Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion
(Redirected from Wikipedia:CFD/All)
Shortcuts
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Speedy renaming and merging

edit

If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria mentioned in C2, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.

If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.

Use the following format on a new line at the beginning of the list: 

* [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

If the current name should be redirected rather than deleted, use: 

* REDIRECT [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

To note that human action is required, e.g. updating a template that populates the category, use: 

* NO BOTS [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

Remember to tag the category page with: {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 06:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 62 open requests (refresh).

Current requests

edit

Please add new requests at the top of the list, preferably with a link to the parent category (in case of C2C) or relevant article (in case of C2D).

Opposed requests

edit

On hold pending other discussion

edit

Moved to full discussion

edit

Current discussions

edit
Shortcut

October 21

edit

NEW NOMINATIONS

edit

Category:Fiction about sexuality

edit
Nominator's rationale: It was speedy renamed without discussion. Some articles are about Sexuality in fiction but they are not technically Fiction about sexuality. So my proposal is to include both cases, as the scope of this was never discussed officially (or did anyone talk about it anywhere?). Web-julio (talk) 06:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBTQ and religion

edit
Nominator's rationale: No one in the last discussion considered consistency with the main article (Religion and LGBTQ people).

"LGBTQ" comes first following consistency with family tree, but that can change, observing this discussion. Web-julio (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


October 20

edit

Category:Slavery by war

edit
Nominator's rationale: The contents of this category seem to be related to wars about slavery rather than a category that breaks down Slavery by individual wars Mason (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I meant to keep this category separate from Category:Slavery during wars to keep the supercategory more focused on the subject of wartime slavery in general. AHI-3000 (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Surnames of Malagasy origin

edit
Nominator's rationale: These two categories seem to be duplicates as they contain many of the same articles. I don't care which one is Merged into which but I think we only need one category for Malagasy surnames. They also aren't very well populated but that's another matter. Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Piedmontese-speaking people by occupation

edit
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Redundant category layer Mason (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historic buildings and structures in France

edit
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT & WP:SUBJECTIVECAT)
The official heritage register in France is the Monument historique and all that this category contains is the Category:Monuments historiques of France subcategory so there's no navigational benefit to this empty parent category. And, if a Wikipedia editor added any articles directly to this category, it wouldn't be encyclopedic since it's so subjective. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background: We previously deleted similar subjective "historic" building categories here, here, here and here. Also, I moved two loose articles (1, 2) to the Mh subcat prior to this nomination.- RevelationDirect (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The problem here is that Category:Monuments historiques of France must be subcategorized under the parent category Category:Historic buildings and structures, where the naming convention established by sibling categories for other countries requires the form "Historic buildings and structures in [Country]". The rule here isn't that things have to be categorized according to the "official name" of the register that conferred historic status; it's that the tree has to be internally consistent within itself, so that the location of any related category can be rationally predicted by any user regardless of their depth or lack of inside knowledge of the "official name" of anything. So we can't just file Category:Monuments historiques of France directly in the parent category, because it's out of phase with all of its siblings, but we can't just exclude it from a parent category that it needs to be in either, so this category must exist so that France has a category named the same way as its other-country siblings are named.
    There's absolutely nothing subjective about them, either, as the categories were intended for buildings that have been designated as historic by external authorities, meaning that there's no subjectivity involved since the official registers of historic buildings tell us what does or doesn't belong in the categories. They're not categories for just any random building that any random Wikipedian wants to throw in them on the basis of a personal opinion that they're historic, they're categories for buildings that have been officially designated and listed as historic by the relevant authority, and thus have clear and straightforward and entirely unsubjective inclusion criteria. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only 8 other countries still have a sibling category we haven't deleted yet because they often are used for any random building that any random Wikipedian wants to throw in them, if they're used at all. In contrast, the less subjective Category:Heritage registers by country tree has 55 countries in it including Category:Heritage registers in France. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Heritage registers by country is for things that are heritage registers, not things that are buildings on heritage registers, so that and this are not duplicating each other at all. And if the categories are being used wrong, then the appropriate solution is to clean up the bad entries, not to delete the categories altogether, because the categories do serve a valid and neutral and objective purpose quite independently of any misuse that may occur. Any category can have wrong stuff added to it at any time, so if "could be used wrongly" were a reason to delete categories in and of itself then we wouldn't have any categories at all anymore. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hatting myself; too many replies
  • We actually agree that the heritage register cats are conceptually different; my point wast that in practice they contain the same building subcategories. (As for the rest, I appreciate your differing perspectives!) - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transgender

