Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maculata

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maculata

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A disambiguation page that is a collection of links to disambiguation page (24 out of 25 given links) is not useful. The Banner talk 09:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd assume that the reason why this page exists is that there are such a large number of species using this name that a single disambiguation page would be of unwieldy length. I'd disagree: long it certainly would be, but having all the species on the same page would make the task of finding out which spotty living thing was being referred to rather less tiresome: so really I think that the best thing to do would be to merge all the other disambig pages into this one. Incidentally there is a similar page at Repens, and there are very possibly others.TheLongTone (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion at this point, but having all of the species listed on a single disambiguation page would result in an invalid dab page. Acrolophus maculata is not ambiguous with Fabraea maculata or Haemanota maculata or any of the dozens of other individual species. Strictly speaking, I think this page is more of a set index than a dab page. older ≠ wiser 18:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page was originally a redirect to Cattleya elongata. To be true, a redirect that I don't understand. To make matters worse, there was no explanation given for the change to disambiguation page. The Banner talk 21:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This user has created a whole series of these pages, originally as redirects to one particular species in each case, although in the vast majority of cases there is more than one (and in many cases, like this one, FAR more than one) organism to which the epithet refers. I agree with what was said above about it being more of a list of organisms bearing the epithet than a disambiguation. The more general (and much broader) question, then, is do we want to have such lists here in a systematic way (and obviously there would be many thousands of them for full coverage, since all species are notable) or not? There is also the gender question to be considered (i.e. maculatus has the same meaning as maculata and is effectively equivalent except for genus gender). Don't know if this is a subject for an RFC or what, but something needs to be done to flag it so a broader biological audience will see the general question and have an opportunity to comment. Koumz (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (shout) @ 19:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. How is this different from having a page Spotted with links to Spotted hyena, Spotted flycatcher, Spotted bass, etc.? Whether it's considered a dab page or a set index article ("a set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name ... of a specific type means that they share a common characteristic in addition to the similarity of name"), this fails our inclusion criteria. I don't think the fact that the listed items are all organisms satisfies the guideline that they all be of a specific type (especially considering the examples offered at WP:NOTDAB). Deor (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.