Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 27 March 1 >

February 28[edit]

Category:People convicted of speeding[edit]

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]
  • Delete per nom. Utterly non-defining. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete seriously???? Not even vaguely defining. Mangoe (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete regrettably too common to be noteworthy. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 1 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.

Kind (grouping)[edit]

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]
  • Further comment, in the past two weeks the creator of this category has created some 20 equally bizarre categories and they also created some dozens of article redirects presumably just for the purpose of populating these new categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:43, 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]
  • Delete this and all related categories created by the same editor. I don't mean to be, you know... un-kind, but honestly, this all strikes me as being the pet project of a philosophy instructor/professor. (Probably something of an occupational hazard in that field. ;) NOT an appropriate use of the Wikipedia category structure. Anomalous+0 (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comments above. DexDor (talk) 21:50, 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[edit]

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)[edit]

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[edit]

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]
  • I started to populate it when I saw this nomination, but soon realised it pretty much duplicates Category:Lists of fictional species, with which I now think it should be merged in one direction or the other. Grutness...wha? 13:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly opposed - If you take a closer look, I think you will agree to withdraw the nomination. Please notice that it is the umbrella for three subcategories -- and equally if not more important, the primary parent cat is Category:Fictional life forms, which was named/created to house a whole host of sub-cats, including that for "Fictional species and races‎". Anomalous+0 (talk) 11:20, 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]
  • 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]
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]
  • In a Nutshell: ALL species are "life forms"; NOT all life forms are "species". Ergo, they are NOT interchangeable. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ergo, they are perfectly suitable for a reverse merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it clearly does not fail WP:SMALLCAT, since there's clearly room for future growth, as new fiction is created all the time, with new fictional life forms; and not every possible list has been created yet. There is no absolute full set of this either, since the topic is not a closed topic. also per the above discussions, it is not redundant to its subcategories, since they are subsets of this categorization. This category already has 10 entries, so seems to just meet the threshold, if the subcategories remain existing and not be merged into this one. If one or more of the subcats are merged into this one, then it clearly exceeds SMALLCAT by current content size. Also SUBSUME Category:Lists of fictional species into this category, since several of those lists are not clearly about species, and the concept of what makes a species seems to be WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH in several other cases. -- 70.51.203.56 (talk) 04:59, 7 April 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[edit]

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]
  • Delete. We categorize films on their WP:DEFINING characteristics, not on every individual thing (chairs? tables? vacuum cleaners?) that happens to appear in the film. Bearcat (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this collection of trivial probably not even mentioned in the article cameos. Mangoe (talk) 20:39, 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:World champions in the 420[edit]

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]
  • Oppose The above implies that a large number of these groups have been renamed that isn't true. I have renamed a couple to have consistant naming the above rename doesn't add anything and the term class doesn't help. The plan was to start with the term world champion like Category:World champions by sport and then follow it by criteria be it class, nationality, gender, disipline etc. as people feel fit it is already defined by sport at the by sport level. Can I propose the following are renamed so it is consistant.
--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]
  • Support The form for sailing champions should be aligned for consistency. I personally don't see any distinction between one style and the other so I would just get this aligned and we can move on to more productive editing. SFB 02:41, 18 April 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[edit]

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]
  • delete This is a deeply indiscriminate categorization, mixing together all sorts of things that are quite unlike each other. You could put in pretty much every British Prime Minister, because resignation is essentially the end of each PM's tenure; but then, while we're at it, you could put in any incumbent who ever lost an election, and every cabinet member who didn't die in office, and so forth. There are BLP problems too because in the USA "termination of employment" is a euphemism for being fired. Besides, this seems mostly to categorize redirects. there are a few firings/resignations that were notable in their own rights (the Saturday Night Massacre comes to mind) but otherwise this category is a problem as it stands, and the narrowing proposed doesn't help that. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge, redirects should be removed. If we would allow redirects in this category, nearly anyone could be categorized here with a redirect, as Mangoe pointed out. No opinion about renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge of all redirects. Having a category for free-standing articles on termination of office or employment may be worthwhile. There will only be articles on such terminations in exceptional cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but there's got to be a better name. We ought to have a category to hold articles about the event of a specific individual's removal from office; there can't be anything more defining than a category of this sort for such articles. The current name sounds like a metacategory (with likely subcategories of "Terminations of employment by John Doe", "Terminations of employment by Joe Bloggs", etc.), not a category for events when individuals' employment ended. Nyttend (talk) 21:47, 16 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:Steeplechase horse racing[edit]