edit
Nominator's rationale: The subcategories under Category:Transgender by country were recently renamed to Category:Transgender topics by country following this CfD. However, the top-level parent wasn't included in that nomination. Suggest renaming accordingly for consistency and to avoid the awkward adjective category title. Paul_012 (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National artists of Thailand

edit
Nominator's rationale: I previously raised objection to the decapitalisation of the category title at WT:CFD, though the reversion process seems to have fallen through the cracks. Anyway, as I mentioned in that discussion, the National Artist title is an award, and directly using the award title for the category does feel a bit unnatural. To compare, we don't refer to Academy Award "Best Actors", but "Best Actor winners". Renaming the category as proposed would better reflect the nature of the title, i.e. its being an award, not a job. Paul_012 (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I think the proposed form matches the general preference at CfD to follow the article title, though I personally dislike parenthesis in category titles when natural disambiguation is possible. So I'll also list Category:National Artist of Thailand awardees, Category:National Artist awardees of Thailand, Category:Thai National Artist awardees, and Category:Thailand National Artist awardees as alternative suggestions. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scindia dynasty of Gwalior

edit
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary disambiguation. PadFoot (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somali(an) people

edit
Nominator's rationale: rename and re-parent, the country Somalia did not exist yet in these centuries and it is unclear whether Somalian would include or exclude current Somaliland. So I think it is better to re-parent these categories, i.e. move them from the tree of Category:Somalian people to the tree of Category:Ethnic Somali people. For example in the 13th-century category there is someone in the Maldives who was probably an ethnic Somali. Fwiw, many articles use "Somali" rather than "Somalian" too. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Oppose. It may be a follow-up discussion, but that discussion didn't conclude that we should rename everything from a nationality( Somalian) to an ethnicity (Somali). Logistically, this rename would be incompatible with the templates its currently using. Mason (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Logos by country

edit
Nominator's rationale: rename to align with parent Category:Wikipedia images of logos and to avoid confusion with Category:Logos which contains articles rather than images. There are a few articles in these trees (not many), they should be moved to Category:Logos. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dynasties of the Rajputs

edit
Nominator's rationale: Simpler, more concise and more common construct. PadFoot (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Museum of the Year (UK) recipients

edit
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining feature of any of the subjects. Not a particularly notable award. AusLondonder (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: you say its not a particularly notable award, are there notability requirements for categories? The article itself Museum of the Year has 48 references. I'm not very familiar with the rules around categories but this seems like enough. John Cummings (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories use a somewhat different standard, WP:DEFINING, and most of the nominations here involve WP:OC. Hope that helps! RevelationDirect (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Carrathool

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only the main article and an article about a disused bridge, better categorised in parent category. AusLondonder (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dumaresq, New South Wales

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only the main article and an article about a defunct train station. Unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main article is already categorised in Category:Towns in New England (New South Wales), a region largely overlapping with the Northern Tablelands. AusLondonder (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fiction set around Omicron Persei

edit
Nominator's rationale: Every item in this category is a Futurama episode; it is also the only media which is frequently set there listed on the article Omicron Persei; this category may be too narrow or small. Xeroctic (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBTQ centenarians

edit
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection under WP:EGRS Mason (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Kamyenyets

