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]

• Propose deleting Category:Deceased United States Generals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Deceased United States Army Generals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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]

Addendum: Category:Deceased United States Air Force Generals and Category:Deceased United States Marine Corp Generals [sic], though red, contain articles. Those categorizations should be removed as well if the motion passes. Favonian (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete / empty all four, since we don't categorise dead people by occupation. Even US generals. Bencherlite^Talk 22:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we do not split occupation categories between living and dead people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we don't categorize by dead or alive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge, but DO NOT SIMPLY DELETE. I support the the rationales for removing these categories, but simply deleting the categories will leave some articles outside of any category for generals. See for example this edit to Joseph T. McNarney. (Note that McNanrney was also inappropriately removed from Category:Air Corps Tactical School alumni; similar problems may have occurred with other genrals). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• New Vote: Upmerge to the relevant generals cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 30 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.

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: relisted at CfD 2012 November 1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Hawaiian players of American football to Category:Native Hawaiian players of American football
• 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]
• Rename; in line with similar occupational categories in Category:Native Hawaiian people.- choster (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, OCAT, no article Hawaiian players of American football nor Native Hawaiian players of American football exists nor could be more than a list because they don't play football different than anyone who isn't Hawaiian or Native Hawaiian. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Carlossuarez46's argument.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 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: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 19:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Political divisions of Taiwan to Category:Administrative divisions of the Republic of China (which was speedily renamed during this discussion to) Category:Subdivisions of the Republic of China

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. – Fayenatic London 17:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and rename to Category:Subdivisions of the Republic of China like 98% of the others in Category:Country subdivisions by country. (Pakistan and Nagorny-Karabakh are not in conformance) ChemTerm (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC) --- Rename/Merge to Category:Subdivisions of Taiwan. Category:Administrative divisions of the Republic of China is now at Category:Subdivisions of the Republic of China, but a speedy is running to move that further to Category:Subdivisions of Taiwan. ChemTerm (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename this is a clear by country cat, so using the official country name works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 26 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. – Fayenatic London 09:23, 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.

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: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge Category:American actors of Filipino descent to Category:American actors and Category:American people of Filipino descent
• 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]
• Delete OCAT, regardless of whether Filipino is used in the national or ethnic sense, there is nothing showing that these people act differently than anyone else; hence, no American actors of Filipino descent article exists nor could be written other than a WP:SYNTH or list. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:27, 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: rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Toaru Majutsu no Index to Category:A Certain Magical Index

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]

• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. At the time when I originally made the category, the main page was under the Japanese name. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 20:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Since the article is now at the English title, it makes sense that the category should as well. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:58, 27 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: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Idol series runners-up to Category:Idol series participants

Nominator's rationale: Maybe winning is notable, but a certain type of not-winning is not. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, we do Olympics by medal color, but Idol??? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:28, 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: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:DuPont Manual Magnet High School alumni to Category:DuPont Manual High School alumni

Nominator's rationale: Rename. According to the school's official site, the school's name does not include the word "Magnet". The school article is at duPont Manual High School. Possibly qualifies as a C2D speedy. Dale Arnett (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.

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: keep. However, this brings it out of concert with Category:Former country subdivisions and its subcategories, so those should be nominated for renaming as well. If that renaming fails, this should be renamed as suggested.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Lists of former subdivisions of countries to Category:Lists of former country subdivisions

Nominator's rationale: Rename. It is a direct subcategory of Category:Former country subdivisions AND Category:Lists of country subdivisions. Both use the term "country subdivision" and both don't use "of country". If one combines these two, one gets what is proposed: Category:Lists of former country subdivisions - ChemTerm (talk) 05:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]