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]
  • Oppose, to avoid miscategorisation. It is weird that anyone would seek to intentionally introduce avoidable ambiguity into category name. I see nothing in the nomination which claims any evidence of a benefit to readers or editors from retaining ambiguous category names. This seems to be motivated by some abstract desire for uniformity .. but per WP:CAT, categories exist to facilitate navigation. How on earth is navigation helped by using category titles which lead to miscategorisation?
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]
  • Alt rename per Marcocapelle. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose or Alt rename. Steeplechasing with horses predated modern track and field, so it is WP:PRIMARY, but nonetheless, given that we have a modern human event that is more widely recognized by our planet's increasingly urbanized population, I think that making Category:Steeplechase into a dab cat of some sort is appropriate. That said, the (athletics) disambiguator on the other cat is also not great, per BrownHairedGirl, perhaps calling that one "track and field" or something might be well advised (Horses and jockeys are athletes too, after all). Montanabw(talk) 17:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Montanabw: I don't think there's an issue on the athletics steeplechase. As far as I'm aware neither British nor Americans think of horses when discussing athletics. SFB 03:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is simply your own personal bias. "I've never heard of it" or "Everyone thinks that way" simply reflects your own viewpoint. If you look to the origin of the word and the definitions provided in most dictionaries, you will see that the horse racing version is usually listed first. ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5] but in contrast, [6], and they split the difference here) In the history of the word, original concept of steeplechasing was, literally, a type of horse race where the church steeple marked the finish line. The track and field event was derived from the equestrian version. Montanabw(talk) 19:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Montanabw: Sorry, I don't think I made myself very clear there. I am in no way doubting that when people talk about steeplechase some will think of runners and some will think of horses. I think that's clear to everyone here. My point was that I don't think anyone with a slight knowledge of either concept will misunderstand "steeplechase (athletics)" as a category about horse racing. SFB 03:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt rename per Marcocapelle. This category redirect has proved useful to me today, which is the reason I found this conversastion was happening. SFB 17:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom; category name = article name (or pluralised if applicable) is the rule, and exceptions are only made in odd situations, e.g. where the article's at a singular title whose plural form means something different (if we had a category for examples of Homo, we wouldn't want to be put it at Category:Homos), or when the title's really long, or when we're in a situation (I can't think of one) where the article title matches a solid naming convention but you'd have a good deal of confusion if the category were there too. If this article is the primary topic and deserves to be at its current location, its category deserves to be moved; if the category needs to stay put, that's a solid indication that the article needs to be moved. Meanwhile, putting the athletics category anywhere else wouldn't make sense: not only is the article at Steeplechase (athletics), but it's an athletics event, and the equestrian thing is equestrian, not athletics. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nyttend, equestrianism is also an athletic pursuit. (And though steeplechasing is not an Olympic event, several other equestrian competitions are... horses are the only non-human athletes to compete in the Olympics...) Montanabw(talk) 19:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose highly ambiguous naming. Categories are not articles, primary topic does not mean the category will be clean, since the track and field topic is highly prominent, especially in Olympic years, so will gather a large amount of miscategorizations, needing much maintenance, so is fundamentally a bad idea as a category name. People who propose fundamentally ambiguous category names of prominent topics should be registered as a functional and frequent patroller for those category trees should the categories be renamed in such a manner, due to the miscategorization issue present. Proposing a magnet for miscategorized entries and not working for the necessary infinite future to keep the category clean is not a good way to keep organized. WikiGnomes will not necessarily know all the superambiguous category names that crop up in such requests, since we don't seem to have a clearinghouse list of these things. (or the simple fix that doesn't require frequent minor edits and database churn of having unambiguous category names) Alt rename is fine to do. -- 70.51.203.56 (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm requesting the horse racing page be moved from Steeplechase to Steeplechase horse racing. I started cleaning up incoming links and realised that not only were a good 20% meant for athletics, but that the running steeplechase article is in the long term, the most trafficked steeplechase article[7]. SFB 21:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Bhg, Oculi. Alt is ok. Too ambiguous for a category. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 28 April 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[edit]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_28&oldid=871693396"