Misplaced Pages

:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 24 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scott MacDonald (talk | contribs) at 09:28, 24 October 2012 (→Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian: closing, delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:28, 24 October 2012 by Scott MacDonald (talk | contribs) (→Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian: closing, delete)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< October 23 October 25 >

October 24

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Idol series runners-up

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)

Category:DuPont Manual Magnet 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)

Category:Lists of former subdivisions of countries

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)
  • 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)

Category:California Redwoods

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)

Native American Latter Day Saints

Native Hawaiian Latter Day Saints

  • 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)

Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian

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 Misplaced Pages. Your valid point/protest has now been made.--Scott Mac 09:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    Please provide a decent rationale within guidelines - I like is is not going to be counted - Youreallycan 00:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
Yes -totally agreement with your comment - Youreallycan 00:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
If it's so obviously disruptive, how come nearly everyone disagrees with you? Reyk YO! 01:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
  • (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 Misplaced Pages is disruptive. Go Phightins! 02:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

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