The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete all, including those in Favonian's addendum, after assuring all are in appropriate "generals" categories.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
18:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I propose deleting these two recently created categories because they are in conflict with
WP:OC#OVERLAPPING. It's a safe bet that all generals will eventually find themselves thus categorized, but
Category:Dead people contains no precedents for this kind of intersection.
Favonian (
talk)
21:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Upmerge to relevant parent -- We do not categorise people as to whether they are living or dead, but we need to ensure that we do not lose their categorisation as US Generals. We similarly usually avoid current/former categories.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Hawaiian players of American football
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominators rationale At present the category head says this is for Native Hawaiians. Without the rename it is unclear how this category differs from
Category:Players of American football from Hawaii that up until recently this was mistakenly a subcat of. To be in this category people have to be Native Hawaiian by ethnicity. They do not have ever had to have been on Hawaii at all (although probably most were probably born there, but that is not material). This is a classification of American football players by ethnicity, but the current name is not explicit enough in that regard.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Political divisions of Taiwan
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge. The parent category formerly contained some mainland locations of the
Republic of China (1912–1949), but I have sub-catted those now as "former subdivisions". The direct contents of both categories now have a mixture of names "Taiwan" & "ROC", but the articles introduce themselves as "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or similar, so they are all talking about the same place. The parent should probably be renamed later as "Subdivisions" but renaming might have a lack of consensus over whether to use "ROC" or "Taiwan", so I'm only nominating this for merger; please leave renaming suggestions for another time. –
FayenaticLondon17:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Strongly oppose -- RoC and PRC are easily confused. Since most countries do not recognise RoC and it can be confused with the pre-1949 mainland republic, we reached a consensus in WP that the present RoC would be called Taiwan in WP. MOst categories were moved accordingly, probably last year. We should not make a change such as this, which will upset that consensus. By all means, rename
Category:Administrative divisions of Taiwan, if you wish, but not of RoC.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Change to Rename and not merge: if you look at the contents, a lot of those in the RoC category relate to the present RoC (Taiwan). However, other sub-cats are for mainland pre-1949 RoC. Perhaps I should withdraw this CfD as it's getting messy, then just sub-cat the Taiwan articles down into the Taiwan category. The nominated category could be speedily renamed to
Category:Subdivisions of Taiwan anyway. –
FayenaticLondon09:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American actors of Filipino descent
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale according to
Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality we are told "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created." There is no
American Actors of Filipino descent or
Filipino-American actors article, and I see no evidence that there is enough material to create one. As far as I can tell this is a trivial intersection of ancestry and occupation, which we do not categorize by unless it is more than merely trivial. Thus having this category is not dependant on being able to have other by ancestry categories for actors, not does the fact that some other by occupation categories for Americans of Filipino descent may have enough study to substantiate mean we should have this category. This categories stands or falls on its own, not with any other category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Toaru Majutsu no Index
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: With the release of the series in the English language under the title A Certain Magical Index, it is time to rename the cat to the English title to match the article names. —Farix (
t |
c)
12:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Idol series runners-up
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:DuPont Manual Magnet High School alumni
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support. At one time (possibly as recently as last year) the school name did include "Magnet", but that was only for a short blip in its history. --
Orlady (
talk)
14:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Support although official names are not what we use in all cases so the website alone is not determanative. However we generally do not go longer than the official name except to disambiguate.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
16:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lists of former subdivisions of countries
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment The rename proposal is about two things: 1) Get rid of "of countries" - The of country is not giving anymore insight, there is no category "municipalities of countries" or "rivers of countries". 2) clarify the noun that describes what is listed. There are geographic entities called "Sub-Division", and
Subdivision (disambiguation) shows that the word "subdivision" does also refer to non-geographic entities. So follow the top level
Category:Country subdivisions in using the generic term "country subdivision", that always refers to geographic entities.
ChemTerm (
talk)
05:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The proposal is Category:Lists of former country subdivisions. It will only refer to former country subdivisions. And all country subdivisions are of countries.
ChemTerm (
talk)
05:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
It can be read as "(former country) subdivisions". That would include subdivisions of Czecholsovakia, which may still exist as subdivisions of the two successor states. The same reading would exclude subdivisions of existing countries. If you want to pursue this, please take it to a full CfD discussion. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
11:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment The big problem with the porposed rename is it makes it unclear what is former. Under the current name it is 100% clear that it is the subdivisions that no longer exist. The new name makes it unclear if former modifies countries or subdivision. The current more clear name is better.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I see the ambiguity, but I am not 100% sure the current name makes it 100% clear. If one reads it as "former (subdivisions of countries)" it does not tell whether the country is current or former. Also, it would be nice to have a category for both meanings, since A) country subdivisions of former countries and B) former country subdivisions of current countries are both C) country subdivisions with status "former".
