Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 24

4217:, 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 654:, 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. – 3831: 3041: 4163:- 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. -- 4319:- Obviously a disruptive category, and anyone who adds themselves to this category is not a member of the Knowledge (XXG) 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 4229:. 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). 776:: 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 2635:. 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. 3951:

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.

2816:

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

4804:

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

914:

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

4569:

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

3231:

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

466:

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

4891:

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

4732:

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

3950:

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,

905:

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

3288:

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

1900:

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

4733:

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

2652:. 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. 1885:

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

3116:

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 Knowledge (XXG). Your valid point/protest has now been

2050:

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.

915:

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.

4180:- 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. 4910:

We delete "My favorite color is red Wikipedians" categories and "Wikipedians who don't like 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.

3102:

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

2954:

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

3107:

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

2134:

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.

3112:- 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 1743:

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

2630:

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

1595:

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

2811:

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

902: 2434:

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

4614:

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.

4243:

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.

2045:

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

750:-- 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 346:-- 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. 4836:

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.

4324: 2933:

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.

3850:

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. --

2767: 419: 42: 37: 2951: 2916:

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.

2452:

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)

3887:

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 -

4006:

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.

1453:

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.

4281:

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.

2669:

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

2245:

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. --

4382:

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

4947: 2019:

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. --

4039:

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 -

4645:

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.

292:. 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 1920:. 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". 2415:

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.

4474:

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.

1622:

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. --

1660: 1546: 4058:

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.

4226: 1819: 463: 3050: 754:

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

2096:

The proposal for renaming from "subdivisions of countries" to "country subdivisions" is supported by Knowledge (XXG) search which gives for "country subdivision(s)"

932:

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

3232:

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.

4119:

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 -

3134: 893: 885: 4850:

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. —

3394: 2403: 2385: 2376: 4784:

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.

4218: 2171:

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. --

21: 3500:

And you're uninvolved? I doubt that, per Bgwhite's note below. Malleus hate me, but he does great work for the project. I'll stick up for him, and any

1856:

Of course you couldn't find other categories using "subdivisions of countries". You have just speedily renamed them all to "country subdivisions". --

1393: 301: 4416: 4222: 4028: 3973: 3797: 3736: 1691:

The proposed new name introduces ambiguities. It could refer either to subdivisions of former countries, or to former subdivisions of countries. --

4946:

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

2117:. Many of them refer to the category which is proposed for rename here, or to the book by Gwillim Law "Administrative subdivisions of countries" 705: 629: 2221: 785: 659: 624: 607: 4394:, 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. 3533:

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.

3434:

I gave one above. Improves editor solidarity, and as such editor retention, which furthers the goals of the encyclopedia. Erm, I mean, arf. —

17: 2782: 2594: 2495: 2329: 2242: 2183: 2147: 2077: 2031: 1952: 1868: 1758: 1703: 1634: 1436:. 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. -- 1371: 1201: 1024: 869: 434: 316: 2842: 454: 218: 2990: 2065:

Good, you're starting to get there. It can be read both ways ... but to avoid miscategorisation, category names should be unambiguous. --

4632: 4587: 4451: 4302: 3151: 3143: 2632: 2627: 2614: 1529:

and its subcategories, so those should be nominated for renaming as well. If that renaming fails, this should be renamed as suggested.--

214: 166: 158: 3537:

I highly suggest you not respond to any comments as that will stoke the "disruptive and derisive" flames more than the category would.

2157:

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.

5025:

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".

4951: 4409: 4323:. It is imperative that we keep these loose cannons on watch, and if this category is deleted, I'd highly recommend at least creating 4021: 3966: 3790: 3729: 2453: 2351: 2225: 1389: 2394: 651: 5089: 4880: 2483:

The subcats were nominated on Oct 27, on that day's page. I have merged that listing to this one, to keep discussion centralised. --

1223: 709: 681: 634: 450: 1985:- So it is absolutely no problem if one reads it as "subdivisions of former countries". The only thing it does not include are 3) 1664: 1572: 1550: 513:

exists nor could be more than a list because they don't play football different than anyone who isn't Hawaiian or Native Hawaiian.

149: 120: 2802: 510: 128: 2367: 1571:. Both use the term "country subdivision" and both don't use "of country". If one combines these two, one gets what is proposed: 1046: 755: 462:

At present the category head says this is for Native Hawaiians. Without the rename it is unclear how this category differs from

4512:

Assume good faith. I didn't create this for the purpose of disruption. Someone nominating this for deletion, that's disruptive.

2895: 2798: 2610: 2220:

if the nom is concerned about the current category name being ambiguous as well as his/her proposed name, then we could call it

4857: 3759: 2469:

I would reccomend directly nominating the subcats. It might not be neccesary but it will hopefully lead to more participation.

2390: 1927: 777: 713: 701: 485: 1823: 685: 111: 4697: 3535:

As Youreallycan has expressed his strong dislike towards Malleus, they are not in a position to be anywhere neutral on this.