This renaming was initially proposed as a speedy, but was contested. The nominator should have mentioned this, but I have inserted a copy of the speedy discussion below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the lists are more of less by country, which is the implied critieria of the current name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course the lists are by country, but they are also by type and by "formerness". But I don't see that by country is the implied main criterion. If it would be the main sort criterion, then it would be a by-country category (as you named it correctly), and the category would be named as such, ending in by country, similar to Category:Lists of country subdivisions by country and Category:Country subdivisions by country. But it is named of countries. I could not find any other of countries inside Category:Country subdivisions. So of countries is a misnomer. ChemTerm (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course you couldn't find other categories using "subdivisions of countries". You have just speedily renamed them all to "country subdivisions". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 28 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]
• Keep. The current title is clear that the word "subdivisions" is being modified by "former", but the proposed new name could be read as meaning "subdivisions of former countries".
  The parent Category:Former country subdivisions should be renamed to its previous title: Category:Former subdivisions of countries. (it was speedily renamed).
  Looking at the mess caused by this, I will also propose (in a separate CfD) that the whole of Category:Country subdivisions be renamed to the clearer Category:Subdivisions of countries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:53, 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]
        • Good, you're starting to get there. It can be read both ways ... but to avoid miscategorisation, category names should be unambiguous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 2. The proposal for renaming from "subdivisions of countries" to "country subdivisions" is supported by Wikipedia search which gives for "country subdivision(s)" 1533 hits in the category namespace, and 273,793 in the article space. Searching for "subdivisions of countries" brings 27 hits in these namespaces combined. Many of them refer to the category which is proposed for rename here, or to the book by Gwillim Law "Administrative subdivisions of countries" [1]. He has his style and Wikipedia has its style. ChemTerm (talk) 00:54, 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]
        • Neither term is likely to be widely used in the body of articles; it is more likely that articles will refer to subdivisions of a particular country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agreed for article content. ChemTerm (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if the nom is concerned about the current category name being ambiguous as well as his/her proposed name, then we could call it Category:Lists of subdivisions formerly used by countries -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:15, 12 November 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.

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: merge all. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:California Redwoods to Category:Sacramento Mountain Lions

subcats nominated on Oct 27. Discussion moved here by BHG to keep discussion centralised

• Category:California Redwoods stadiums to Category:Sacramento Mountain Lions stadiums
• Category:California Redwoods seasons to Category:Sacramento Mountain Lions seasons
• Category:California Redwoods players to Category:Sacramento Mountain Lions players
• Category:California Redwoods head coaches to Category:Sacramento Mountain Lions head coaches
• Category:California Redwoods coaches to Category:Sacramento Mountain Lions coaches

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]
• Comment I would reccomend directly nominating the subcats. It might not be neccesary but it will hopefully lead to more participation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subcats were nominated on Oct 27, on that day's page. I have merged that listing to this one, to keep discussion centralised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge subcats as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 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.

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: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:Native American Latter Day Saints to Category:American Latter Day Saints
• 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]
• Delete do American LDS people practice a different religion than those else where, regardless of their race? Why we have these cross sections is beyond me. Note, no one has bothered to write American Latter Day Saints article much less the Native American Latter Day Saints. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Non-notable triple intersection. Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:53, 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.

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: relisted at CfD November 1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename category:Native Hawaiian Latter Day Saints to Category:Kingdom of Hawaii Latter Day Saints.
• 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]
  • Oppose. Name is unclear, is Hawaii Latter Day Saints a kingdom? To achieve your goal rename to Category:Latter Day Saints from the Kingdom of Hawaii. ChemTerm (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I will support that variant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons in the nomination above, where are the articles on Native Hawaiian Latter Day Saints or Kingdom of Hawaii Latter Day Saints - I assert none could be written other than WP:SYNTH or lists - note that the History of the Latter Day Saints in Hawaii could well be written, but that's another thing entirely. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:33, 26 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]
• Comment there is an article The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Hawaii which can be seen as a basis of having a by nationality category for Latter-day Saints of the Kingdom of Hawaii. It should also be noted that Latter-day Saints from the Kingdom of Hawaii would not be limited to people who were ethnically native Hawaiian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment and that would just mix up a people (bio) category and structure with a non-people category structure. Hmains (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I do not think you know what you are talking about. The proposal is to move this to Category:Latter Day Saints of the Kingdom of Hawaii which is clearly a biographical category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 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.