ChemTerm (
talk)
00:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Note 1. I agree that it is unclear of why the country subdivisions that are contained in the category that is proposed for renaming here, first ceased to exist. And in fact, the category contains both types: 1) country subdivisions of former countries and 2) former country subdivisions of current countries - So it is absolutely no problem if one reads it as "subdivisions of former countries". The only thing it does not include are 3) current country subdivisions of current countries. All country subdivisions that ceased to exist, I would simply call former country subdivisions, contrasting easily with current country subdivisions. So, if you claim "former subdivisions of countries" refers to former country subdivisions of current countries, then the current category does not match with the contents and you should hyper-speedy the proposal.
ChemTerm (
talk)
02:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
It is a problem if the category is read as "subdivisions of former countries", but readers and editors will then assume that it excludes former subdivisions of current countries. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Only if it is exclusively read so. But it can be read both ways. But if it is read as what is written, it includes any kind of former country subdivisions, whether from former or from current countries. And the current name IMO is not different here. If one wants to address former country subdivisions of current countries, one would always have to say "current countries", except in names like Former country subdivisions of Denmark, if one assumes that the reader knows that Denmark is a current country.
ChemTerm (
talk)
20:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Unsurprising results. So many similar categories have been renamed to "country subdivisions" that a search will pick up all articles in one of those categories. However, that's a self-reference, and citing it as a justification is silly. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
At least I was surprised, to see the term that you proposed is only be used in the book by Gwillam Law and in a handful of categories.
ChemTerm (
talk)
20:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose renaming, because the rename would be too confusing. For example,
List of former United States counties relates to former counties in the US, not the former country of the US. I think the idea above of "Category:Lists of subdivisions formerly used by countries" makes a lot more sense. --
Funandtrvl (
talk)
17:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:California Redwoods
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I dont know policy on this, but it seems that the name for the category should be the current name of the team. either that, or we need 2 sets of categories for the 2 names.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
03:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. The policy is to use the current name for the team, otherwise teams that often change names get split into lots of small cats, and players get catted on 2 or more teams when they never switched a team.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
16:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment do i need to propose renaming all the subcats as well, or will the admin making a change (if agreed) know to change them all? I dont mind CFD'ing all of them if it helps.(Mercurywoodrose)
50.193.19.66 (
talk)
17:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Native American Latter Day Saints
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale This category was created on the assumption that
Washakie was not American enough to be put in
Category:American Latter Day Saints since he originally lived in Idaho and Wyoming without recognizing the United States claim to controlling those lands. However, since he lived until 1900 he eventually recognized American control and is actually in
Category:American Latter Day Saints. A quick survey of the articles involved shows that everyone involved was a United States national at some point in their lives. We do not have a general schema of Latter Day Saints by ethnicity, which this has clearly become, but only for Latter-day Saints by nationality. Thus I feel we should upmerge it.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge. Categorising people by religion by nationality is necessary if we're going to categorise them by religion, and it's unambiguous and not debateable for people whose religion is not in doubt, but categorising by religion by race or ethnicity is confusing and up to much debate.
Nyttend (
talk)
20:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Native Hawaiian Latter Day Saints
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale Yes, I know that this will change the meaning of the category, but it will restore the category to its original purpose. I created this category to have a Latter-day Saints by nationality category that I could put
Jonathan Napela in. So the intention was to use this category for people who were Hawaiian by nationality. It has now been turned into an ethnic category, but that was never the intention. I feel we should try to restore it to its original nationality purpose, since that is an accepted way to subdivide Latter-day Saints, but we have really never agreed on a by ethnicity schema for such.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
keep name as is Do no rename or delete. Native Hawaiians still exist in Hawaii and elsewhere; they did not disappear when the Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown. The current name is historically correct.