1071: 1672: 1568: 2363: 506: 5047: 3707: 2399: 2381: 2372: 1923: 1668: 1564: 1526: 4341:

in order to protest something unwanted, I don't think a category on a few user pages is going to destroy Knowledge (XXG).

2886: 1901:

countries and B) former country subdivisions of current countries are both C) country subdivisions with status "former".

933: 907: 4671: 4546: 4482: 4366: 3987:

I am allowed to discuss as much as I like - essays are ten a penny - the most disruptive thing is the category itself -

1937: 1597: 5071: 5051: 5034: 5017: 5000: 4977: 4963: 4938: 4902: 4883: 4861: 4842: 4814: 4793: 4770: 4748: 4720: 4701: 4680: 4654: 4639: 4594: 4555: 4521: 4491: 4458: 4421: 4375: 4350: 4309: 4267: 4253: 4238: 4203: 4189: 4172: 4133: 4114: 4094: 4073: 4053: 4001: 3978: 3929: 3915: 3901: 3882: 3861: 3845: 3816: 3802: 3770: 3741: 3694: 3654: 3635: 3610: 3591: 3565: 3546: 3513: 3495: 3476: 3462: 3443: 3429: 3410: 3377: 3358: 3336: 3317: 3300: 3274: 3260: 3241: 3226: 3207: 3191: 3121: 3097: 3079: 3056: 3022: 3002: 2981: 2964: 2942: 2925: 2908: 2882: 2873: 2854: 2826: 2787: 2751: 2723: 2703: 2686: 2674: 2661: 2644: 2599: 2567: 2539: 2519: 2500: 2478: 2461: 2444: 2424: 2334: 2302: 2274: 2254: 2233: 2202: 2188: 2166: 2152: 2129: 2082: 2060: 2036: 2014: 1957: 1910: 1895: 1873: 1851: 1793: 1763: 1738: 1708: 1683: 1639: 1613: 1584: 1538: 1510: 1482: 1462: 1445: 1426: 1376: 1344: 1316: 1296: 1279: 1260: 1206: 1174: 1146: 1126: 1114: 1094: 1075: 1029: 997: 969: 949: 924: 874: 842: 814: 794: 767: 742: 725: 668: 616: 587: 559: 539: 522: 497: 476: 439: 403: 375: 355: 338: 321: 284: 267: 250: 230: 205: 102: 78: 4929: 1251: 1219: 1042: 5013: 3584: 1933: 1835: 1601: 791: 665: 613: 2347: 4789: 4693: 4320: 3354: 3313: 3118: 2998: 2960: 2938: 2869: 2822: 2778: 2640: 2590: 2515: 2491: 2474: 2440: 2420: 2325: 2179: 2143: 2118: 2073: 2027: 1948: 1891: 1864: 1789: 1754: 1699: 1630: 1458: 1414: 1367: 1275: 1197: 1090: 1020: 920: 865: 738: 535: 472: 430: 334: 312: 263: 3109: 2670: 2005:

countries, then the current category does not match with the contents and you should hyper-speedy the proposal.

5043: 2904: 2682: 1292: 945: 889: 518: 280: 911: 5042:. If the definition is good enough for a serving member of ArbCom, then it's fucking good enough for me. -- 4933: 4664: 4623: 4578: 4539: 4475: 4442: 4359: 4293: 4080:

A blind person can see the disruption this cat creates - I am not heckling I am responding and commenting -

1534: 1255: 763: 351: 98: 4761:

had started this for nomination, with at least a half-way decent argument, that would have been different.

906:

just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created." There is no

5030: 4404: 4128: 4089: 4048: 4016: 3996: 3961: 3896: 3785: 3724: 3649: 3605: 3560: 3490: 3457: 3424: 3372: 3331: 3255: 3221: 3186: 2457: 2229: 1123: 3212:

Don't be sorry - I see only friends - the cat is disruptive and a violation of user guidelines though -

1122:

per nom. Since the article is now at the English title, it makes sense that the category should as well.

5067: 5009: 4959: 4877: 4743: 4715: 3925: 3812: 3577: 3509: 3472: 3439: 3406: 3295: 3270: 3075: 3018: 2747: 2719: 2699: 2563: 2535: 2298: 2270: 1506: 1478: 1422: 1340: 1312: 1170: 1142: 993: 965: 838: 810: 781: 655: 603: 583: 555: 399: 371: 246: 93:, including those in Favonian's addendum, after assuring all are in appropriate "generals" categories.-- 74: 3947: 3308:

Given I have been just as rude and swear just as much as Malleus then obviously I am not a Wikipedian.

2972:

and that would just mix up a people (bio) category and structure with a non-people category structure.

4325:

Category:Non-Wikipedians that added "Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian" to their user page

1600:

shows that the word "subdivision" does also refer to non-geographic entities. So follow the top level

1410: 1102:

per nom. At the time when I originally made the category, the main page was under the Japanese name.