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 Mac 09:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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 - Youreallycan 00:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, is this just totally going over your head? Kennedy wasn't really a Berliner either. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be sorry - I see only friends - the cat is disruptive and a violation of user guidelines though - Youreallycan 00:18, 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]
      • Your just being disruptive - Youreallycan 00:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's an expression of solidarity. Every editor needs support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:23, 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]
• Keep Given I have been just as rude and swear just as much as Malleus then obviously I am not a Wikipedian. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Please provide a decent rationale within guidelines - I like is is not going to be counted - Youreallycan 00:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just another twat, you really do not need worry about fuckers like me at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -totally agreement with your comment - Youreallycan 00:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm not a living person either. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  like it is not a valued keep - why don't you block yourself if you want to protest? Youreallycan 00:31, 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]

  Absolute nonsense - Youreallycan 00:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Proof? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Any uninvolved user reading your comment could,'t fail to agree - Youreallycan 00:44, 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]

  LOL - I have supported Malleus - diff on request - this Cat is disruptive and decisive though - Youreallycan 00:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Speedy keep - lol - why is that - provide a rational within guidelines - Youreallycan 00:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Legitimate expression of opinion. Reyk _YO! 00:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  False portrayal and disruptive and devisive cat - Youreallycan 00:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] mushroom mushroom! Reyk _YO! 00:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Editors are allowed to categorize themselves in many ways. Religion is one example. This is no different. As this is not shown to be disruptive, then the idea that Wikipedia is not censored take precedence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Only Wikipedians should be allowed to create categories, IMO. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Then you won't mind if I recreate it then? I'm a wikipedian, I'm not in this category. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Or how about just Wikipedia users? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 1 user likes this. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 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 Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 08:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - numerous precedents for categories of contributors to this project. - Sitush (talk) 00:51, 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 - Youreallycan 00:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Prove it. - Sitush (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably the same "proof" he gave me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course they are. And 12 replies in one discussion worries me that you are emotionally invested here. I'm not a cat member, I didn't retire, I didn't become inactive. Long term value isn't relevant nor is it knowable, nor is crystalballing a valid reason to oppose. YRC, sometimes, you just have to leave people alone and let them do their thing, even when you disagree. It isn't hurting anyone, and please don't take this wrong, but the most disruptive thing that has come from the category is this deletion discussion. Live and let live, friend. Nothing is broken, the blue marble keeps on spinning. If it makes them happy, let it, and just smile. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:59, 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 - Youreallycan 01:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then I can't help you, friend. I've provided a policy based rationale as have others, and the claims of disruption are speculative at best. We will just have to let the process work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

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 - Youreallycan 01:12, 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. Reyk _YO! 01:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A blind person can see the disruption this cat creates - I am not heckling I am responding and commenting - Youreallycan 01:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's so obviously disruptive, how come nearly everyone disagrees with you? Reyk _YO! 01:50, 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 - Youreallycan 01:59, 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]
  • You have a point there. I think the first one sounds best. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 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]
    • Our friend Tim has put himself in the category he wishes deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 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. Go Phightins! 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. - SudoGhost 01:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There was no call for this. AutomaticStrikeout 02:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I respect you AutomaticStrikeout, but that isn't a policy based reason. We have a great many categories for different way to differentiate Wikipedians, all voluntary. If there is a policy based reason to delete, I haven't seen it. Otherwise, we don't need a policy to create, since there is precedent, but we do have to have a policy to delete, else it is discriminating. Doesn't mean you have to like it, but we all tolerate things we don't like, it is part of the human experience. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  How about the simple fact that this was created for disruption and WP:POINT? Go Phightins! 02:29, 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. AutomaticStrikeout 02:31, 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]

Oh, and when you gave Malleus a Brilliant idea barnstar for his violations of WP:NPA, that wasn't disruptive either, was it? AutomaticStrikeout 02:46, 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. Go Phightins! 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. Go Phightins! 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]

The fact that it is a user category is irrelevant to me. AutomaticStrikeout 02:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Necessary. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Creating a category to make a point is not desirable. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:35, 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, — Moe Epsilon 03:02, 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 ici} 03:26, 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. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: what's the actual harm? We're making far too big a deal of this. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:55, 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. Begoon ^talk 04:54, 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]
• Keep A perfectly valid administration category. I'm not sure that it is itself in the right category, however. I'm inclined to think it belongs inside Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia editing philosophy or Category:Wikipedians by philosophy. Keristrasza (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm Brian and so is my wife. pablo 08:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I noticed that I sometimes do not ignore all rules, and we need a place to categorise such editors. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 08:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:32, 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]
• Keep. If the definition is good enough for a serving member of ArbCom, then it's fucking good enough for me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:09, 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.