Hmains (
talk)
03:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment sub-dividing Latter-day Saints (and most other religions) by nationality is an accepted action. Subdividing them by ethnicity requires specific coverage of that overlap, which we lack in this case.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:speedily deleted under
WP:CSD G10 "attack/disparage" (with a bit of
WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND thrown in) I've no involvement in the current Malleus Fatuorum/Arbcom dispute. I can see many good people were outraged by stupid JClemens "not a Wikipedian" remark. But creating categories to attack an editor for a remark he made isn't how we do things. We ARE Wikipedians that means we discuss things together, and we use proper mature methods to do this. We don't tar and feather people (and I think that exactly the reason people rightly objected to JClemens' remark). We don't engage in puerile
battle ground tactics - we don't monumentalise the folly of others. Where would it end? Do we end up with "Category:Wikipedians who are fuckers" in protest at things Malleus has said? Please, step back and cool down everyone. When we have a dispute, and real Wikipedians try to use discussion and dispute resolution methods to, well, like "resolve" the dispute, not stunts and protests to ramp it up. Take this to deletion review if you must, but ask yourself how you are helping Wikipedia. Your valid point/protest has now been made.--
Scott Mac09:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: False descriptor - none of these users are described as not a wikipedian apart from Malleus - and that was detracted - as such this is a disruptive and derisive cat -
Youreallycan00:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Well, if I'm being disruptive then maybe I'm breaking the fourth pillar, and thus I'm not a Wikipedian. Or, it's not adding to the encyclopedia, in which case I'm disregarding the first and I'm not a Wikipedian. Or I'm declaring my solidarity, thereby violating NPOV, the second pillar, and thus I'm not a Wikipedian. Or you should ignore all rules, allowing me to be a Wikipedian in my non-neutral, policy-breaking, disruptive manner. That's the fifth pillar.
Drmies (
talk)
00:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I would argue that this is a reasonable self descriptor for anyone who wants to edit the encyclopedia that (almost) anyone can edit but doesn't want to belong to the 'club' of wikipedians. But I cannot because I'm a wikipedian who isn't a wikipedian and only wikipedians who are wikipedians should comment on wikipedian matters on wikipedians. Or something like that. I think. --
regentspark (
comment)
00:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I gave one above. Improves editor solidarity, and as such editor retention, which furthers the goals of the encyclopedia. Erm, I mean, arf. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk)
00:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
And you're uninvolved? I doubt that, per Bgwhite's note below. Malleus hate[s/d] me, but he does great work for the project. I'll stick up for him, and any uninvolved editor can see that his article-space contributions are a net positive for the encyclopedia. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk)
00:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep I'm not a friend nor an admirer of Malleus. This is not a violation of user guidelines. This category is a valid form a political protest. As Youreallycan has expressed his strong dislike towards Malleus, they are not in a position to be anywhere neutral on this. I highly suggest you not respond to any comments as that will stoke the "disruptive and derisive" flames more than the category would.
Bgwhite (
talk)
00:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
If I see it correctly, the user categorised himself as belonging in a category that categorises him as not being a wikipedian after he created the category that could categorise him as such. --
Beetstra (public) (
Dirk BeetstraTC on public computers)
08:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Dennis - Users are not randomly allowed to cat themselves in any way- this is a low moment - think about it all of you .. this cat will have no value at all and no long term existence -
Youreallycan00:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I am allowed to discuss as much as I like - essays are ten a penny - the most disruptive thing is the category itself -
Youreallycan01:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I don;t need help - there is no policy that supports this disruption - this Cat is worthless in the long term - end of - in the short term it is valueless - Malleus isn't even restricted - moving on - get over it -
Youreallycan01:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
You haven't provided any policy-based arguments why this category is disruptive. All you've done is scream loudly that it is, and heckle everyone who disagrees with you.
ReykYO!01:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Sadly, as there are a few experienced contributors that I have a lot of respect for - they are involved and vote commenting with their sausages/silly hats on -
Youreallycan01:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep - in the current climate I am definitely not a Wikipedian, not as defined by a member of the arbitration committee. I came here to help write an encyclopaedia, not to buttress American right-wing sensibilities. That defines me at least as relevantly as categories indicating I belong to certain projects. If sanity returns, that will be the time to consider deleting the category. --
Epipelagic (
talk)
01:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename - the category should be called either "Wikipedians who are not Wikipedians" or "Wikipedians who are not Wikipedian". I have no strong opinion as to which, although surely someone will come along to tell me which one our guidelines show to be correct.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
01:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete I cannot support the creation of a category that, according to its currrent
description text, would class even someone who inserts an image of child porn on the Main Page, as a "Wikipedian", simply by virtue of the fact they're editting here. If people are so upset by the notion that being a Wikipedian can reasonably be defined as someone who accepts and (at least tries to) abide by the 5 pillars, then surely they can find a little less divisive method of protest. Smear their monitors with their own feces perhaps. Or start a petition maybe, if it's an online medium that's required. If this category is allowed to remain, then I don't see why others cannot create
Category:Wikipedians who have been stereotyped by Malleus Fatuorum or
Category:Wikipedians who have been demeaned by Malleus Fatuorum of
Category:Wikipedians who have had their intelligence questioned by Malleus Fatuorum. If this project has descended so far that even categories like that would be accepted as 'free speech' and damn the consequences, then it's no wonder so many people are leaving due to the unpleasant atmosphere (24% of all former contributors apparently, with current stats showing over 3,000 people make more than 100 edits a month).
