinus is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2025 (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:Spratellomorpha

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Spratellomorpha is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2025 (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:Stolothrissa

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Stolothrissa is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2025 (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:Omosudidae

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Omosudidae is a monogeneric family, and its genus Omosudis is also monotypic. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2025 (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:Typhlichthys

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Typhlichthys is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2025 (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:Balistapus

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Balistapus is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2025 (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:Syngnathoides

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Syngnathoides is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2025 (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:Lamprichthys

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Lamprichthys is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2025 (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:American Masters Athlete that competed in Olympics

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 to Category:American masters athletes. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection. Only 3 articles were not in the Category:Olympic track and field athletes for the United States tree and I verified via PetScan that they either a) never competed in the Olympics (due to 1980 boycott or WWII) or b) competed under another nationality (dual nationality). Opposed rename at speedy. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion
American masters athletes that competed in the Summer Olympics

@Trackinfo, what do you think about including a link in the sidebar of Category:American masters athletes using the {{PetScan}} template like this (see right)? The issue with the current title is that the 'M' in Masters and the 'A' in Athletes shouldn't be capitalized because we use sentence case for category titles, see WP:NCCPT. Also, a definite article "the" is missing after the word "in".
The benefit of just including a link to the PetScan is that it will be automatically populated, and it still serves the navigation aid purpose so it will be easier to maintain. Greatly appreciate your work here. --Habst (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are very special / unique individuals that competed as an Olympian, and were capable of continuing to compete later as a Masters athlete. Many Olympians have attempted to continue as a Masters but were unable (due to past injuries or other reasons). Recommend: to not change.[Side note: Not part of this conversation: Occasionally the individual has been a both at the same time.] PlainDonut (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PlainDonut, what do you think about putting this category intersection link at the category page, so that the list of U.S. masters Olympians is still there and will be automatically updated in the future by a computer, instead of having to manually maintain it at this category? --Habst (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Some of the USA Masters Athletes (Track and Field) competed at the Winter Olympics, hence the term
"Olympics."
Side Note: Some Masters Athletes (Track and Field) were USA Olympic Coaches. PlainDonut (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PlainDonut, I updated the PetScan link to include everyone from Category:Olympic competitors, i.e. both the Summer and Winter Olympics. If they were Olympic coaches only and not competitors, they don't belong in this category because it says, "competed" in the Olympics.
Now that the PetScan link includes all Summer and Winter competitors who are U.S. masters athletes, what do you think? --Habst (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we keep category or sub-category: "American Masters Athlete that competed in Olympics"
Side note: Willie Gault is one example that competed in Masters, Summer Olys, and was an alternate for the Winter Olys. Lolo Jones and Lauryn Williams competed in Summer and Winter Olys. Willie Davenport competed in Masters, Summer and Winter Olys. There might be more. PlainDonut (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PlainDonut, if we have a PetScan link which is the exact same as the category, then why should we keep the category? The PetScan link should include Jones, Williams, and Davenport already. The problem is that if we have this category for one nationality, we would also need to make it for every other nationality and nobody has done that yet (and we would have to rename it because "Athlete" shouldn't be capitalized). I greatly appreciate your work compiling this, but now PetScan can make the same list so I think it's not needed any more. What do you think? --Habst (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer to keep as Category. Tonight I added "Greg Bell" to the American Masters Athlete and Masters/Olympian Category. This was found by digging / research, and not by Google or AI. After we find these tie-ins, then it will be easier to find by Google and/or AI. PlainDonut (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PlainDonut, I respect your opinion, but I just want to be clear that PetScan does not use Google or AI at all, it just simply takes everyone in Category:Olympic competitors and everyone in Category:American masters athletes and finds those that are in both lists. This way, if someone adds an Olympian to "American masters athletes", they will be automatically placed in the PetScan and they don't need this extra category. --Habst (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is not so much to gloss up the appearance within the category, which would be a single edit kind of move. It would be across all current 130 and growing members of this list, which would necessarily also contain Category:Olympic track and field athletes for the United States and Category:American masters athletes. If one were a sub-category of another in either direction, editors are encouraged to remove the duplicate category. But the double duplication is what makes this category unique. We could end up with 130 articles chaotically changing categories which would be difficult to track and effectively make this and possibly other categories incomplete. This does not serve the purpose of categories in helping users locate similar content. As @Plain Donut commented elsewhere, each is a special accomplishment, not easily achieved in either direction.
Sub comment: It is difficult to participate in discussions like this when every capital letter causes the cursor to jump back to the beginning of the comment box. Every sentence needs to be re-constructed with multiple copy/paste edits. On my multiple computers using Safari, this has been an ongoing problem I have remarked about for years.Trackinfo (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trackinfo, re: your computer issue, can you try using another browser like Firefox? Or if not, try using the mobile version of Wikipedia here to reply instead?
I don't understand how merging would make those 130 articles incomplete. It would be a straightforward change, and we could verify that all 130 are in Category:American masters athletes and you could add that category to your watchlist to see if any are added or removed. We are not losing any data either, because the full list of U.S. masters Olympians will always be available at this category intersection no matter what.
In general, I don't see the reason to separately manually maintain something that is both an outlier (there is no equivalent Category:Candadian Masters Athlete that competed in Olympics or for any other country) and can already be maintained with 100% accuracy by a computer program (PetScan) above.
Also, what do you think about the casing and grammar issues with the category name? Again, I greatly respect your work here so hoping we can come to a consensus. --Habst (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Trackinfo: The intersection between Olympian and Masters athlete is non-defining. They are two separate unrelated traits. Being a track and field athlete at the Olympics is defining and being a masters athlete is defining, but the intersection of those two is not defining. The content could be converted to a list either by expanding List of masters athletes or on a new page where more context can be given. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Cautiously relisting. If the category is not merged/deleted, should it be renamed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:13, 26 January 2025 (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:Scaturiginichthys

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Scaturiginichthys is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2025 (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:Oxudercinae

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories are overlapping – mudskipper is the common name for members of the subfamily Oxudercinae. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2025 (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:Ratsirakia

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ratsirakia is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2025 (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:Coryphaena

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Coryphaena is the sole member of the monogeneric family Coryphaenidae. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2025 (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:Batrachoidiformes

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 to Category:Batrachoididae * Pppery * it has begun... 18:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Batrachoidiformes is a monotypic order. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not monotypic to Percomorpha. I suggest Category:Batrachoididae is a better merge. ? UtherSRG (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Batrachoididae. The sole content of this category is a stub category, and Batrachoididae is already directly in Category:Percomorpha so it is equivalent ot just adding the stub category to that family. Probably the stub category should be renamed as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:00, 3 February 2025 (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:Hebei Tiangong F.C. players

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: speedy rename.. – Fayenatic London 14:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I mistakenly created the category on its current name. IDontHaveSkype (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename as WP:C2E. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2025 (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:Colluricinclidae

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 18:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Colluricinclidae is a monogeneric family containing only Colluricincla, so normally I'd propose merging it into its parent Category:Passeriformes. However, according to A multi-gene phylogeny reveals novel relationships for aberrant genera of Australo-Papuan core Corvoidea and polyphyly of the Pachycephalidae and Psophodidae (Aves: Passeriformes)  and Historical biogeography of an Indo-Pacific passerine bird family (Pachycephalidae): different colonization patterns in the Indonesian and Melanesian archipelagos  (and as described in our article on shrikethrushes), Colluricincla has been moved into the family Pachycephalidae, making Colluricinclidae a junior subjective synonym of Pachycephalidae. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:00, 3 February 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_26&oldid=1273808567"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 26, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.