glossaries

However, there was no explicit support for renaming Category:Published glossaries, and it would create ambiguity and confusion (because hundreds of user toolkit pages and past AFDs link to Category:Glossaries), so I have made Category:Glossaries into a disambiguation page. – Fayenatic London 13:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish and Tavix: I'm drawing your attention, as nominator and closer, to the way in which I have interpreted and implemented the CFD outcome, in case you disagree. – Fayenatic London 21:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london and Tavix: That's not a correct interpretation of the close (which was a group nom with a group close, and no specific instructions or finding with regard to any particular specific category in the group). The decision was was to split all the nominated categories, as nominated, into Category:Wikipedia glossaries (etc.), also as nominated, for Wikipedia lists of type glossary (etc), and Category:Glossaries (etc.) for real-world notable things that are glossaries (etc.), and to do this manually to the extent necessary to prevent (temporary) incorrect categorization of some real-world items, that are not WP lists, in WP list categories. Only one quibble was raised, by someone who did not read the nomination correctly, and thought that the intent was to remove things like Logarithmic timeline from Category:Timelines, when the entire point was clearly to do the exact opposite, and limit such categories only to things like that article, and moving WP list articles like Timeline of Jerusalem into Catetory:Wikipedia timelines, etc. The present category, the misnamed Category:Published glossaries, should be diffused to Category:Glossaries (for real-world things like Cormac's Glossary which often pre-date the printing press and the concept of "publishing") and Category:Wikipedia glossaries (for glossary list articles like Glossary of cue sports terms), then the empty Category:Published glossaries gets CSDed per G6, as instructed in the CfD close.
Some links in user toolkit pages and old XfD pages becoming obsolete is par for the course when WP-specific maintenance categories are necessarily disambiguated from reader-facing topical categories. The necessity to permanently resolve reader confusion always overrides the desire to prevent temporary editor confusion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish and Tavix: OK, I'll implement it per the nomination. If the Wikipedia glossaries category is a sub-cat or there is a "see also" link, it will be as easy to reach as via a category disambiguation page. – Fayenatic London 07:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I think it had best be a see-also; WP glossary articles aren't a subcat of notable real-world glossaries or vice versa; it's just "operator overloading" of the word glossary.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: you may now also want to nominate Category:Published bibliographies for upmerging, as you didn't cover that one in the discussion. – Fayenatic London 08:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

D'oh. I guess after the first lot is all cleaned up would be a good time. "Proof of concept."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: "all cleaned up"? I'm hurt. 😢 I only posted that comment here after I'd finished, and I thought I had been pretty thorough. – Fayenatic London 13:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@Fayenatic london: Ah! I didn't realize it was that far along. I grovel for forgiveness.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish:   So… are you going to do it? – Fayenatic London 16:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)