221:, though red, contain articles. Those categorizations should be removed as well if the motion passes. 4990: 4810: 4785: 4234: 4185: 4168: 3851: 3350: 3309: 2994: 2956: 2934: 2865: 2818: 2771: 2636: 2583: 2511: 2484: 2470: 2436: 2416: 2318: 2250: 2172: 2136: 2066: 2020: 1941: 1887: 1857: 1785: 1747: 1692: 1623: 1454: 1360: 1271: 1190: 1086: 1013: 916: 858: 734: 531: 468: 423: 330: 305: 259: 193: 4427: 3093: 4347: 3766: 2900: 2678: 1288: 941: 514: 276: 3711: 3710:

is one example. This is no different. As this is not shown to be disruptive, then the idea that

3538: 1814:-country category (as you named it correctly), and the category would be named as such, ending in 1407: 4616: 4571: 4564: 4465: 4435: 4286: 2850: 2198: 2162: 2125: 2056: 2010: 1906: 1847: 1734: 1679: 1609: 1580: 1530: 1067: 759: 721: 693: 347: 297: 226: 201: 94: 4833: 4431: 3551:

LOL - I have supported Malleus - diff on request - this Cat is disruptive and decisive though -

2890: 2001:. So, if you claim "former subdivisions of countries" refers to former country subdivisions of 1969:

the country subdivisions that are contained in the category that is proposed for renaming here,

937: 3504:

editor can see that his article-space contributions are a net positive for the encyclopedia. —

3198:

I'm sorry, is this just totally going over your head? Kennedy wasn't really a Berliner either.

5066:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

5026: 4395: 4332: 4120: 4081: 4040: 4007: 3988: 3952: 3888: 3776: 3715: 3641: 3597: 3552: 3542: 3482: 3449: 3416: 3364: 3323: 3247: 3213: 3178: 3177:

apart from Malleus - and that was detracted - as such this is a disruptive and derisive cat -

3017:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2718:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2657: 2534:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2269:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1932:

Looking at the mess caused by this, I will also propose (in a separate CfD) that the whole of

1477:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1311:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1141:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

964:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

809:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

554:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

493: 370:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

4338: 3322:

Please provide a decent rationale within guidelines - I like is is not going to be counted -

3074:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2746:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2562:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2297:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1505:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1339:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1169:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

992:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

837:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

582:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

398:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

73:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

4955: 4899: 4874: 4766: 4738: 4710: 4650: 4517: 4249: 4199: 3921: 3911: 3878: 3841: 3808: 3505: 3468: 3435: 3402: 3290: 3266: 3237: 3203: 2977: 2921: 2695: 1604:

in using the generic term "country subdivision", that always refers to geographic entities.

1441: 1418: 243: 4892:

disgust at what was said by an elected functionary. This cat fits the bill for me. Thanks.

4535: 4471: 188:

I propose deleting these two recently created categories because they are in conflict with

4925: 4806: 4263: 4230: 4181: 4164: 2813: 2246: 1784:

the lists are more of less by country, which is the implied critieria of the current name.

1247: 467:

football players by ethnicity, but the current name is not explicit enough in that regard.

192:. It's a safe bet that all generals will eventually find themselves thus categorized, but 3775:

Then you won't mind if I recreate it then? I'm a wikipedian, I'm not in this category.

189: 2359:

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

1973:

ceased to exist. And in fact, the category contains both types: 1) country subdivisions

4852: 4570:

it's reprehensible to say that starting a discussion on Knowledge (XXG) is disruptive.

4344: 4107: 4066: 3687: 3628: 5008:-- Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed! 5083: 4995: 3856: 2989:

I do not think you know what you are talking about. The proposal is to move this to

2846: 2194: 2158: 2121: 2052: 2006: 1902: 1843: 1730: 1675: 1605: 1576: 1062: 717: 689: 222: 197: 4337:

But in all seriousness, I don't see any evidence of this category being disruptive.

3415:

like it is not a valued keep - why don't you block yourself if you want to protest?

1802:

are by country, but they are also by type and by "formerness". But I don't see that

1591:

Comment The rename proposal is about two things: 1) Get rid of "of countries" - The

4972: 4838: 4227:

Category:Wikipedians who have had their intelligence questioned by Malleus Fatuorum

2653: 1103: 489: 3349:

I'm just another twat, you really do not need worry about fuckers like me at all.

3289:

comment on wikipedian matters on wikipedians. Or something like that. I think. --

242:

all four, since we don't categorise dead people by occupation. Even US generals.

4470:

That's nice Dennis, and I respect you too (like, a lot), but I am going to apply

1413:, the school's name does not include the word "Magnet". The school article is at 1060:, it is time to rename the cat to the English title to match the article names. — 4894: 4762: 4646: 4513: 4245: 4195: 3907: 3874: 3837: 3233: 3199: 2973: 2917: 1437: 4912: 4259: 4099:

If it's so obviously disruptive, how come nearly everyone disagrees with you?

1234: 4213:

I cannot support the creation of a category that, according to its currrent

4100: 4059: 3680: 3621: 4386:

reason to delete, I haven't seen it. Otherwise, we don't need a policy to

3068: