User talk:Caftaric

Welcome!

Hello, Caftaric, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Vanillic. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 14:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caftaric, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Caftaric! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Technical 13 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your first barnstar

		The Writer's Barnstar
		You're a good article creator for such a new editor! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U\|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 09:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Canalisporium) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Canalisporium, Caftaric!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I don't think it's standard, nor necessary to list the publication after each scientific name (at least not in zoological and botanical nomenclature). Perhaps they could better be converted to citations to help expand the article?

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A page you started (Cladodus) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Cladodus, Caftaric!

Wikipedia editor Megalibrarygirl just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Add your projects to wikiproject fish. Also, do you have a photo?

To reply, leave a comment on Megalibrarygirl's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A page you started (Plagiorchis elegans) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Plagiorchis elegans, Caftaric!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Note that {{flatworm-stub}} is a more relevant category for plagiorchiids than {{animal-stub}}.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A page you started (Ctenacanthus elegans) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Ctenacanthus elegans, Caftaric!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Note that it's common practice (although not required) for fossil species to redirect to the genus, rather than to have a plethora of nearly identical species stubs. Even Featured Articles can discuss multiple species: see e.g. Paraceratherium.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A page you started (Meliolales) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Meliolales, Caftaric!

Wikipedia editor LavaBaron just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

great job

To reply, leave a comment on LavaBaron's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A page you started (Spatafora) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Spatafora, Caftaric!

Wikipedia editor BeowulfBrower just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please cite "Joseph W. Spatafora" or, better yet, create a page for him (with citations there)!

To reply, leave a comment on BeowulfBrower's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Please

... stop replacing Fungus with [[fungus|Fungi]] when you change categories (see WP:NOTBROKEN); I have to go after you switch them back and it's wasting a lot of time I could be using to do other things! Thanks! Sasata (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And why are you doing that? --Caftaric (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTBROKEN. Sasata (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting article! I have nevertheless a good reason to edit these links, as there are quite often other links or redirects links (such as "fungus" or "fungal") used in the same article. Putting all the links to "fungus" avoids to have the page listed several times in the "what links here" tool of the "fungus" article. Hope it can convince you. --Caftaric (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of plant orders

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Categorization#Taxonomic rank categories. Categorizing plant orders is independent of the main taxonomic classification. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minor changes

Hi, you appear to be annoying several experienced editors here. Could I make one small request, and a minor suggestion:

a) please stop deleting the blank line after the infobox, image, or other media and before the first line of the text: the spacing does no harm to anyone, and it makes editing easier as the format makes the text easier to perceive, so removing it is in fact injurious.

b) if you are making minor changes to categories or formats, please tick the "This is a minor edit" box so the rest of us don't keep getting alarm bells rung.

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marine edible fish

Nearly all marine fish species are edible... well over 20,000 species. So you have a long way to go before you fill this all but useless category. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cornufer elegans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anura. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Citrus variegation virus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mandarin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vietbocap

Hey, no need to type in references manually. Why not use the cite form on the edit window and then click on templates -> cite journal? That means all you have to do is paste in a PMID link and the reference is assembled automatically. That also means the references are in the text so you can put them next to the statements that you want to reference. Blythwood (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

on categorization

Hello! I can see you've been doing a good deal of categorizing lately. With regards to redirects, they should normally not be categorized, especially if they end up in the same category as their target article they redirect to: see Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. Case in point, in the Category:Geophilomorpha you've placed both Aspidopleres and its sole species redirect Aspidopleres intercalatus (and several other redirect/target pairs), which misrepresents the number of articles, introduces redundancy, and hinders navigation for readers (whose convenience and browsing experience should be prioritized above the editorial choices and hierarchical designs of Wikipedians). I personally think that not every rank-taxon needs its own category (Category:X-genera, X-suborders, etc.) and think that some of the categories you've created might be better off only categorizing other categories rather than articles, but I tend to be a lumper more than a splitter. In case you haven't already, see also Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Someone has already mentioned your Category:Marine edible fish above, and I agree that may be a relatively trivial and non-defining category, possibly a future CfD candidate (ditto for all in Category:Edible fish by habitat.) Beware the impulse for runaway sub-categorization (Edible marine fish by Ocean, by year of discovery, etc...) By and large your contributions have been positive, but I just want to make sure you proceed cautiously and with knowledge of guidelines and consensus to prevent future conflict; a stitch in time and all that. All the best, --Animalparty! (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (S. argentina) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating S. argentina, Caftaric!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Note: It is usually unhelpful to target an abbreviation like this to a single species: there are likely dozens of potential names (Squatina argentina for one). A disambiguation page would be most useful: see Category:Species Latin name abbreviation disambiguation pages for more info. I've converted a number of your redirects into disambiguation pages already (see P. cookei and S. aethiopica) . A simple web search can identify other likely targets. As for your redirects like cookei and pearsei, it is extremely unlikely that even if someone were searching "Cookei" would intend the species Pseudocellus cookei, as a search indicates numerous species with that name (including those at P. cookei). While conceivably these could be made into disambiguation pages including every taxon ending with cookei or pearsei, it is probably best to simply not create such redirects or pages unless they can clearly and easily help people find articles.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Category:Poisonous amphibians

Category:Poisonous amphibians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation


	Hello, Caftaric. You are invited to join WikiProject Food and drink, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of food, drink and cuisine topics. Please check out the project, and if interested feel free to join by adding your name to the member list. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plant categorization

I can only repeat what I said above: please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Categorization#Taxonomic rank categories. Categorizing plants by taxon rank is independent of the main taxonomic classification. So if you want to put the "by rank" categories into Category:Angiosperm taxa by rank, you should not remove the main taxonomic category. Angiosperm orders are angiosperms. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Louis Etienne Ravaz) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Louis Etienne Ravaz, Caftaric!

Wikipedia editor NearEMPTiness just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for writing this article. It seems, as everything of importance has been covered, and somtimes in very posh Greek/Latin words like ampelography and viticulture.

To reply, leave a comment on NearEMPTiness's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Species name abbreviation redirects

Hello, Caftaric. I posted a comment previously about my concerns with the unhelpfulness of creating redirects from an abbreviated name to a cherry-picked species, but you are still continuing to do so, which creates more work for others. For instance, you created "C. solida" (and many others) as a redirect to Coelolepis, which is completely arbitrary, and ignores the other possibilities "C. solida" may refer to, including Corydalis solida, and Cellana solida. While it may be conventional and appropriate to redirect the unambiguous Coelolepis solida to Coelolepis, it makes no sense to redirect an ambiguous abbreviation. Please stop doing this. I strongly urge you to consider making a Species name abbreviation disambiguation page instead, similar to P. elegans. If you have any questions, please ask. Thank you. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely endorse this comment. The likeliest meaning to me of C. solida is Corydalis solida. A disambiguation page is a better approach, although I question the value of any such pages, given the ability of searches to find all the species with that species name/epithet. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Maurice Mehl) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Maurice Mehl, Caftaric!

Wikipedia editor NearEMPTiness just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for writing and uploading this article about M G Mehl. I propose to move the photograph to the right hand side, unless you want to install a box there.

To reply, leave a comment on NearEMPTiness's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Stub templates and double blank lines

Hi! Thanks for cleaning up all those hominid fossil-related articles. Minor detail per WP:Stub: "It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it." I guess the reason is that it looks better if there's some spacing before the stub template, and that it becomes clearer that it isn't part of the article (compare double blank lines vs. single blank line). Cheers, jonkerz ♠talk 12:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forcipomyia squamipennis has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Caftaric. Forcipomyia squamipennis, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cyphipelta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walker. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Forcipomyia squamipennis

On 31 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Forcipomyia squamipennis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the midge Forcipomyia squamipennis is an important pollinator of the cacao tree in Ghana? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Forcipomyia squamipennis. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Forcipomyia squamipennis), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Muellerilepis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Muellerina. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages

Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages to see how such pages must be structured. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

xxxx in paleontology conodonts

Thanks for the addition of the Conodonts to the Year in paleontology pages (eg. 1931 in paleontology. When adding to those pages it would be of great help if you followed the table formatting that is already in place, and templated your citations. Thanks a bunch. --Kev min § 12:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional note, Conodonts are vertebrates, they should be placed as subsections of the Vertebrate sections on the pages.--Kev min § 16:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again as a reminder, the conodonts need to be placed under the vertebrate sections of the xxxx in paleontology articles--Kev min § 12:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your cheerful advices. The thing is (and I don't to enter any kind of ideologic war stating that) I haven't seen any clear statement that conodont are definitevely vertebrates. Did you? Can you add the references to the right articles, if so? Again thank you for all of your concern! Caftaric.

Look at the page Conodont. They are placed as a class of vertebrates for the purpose of the wiki classification. Also current research papers are placing them as vertebrates, see here, here, and here.--Kev min § 18:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Amber

Just so you know, I am working on a clean-up and expansion of the New Jersey amber stub you created [[1]] so there will be a lot of changes in the near future.--Kev min § 12:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled

Have you considered asking for autopatrolled status at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled? I notice that you're creating a lot of new articles and it looks like you know what you're doing, so having autopatrolled status would keep your articles out of the new unreviewed pages log. Thanks, shoy (reactions) 14:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Cristaria elegans

Hi, I'm AdamSmith12. Caftaric, thanks for creating Cristaria elegans!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Page is very short try to write clear article ! Thanks Adam Smith

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. AdamSmith12 (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled Rights

Hello, I've noticed that you are creating lots of articles about biota. I would like to encourage you to become an autopatrolled user - this allows the pages you create to be automatically marked as reviewed, reducing the workload of reviewers. You can request for this right at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled. Thanks. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 13:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled permission granted

Hi Caftaric, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cristaria elegans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cristaria. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Asselian into Streptognathodus. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptorrhynchus

Hello There,

I noticed that you requested this redirect to be deleted, but you didn't leave any valid reason. I have restored the previous version, please tag the redirect properly if you think that this should be excluded from Wikipedia. Happy Editing :) Hitro talk 16:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC) Hi, I created the Cryptorhynchus page (with one r) instead. Caftaric (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peneroplidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spirolina. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dictionary of natural phenols and polyphenols molecular formulas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page C23H24O12. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hesperidin reverted

You have reverted my (minimal) edit of hesperidin, and as reason you state "Previous version better for the lede." I don't know what lede refer to, nor why you think it is better. In my view, my edit was useful for the reader 1. because it is specific about the nature of the glycoside, 2. as a guide to the related compounds from which it is derived, and importantly, to which it may be transformed (it's metabolic fate), or which it may mimic in pharmacology. I fail to understand the dynamics involved here; why do you (and others around here) revert an edit that is minimal, not wrong, add relevant information and is to the point, without bothering to consult with the contributor to ask if there may be good reasons behind, before they press "revert". When I make a contribution, I think of what information I would to find in the article, and in the case of hesperidin, it's specific nature and it's related compounds seems to me absolutely minimalistic, so what drove you to hastily dismiss it? I would really like to know, because of the time and energy I invest in edits (and waste, unless I invest more in a defence, and ultimately, conflict resolution). Carystus (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't reverted your edit. It was user: Zefr who did so. May user name appears only as the last revision to whom the article has been reverted to. Cheers. Caftaric (talk) 08:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I didn't know it worked that way, I'll take my complaint elsewhere ツ Carystus (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Caftaric (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Caftaric. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of plant articles

Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Categorization. Plant articles should be placed in both a "by rank" category and a taxonomic category, e.g. both Category:Malvales and Category:Malvales genera. Categories should not be too small as per general policy; families with few genera should not have their own category. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Your recent edit to West (name) appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Evking22 (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clades

There may or may not be a point in a category for unranked clades – personally I doubt it – but there's certainly no point in a category for clades. The overwhelming majority of modern taxa are clades, so the category would be huge, containing virtually every subspecies, species, genus, subfamily, family, etc. and completely uninformative. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding redirects

