< February 27 March 1 >

February 28

Category:People convicted of speeding

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining. Neutralitytalk 23:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Kind (grouping)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is category is not helpful because it brings together a diverse range of pages which are really only linked by the fact that they have "kind" in their name. Many are redirect pages, e.g. Cunningham chain of the second kind, Dog kinds, Bessel function of the second kind along with actual pages such as Tax in kind, Calculation in kind. In short, ironically the category does not constitute a natural kind. Leutha (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that these grouping categories eventually make their way up to the informal and multiply applied equivalencies and similarities categories that carry simplifications, assumptions, and social framing. This is extremely evident in Category:Mankind (grouping) which contains many articles renamed due to bias - this highlight the role of the entire category - be wary of the variety of kinding. Dpleibovitz (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the new categories they've created - there's also been a lot of putting articles (and even dab pages) incorrectly in existing categories such as Category:Pejorative terms for people. DexDor (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Stratification economists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete primarily per WP:SMALLCAT and secondarily because it is not even sure whether "stratification economics" is something real (there is no article about it anyway). No need to merge, both articles are already in Category:American economists. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Descendants of John Ames (born 1647)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: has already been relisted by User:Ivanvector. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 10#Category:Descendants of John Ames (born 1647)

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

Category:Lists of fictional life forms

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:SMALLCAT. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good grief. It is not remotely "merely a WP:OSE argument". There was/is a very sound reason for making Category:Fictional life forms the umbrella category. Simply put, "Fictional life forms" is the broadest possible formulation; many of them are not "species" or "races". Please read the CFD discussion from 2008 that yielded Category:Fictional life forms for additional explanation. Regards, Anomalous+0 (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this discussion it should be a reverse merge rather than a merge. That is fine too. But I haven't seen an argument so far why we would need two categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reverse merge would make far more sense, though I'm not at all sure that's a good move. However, it is certainly the case that the whole notion of "fictional species" is inherently somewhat problematic. Just look at the contents of Category:Lists of fictional species. Are Dungeons & Dragons monsters or Smurfs actually "species"?? I really don't think so. What about Gargoyles?? Not so sure. (Etc, etc.) That said, I do think there are Fictional life forms that can properly be characterized as "species". Anomalous+0 (talk) 12:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anomalous+0, I put two of those categories into this category when doing the tidy-up I mentioned above yesterday. The third, Category:Lists of fictional species was only added earlier today - hardly compelling evidence that it is an important parent category. The main problem as it stands, given the look of the categories, is that there is currently an incomplete parallel with factual creatures, in that this contains individual characters/creatures/plants and also species and races. If it could be tidied to the point were individuals are categorised as such, in parallel with the likes of Category:Individual dogs, then there would be reason for a parent Category:Lists of fictional life forms for both individuals and species. As it currently stands, though, Category:Lists of fictional life forms is merely functioning as a duplicate category. Grutness...wha? 01:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • <sigh> Oh, my poor head. Grutness, you referenced a whole different set of categories, rather than the "Lists of Xyz" cats that you actually worked on. Confused the hell out of me for a little while. Please notice that the category I focused on -- Category:Fictional life forms -- is the primary parent cat for the "Lists of" category that was nominated for deletion here. Again, I am pointing out that in both cases, the term "Fictional life forms" is the broadest & most inclusive term available, and is the therefore the best choice for the umbrella categories. (Have you read the CFD discussion from 2008 that yielded Category:Fictional life forms?) Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops - forgot to add the "lists of" at the front of the category names. Grutness...wha? 18:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yes (sigh), I have read the previous CfD discussion - that's why I suggested a merge in the first place, because it's clear that if only one of Category:Fictional species and Category:Fictional life forms is necessary, so too only one of Category:Lists of fictional species and Category:Lists of fictional life forms is needed. But that still does not address the concerns I raised, however, that such a grouping lumps together both entire species and individuals, and that significant tidying of the whole tree is necessary to fix that problem. It also prompts the question, why does Category:Fictional species and races exist, since that nearly duplicates a category deleted via CfD? Grutness...wha? 18:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good grief. How many more times do I need to point out that "the term 'Fictional life forms' is the broadest & most inclusive term available"? The two terms, "species" and "life forms", are NOT EQUIVALENT -- "life forms" is unquestionably much broader than "species". That was the whole point of the previous CFD, ferkrisake.