Tim98Seven (
talk)
01:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Anyone of them left because of Malleus? ... I thought so. And someone who posts only porn is a vandal and will be blocked indefinitely. You are free to create those other categories--I couldn't care less.
Drmies (
talk)
01:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep on principle Though it was created to garner attention and to be disruptive, I suppose it is a legitimate category for users to place themselves in if they feel they aren't part of the community. Weak delete I don't know, I'm kind of torn. Now I'm leaning delete.
GoPhightins!01:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep - Obviously a disruptive category, and anyone who adds themselves to this category is not a member of the Wikipedia community per their own disruptive behavior. The inappropriateness of this category therefore makes it appropriate for an editor who adds themselves to this category to be listed in the category, serving as a type of
self-validating reduction. It is imperative that we keep these loose cannons on watch, and if this category is deleted, I'd highly recommend at least creating
Category:Non-Wikipedians that added "Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian" to their user page in order to keep track of these rogue rouge "
Wikipedians". But in all seriousness, I don't see any evidence of this category being disruptive.
If Wikipedia itself can be disruptive to Wikipedia in order to protest something unwanted, I don't think a category on a few user pages is going to destroy Wikipedia. -
SudoGhost01:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict)That's nice Dennis, and I respect you too (like, a lot), but I am going to apply
WP:IAR here. This is clearly stirring the pot and is only going to engender further ill will in the Malleus War, it was clearly not constructive and I am not changing my position.
AutomaticStrikeout02:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Assume good faith. I didn't create this for the purpose of disruption. Someone nominating this for deletion, that's disruptive.
Drmies (
talk)
02:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) I don't believe you did create this; and additionally why, as soon as you try to lecture me on AGF are you saying that nominating it for deletion is disruptive? I suppose that this could be a potentially legitimate category and am kind of on the fence as you can see by my changed votes, but I think it's reprehensible to say that starting a discussion on Wikipedia is disruptive.
GoPhightins!02:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
However, this discussion (as most in Malleusgate seem to have) has veered way off it's intended course. The bottom line is that, in my opinion, this category shouldn't be retained because it's disruptive.
GoPhightins!02:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
It's a user category. Settle down. As for the deletion attempt itself--just look at the ridiculous argument proposed in the nomination and the nominator's subsequent comments.
Drmies (
talk)
02:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Additional comment It's obvious, Drmies, that you learned absolutely nothing from Malleus not being called a Wikipedian, that all of us are Wikipedians despite contrasting ways of expressing it. It is wrong that he was declared "not a Wikipedian", but that is neither here nor there anymore, and emphasizing a gaff is immature beyond what I expect of an administrator. Now if you really wanted to do something, you could have just went back to work on that encyclopedia thing we are here to build, but no, now we have a solidarity category to divide the community and users who disagree with you are disruptive? You really have forgotten the mission of this website. Regards, —
MoeEpsilon03:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
It wasn't a gaff. But thanks for the appeal to my conscience. If you had started this for nomination, with at least a half-way decent argument, that would have been different.
Drmies (
talk)
03:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete we do not create categories to make some sort of point. The only reason to have categories is to aid in collaboration, which this category does not do.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment: This category is an aid in collaboration. It is a way editors who are committed to proper collaboration can identify themselves, and thus distance themselves from other people here who are not committed to proper collaboration, but want instead to control and ban anyone who don't conform to their own agendas. --
Epipelagic (
talk)
08:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep - we also do not delete categories to make a point. The point, per se, of
WP:POINT is that we don't disrupt the encyclopedia to make a point. Nominating this cat for deletion is more disruptive than letting it be. There's no policy based rationale for deletion that I can conceive of.
Keilana|Parlez ici03:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep because we allow users to categorize and group themselves pretty much however they want. This is just one of thousands of user categories toward that end. —Torchiesttalkedits03:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep because even lazy twats like me who haven't edited for ages should be allowed to categorise ourselves (and show our solidarity) however we like. I don't want to add to the various shitfights about this all over the 'pedia, because others have said all I would, and better - but I do want to show my disgust at what was said by an elected functionary. This cat fits the bill for me. Thanks. Begoontalk04:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete We delete "My favorite color is red Wikipedians" categories and "Wikipedians who don't like [X] but sometimes think it's okay or whatever" categories. Unless this can be shown to actually aid in collaboration, I don't understand why we would keep it. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯07:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep I see no policy-based reason for deletion, and that is where the burden of proof lies, rather than with those who are !voting "keep".
Joefromrandb (
talk)
08:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete all, including those in Favonian's addendum, after assuring all are in appropriate "generals" categories.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
18:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I propose deleting these two recently created categories because they are in conflict with
WP:OC#OVERLAPPING. It's a safe bet that all generals will eventually find themselves thus categorized, but
Category:Dead people contains no precedents for this kind of intersection.
Favonian (
talk)
21:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Upmerge to relevant parent -- We do not categorise people as to whether they are living or dead, but we need to ensure that we do not lose their categorisation as US Generals. We similarly usually avoid current/former categories.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Hawaiian players of American football
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominators rationale At present the category head says this is for Native Hawaiians. Without the rename it is unclear how this category differs from
Category:Players of American football from Hawaii that up until recently this was mistakenly a subcat of. To be in this category people have to be Native Hawaiian by ethnicity. They do not have ever had to have been on Hawaii at all (although probably most were probably born there, but that is not material). This is a classification of American football players by ethnicity, but the current name is not explicit enough in that regard.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Political divisions of Taiwan
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge. The parent category formerly contained some mainland locations of the
Republic of China (1912–1949), but I have sub-catted those now as "former subdivisions". The direct contents of both categories now have a mixture of names "Taiwan" & "ROC", but the articles introduce themselves as "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or similar, so they are all talking about the same place. The parent should probably be renamed later as "Subdivisions" but renaming might have a lack of consensus over whether to use "ROC" or "Taiwan", so I'm only nominating this for merger; please leave renaming suggestions for another time. –
FayenaticLondon17:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Strongly oppose -- RoC and PRC are easily confused. Since most countries do not recognise RoC and it can be confused with the pre-1949 mainland republic, we reached a consensus in WP that the present RoC would be called Taiwan in WP. MOst categories were moved accordingly, probably last year. We should not make a change such as this, which will upset that consensus. By all means, rename
Category:Administrative divisions of Taiwan, if you wish, but not of RoC.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Change to Rename and not merge: if you look at the contents, a lot of those in the RoC category relate to the present RoC (Taiwan). However, other sub-cats are for mainland pre-1949 RoC. Perhaps I should withdraw this CfD as it's getting messy, then just sub-cat the Taiwan articles down into the Taiwan category. The nominated category could be speedily renamed to
Category:Subdivisions of Taiwan anyway. –
FayenaticLondon09:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American actors of Filipino descent
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale according to
Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality we are told "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created." There is no
American Actors of Filipino descent or
Filipino-American actors article, and I see no evidence that there is enough material to create one. As far as I can tell this is a trivial intersection of ancestry and occupation, which we do not categorize by unless it is more than merely trivial. Thus having this category is not dependant on being able to have other by ancestry categories for actors, not does the fact that some other by occupation categories for Americans of Filipino descent may have enough study to substantiate mean we should have this category. This categories stands or falls on its own, not with any other category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Toaru Majutsu no Index
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: With the release of the series in the English language under the title A Certain Magical Index, it is time to rename the cat to the English title to match the article names. —Farix (
t |
c)
12:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Idol series runners-up
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:DuPont Manual Magnet High School alumni
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support. At one time (possibly as recently as last year) the school name did include "Magnet", but that was only for a short blip in its history. --
Orlady (
talk)
14:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Support although official names are not what we use in all cases so the website alone is not determanative. However we generally do not go longer than the official name except to disambiguate.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
16:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lists of former subdivisions of countries
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment The rename proposal is about two things: 1) Get rid of "of countries" - The of country is not giving anymore insight, there is no category "municipalities of countries" or "rivers of countries". 2) clarify the noun that describes what is listed. There are geographic entities called "Sub-Division", and
Subdivision (disambiguation) shows that the word "subdivision" does also refer to non-geographic entities. So follow the top level
Category:Country subdivisions in using the generic term "country subdivision", that always refers to geographic entities.
ChemTerm (
talk)
05:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The proposal is Category:Lists of former country subdivisions. It will only refer to former country subdivisions. And all country subdivisions are of countries.
ChemTerm (
talk)
05:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
It can be read as "(former country) subdivisions". That would include subdivisions of Czecholsovakia, which may still exist as subdivisions of the two successor states. The same reading would exclude subdivisions of existing countries. If you want to pursue this, please take it to a full CfD discussion. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
11:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment The big problem with the porposed rename is it makes it unclear what is former. Under the current name it is 100% clear that it is the subdivisions that no longer exist. The new name makes it unclear if former modifies countries or subdivision. The current more clear name is better.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I see the ambiguity, but I am not 100% sure the current name makes it 100% clear. If one reads it as "former (subdivisions of countries)" it does not tell whether the country is current or former. Also, it would be nice to have a category for both meanings, since A) country subdivisions of former countries and B) former country subdivisions of current countries are both C) country subdivisions with status "former".