According to WP:NOTBROKEN, links to redirects shouldn't be 'expanded', as for example you've been doing with Eukaryota in taxoboxes – it's described as "an unhelpful, time-wasting exercise". Personally, it doesn't bother me that much, but be aware that other editors think differently. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moss categories

Thank you so much for undertaking this task. Please note, however, that if you were intending to reclassify the liverwort pages as well, it would be best to wait. The classification of liverworts just underwent a major revision (big paper came out), and this will probably mean changing the families and orders of many liverworts significantly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning Caftaric (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cactus categorization

Can I draw your attention to Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Categorization#Taxonomic rank categories. Although I wrote up most of this, the "dual system" (i.e. categorizing by taxon and by taxonomic rank) long predates my involvement, and I hold no particular brief for it. However, it's how it's supposed to be done. So "Category:subfamily genera" goes in "Category:family genera" which goes in "Category:order genera" and so on. (Apologies for my incorrect reversion of an earlier edit of yours.) Peter coxhead (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you will doubtless have noticed, and annoyingly in my view, "Category:Cactaceae" is actually called "Category:Cacti", which makes the categorization appear less logical. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should possibly gripe to User:Rkitko who redirected "category:Cactaceae" to "Category:Cacti" in 2007. Cheers. Caftaric (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have griped about this and other such category names in the past. It's like this because the consensus view has been that categories should have the same name as the main article, so if this isn't at the expected scientific name, the category isn't supposed to be either. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing categories

Hi, thank you for your work here. I wish you a Happy New Year!

Having come across various changes that you have made to categories, I have the following requests:

Please use a specific explanation of the change you are making in the edit summary, not e.g. "cleanup" ([2])
Please use {{category redirect}} rather than {{soft redirect}} where you create a category page that already has a category (where this is a synonym likely to be used by other editors; for a page created in error, tag it with {{db-g7}})
Please use the WP:CFD process to rename categories, rather than doing it yourself, which appears to be what happened with the former Category:Grasshoppers. It is often useful to seek the views of other experienced editors on such proposals; and once consensus has been reached, the work can then be automated.

– Fayenatic London 21:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category move

Why did you move Category:Historically recognized plant taxa to Category:Obsolete plant taxa? You had no consensus to make this move; the name was chosen by WP:PLANTS after careful discussion. I will ask for it the move to be undone, pending discussion and consensus. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: I have reverted the category.

Caftaric: I had not seen this when I left my earlier note above, but this is a prime example of the need to follow the WP:CFD process. – Fayenatic London 22:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: thanks.

@Caftaric: not all "historically recognized" taxa are "obsolete"; a name that is "obsolete" to one taxonomist can still be in use by another. The phrase "historically recognized" was chosen by WP:PLANTS after discussion. Please propose changes like this either via the WP:CFD process, as Fayenatic suggested, or via the talk pages of the relevant WikiProject – in this case WT:PLANTS. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps related to this, I note that you have emptied and redirected Category:Cryptogams. Was there a consensus for this? – Fayenatic London 23:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Malcolm Burr

The article Malcolm Burr has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Dan arndt (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1878-1954, as mentioned in the artcle, are the dates of birth and deaths of Malcom Burr, so he is not a living person. Caftaric (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your sorting out a week ago of Category:Cosmopolitan vertebrates with subcategories. It is an interesting topic well-backed with sources but an unfamiliar category name. I appreciate that you recognized the need and the right term and set things up. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animals by classification has been nominated for discussion

Category:Animals by classification, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

Category:Animals and humans has been nominated for discussion

Category:Animals and humans, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Interactions between humans and fish

Category:Interactions between humans and fish has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Reference errors on 2 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Chondropoma page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lepidoptera categorization

Hello! I'm glad to see there's someone else also interested in getting/keeping the whole Tree of Life categorization structure in good shape. Due to the sheer number of articles in the Lepidoptera part of that categorization structure, it's pretty difficult to get every applicable article in the right categories. As a result, the Lepidoptera categorization tree has, through the years, repeatedly suffered from halfway-aborted attempts at straightening it out, resulting in many categories with just a small portion of the appropriate articles in them while the rest languish one, two or sometimes three levels 'up' in the tree.

On top of that, fairly few people are interested in Lepidoptera on en.wiki, and an even smaller portion seems to be interested in the maintenance side of things. Unless the categories are in use on a sizeable amount of related pages, chances are most other Lepidoptera editors won't even see that new categories have been created, much less remember to use them when working on existing or creating new articles. As such, not only does the majority of articles that should get diffused into the new categories not get diffused there for a fair while, new non-diffused articles get added to the backlog stack as well.

As such, I'd like to ask you if you would please consider slowing down slightly in the creation of new Lepidoptera categories and spend a little bit more time in sorting appropriate articles in them/diffusing their parent categories, at least when it comes to new categories you're creating. (If you'd also be willing to tackle some of the older backlog, that'd be awesome, of course). I'm (understandably, I hope) not capable of sorting out the old messes, add missing categories to articles, diffuse from parent categories into new categories and stub-sort for about 1300 categories and 100,000 articles. (Not alone, but the number of editors regularly dealing with Lepidoptera categorization can be counted on the fingers of my hands, and most of the others are tree-of-life editors who also deal with Lepidoptera; not Lepidoptera editors who also dabble in other tree of life subjects) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for warning me about those problems. I will try to keep in mind your advice to fill more the categories about Lepidoptera in the future. Caftaric (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks! Figured you couldn't keep it in mind if you weren't aware—and the sheer scope and size of WikiProject Lepidoptera is kind of staggering (somewhere in the vicinity of 1.7% of all articles on the English 'pedia is about Lepidoptera. Wish that nearly two out of every hundred active editors worked on Lepidoptera...) Category:Hesperiidae genera should now be more-or-less complete, so there's no need to head back and work on that one.

(I wouldn't be surprised if I missed a few articles, but the great majority of them should be there, at least) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moth/butterfly genera

I see you've removed Category:butterfly genera from Category:Lepidoptera genera again. Did you see my reasoning on Category talk:Butterfly genera for why I figure it's best it does stay in Lepidoptera genera?