As to your question regarding Category:Fictional species and races, it is indeed problematic, for the same reasons that its predecessor was. Strictly speaking, there could be a category for "Fictional species", if it was restricted to those that conform with the scientific definition and usage of the term "species". But it would require careful monitoring, because in the real world, most editors are not likely to be familiar with the actual (i.e. scientific) definition, and would be far more likely to apply a common parlance notion of "species". And that would lead to the very same mess that resulted in Category:Fictional species being replaced with Category:Fictional life forms in the first place. So yes, Category:Fictional species and races should probably be deleted, unless there is a viable rename option. Or perhaps it could serve as a container category only? Anomalous+0 (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. Since you seem to be keen to repeatedly correct me on something we agree on, I don't really think there's much point in carrying on this conversation. I'd suggest you re-read what I've written here, but given that seems unlikely, I'll restate it in simple words.
  1. There is no point in having both Category:Lists of fictional species and Category:Lists of fictional life forms. One of them clearly covers all the other and is a broader and more effective category. As such, it exactly parallels the CfD which saw Category:Fictional species deleted and subsumed in Category:Fictional life forms. As such, one should be merged into the other, and given the way the non-list categories went, it seems only natural that Category:Lists of fictional species should be the one that goes. This is the point which we seem to agree on, but you keep trying to argue with me.
  2. Category:Fictional species and races seem unnecessary, and is arguably speediable since it vitually re-creates the Category:Fictional species which was deleted via CfD.
  3. none of these points addresses the point that the current situation in these categories mixes articles (or lists) about individual creatures and characters (e.g., Chewbacca, Worf), with ones relating to entire species or races (e.g., Wookiees, Klingons). In order for this set of categories to make more sense, the individuals should be separated out ine xactly the same way that, for example Category:Individual dogs is separated from Category:Dogs. If that were done, the whole category tree would be easier to maintain and would parallel the one for non-fictional life forms.
  4. Furthermore, If consensus favours keeping both categories, then Category:Lists of fictional species shuld be renamed to Category:Lists of fictional species and races to match the non-list category. Grutness...wha? 09:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grutness, the source of my exasperation was one very simple thing. Even after repeated explanations, you never withdrew your support for the proposed deletion/merging of Category:Lists of fictional life forms, which you endorsed above as follows: "As it currently stands, though, Category:Lists of fictional life forms is merely functioning as a duplicate category."
However, your most recent comment appears to indicate that you have reversed your original position, and are now in agreement with me that Category:Lists of fictional life forms is, in fact, "a broader and more effective category" (your words). I would be most appreciative if you would confirm that we are now on the same page on this issue. Thanks. Anomalous+0 (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My position, as you'd notice if you read it properly, concludes "...it should be merged in one direction or the other." As such, we have been "on the same page" from the word go. I concede the use of the word "into", rather than "with" might have been confusing (in which csse I apologise for that - and have amended it accordingly), but I really don't see that our views on the matter seem to be opposing, nor do I see that I have reversed my view.Grutness...wha? 01:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was not by accident that I used the words "appears to indicate" (that you were "now in agreement with me"), even though you had said that there really was "something we agree on" and also that "fictional species should be the one that goes".
But I most assuredly DID notice, also, that you concluded with "...it should be merged in one direction or the other" -- which, er, appears to indicate that you consider both options equally valid. And THAT is the nub of the problem.
Only one option -- "life forms" -- maximizes breadth & inclusiveness; the other ("species") does not. It really is that simple. Given that this CFD is for the proposed deletion of Category:Lists of fictional life forms, saying that either option is acceptable is tantamount to supporting the proposal by not objecting to it. And THAT would be a most unfortunate outcome to this CFD, don't you think? Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ergo, they are perfectly suitable for a reverse merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films featuring Wikipedia articles

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was a mirror category for Category:Wikipedia articles featured in films, which has been deleted on February 18th, 2018. Shares the same issues as the deleted one, plus makes no sense alone. wikimpan (Talk) 18:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note the other category was Category:Wikipedia articles featured in films - Category:Wikipedia articles featured in films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_11#Category:Wikipedia_articles_featured_in_films. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:World champions in the 420