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Zardab

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Sulam

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Athens, West Virginia

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Anawalt, West Virginia

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Lemington, Vermont

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Gazipaşa

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Thompson, North Dakota

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Kensington, New Hampshire

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lostwave

edit
Nominator's rationale: "Lostwave" is basically an ill-defined currently trendy Internet term that refers to music of unknown origins, which can also refer to completely lost works such as Ready 'n' Steady, or songs that are only known based on fragments, which seems to be the most common as listed on the page. While it is definitely "real" insofar its a term people use and there is something of a community around it, the fact it isn't clearly defined to begin with, and almost completely overlaps with "Lost musical works", "Rediscovered musical works" or "Works of unknown authorship" doesn't really make it suitable as a category. Iostn (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Distinct phenomenon from lost musical works, which are pieces and recordings of music which secondary sources can attest existed at one point, but no longer do. Support renaming to Music of unknown origin, which unlike the trendy "Lostwave" is a time-tested phrase in academia. DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the rename proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an improvement over the present name. Mason (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus to keep or merge the category, but I am not seeing objection to renaming if kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FL-Class cricket articles of Mid-importance

edit
Nominator's rationale: According to WikiProject Cricket's assessment scheme, All lists (including FLs) are assessed as Low-Importance only. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same for,
Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vestrian24Bio: You only put the CFD tag on one of the categories. You are supposed to tag every category that is being considered for deletion. Also, I don't think we typically delete categories like these. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: All have now been tagged. Thoughts on the merits of the proposal / is it the case that we don't typically delete categories like these?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: These categories are automatically populated by the WikiProject template, so deleting them via CfD won't work; it'll only create red category links on talk pages. If the WikiProject standard is as you say, the incorrect assessments should be corrected first. However, I'm not seeing anything to that effect at the linked assessment page. It only says lists are excluded from Top and High class. The mention of cricket-related lists under Low class is only as an example, not a prescription. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just noting that four of these categories are empty. Liz Read! Talk! 20:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women local politicans

edit
Nominator's rationale: Change to Fooian/Xian per parents. --MikutoH talk! 04:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the comments by Mason and Marcocapelle?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See above relisting comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Critics of veganism

edit
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OPINIONCAT. Web-julio (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Tryptofish's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See above relisting comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British music logos

edit
Nominator's rationale: Limited scope (contains just one entry and one subcat) with likely limited expansion. Exists without an established Category:Music logos tree that also seems too limited to exist. Upmerge to Category:British logos. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See above relisting comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If articles and image files need to be separated then sure, go ahead. I don't know that they actually do, but if Marcocapelle insists then I'm willing to trust them. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


October 19

edit

Category:Classical Marxist parties in the United States

edit
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There's only on page in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games by narrative genre

edit
Nominator's rationale: This category was nominated for merging but was opposed, however, upon looking at the previous discussion, it wasn't opposed with righteous consent. Dimadick just said "Oppose, Genres are not limited to common themes, but also to the tone of the work." and that lead to the closure. He provide much information, it is better

This category is currently just a mess of content. I understand how it is an attempt to create a category containing video games with THEMES based on the genres of film and literature, but it still very insulting to what video game genres really are. For instance Western (genre) video games do not have their own article as their not their own thing, it isn't considered a genre and never will be, it did not originate in video games.

Some of the things in this category have still been cited as a genre to a degree, including entries with an article: horror game, Christian video game, and even science fiction video game (which I still won't ever consider genre despite having an article). But keep in mind that Buddhist, Halloween, Christmas, Wuxia or even Medical are rarely known as genres across any medium of media. Just think about it: Christmas film is a redirect to Christmas by medium - Christmas films are clearly a theme rather than a genre, this is because their just defined by a specific annual Christian celebration that they are about, rather than a style or set of the mood such as comedy or drama.

Please stop and think for a seconds or even minutes if you are willing to just go ahead, oppose this discussion, and then call it a day. It will break my heart if really do such as thing after all the time and effort I went through to write all this.