As for Category:Moth genera, moths are an extremely paraphyletic group with a lot of overlap with the many taxonomic groups, but also enough difference it can't really be considered synonym to any one particular taxon. (Either the taxon also includes non-moths, like with the order Lepidoptera, or the taxon excludes some moths, like with Heteroneura (which, on top of that, also still includes the butterflies). That's because moths isn't a scientific term, and it doesn't really match with any of the scientific divisions. (The sheer difficulty of properly dividing Lepidoptera into monophyletic groups doesn't help at all, either).

As such, and because the classification-by-taxonomy serves a slightly different purpose than the classification-by-common-name/definition, the entire moth/butterfly categorization tree should, in my opinion, be treated as a mostly separate tree from the taxonomy tree which has a lot of intersection and overlap with the taxonomy tree. Among other matters, this overlap/intersection is visible in that the lower taxons can be definitely stated to be either 'moth' or 'butterfly', and some of the higher taxons can also (everything that descends from Lepidoptera or its descendants is either 'moths' (the smaller side-branches) or 'moths and butterflies' (the main tree) until you get all the way down the main tree to the divisions of Macrolepidoptera, where Rhopalocera and its descendants is 'butterflies' and everything else is 'moths'.)

As such, unless we want to outright delete the Moth/Butterfly categories (which I wouldn't recommend, nor would be something we can do on our own as that's prime CfD-material–and I have my doubts if it'd even be something that gets through CfD if one were to try it), the 'easiest' way to keep those two separate trees in working order and properly display the intersection is to categorize the highest level taxon of each 'branch' that can definitely be stated to be either butterfly or moth, but not 'butterflies and moths' as Category:moth genera or Category:butterfly genera. (Which would mean that, e.g. Category:Monotrysia genera is in Category:Moth genera; Category:Ditrysia genera is not, but all its subcategories except Category:Macrolepidoptera genera are; etc.)

That way, the great, great majority of Lepidoptera genera articles are still directly or indirectly in either Category:Moth genera or Category:Butterfly genera. What remains are those articles that remain in the 'untagged' levels (Glossata, Heteroneura, Ditrysia, etc.) and cannot be diffused further down because there are too few of a particular taxon to justify a separate subcategory. There's not too many of those, and those can be separately tagged on-article with both the "taxon genera" and "moth genera" categories.

There are other possible options, but all those that I could think of are 1. a lot more work, 2. even less instinctive (which, I suppose, is saying a lot) and 3. have more risk of partway collapsing the categorization structure and/or keeping parts of it only partially implemented.

Do you have any other suggestions, or would you mind terribly if I re-add Category:Lepidoptera genera as category to Category:Butterfly genera and Category:Moth genera as category to the whole bunch of highest-level-taxon-of-a-moth-only-sidebranch? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems with categorization on the English Wikipedia is that it generally "just grows" without any clear overall plan. We managed to improve plant categorization when we agreed on some diagrams I drew (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Categorization). So, as an outsider to lepidoptera, I recommend trying first to agree on an overall plan, from genus to the highest level, and recording it within the WikiProject documentation. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: I'd love to. Unfortunately, most of the (very, very few) folks who're active on the Lepidoptera side of things have anywhere ranging from 'very little' to 'absolutely zero' interest in the infrastructural/maintenance side of things, in my experience. On top of that, rather than the Lepidoptera categorization tree 'just growing', it's been the repeated victim of partway-implemented overhauls through the years that have then later been merged or submerged partway into the existing structures, leaving it an absolute mess. Combine that with Lepidoptera's general backlog, outdatedness of articles, the sheer number of articles missing various relevant categories and the fact we're dealing with ~100000 articles... The main parts have some measure of agreement/long-standing mostly-silent agreement, thankfully, even if not always fully implemented (purely by-taxon stuff is at least on the category side of things working reasonably well, even if not quite all articles are properly categorized; purely by-taxon-rank has on the higher levels (Lepidoptera [rank]s; Moth [rank]s; Butterfly [rank]s) been brought into line over the past few months; by-year is in working order on the moth side of things and as a result, butterflies would be easy enough to implement if anyone ever wants to bother; by-authority is outside the realms of Lepidoptera alone. By-location is a mess, but Lepidoptera's not alone in that. It's mostly the further subdivision and subcategorization of the main trees stuff, as well as intersections between the various trees, that brings potential issues with 'm. (Well, that and some of the more disputed taxa, sometimes, but that's more a 'real world' issue than an en.wiki issue) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AddWittyNameHere: but where is categorization explained at WP:LEPID? My point is that editors willing to work on categorization need guidance from relevant wikiprojects. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responding on User:Peter coxhead's talkpage to avoid cluttering up Caftaric's talkpage needlessly. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks in taxoboxes

Hi, please leave wikilinks in taxoboxes to the scientific name, even if these are redirects. This makes it much easier to change globally should taxonomic opinions change. For example, what exactly is meant by "Plantae" is a matter of some dispute; at present Plant covers this, but if, say, there were a consensus that Kingdom Plantae = Archaeplastida or Kingdom Plantae = Embryophyta, a wikilink other than to the scientific name could become wrong.

Plantdrew often restores the scientific name wikilinks, so may wish to comment. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of eukaryote species

Category:Lists of spider species is a child (albeit a good many levels down) of Category:Lists of eukaryote species, so the latter must not be added where the former is rightly present. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to Category:Lists of arachnid species, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Year categories

Don't assume that you have to create lots of year in.. categories like here. In fact consensus has been moving against single-year categories for most things as one tends to end up with lots and lots of WP:SMALLCATs, the usual advice would be to start with centuries or decades first to see how they fill up. Bear in mind that a "good" category should have around 30-50 members.
Also, can you please create any categories that you link to, don't leave them as red links? It's important both for humans trying to find things but also for all sorts of automatic processes that rely on the category hierarchy being complete. Cheers.Le Deluge (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)@Le Deluge: 'by year' categories for plants and animals at the top-level—as well as certain diffusing subcats for some of the more prolific orders like Coleoptera and Lepidoptera—tend to if anything get far, far more than 30-50 members, it may just take a while for the categories to get added to the articles and for the articles to get created in the first place. Taxonomy is a rather active field. (~2000 plant species and many more times that in animals are described every year) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AddWittyNameHere: For clarity - I wasn't talking about the plant/animal cats, but the parent year cats for zoology/botany - there's no reason why they have to be years rather than decades/centuries, as they tend to be on the empty side.Le Deluge (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Le Deluge: Ah, that makes sense. Those are in effect one step from being container-cats and there's not much need for endless layers of container cats, no. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stub creation