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename per nomination. – Fayenatic London 22:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following Category:Sailors (sport) by class. A user seems to have moved some of the categories without preceding discussion in 2016. Smartskaft (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The convention of Category:Sailors (sport) by class is consistently "foo class sailors", so the world champion cats should be named "foo class world champions", as is already the case with a few such as Category:49er class world champions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
--Yachty4000 (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yachty4000: we have here an apparent clash of two conventions. However, the World champions in foo "convention" is actually the product of about ten out-of-process moves by you over the last two years and several page creations by you (see your contribs list). You say above that you have renamed a couple, which is simply not true. You should have brought those cats to CfD instead of unilaterally renaming them.
Now, the main question: why exactly do you claim that cats for world champions in a class need a wholly different naming format to other sailors in their class? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can see the renames above as they have redirects. I basically spent time populating and standardising these categories. The term "class" is a wasted word what is the differce between a "star sailor" and "star class sailor" and the World Championship isn't necessarily awarded by the class. In regards to naming it depends what parent category you want to compare the naming protocol to I picked the World Champion thread of categories. I hope this explains my actions. Yachty4000 (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yachty4000: if you think the word "class" is superfluous, that's an argument for renaming Category:J/24 class sailors etc. However, omitting the word class would create ambiguity is some cases: e.g. Category:Solo class sailors and Category:Star class sailors would have wholly different meanings without the word "class". (see where Solo sailor takes you).
In the case of world champions, your proposed renames would also create ambiguity: e.g. Category:World champions in the Laser is ambiguous, as is Category:World champions in the Star.
And no, you have not explained which you moved these categories without a CfD discussion, or why you made a demonstrably false statement about how many undiscussed category moves you had done.
You also base your preference on claims that the convention for world categories is "world champions in foo". However, a quick glance at Category:World champions by sport shows that not to be the case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can always find examples on wikipedia either way but here is one that supports the structure I propose Category:World_champions_in_cue_sports. Most sports only have a couple of Worlds at best. The winner of the Laser Class at the Youth Sailing World Champions is not a "World Champion in the Laser Class" but is a "World champion in the Laser" I wouldn't worry about the solo it UK only class. Yachty4000 (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yachty4000: My point is that there is no consistent convention, and your one cherry-picked example does not make a convention.
As to the core of your comment, I'll bold it the winner of the Laser Class at the Youth Sailing World Champions is not a "World Champion in the Laser Class". Is this some sport of surrealism?
And you want to rename Solo class sailors to an ambiguous title, but say that doesn't matter because it UK only class. Weird. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You could rename "Solo sailor" to "singlehanded" or something like that which would free up the "solo" for the "solo class" if you really want to but this is never likely to be a problem. There aren't even groups for 3/4 of the international classes because the competitors are unlikely to ever have a wikipedia page let alone national class. The Laser Class Youth World Champion is entirely different to the Laser fleet winner at the Youth Sailing World Championships. Look at World championships in sailing to see the scope of this of the 100s of titles awarded a year. No other sport is like it I can think off. Fundamentally does my naming protocol call a problem or confusion I only came on here to write this because I spent so much time standardising and adding categories to the sailors concerned. Yachty4000 (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. You don't seem to understand the concept of ambiguity.
Your idea of renaming Solo sailor doesn't help, because it is already a redirect to single-handed sailing. The problem is the ambiguity of the term "solo sailor", not the precise title currently used by the article.
And I'm still bewildered by your assertion that the winner of the Laser Class at the Youth Sailing World Champions is not a "World Champion in the Laser Class". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Class World Champion are won at events organised by the International Laser Class Association and approved by World Sailing. The Class runs its own Youth events from memory these at present are the Under 21 World Championship. The Youth Worlds are not a "Class" event and have no class involvement. Still not sure which "Solo (dinghy) sailors" your worried about and maybe that is the answer using the word dinghy like the wikipedia page.Yachty4000 (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Terminations of employment by individual

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: purge of redirects, and rename to Category:Terminations of public office by individual ... without prejudice to a further proposal to rename to a better title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category's content is related to public office (presidents, PMs, pope, etc), not merely generic employment of ordinary people. An alternative name could be Category:Terminations of tenure by individual. Brandmeistertalk 10:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Steeplechase horse racing

