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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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/User_talk:Mclay1.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 100 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 3.

Hi, why have you recreated Category:1909 establishments in Oklahoma Territory? What purpose does it serve? I realise that you suggested at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 28#Category:1909 establishments in Oklahoma Territory to keep a redirect to aid the template navigation, but nobody else was of that opinion. Indeed, I checked after the deletion, and progressing both forwards from Category:1904 establishments in Oklahoma Territory year by year to Category:1914 establishments in Oklahoma and back again worked just fine. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Nobody else mentioned it. I created a redirect at that name because it adds a link for that year in the navigation at the top of Category:1906 establishments in Oklahoma Territory and prior categories. We could also add ones for 1910 and 1911 to link those years. Mclay1 (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And so on, ad infinitum. Where would it end? Category:2026 establishments in Oklahoma Territory? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: That wouldn't be needed, because the links at the top of the final Oklahoma Territory category (Category:1906 establishments in Oklahoma Territory) go up to 1911. Mclay1 (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The company named Walmart Labs has been renamed to Walmart Global Tech. Can you please rename and retitle this wikipedia article to Walmart Global Tech.

• I am unable to do this as I am new user. Grateful if you could proceed ahead with the request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujdial (talk • contribs) 06:04, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ujdial:  Done. Mclay1 (talk) 06:20, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:57, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Cool. Thanks for the explanation. DH85868993 (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 9 § Template:Rcat until a consensus is reached. Warudo (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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 deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:31, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello, Mclay1,

Good day to you! It's unclear to me when categories go through speedy renaming and are then empty, can Category:20th-century television commercials and Category:21st-century television commercials be tagged for C1 deletion now?

If you could look into these two categories and make a verdict, it would be very helpful. Many thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:58, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Hi. They hadn't been renamed yet when you left your message but they have now, so the categories are now at the correct names and the old names have been deleted. All the contents had already migrated to the new names because they were being populated by a template. Mclay1 (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]