You shouldn't create new stubs and stub types without first gaining consensus at WP:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. Since I can't see the likes of {{Precambrian-animal-stub}} on there I assume it was created out of process. You should run it and other stubs past them. Also it's important to only add existing categories - per WP:REDNOT you should either create a red-linked category or not add it at all. Working out what category to add also helps you scope out how the current category hierarchy works, which may in turn let you adjust what you're doing to fit in with the existing hierarchy. In this case there's no Category:Precambrian animals but there is Category:Precambrian life and Category:Proterozoic animals‎. Given that the whole idea of "Precambrian plants" is a bit iffy at best, I'd suggest that the better name for the stub would have been Precambrian life. I know this can all seem a bit bureaucratic at times, but you have to take my word for it that experience says that it's for the best in the long term.Le Deluge (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Epiprocta or Anisoptera

Caftaric, I think you will find that Anisoptera is the generally accepted subdivision of the Odonata family that is used when referring to the bulk of dragonflies that are not damselflies (Zygoptera). You have used the word Epiprocta which is also a subdivision of the Odonata family, but not commonly used. The taxonomic difference between Epiprocta and Anisoptera appears slight (Epiprocta includes a small number of historically interesting species). If you are going to use subdivisions of Odonata for helping us to understand dragonflies better - and I think it is a very good way to discriminate between the damselflies and non-damselflies - then using the words Zygoptera and Anisoptera are the best terms to use.

I realise that you have put a lot of work into changing many links on dragonfly pages to point to the category Category:Epiprocta genera, but it would make more sense if that category were called Category:Anisoptera genera. Can you change it, please?

John Tann (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John! As you appear to be a new editor I must first thank you for helping the community of wikipedia. First thing to know is there's a lot of job to do! If you don't, nobody will do it at your place. As you have a strong opinion (which is obviously different from mine) on how to better sort out damselflies from dragonflies, I encourage you to push your views a step further and do the job yourself. It is part of the "be bold" politics of wikipedia. Doing so, you will find yourself browsing among all the pages of the topic, and have the opportunity to leave of mark of your passing here. Again a warm welcome to you John! Caftaric (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding Caftaric. I am happy to change the category Category:Epiprocta genera to Category:Anisoptera genera, but firstly, I wouldn't want you to change it back again in a form of taxonomic arm wrestle - quite frankly I am not spending my time on Wikipedia to cause anyone grief. Secondly, you are right in that I am new to editing Wikipedia pages. I am certainly not on top of the automatic tools that seem to be available to edit multiple pages readily. I am concerned that should I change a category I might cause many broken links. Do you know if there is a way to fix those quickly? John Tann (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, John! I, myself dont't use any tools "to edit multiple pages readily". I edit each page one by one. For a category like Epiprocta genera, that contains 171 pages, it would take me something like two hours to do so. I don't know if this is quick enough! He re an advice you may need. Once you are done with the job, there is the template {{category redirect}} to redirect the old empty category to the new one that you created. Cheers, Caftaric (talk) 06:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Epiprocta genera has been nominated for discussion

Category:Epiprocta genera, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. John Tann (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two blank lines before a stub template

Caftaric, Small point. Can you leave two blank lines before the stub template at the bottom of pages that you edit, please? See WP:STUBSPACING John Tann (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the stub sorting conversation

Greetings! I see that you've created many stub categories and templates recently, none of which seem to have been discussed at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting forum. You may not be aware that the folks at the project have spent a lot of time and effort maintaining and organizing the hierarchy of stub categories, including the area in which you've been busy. I urge you to propose and discuss stub types before creating or changing any, for the sake of consensus. Another user has also brought this process to your attention, and I encourage you to come and participate. Her Pegship (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of plant taxa

Hi, this is explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Categorization#Taxonomic rank categories (as I've pointed out before). If you are going to do it differently (as you are with Category:Rosid taxa), you should discuss this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants first so the documentation can be updated. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: You should probably wait on doing the liverworts (Marchantiophyta), and there is a paper out that will radically change the classification system we use. But it may be a month or two before the changes in classification are implemented here at Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Microhyla nilphamariensis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anura. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

You're going to see a notification that I rolled back your edit at Articerodes jariyae, but what actually happened is that I have fat sausage fingers and clicked rollback by accident when trying to click elsewhere on the page. (I've rolled back my rollback already). Sorry! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Eukaryotes described in the 1864

A tag has been placed on Category:Eukaryotes described in the 1864 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —swpb^T 19:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Verterates described in the 18th century

A tag has been placed on Category:Verterates described in the 18th century requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —swpb^T 19:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclobothra elegans (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cyclobothra elegans (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Cyclobothra elegans (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.

Leptoglossus phyllopus

I saw you were the most recent editor of Leptoglossus phyllopus and have a history of editing insect-related pages, so me not knowing much better figured you might be able resolve this, or at least direct it to somebody that can. Both Leptoglossus phyllopus and Acanthocephala femorata are named as the "Florida leaf-footed bug". Acanthocephala femorata claims the page Florida leaf-footed bug but Leptoglossus phyllopus seems to have much more info available about it.

Category:Human diseases and disorders has been nominated for discussion

Category:Human diseases and disorders, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity

Articles that you have been involved in editing—Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity—have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Nessie (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dichrorampha alpinana, the broad-blotch drill listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dichrorampha alpinana, the broad-blotch drill. Since you had some involvement with the Dichrorampha alpinana, the broad-blotch drill redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Plantdrew (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By year of description categories

These seem to me to be a mess now for spiders/arthropods/etc. I understand the logic of trying to subdivide "Animals described in ...", but it has to be done with consistency and consensus.

Consider the categories you added or changed at Carajas paraua.

Category:Spiders described in the 21st century was marked as a container category as the result of a deletion discussion. So it should never be used for individual articles, and all articles in the category should be removed.
Category:Arthropods described in 2016 is acceptable for Carajas paraua, but I find its immediate parent, Category:Protostomes described in 2016, odd. Can you point me to the consensus discussion that lead to the creation of this category? The other problem, of course, is that only random years seem to exist for "Arthropods described in ...", so it can't be used consistently.

Peter coxhead (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Arthropods described in ..." categories

Re your edit to Kankuamo marquezi (and similar edits): when the categories for "Arthropods described in ..." are fully completed it may indeed be useful to narrow down from "Animals described in ..." Until then, having what is effectively a random selection of years classified as "Arthropods" and the rest as "Animals" is not helpful to readers (or editors). Peter coxhead (talk) 08:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caenorhabditis nigoni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Compatibility (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vertebrates of France has been nominated for discussion

Category:Vertebrates of France, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Oculi (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Blue velvet angelfish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Shen

Cocos-Keeling angelfish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Randall

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No prehistoric genera categories, please

Hi, you should take a look at this section:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 12:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French compound given names has been nominated for discussion

Category:French compound given names, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Authors of zoological names

Thanks for creating Silometopus elegans. It can be tricky to get the authors of the scientific names of animals right. Have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spiders/Style guide#Taxon authors and in particular the section on Synonyms below. If the species name, in this case elegans, is the same, then for animal names the author remains the same, but is put in parentheses if the species is moved to a different genus.

It's also important to use a reliable secondary source for authors; the primary reference doesn't show that it has been accepted that the author originated the name – it could not have been valid under the ICodeZN, it could be a homonym, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Eunotia

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Caftaric, thanks for creating Eunotia!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has beent agged as having no references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please define

Category:Aprocrita subfamilies Xx236 (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete since there is a spelling error in the word "Aprocrita". Correct spelling is "Apocrita" (with no "r" after the "p". Caftaric (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I see you've been spending some time in the Fish Wikiproject! I hope your experience has been enjoyable! I thought I'd reach out and say hello.......I've been editing various animal projects since 2006. There is a pretty active community, depending on the project. I'd be happy to help with any questions you may have if you have any.........Pvmoutside (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Caftaric. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trematoda

Please comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_December_13#Category:Trematodes, where another editor has proposed to revert your moving Category:Trematoda out-of-process. – Fayenatic London 11:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note, for the record, that you declined to participate in the discussion, and have not offered any defence of your actions. I reiterate: please use the WP:CFD process in future. – Fayenatic London 12:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Metapenaeus ensis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Decapod

Stalk-eyed mud crab (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Decapod

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistoric Coelurosaurs

Hi Caftaric, I am not entirely happy with your replacement of Category:Ornitholestes with Category:Prehistoric Coelurosaurs. Could you explain to me why this is needed? Do you plan to do this consistently for other groups as well? Has this issue been discussed somewhere before? Thank you, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also fail to see any reason for this category to exist. It currently contains a very random assortment of species and if it were comprehensive, it would contain hundreds or thousands of pages. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caftaric, please familiarize yourself with WP:DEFINING and WP:NON-DEFINING in relation to categorization. Not all factual aspects require categorization. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caftaric, I see you continue to create multiple "Prehistoric taxon" categories and add them to articles. So far, you did not respond to our appeal to stop these actions. This is not how Wikipedia works. These categories are not wanted (see comments above and here). If you continue, I will have to list you at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Arthropods described in 2013

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Category:Arthropods described in 2013, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Oculi (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a wider discussion about diffusing the "Animals described in ..." categories. Having a complete set by year for arthropods seems sensible to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We had the discussion: it was at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_26#Category:Invertebrates_described_in_1896 and seemed fairly conclusive. I would have no objection personally to interested persons setting up coherent and fully populated subtrees for Category:Animals by year of formal description but instead we have editors such as NotWith and the remarkably similar Caftaric creating small twigs here and there: Category:Eukaryotes by year of formal description, Category:Species by year of formal description, Category:Species by period of description, Category:Deuterostomes by century of formal description, Category:Protostomes by century of formal description, Category:Ecdysozoa by century of formal description. Most of these would not be created if a consensus for creation had to be obtained first. Unfortunately creation of endless categories is much quicker than cfd. Caftric has created 500 new categories since October, mostly of dubious worth. Oculi (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi: I entirely agree about the creation of random categories that aren't properly populated, and some, like "Protostomes described in ..." are pointless. However, the discussion to which you link above had few participants and did not involve the relevant WikiProjects. I would like to see this topic properly discussed. There is, in my view, a good case for diffusing to "Arthropods described in ...", provided the categories are fully set up. A bot could use the taxobox information to fix "Animals described in ..." categories. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cristozoa has been nominated for discussion

Category:Cristozoa, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 08:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Craniates has been nominated for discussion

Category:Craniates, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 06:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Names in taxoboxes

Hello! I noticed you are changing the links in taxoboxes to be the Latin singular, eg [[Mollusc]]a instead of [[Mollusca]]. Is there a reason for this? Thanks! --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is there no reason, it's contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN: "Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental". It's detrimental in a taxobox to change a link to the scientific name to a link to an English name, because the former is unambiguous and constant, while the latter is not, and may not for ever go to the same article. If I see it happening to articles on my watchlist, I will revert it. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Peter coxhead (talk · contribs) on this one. Although it seems like a relatively minor issue, we should probably have consensus before making widespread changes. I would ask that you (Caftaric) stop making the changes to the taxobox until there's consensus to do so. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(I should also add that, at least in the case of Mollusca, it is not piped to avoid a redirect but piped to insert one. The title of the article is actually "Mollusca" not "Mollusc" or "Mollusk.") --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still changing taxoboxes without consensus to do so. Can you explain? --TeaDrinker (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Apoikozoa has been nominated for discussion

Category:Apoikozoa, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 21:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eumetazoa has been nominated for discussion

Category:Eumetazoa, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 07:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

trying for opinion

questions -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Xenacoelomorpha - do you agree with the project tag? I keep thinking there is another project that might have a sharper focus on such items - ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Cnidarians - similarly - would you consider these the most appropriate tags ?

oh well - dissapointed you seem not interested in responding, I would have been interested in your opinion - cheers JarrahTree 07:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monotypic genera articles

Hi Caftaric, I see you moved Bathypurpurata to Bathypurpurata profunda, so changing the article form that of a monotypic genus name to the specific name of its only species. I totally understand that move and, personally, I agree that this is how monotypic taxa should be treated. However, that does not follow the agreed style on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) and in particular the section on monotypic taxa. Quetzal1964 (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categorising spider articles by superfamily

I think it is a mistake to categorize spider articles by superfamily. In most cases, the superfamilies are unstable and hard to source – most recent spider phylogeny just uses clades above family level. For this reason, the articles rarely mention the superfamily, so categorizing in this way is unreferenced. As an example, Physogelenidae has recently been split off from Synotaxidae, so I put it in the same superfamily, but this isn't sourced. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop this categorization now! Gnaphosoidea, for example, is an unsupported taxon – read the article – and completely unsuitable for use in categorization. Lycosoidea is another example: there may be a "core" clade, but the precise membership in terms of families is not agreed. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfD

I have nominated the redirect Atropurpurea for deletion. In hindsight I should have asked you about it first but I've explained my reasoning there. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Alismatale" etc.

You created new categories using names like "Alismatale families". This is wrong; there's no such word as "Alismatale". When there is an acceptable English word for a taxon that can be used as an adjective, e.g. "rosid" for the clade Rosids, then it is used. Otherwise we use the exact Latin name of the taxon. I hope I've fixed all your incorrect titles, but please check. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bothrops barnetti

Ignore the revert notice. I had a slow screen update that led to a misclick. Sorry. Meters (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deuterostomes of Japan has been nominated for discussion

Category:Deuterostomes of Japan, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 20:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reptiles

Be very careful when cleaning up articles on reptiles. Every time you do so, a redundant and unnecessary category shows up at the bottom of the page. (reptiles described in the 19th century is an example). Thank you for your time. Scorpions13256 (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caryophyllus listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Caryophyllus. Since you had some involvement with the Caryophyllus redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Plantdrew (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of plant articles by year of description

The way in which plant articles are categorized by year of description according to the botanical code is described at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Description in year categories, where it is summarized in a diagram showing the category hierarchy that results.

If you want to change this system, e.g. by introducing an additional "column" of categories, then you need to (a) seek consensus at WP:PLANTS to change the existing system, which was arrived at by discussion and consensus; (b) update the documentation; (c) make the changes consistently.

What you actually did, without consensus and without documenting your actions, is to produce an essentially random subset of categories linked to "Eukaryotes described in ..." instead of "Species described in ..." I have restored the system as it should be. I'll be happy to join in a discussion at WT:PLANTS to decide whether there is a consensus to make changes, and if so how they should be made. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deuterostomes of Asia has been nominated for discussion

Category:Deuterostomes of Asia, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 20:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bark mill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catskill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flora categorization

There is a coherent system for categorizing plants by their distribution, described in great detail at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. If you want to add additional categories, you should first discuss this at WT:PLANTS and gain consensus. Do not keep creating categories by yourself! Peter coxhead (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2017 Cure Award

In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arthropods by century of formal description has been nominated for discussion

Category:Arthropods by century of formal description, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Oculi (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cartilaginous fish described in the 19th century has been nominated for discussion

Category:Cartilaginous fish described in the 19th century, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 15:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cartilaginous fish described in the 21st century has been nominated for discussion

Category:Cartilaginous fish described in the 21st century, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 15:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cartilaginous fish described in the 20th century has been nominated for discussion

Category:Cartilaginous fish described in the 20th century, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 15:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Annelids of Indonesia has been nominated for discussion

Category:Annelids of Indonesia, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 11:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Protostomes by location has been nominated for discussion

Category:Protostomes by location, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. As long as you are blocked in one account, you are not permitted to use another account to edit unless and until an administrator accepts a request to be unblocked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of recently extinct birds

Hello, Caftaric. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, List of recently extinct birds, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Wiebes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wiebes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wiebes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. B dash (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Tetrapods described in 1969

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Category:Tetrapods described in 1969, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Oculi (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Tetrapods described in the 21st century

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Category:Tetrapods described in the 21st century, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Oculi (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Coeloria elegans for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Coeloria elegans is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coeloria elegans until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Loopy30 (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Lepidoptera by century of formal description

A tag has been placed on Category:Lepidoptera by century of formal description requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Animals by period of description

A tag has been placed on Category:Animals by period of description requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 20:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Lists of gastropods by year of formal description

A tag has been placed on Category:Lists of gastropods by year of formal description requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 02:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Turtles described in the 21st century

A tag has been placed on Category:Turtles described in the 21st century requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Turtles described in the 20th century

A tag has been placed on Category:Turtles described in the 20th century requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hexapods of Europe has been nominated for discussion

Category:Hexapods of Europe, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 10:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Freshwater protostomes has been nominated for discussion

Category:Freshwater protostomes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 20:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marine edible fish has been nominated for discussion

Category:Marine edible fish, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Nick Thorne ^talk 03:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Freshwater edible fish has been nominated for discussion

Category:Freshwater edible fish, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Nick Thorne ^talk 06:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Monotypic bony fish genera

A tag has been placed on Category:Monotypic bony fish genera requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ernest Nègre

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Ernest Nègre requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Toddst1 (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Merostomata

A tag has been placed on Category:Merostomata requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Edible cephalopods has been nominated for discussion

Category:Edible cephalopods, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 18:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Edible gastropods has been nominated for discussion

Category:Edible gastropods, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 09:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Edible bivalves has been nominated for discussion

Category:Edible bivalves, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 12:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Prehistoric wasp genera

A tag has been placed on Category:Prehistoric wasp genera requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Cynipoidea genera

A tag has been placed on Category:Cynipoidea genera requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Pompilidae genera

A tag has been placed on Category:Pompilidae genera requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Chalcidoidea genera

A tag has been placed on Category:Chalcidoidea genera requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Chrysididae genera

A tag has been placed on Category:Chrysididae genera requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Grape pest arthropods has been nominated for discussion

Category:Grape pest arthropods, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 14:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Extinct protostomes

A tag has been placed on Category:Extinct protostomes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Vespoidea genera

A tag has been placed on Category:Vespoidea genera requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Prehistoric Apocrita genera

A tag has been placed on Category:Prehistoric Apocrita genera requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Holozoa genera

A tag has been placed on Category:Holozoa genera requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Amorphea genera

A tag has been placed on Category:Amorphea genera requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Podiata genera

A tag has been placed on Category:Podiata genera requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Opisthokont genera

A tag has been placed on Category:Opisthokont genera requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Monotypic chordate genera

A tag has been placed on Category:Monotypic chordate genera requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Prehistoric vertebrate subfamilies

A tag has been placed on Category:Prehistoric vertebrate subfamilies requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Prehistoric protostome superfamilies

A tag has been placed on Category:Prehistoric protostome superfamilies requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Apocrita genera

A tag has been placed on Category:Apocrita genera requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Monotypic deuterostome genera

A tag has been placed on Category:Monotypic deuterostome genera requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Protostome superfamilies

A tag has been placed on Category:Protostome superfamilies requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eukaryotes by conservation status has been nominated for discussion

Category:Eukaryotes by conservation status, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 21:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Insects acting as insect pest control agents has been nominated for discussion

Category:Insects acting as insect pest control agents, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 10:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eukaryote ecology has been nominated for discussion

Category:Eukaryote ecology, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 12:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Invasive plants biological control insects has been nominated for renaming

Category:Invasive plants biological control insects, which you created, has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 19:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Venomous tetrapods

A tag has been placed on Category:Venomous tetrapods requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Monogeneric tetrapod families

A tag has been placed on Category:Monogeneric tetrapod families requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Obsolete deuterostome taxa

A tag has been placed on Category:Obsolete deuterostome taxa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Obsolete protostome taxa

A tag has been placed on Category:Obsolete protostome taxa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Parasites of opisthokonts

A tag has been placed on Category:Parasites of opisthokonts requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Parasites of protostomes

A tag has been placed on Category:Parasites of protostomes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Echinoderms by location has been nominated for renaming

Category:Echinoderms by location has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 17:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Thysanura genera

A tag has been placed on Category:Thysanura genera requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Catfish and humans

A tag has been placed on Category:Catfish and humans requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Denticollinae

A tag has been placed on Category:Denticollinae requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pollinator birds has been nominated for deletion

Category:Pollinator birds has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 20:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Cheilostomata

A tag has been placed on Category:Cheilostomata requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Extinct insect families has been nominated for merging

Category:Extinct insect families has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Araneomorph spiders of Europe

A tag has been placed on Category:Araneomorph spiders of Europe requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Bony fish families

A tag has been placed on Category:Bony fish families requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Prehistoric bony fish orders

A tag has been placed on Category:Prehistoric bony fish orders requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Bony fish orders

A tag has been placed on Category:Bony fish orders requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Bony fish taxonomy

A tag has been placed on Category:Bony fish taxonomy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Calypsoeae genera

A tag has been placed on Category:Calypsoeae genera requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prokaryotes taxonomy has been nominated for renaming

Category:Prokaryotes taxonomy has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eukaryote incertae sedis has been nominated for renaming

Category:Eukaryote incertae sedis has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Prehistoric alepisauriformes

A tag has been placed on Category:Prehistoric alepisauriformes indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Tanypezoidea stubs

A tag has been placed on Category:Tanypezoidea stubs indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Sb element" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sb element. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 9#Sb element until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Sc element" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sc element. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 10#Sc element until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 00:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"M element" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect M element. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 17#M element until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 19:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Sa element" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sa element. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 17#Sa element until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 19:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Diseae genera

A tag has been placed on Category:Diseae genera indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prehistoric animal genera enigmatic taxa has been nominated for renaming

Category:Prehistoric animal genera enigmatic taxa has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Biarmosuchian genera

A tag has been placed on Category:Biarmosuchian genera indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Gorgonopsia genera

A tag has been placed on Category:Gorgonopsia genera indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Coelomomyces elegans for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Coelomomyces elegans is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coelomomyces elegans until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Chumpih ^t 06:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Cenomyce elegans

The article Cenomyce elegans has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a valid taxon (i.e., not validly published); almost no mention in scientific literature (i.e., fails notability criteria)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Esculenta (talk)

Category:Animals in human culture has been nominated for renaming

Category:Animals in human culture has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Bikont subgenera

A tag has been placed on Category:Bikont subgenera indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Rhizaria classes

A tag has been placed on Category:Rhizaria classes indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Rhizaria families

A tag has been placed on Category:Rhizaria families indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Rhizaria genera

A tag has been placed on Category:Rhizaria genera indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Rhizaria orders

A tag has been placed on Category:Rhizaria orders indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Stratiomyomorpha genera

A tag has been placed on Category:Stratiomyomorpha genera indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Alveolata classes

A tag has been placed on Category:Alveolata classes indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Alveolata orders

A tag has been placed on Category:Alveolata orders indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Cercaria (trematode)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Cercaria (trematode) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 17 § Cercaria (trematode) until a consensus is reached. Plantdrew (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Enterogona

A tag has been placed on Category:Enterogona indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Phytophtires" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Phytophtires has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 22 § Phytophtires until a consensus is reached. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Geological Journal

The article Geological Journal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I did a quick search and I could not see how this is notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Cyclosorus elegans

The article Cyclosorus elegans has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is an invalid name (nomen nudum) and it is not clear which taxon Ching was referring to. Probably not suitable for an article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Tridenchthoniidae

A tag has been placed on Category:Tridenchthoniidae indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Maxillarieae genera

A tag has been placed on Category:Maxillarieae genera indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 12:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]