- Category:Monmouth, Wales to Category:Monmouth – C2D: per Monmouth. Jenks24 (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Object "Monmouth" is overly ambiguous, too much so for a speedy rename. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly meets C2D as per the parent article Monmouth. MilborneOne (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but 70.24... does have a point. There are more populous Monmouths in Illinois and Oregon, not to mention multiple other possible meanings listed at Monmouth (disambiguation). In a case such as this one, a clear category title is more important (to prevent miscategorization) than a clear article title. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree if we have a problem with the town Monmouth not being the primary article then a discussion need to be started to change the article name first. It is not the place for the category system to re-invent descriptions hence why we have C2D. MilborneOne (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It does meet the C2D criterion, but I believe that that criterion is best seen as a default that can apply so long as no editors disagree with its application. There is consistently certain instances where users disagree about it's application. So we either have to apply it only when there is no objection, or we need to get rid of the criterion altogether. I don't think it would help things to get rid of the criterion, since probably 98% of C2D nominations go through unopposed and it would swamp the full CFD section to bring all cases there. (I personally agree with MilborneOne's views, but there are users who would not.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, there's no doubt about that: the proposed change is in line with C2.D. However, there are and should be exceptions to that criterion. It seems likely that the town in Wales is the primary usage, especially since the other Monmouths appear to be named after it or Monmouthshire. However, I believe that the extreme ambiguity of titles such as Category:Monmouth or Category:People from Monmouth necessitates a more cautious approach. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose the rename. I agree with Black Falcon(talk) that a more cautious approach than a speedy rename is in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|