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep disambiguation page, and rename Category:Steeplechase horse racing to Category:Steeplechase (horse racing). – Fayenatic London 21:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, Steeplechase. Category:Steeplechase (athletics) already matches Steeplechase (athletics). We do not need a CATDAB page at Category:Steeplechase for only two items, especially when one is the primary topic, and people are generally not blindly stabbing at category titles; they get to them either via navigation from an article or via same from another category. Editors may stab at them, but those doing categorization are generally competent enough to check to see what the proper name is of the category for a same-named article that is disambiguated, and in the rare case they are not, this serves no purpose anyway, since they won't notice they've added an article to a category is that is CATDAB. PS: WP:CATDAB shouldn't be a red link,  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
earlier discussion at CFD/S
  • Category:Steeplechase horse racing to Category:Steeplechase – C2D (Steeplechase); this is just redundant blather, like "guitarist musician".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. @SMcCandlish: WP:C2D "applies only if the related page's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is unambiguous". Steeplechase is ambiguous with Steeplechase (athletics). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have created Category:Steeplechase as a ((Category disambiguation)) page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems counter-productive. This should just move to a full CfD, except now we'll need to add that cat-dab page for deletion. We don't do cat-dabs unless there's a clear showing of a need. Standard operating procedure is to follow the disambiguation patterns (where any exist) of the main articles in their categories, so we should have Category:Steeplechase match Steeplechase and Category:Steeplechase (athletics) match Steeplechase (athletics), with no cat-dab page, unless it's shown that people frequently try to mis-categorize non-relevant articles into Category:Steeplechase. We would have tens or even hundreds of thousands more cat-dabs if we routinely did what you've done here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: I don't see cat-dabs as something to be avoided, and was not aware of any consensus to avoid them. If there is a full CfD which closes with your preferred rename, it will take the closing admin only a few seconds to delete the cat dab, just as they'd do with a cat redirect.
    C2D has been clear for at least 2 years (maybe longer) that it doesn't apply in case of ambiguity, so I am surprised at your description of standard operating procedure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet we avoid cat-dabs nonetheless, whether you agree we should or not, otherwise (I repeat) we would have tens or even hundreds of thousands more of them. You did not carefully read what I said, which said nothing about SOP being C2D in this kind of case (yes, it was an error on my part). The SOP is moving a contested speedy to full CfD, and the other SOP is naming categories after their articles, absent an unusual reason not to do so, rather than trying to second-guess in category space whether RM made the right PRIMARYTOPIC and other disambiguation decisions (if applicable) in mainspace.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't have a prob with many more cat-dabs. Evidently we disagree about that, but AFAICS their scarcity is due to ppl not knowing about them or not bothering, rather than any consensus for restraint.
    And sorry, but I did read what you wrote. You hadn't said anything before about C2D being an error, so I wasn't aware you had accepted that point.
    Finally, this isn't about second-guessing RMs. It's about the greater probs caused by ambiguity in cat names, which need a higher threshold for PRIMARYTOPIC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not saying you have no rationale, and wasn't intending to argue it out on the spot; seems more a matter for the full CfD (and saying there needing to be one was my concession that my speedy was an error, heh).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the last few hours, I have used WP:JWB to do ~1500 WP:NULLEDITs which purged the cat pages, and I disambiguated many of the miscategorised pages.
So as of now there are 26 cats in Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories. I'll see if I can cleanup a few more. Maybe @SMcCandlish would like to help, as atonement for trying to make the problem worse? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even more weirdly, the nominator @SMcCandlish is aware of the harm done by ambiguous cat names, from the discussion at CfD 2018 February 21#Category:Chansonniers. In that debate, evidence presented by Bearcat shows the actual harm done by an ambiguous cat name ... yet SMcCandlish wants to create the same problem here.
Hatnotes or other explanations on the category page usually don't help, because an editor using WP:HotCat to add an article to a category never sees the hatnote. Category names need to be unambiguous to avoid miscategorisation.
SMcCandlish asserts that editors won't notice they've added an article to a category is that is CATDAB. That is untrue: if a cat-dab page exists, HotCat warns editors against using the ambiguous title, and in most circumstances prevents them applying it. SMcCandlish's proposal here would remove that warning. Why?
Additionally, pages which are miscategorised despite that (e.g. by entering the cat name in wikisource) end up in a subcat of Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories, where they can be fixed. But without a cat-dab page, there is no monitoring. SMcCandlish's proposal here would remove that monitoring. Why?
In summary, this proposal would remove all warnings before miscategorisation, and remove monitoring of cases where it does happen. Why would anyone want to do that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't put project your views as if coming from my head, please. I strenuously disagree with the reasoning at the Chansonniers CfR. If we applied this "forced disambiguation" thing consistently we'd have to rename thousands, probably tens of thousands of categories, and the frequency with which categories and their articles have mismatching names would go up by orders of magnitude, thus so would failed categorization attempts. "We should do this because people occasionally miscategorize" is a non-rationale here; we'll get more miscategorization if we do this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: I'm not projecting my views onto you. I am simply noting that a) you are advocating renaming categories to titles which you know to be ambiguous, and b) you do so despite evidence of the harm caused by such ambiguity.
If there are indeed thousands of ambiguously-named categories, then yes, let's rename them.
And no, using unambiguous cat names does not cause failed categorization attempts. Having spent thousands of hours cleaning up Special:WantedCategories, I find that such errors are v rare, and the few that do happen are easily identified and fixed. By contrast your preference for ambiguous names leads to errors which can be identified only by human monitoring of each category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um, "Even more weirdly, the nominator @SMcCandlish is aware of the harm done by ambiguous cat names" is absolutely projecting your views as if they're mine, after I've repeatedly disavowed that I agree with the notion that not excessively disambiguating in categoryspace is detrimental in any way, much less a "harm". And of course there are thousands of such cases; every single time "Foo (disambig)" and "Foo" exist and have categories and the one for "Foo" isn't "Foo (disambig2)".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:California cryptids

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:SMALLCAT. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More