User Talk: Mclay1

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{Bots|deny=DPL bot}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 75K
|counter = 5
|minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(100d)
|archive = User talk:Mclay1/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{| id="usertalkpage" style="margin:auto; width:; text-align:center; border:1px solid blue; background-color:transparent; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; margin:0;"
|64px|Wikipedia ↗
|style="font-size: 85%"|'''This is a Wikipedia user talk page ↗.'''

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/{{FULLPAGENAMEE}} ↗.
|}
{{Archives|age=100|bot=lowercase sigmabot III}}
Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery ↗

Species in genus-named categories

When placing a binomial species named article in a genus named category, please include a sort key with the species epithet. See :Category:Lyria (gastropod) ↗ for my fix there. I'll do :Category:Scaphella ↗ as well, but moving forward please do this when making the category assignment. Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) ↗ 16:49, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

:I know. I fixed some in categories where most of them were already sorted, but I just didn't have the time to do it for the new categories. Thanks for fixing it. Mclay1 (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
::Roger that. I don't mind doing it, so if you find you are in a bind, just ping me and I'll do it. - UtherSRG (talk) ↗ 00:45, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion ↗ nomination of :Category:Sikh terrorist incidents by decade ↗

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗

A tag has been placed on :Category:Sikh terrorist incidents by decade ↗ indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category ↗, a category redirect ↗, under discussion at Categories for discussion ↗, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may '''contest the nomination''' by visiting the page ↗ and removing the speedy deletion tag.   '''''L'''''iz '''''Read!''''' ↗ '''''Talk!''''' 23:57, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

April 2026

So far I haven't been able to find any discussion of depopulating categories.

In early March, I left a large number of categories empty overnight. Liz told me to "Please stop!" that and I followed her instructions. But Liz might have thought the empty categories were caused by me ignoring her. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 12:03, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

:@LateNightCoffee I don't really know what's going on between you and Liz and Smasongarrison over categories. I asked Smasongarrison about it on her talk page and she pointed me to a long conversation that I didn't really want to get into. However, I don't agree with depopulating categories without a CfD. It goes against policy ↗ for a number of reasons. Mclay1 (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Category:Ecurie Ecosse Formula One drivers

Hi Mclay1. I was wondering why you suggested :Category:Ecurie Ecosse Formula One drivers ↗ be redirected to :Category:Écurie Écosse Formula One drivers ↗ rather than moved. You didn't leave an edit summary when you added the word REDIRECT ↗ to my speedy nomination. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

:@DH85868993: Adding the word REDIRECT to the start of the speedy move will move the category then create a category redirect from the old name. We generally create redirects from plain text to diacritics because most keyboards don't have the ability to type diacritics, so most people will be searching using plain text or adding the category to articles that way when using HotCat. Mclay1 (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
::Cool. Thanks for the explanation. DH85868993 (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

":Template:Rcat ↗" listed at Redirects for discussion ↗

30px ↗
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Rcat&redirect=no Template:Rcat] has been listed at redirects for discussion ↗ to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines ↗. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 9#Template:Rcat}}''' until a consensus is reached.  Warudo (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion ↗ nomination of :Category:Fictional organisms ↗

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗
{{Quote box|quote=If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article ↗.You may want to consider using the Article Wizard ↗ to help you create articles.|width=20%|align=right}}
A tag has been placed on :Category:Fictional organisms ↗ requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion ↗, at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_7#Category:Fictional_life_forms ↗. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by visiting the page ↗ and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Category%3AFictional+organisms|deleting administrator}}, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here ↗.  –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄ ↗) 23:31, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

:@LaundryPizza03: I have contested the speedy deletion. I do not believe G4 applies nor do I believe there is anything wrong with the category. The categorisation works better than the previously deleted categories. Mclay1 (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

:Category:Fictional organisms ↗ has been nominated for merging

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>:Category:Fictional organisms ↗ has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization ↗ guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''the category's entry ↗''' on the categories for discussion ↗ page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄ ↗) 01:21, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Replying to your note

Thanks for getting in touch.
I absolutely agree with what you're saying - under normal circumstances. However these were not normal circumstances.
Normal circumstances would be when someone has written or contributed to a page or category and then, after it has been created, someone else decides to nominate the piece for deletion. Yes. In those circumstances we do not interrupt the process of discussion. Absolutely correct.
However, the circumstance which made this particular case different was very clear.

The nomination for deletion did not take place after the creation of the category but ''during'' the creation of the category.

If you start to write something and then change your mind on the same day and decide not to go ahead, you delete the aborted article or category.

It would be a completely absurd bit of bureaucracy to preserve something which you were just beginning to write once you had changed your mind.

Of course, if someone else wants to create an identical category for their own amusement and then to discuss deleting it again, that would be entirely their own business. Do you not see the absurdity of forcing a half created thing to continue existing in its half created state when no-one has any interest in it?

That kind of nonsense is what gives bureaucrats a bad name in the first place.

Whether the deletion discussion was posted before or after my decision to abandon the category and reverse my edits is highly debatable (but I would choose not to).

Wikipedia does, in fact, have provision for speedy changes when there is an unusual situation or, as in this case, an obvious absurdity.

Thanks again. wayland (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

:@Wayland: The CfD started before you changed your mind, but either way, it's only a seven-day process, so it's not really absurd to just wait for it to play out. Alternatively, WP:G7 ↗ speedy deletion would have applied. Either way, it doesn't need to be depopulated before it's deleted – that's the only issue, because it makes judging the category more difficult as the former contents don't show up in the category's page history. Mclay1 (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

:Category:Eating of humans ↗ has been nominated for deletion

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>:Category:Eating of humans ↗ has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization ↗ guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''the category's entry ↗''' on the categories for discussion ↗ page. Thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:25, 8 July 2026 (UTC)