- Category:Disambiguation to Category:Wikipedia:Disambiguation – C2D per Wikipedia:Disambiguation Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The only example provided in the criterion is for the main namespace, not the Cat one, and it appears there is no precedent for the claim that C2D ever mandates titles to begin "Category:Wikipedia:...", as the nominator apparently concludes from the language
- Renaming a category to match its eponymous article (e.g. Category:The Beatles and The Beatles – the category could be renamed under this criterion if the article is moved).
- If there were precedents, something other than the following facts would surely obtain:
- There are 56 Cats "in use" with titles starting "Wikipedia:". Of them, 51 are just red-links to notional Cats (with 1 or 2 members each), and 5 each have a page in the Cat namespace. Of those five, none has more than 20 members; 3 apparently have to do with GLAM (industry sector), and they collectively have 36 memberships (presumably some being pages that are members of more than one of the 3); at a glance, it seems likely that 3 of the 36 are templates that assign users to the respective Cats, and the rest are in the User namespace.
The remaining two non-redlinked Cats have 18 and 3 members respectively. (I am fascinated by -- but uncomprehending of -- the 18-member one, Category:Wikipedia:Authority control (key words only); it has only main-namespace pages as members and each concerns a topic "native" to some non-English language. (About two thirds of the topics pertain to German. The lead of one,Schlagwortnormdatei, translates its own title as "Keyword Authority Control", hinting at the need for k.a.c. of names for bodies exercising k.a.c.... I'm going to resist the fascination.)
- I doubt there is any problem that the proposed move would ameliorate, especially as it appears this Cat's title has been stable at least since 2004, when the second edit to the page coveniently mentioned the current title. IMO, any perception that a problem now exists has to overcome a strong presumption to the contrary -- far from cases where speedy is suitable.
--Jerzy•t 07:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with this one as well. Sometimes the article name is of a form that doesn't suit itself to a category name, and I think this is one of those times.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think that Good Ol'factory's on the right track here, but the new name should be Category:Wikipedia disambiguation, per Wikipedia:Category names#Special conventions. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, I had that thought earlier today—that I should have just nominated it to Category:Wikipedia disambiguation. I'll start a full discussion to that effect shortly. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|