Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 25#Category:Living fossils

: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. MER-C 03:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Living fossils}}

:Nominator's rationale: The category text says "Life forms thought extinct ..., but later found alive; or in an alternative definition ...".  The Living fossil article says things such as "The term "living fossil" is much misunderstood in popular media in particular, in which it often is used meaninglessly. In professional literature the expression seldom appears and ... has been used inconsistently.".  This indicates that (whilst the concept may be of interest) it isn't a suitable characteristic for categorization of articles about species etc.  Note: some of the articles (e.g. Pelican) are already in a more precise subcategory such as :Category:Extant Chattian first appearances. Note: 2006 discussion closed as no consensus. Note: example of a previous similar CFD. DexDor ^(talk) 18:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

:*Delete. With multiple definitions of "living fossil" given in the category text itself (and more definitions in the main article), the category is hopelessly subjective and untenable. The concept/definition I find most interesting would be "taxa first described based on fossils and later found to have living representatives" (with coelacanth as the canonical example). And that concept aligns somewhat more precisely with one of the multiple definitions/concepts at Lazarus taxon/:Category:Lazarus taxa. Not sure that the Lazarus taxa category is appropriate either. The articles for living fossils and Lazarus taxa both have poorly curated lists of examples. Perhaps something like list of fossil taxa later found to have extant members would be of interest, but a poorly named category is not the right way to go. Plantdrew (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

----

: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. MER-C 03:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Warhammer Fantasy Armies to :Category:Warhammer Fantasy

:Nominator's rationale: Only two articles. TTN (talk) 16:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• Just delete per WP:SMALLCAT and no need to merge because the articles are already in :Category:Warhammer supplements. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

----

: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: rename. MER-C 03:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Ismaili Shia dynasties to :Category:Ismaili dynasties

:Nominator's rationale: Redundant: the Ismailis are a branch of Shiism. (cf. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_13#Category:Sunni_Muslim_dynasties similar discussion] in the past) Constantine ✍ 14:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support, as nom says, Isma'ilism is a branch of Shia Islam. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support Redundant name. Dimadick (talk) 10:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support - useless redundacy. Place Clichy (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

----

: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: rename. MER-C 03:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Historians of monastic history to :Category:Historians of monasticism

:Nominator's rationale: The existing title is redundant and inconsistent with the rest of the category tree. (Additionally, if you interpret the category name literally, it is for scholars studying the history of the history of monasticism.) 142.160.131.220 (talk) 08:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Vaporgaze (talk) 11:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --Bduke (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

----

: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. MER-C 03:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|People who were expelled from school}}

:Nominator's rationale: Purely trivial and non-defining category. Vaporgaze (talk) 07:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, as non-defining. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose when you apply for university, this is one of the first questions that is asked. We have other educational categories, so this one should be included as well. Merry Christmas everyone, even if you've been expelled from school.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

:* This is about WP:NONDEF, it is not about questions when applying for university. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. --Bduke (talk) 08:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no problem with this category if the sourcing is reliable. This is no different to categories for criminal convictions, which could also be "non-defining" if they were before the person was in the public eye, or the offences were of a minor nature. So there is a :Category:People convicted of assault for every person convicted of that offence, even if it did not cause bodily harm and they received a non-custodial sentence, but not for somebody going so far as to be expelled from school? 2A00:23C5:E1AB:4500:D5FB:2702:48E3:B57A (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

::WP:OSE. DexDor ^(talk) 15:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Definately non-defining for Steve Wozniak etc. See also WP:DNWAUC. DexDor ^(talk) 15:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

----

: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.