ChemTerm (
talk)
00:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Note 1. I agree that it is unclear of why the country subdivisions that are contained in the category that is proposed for renaming here, first ceased to exist. And in fact, the category contains both types: 1) country subdivisions of former countries and 2) former country subdivisions of current countries - So it is absolutely no problem if one reads it as "subdivisions of former countries". The only thing it does not include are 3) current country subdivisions of current countries. All country subdivisions that ceased to exist, I would simply call former country subdivisions, contrasting easily with current country subdivisions. So, if you claim "former subdivisions of countries" refers to former country subdivisions of current countries, then the current category does not match with the contents and you should hyper-speedy the proposal.
ChemTerm (
talk)
02:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
It is a problem if the category is read as "subdivisions of former countries", but readers and editors will then assume that it excludes former subdivisions of current countries. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Only if it is exclusively read so. But it can be read both ways. But if it is read as what is written, it includes any kind of former country subdivisions, whether from former or from current countries. And the current name IMO is not different here. If one wants to address former country subdivisions of current countries, one would always have to say "current countries", except in names like Former country subdivisions of Denmark, if one assumes that the reader knows that Denmark is a current country.
ChemTerm (
talk)
20:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Unsurprising results. So many similar categories have been renamed to "country subdivisions" that a search will pick up all articles in one of those categories. However, that's a self-reference, and citing it as a justification is silly. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
At least I was surprised, to see the term that you proposed is only be used in the book by Gwillam Law and in a handful of categories.
ChemTerm (
talk)
20:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose renaming, because the rename would be too confusing. For example,
List of former United States counties relates to former counties in the US, not the former country of the US. I think the idea above of "Category:Lists of subdivisions formerly used by countries" makes a lot more sense. --
Funandtrvl (
talk)
17:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:California Redwoods
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I dont know policy on this, but it seems that the name for the category should be the current name of the team. either that, or we need 2 sets of categories for the 2 names.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
03:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. The policy is to use the current name for the team, otherwise teams that often change names get split into lots of small cats, and players get catted on 2 or more teams when they never switched a team.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
16:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment do i need to propose renaming all the subcats as well, or will the admin making a change (if agreed) know to change them all? I dont mind CFD'ing all of them if it helps.(Mercurywoodrose)
50.193.19.66 (
talk)
17:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Native American Latter Day Saints
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale This category was created on the assumption that
Washakie was not American enough to be put in
Category:American Latter Day Saints since he originally lived in Idaho and Wyoming without recognizing the United States claim to controlling those lands. However, since he lived until 1900 he eventually recognized American control and is actually in
Category:American Latter Day Saints. A quick survey of the articles involved shows that everyone involved was a United States national at some point in their lives. We do not have a general schema of Latter Day Saints by ethnicity, which this has clearly become, but only for Latter-day Saints by nationality. Thus I feel we should upmerge it.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge. Categorising people by religion by nationality is necessary if we're going to categorise them by religion, and it's unambiguous and not debateable for people whose religion is not in doubt, but categorising by religion by race or ethnicity is confusing and up to much debate.
Nyttend (
talk)
20:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Native Hawaiian Latter Day Saints
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale Yes, I know that this will change the meaning of the category, but it will restore the category to its original purpose. I created this category to have a Latter-day Saints by nationality category that I could put
Jonathan Napela in. So the intention was to use this category for people who were Hawaiian by nationality. It has now been turned into an ethnic category, but that was never the intention. I feel we should try to restore it to its original nationality purpose, since that is an accepted way to subdivide Latter-day Saints, but we have really never agreed on a by ethnicity schema for such.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
keep name as is Do no rename or delete. Native Hawaiians still exist in Hawaii and elsewhere; they did not disappear when the Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown. The current name is historically correct.
Hmains (
talk)
03:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment sub-dividing Latter-day Saints (and most other religions) by nationality is an accepted action. Subdividing them by ethnicity requires specific coverage of that overlap, which we lack in this case.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:speedily deleted under
WP:CSD G10 "attack/disparage" (with a bit of
WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND thrown in) I've no involvement in the current Malleus Fatuorum/Arbcom dispute. I can see many good people were outraged by stupid JClemens "not a Wikipedian" remark. But creating categories to attack an editor for a remark he made isn't how we do things. We ARE Wikipedians that means we discuss things together, and we use proper mature methods to do this. We don't tar and feather people (and I think that exactly the reason people rightly objected to JClemens' remark). We don't engage in puerile
battle ground tactics - we don't monumentalise the folly of others. Where would it end? Do we end up with "Category:Wikipedians who are fuckers" in protest at things Malleus has said? Please, step back and cool down everyone. When we have a dispute, and real Wikipedians try to use discussion and dispute resolution methods to, well, like "resolve" the dispute, not stunts and protests to ramp it up. Take this to deletion review if you must, but ask yourself how you are helping Wikipedia. Your valid point/protest has now been made.--
Scott Mac09:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: False descriptor - none of these users are described as not a wikipedian apart from Malleus - and that was detracted - as such this is a disruptive and derisive cat -
Youreallycan00:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Well, if I'm being disruptive then maybe I'm breaking the fourth pillar, and thus I'm not a Wikipedian. Or, it's not adding to the encyclopedia, in which case I'm disregarding the first and I'm not a Wikipedian. Or I'm declaring my solidarity, thereby violating NPOV, the second pillar, and thus I'm not a Wikipedian. Or you should ignore all rules, allowing me to be a Wikipedian in my non-neutral, policy-breaking, disruptive manner. That's the fifth pillar.
Drmies (
talk)
00:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I would argue that this is a reasonable self descriptor for anyone who wants to edit the encyclopedia that (almost) anyone can edit but doesn't want to belong to the 'club' of wikipedians. But I cannot because I'm a wikipedian who isn't a wikipedian and only wikipedians who are wikipedians should comment on wikipedian matters on wikipedians. Or something like that. I think. --
regentspark (
comment)
00:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I gave one above. Improves editor solidarity, and as such editor retention, which furthers the goals of the encyclopedia. Erm, I mean, arf. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk)
00:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
And you're uninvolved? I doubt that, per Bgwhite's note below. Malleus hate[s/d] me, but he does great work for the project. I'll stick up for him, and any uninvolved editor can see that his article-space contributions are a net positive for the encyclopedia. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk)
00:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep I'm not a friend nor an admirer of Malleus. This is not a violation of user guidelines. This category is a valid form a political protest. As Youreallycan has expressed his strong dislike towards Malleus, they are not in a position to be anywhere neutral on this. I highly suggest you not respond to any comments as that will stoke the "disruptive and derisive" flames more than the category would.
Bgwhite (
talk)
00:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
If I see it correctly, the user categorised himself as belonging in a category that categorises him as not being a wikipedian after he created the category that could categorise him as such. --
Beetstra (public) (
Dirk BeetstraTC on public computers)
08:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Dennis - Users are not randomly allowed to cat themselves in any way- this is a low moment - think about it all of you .. this cat will have no value at all and no long term existence -
Youreallycan00:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I am allowed to discuss as much as I like - essays are ten a penny - the most disruptive thing is the category itself -
Youreallycan01:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I don;t need help - there is no policy that supports this disruption - this Cat is worthless in the long term - end of - in the short term it is valueless - Malleus isn't even restricted - moving on - get over it -
Youreallycan01:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
You haven't provided any policy-based arguments why this category is disruptive. All you've done is scream loudly that it is, and heckle everyone who disagrees with you.
ReykYO!01:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Sadly, as there are a few experienced contributors that I have a lot of respect for - they are involved and vote commenting with their sausages/silly hats on -
Youreallycan01:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep - in the current climate I am definitely not a Wikipedian, not as defined by a member of the arbitration committee. I came here to help write an encyclopaedia, not to buttress American right-wing sensibilities. That defines me at least as relevantly as categories indicating I belong to certain projects. If sanity returns, that will be the time to consider deleting the category. --
Epipelagic (
talk)
01:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename - the category should be called either "Wikipedians who are not Wikipedians" or "Wikipedians who are not Wikipedian". I have no strong opinion as to which, although surely someone will come along to tell me which one our guidelines show to be correct.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
01:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete I cannot support the creation of a category that, according to its currrent
description text, would class even someone who inserts an image of child porn on the Main Page, as a "Wikipedian", simply by virtue of the fact they're editting here. If people are so upset by the notion that being a Wikipedian can reasonably be defined as someone who accepts and (at least tries to) abide by the 5 pillars, then surely they can find a little less divisive method of protest. Smear their monitors with their own feces perhaps. Or start a petition maybe, if it's an online medium that's required. If this category is allowed to remain, then I don't see why others cannot create
Category:Wikipedians who have been stereotyped by Malleus Fatuorum or
Category:Wikipedians who have been demeaned by Malleus Fatuorum of
Category:Wikipedians who have had their intelligence questioned by Malleus Fatuorum. If this project has descended so far that even categories like that would be accepted as 'free speech' and damn the consequences, then it's no wonder so many people are leaving due to the unpleasant atmosphere (24% of all former contributors apparently, with current stats showing over 3,000 people make more than 100 edits a month).
Tim98Seven (
talk)
01:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Anyone of them left because of Malleus? ... I thought so. And someone who posts only porn is a vandal and will be blocked indefinitely. You are free to create those other categories--I couldn't care less.
Drmies (
talk)
01:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep on principle Though it was created to garner attention and to be disruptive, I suppose it is a legitimate category for users to place themselves in if they feel they aren't part of the community. Weak delete I don't know, I'm kind of torn. Now I'm leaning delete.
GoPhightins!01:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep - Obviously a disruptive category, and anyone who adds themselves to this category is not a member of the Wikipedia community per their own disruptive behavior. The inappropriateness of this category therefore makes it appropriate for an editor who adds themselves to this category to be listed in the category, serving as a type of
self-validating reduction. It is imperative that we keep these loose cannons on watch, and if this category is deleted, I'd highly recommend at least creating
Category:Non-Wikipedians that added "Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian" to their user page in order to keep track of these rogue rouge "
Wikipedians". But in all seriousness, I don't see any evidence of this category being disruptive.
If Wikipedia itself can be disruptive to Wikipedia in order to protest something unwanted, I don't think a category on a few user pages is going to destroy Wikipedia. -
SudoGhost01:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict)That's nice Dennis, and I respect you too (like, a lot), but I am going to apply
WP:IAR here. This is clearly stirring the pot and is only going to engender further ill will in the Malleus War, it was clearly not constructive and I am not changing my position.
AutomaticStrikeout02:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Assume good faith. I didn't create this for the purpose of disruption. Someone nominating this for deletion, that's disruptive.
Drmies (
talk)
02:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) I don't believe you did create this; and additionally why, as soon as you try to lecture me on AGF are you saying that nominating it for deletion is disruptive? I suppose that this could be a potentially legitimate category and am kind of on the fence as you can see by my changed votes, but I think it's reprehensible to say that starting a discussion on Wikipedia is disruptive.
GoPhightins!02:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
However, this discussion (as most in Malleusgate seem to have) has veered way off it's intended course. The bottom line is that, in my opinion, this category shouldn't be retained because it's disruptive.
GoPhightins!02:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
It's a user category. Settle down. As for the deletion attempt itself--just look at the ridiculous argument proposed in the nomination and the nominator's subsequent comments.
Drmies (
talk)
02:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Additional comment It's obvious, Drmies, that you learned absolutely nothing from Malleus not being called a Wikipedian, that all of us are Wikipedians despite contrasting ways of expressing it. It is wrong that he was declared "not a Wikipedian", but that is neither here nor there anymore, and emphasizing a gaff is immature beyond what I expect of an administrator. Now if you really wanted to do something, you could have just went back to work on that encyclopedia thing we are here to build, but no, now we have a solidarity category to divide the community and users who disagree with you are disruptive? You really have forgotten the mission of this website. Regards, —
MoeEpsilon03:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
It wasn't a gaff. But thanks for the appeal to my conscience. If you had started this for nomination, with at least a half-way decent argument, that would have been different.
Drmies (
talk)
03:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete we do not create categories to make some sort of point. The only reason to have categories is to aid in collaboration, which this category does not do.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment: This category is an aid in collaboration. It is a way editors who are committed to proper collaboration can identify themselves, and thus distance themselves from other people here who are not committed to proper collaboration, but want instead to control and ban anyone who don't conform to their own agendas. --
Epipelagic (
talk)
08:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep - we also do not delete categories to make a point. The point, per se, of
WP:POINT is that we don't disrupt the encyclopedia to make a point. Nominating this cat for deletion is more disruptive than letting it be. There's no policy based rationale for deletion that I can conceive of.
Keilana|Parlez ici03:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep because we allow users to categorize and group themselves pretty much however they want. This is just one of thousands of user categories toward that end. —Torchiesttalkedits03:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep because even lazy twats like me who haven't edited for ages should be allowed to categorise ourselves (and show our solidarity) however we like. I don't want to add to the various shitfights about this all over the 'pedia, because others have said all I would, and better - but I do want to show my disgust at what was said by an elected functionary. This cat fits the bill for me. Thanks. Begoontalk04:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete We delete "My favorite color is red Wikipedians" categories and "Wikipedians who don't like [X] but sometimes think it's okay or whatever" categories. Unless this can be shown to actually aid in collaboration, I don't understand why we would keep it. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯07:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep I see no policy-based reason for deletion, and that is where the burden of proof lies, rather than with those who are !voting "keep".
Joefromrandb (
talk)
08:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.