FINAL NOTE: The only real subcategories of this category which are genres that literarily originated in video games are: Category:Advergames Category:Art games Category:Educational video games (this is clearly distinct from educational TV programs, because it is interactive entertainment software designed to educate the users) QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger per my arguments from the previous discussion. Are you really sure about beating this same horse again after only 2 months? I still believe that there's an important difference between gameplay genres and story genres for video games. Instead of merging, why not just purge what you think are not proper genres from this category? AHI-3000 (talk) 06:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger The genre is much wider than a mere "theme". Dimadick (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:All articles with inline parenthetical referencing

edit
Nominator's rationale: I propose renaming this category to match the new maintenance tag name, Template:Parenthetical referencing (the old name was Template:Inline parenthetical referencing). I tried to change the code to start placing the new category name, but was reverted, so I guess this needs to come to CFD. This will affect around 15 articles in the category. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:All Elite Wrestling personnel

edit
Nominator's rationale: This should not be a category because AEW roster is not permanent. Also, both List of All Elite Wrestling personnel and Template:All Elite Wrestling cover the current roster. A similar category was deleted in July 2024. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 14#Category:WWE wrestlers for the details. Mann Mann (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. A wrestling promotion =/= McDonald. Dozens of wrestlers and wrestling personalities have worked for AEW, and many of them just appeared in one match or dark matches. And don't forget cameo appearances. As I mentioned, the navbox and the list cover this topic. Plus List of former All Elite Wrestling personnel exists too. --Mann Mann (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Settlement of the pro-Japanese collaboration

edit
Nominator's rationale: Not sure what the best name for this category is; it's currently grammatically incorrect, and doesn't match parent category Category:Korean collaborators with Imperial Japan. seefooddiet (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alta California before 1824

edit
Nominator's rationale: rename, according to article Alta California, the province was called The/Las Californias until 1804 (and also contained Baja California) and was called Nueva California until 1824. Instead of The Californias as a rename target I would also be fine with Province of Las Californias, per article title Province of Las Californias. When there is no opposition I will add the year categories to the nomination too. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Akseki

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia administrator elections 2024 voter guides

edit
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections#What should the page say on voting guides? closed with a consensus that voter guides should not be encouraged or advertised, this category is clearly contrary to that consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Acknowledging the existence of something is not the same as encouraging it and the close said nothing about "advertised". Since the whole purpose of a guide is that others read them, hiding them away would have the same effect as disallowing them – you've tried getting consensus for that, and it didn't happen. This category is a bare-minimum way of keeping track of what guides have been written, using the same pattern we've used for ArbCom elections for nearly two decades. – Joe (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Voter guides for arbcom have explicit community consensus for their existence and advertising, and other than being an election on en.wp bear almost no similarities to admin elections. Collating voter guides and advertising it on the talk page is very clearly encouraging them - contrary to the explicit consensus not to do that (for all the reasons explained in the discussion). Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (ec) The somewhat thin consensus, among the small group organising this election, indeed concerned "What should the page say on voting guides?" - ie Wikipedia: Administrator elections. This category is not, and presumably will not be, mentioned on that page. Meanwhile the election has amazed everybody by attracting 35 candidates, raising different and urgent questions that were not anticipated. Some of the small group of organisers have been ready to adapt to this situation, and some have not. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some have been adapting in manner consistent with the RFC consensus, others have not. The existence of voter guides at all is not compatible with that consensus, but here we are. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell the only mention of voter guides in the original RfC was a comment expressing concern that there'd be enough time to write them. – Joe (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I found this very useful. C F A 💬 16:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is that relevant? Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Categorization is supposed to help navigation. Which is likely what the user found useful. Mason (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't answer the question of why it is relevant to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep regulatory overreach, strike the post at the relevant talk page if it offends. Draken Bowser (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question being asked in the discussion in question was limited to the text on the administration elections page. To have a greater scope, such as whether or not a category should exist, a broader consensus should be obtained from the community. isaacl (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are actually pretty useful, and ultimately to the extent that the guides themselves are allowed to exist, then it is hard to argue that their categorization can't exist? Aszx5000 (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the same closer's explanation later - My sense is that the main election page may not link to them, but there's nothing stopping an editor from compiling a list of voter guides, or categorising them for organisation and discovery. (emphasis mine). Also courtesy ping @ProcrastinatingReader: as said closer. Soni (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a category could only be “advertising” to the gnomiest of wikignomes. There was consensus against banning or discouraging guides, so people should be allowed to find them if they want to. Toadspike [Talk] 21:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Personally, I'm not happy about how this worked out, but that doesn't matter for purposes of this discussion. We have now had a clarification from the editor who closed the discussion about guides (link), indicating that guides are permitted and can be discussed at places like candidate pages, so it makes sense to have a category for them. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In no sense can categorization reasonably be considered to be advertising. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no issue with them. The consensus linked to says they aren't encouraged or discouraged. This should mean they shouldn't be deleted. EggRoll97 (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Chataignier, Louisiana

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Athens, Louisiana

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Woodburn, Kentucky

edit
Nominator's rationale: Article contains a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Walnut, Illinois

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Eastford, Connecticut

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Private schools Northern Beaches Sydney

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category created by a private school, duplicates and doesn't improve on the existing categorisation scheme at Category:Private schools in Sydney and subcategories such as Category:Private secondary schools in Sydney. AusLondonder (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Loxley, Alabama

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient Indian monarchies

edit
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: speedy delete. CSD G7 Liz Read! Talk! 20:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, strongly overlapping scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Songwriter unknown

edit
Nominator's rationale: We name categories as noun phrases. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Middle kingdoms of India

edit
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: speedy delete. CSD G7 Liz Read! Talk! 20:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, this is an out-of-process rename. The correct procedure is to nominate Category:Medieval empires and kingdoms of India for renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a duplicate category under a weird name. The target is itself nominated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 15#Empires and kingdoms of foo. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Water polo teams in Czechoslovakia

edit
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. There's only one page in here Mason (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Czechoslovak water polo people

edit
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer Mason (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:3rd-century Vietnamese women

edit
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. isolated category Mason (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Online-only games

edit
Nominator's rationale: This is not a defining trait, mostly because it not executed properly (can you imagine all browser games that require WIFI in existence already?) it also heavily conflicts Category:Multiplayer online games which mostly contains games only having a multiplayer online mode QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not merge and leave as a redirect? That would reduce the chances of this being created again. Mason (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Over the Hedge video games

edit
Nominator's rationale: Entirely contained within Category:Over the Hedge. Either we have two categories with three entries or one with six. We do not need the entries in this category to be contained within both. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge? If so, merge targets?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and purge Category:Over the Hedge of redundant entries. It helpfully diffuses a lot of categories, as Marcocapelle listed. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on QuietHere's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summer camps in fiction

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category #1: Single-entry category that conflicts with its parent category. Category #2: Redundant category layer that only has a single subcategory. Category #3: Category containing only a single article. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Summer camps in fiction.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 3 per Zxcvbnm (I also added more entries to the category). Support the other two. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am having seafood tonight. I didn't tag the category. Apologies. I will tag Category:Summer camps in fiction, for real this time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy directors

edit
Nominator's rationale: While we're talking about directors versus actors, I feel the same principles as those outlined in WP:PERFCAT, and which resulted in the deletion of multiple "comedy actors" categories[1] may apply here. DonIago (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose American comedy film directors & British comedy film directors, which diffuse American film directors & British film directors, respectively.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If these need to go, then the parent Category:Comedy film directors (which you haven't tagged as part of this) also needs to go. I'm not wedded to the need for it, but there's absolutely no argument to be had that the parent is fine and only the subcategories are a problem: if it's fine, then subcategories for countries with a large enough number of entries are automatically fair game under it, and there can be absolutely no serious argument that only the subcategories are a problem if the parent isn't. There additionally can't be any serious argument that the US and the UK should get subcategories but Canada shouldn't, either — national subcategories aren't applied on any basis more refined or subjective than "has enough entries to support one", so there can't be a serious argument that American and British directors should get subcategories while Canadian ones shouldn't. So either we need to delete the parent category as well, or they all have to stay. Bearcat (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, I don't see any suggestion here that I might have simply overlooked the existence of some categories that should be included here. You're welcome to add those in if you feel they should be part of the conversation. Please assume good faith. Do you have an argument other than, "Why are some categories included but related categories missing?" DonIago (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, the non-inclusion of directly related categories that are subject to the same issues as the included categories is a relevant and germane point in a CFD discussion. There's simply no reason why these should all be deleted at the same time as the parent Category:Comedy film directors being kept — if the parent is acceptable, then national subcategories for countries with a large-enough number of entries for them are inherently acceptable as well, and if the national subcategories aren't warranted then the parent category isn't warranted either — and any person in any of these categories could simply be readded to the parent category at will by any editor at any time, which would inevitably be followed by these categories getting recreated because the parent category had become large enough to need diffusion into subcategories again (which is the reason why these even exist in the first place: because the parent category existed and needed diffusion). So my point stands, and I will brook no further clapback about it — it's not my job to add related categories to this discussion, it's your job to either add the related category or explain why you think it's different. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How very collaborative of you. I'll add the additional categories shortly. DonIago (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, WP:PERFCAT is about specific shows in which subjects participate. That is quite different than genre, which we are discussing here. Frankly I think diffusion by genre is more relevant than by location (which is also being done in this tree, at least in the US). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'm not sure I see the practical difference, in this case, regarding whether we're talking about categorizing actors by genre versus categorizing directors by genre? I realize categories are generally inclusive rather than exclusive (i.e. just because a director directed comedies and is categorized as such doesn't mean they didn't also direct in other film genres), but the same could be said about the actor categories as well. TL;DR why would "actors by genre" be bad but "directors by genre" not be bad? You say that PERFCAT is about specific shows, but in the CfD that I linked to the consensus appears to have been that genre does constitute a type of performance. I'm also, as I was with the prior CfD, concerned that we risk opening the door to creating multiple additional "Director by genre"-style categories. Is it really a defining characteristic in most cases (I'm genuinely asking here; my instinct is that most directors have directed films from various genres, but maybe I'm wrong)? ETA: I do see that we do have "Film directors by genre"...I'm going to keep the scope of this limited rather than make it all-inclusive at this time, as a test case. DonIago (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We are now discussing all categories. Thoughts on the merits of the proposal would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See above relisting comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed sexuality

edit
Nominator's rationale: A newly created category that is a violation of the last paragraph of WP:CATLGBT, as well as inevitably leading to WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVOCACY violations.

CATLGBT states, Categories that make allegations about sexuality—such as "closeted homosexuals" or "people suspected of being gay"—are not acceptable under any circumstances. If such a category is created, it should be immediately depopulated and deleted. Community consensus is clearly against such categories. The existence of this category is an invitation for people to use it to claim as many historical figures as 'maybe homosexual' as possible. It will be a magnet for OR, undue and fringe. A category that's very basis is that something about it's members is disputed cannot be defining. Golikom (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think given the distinction between historical figures and BLP at least makes OP's critique problematic and the policy worth rethinking. However, I still have rather significant reservations about these categories as formulated at present—they seem overbroad and non-defining to a degree I feel is untenable. Remsense ‥ 论 01:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of this category, I understand the present complaints, and I have been careful to only apply this category to articles which discuss historical interpretations of a subject's sexuality to some considerable length. I think any article with a well-cited subsection or even separate article discussing theories surrounding a subject's sexuality would be worth considering in this category, but I fully understand how the category in it's current design and application could easily be overapplied and misappropriated. I don't believe the solution is deletion, rather it should be stricter enforcement of some standards to define terms like "ambiguous" and "disputed" and how those are separate from "fringe theories." I don't think the LGBT issue should apply here since, like you said, the category does not apply to BLP articles. However, the rule and it's current wording may need to be reassessed to be more specific. It's also worth considering that Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity barely survived a deletion request for similar reasons. Rylee Amelia (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean delete. But you're not the only person who will use the category. This category is going to be a mess to maintain. Mason (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The temptation to speculate about the sexual orientation of historical figures leads people to suppose that that speculation is OK in an encyclopedia. But looking at, for example, Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln, what I see is that the lead section decisively dismisses the speculation:

Mainstream historians generally hold that Lincoln was heterosexual, noting that the historical context explains any of the supposed evidence.

Then the remainder of the article, which is well beyond the stub level, discusses various theories that are fringe, or discredited, or whatever.
I realize that for some historical figures, the discussion of their sexuality has risen above fringe level. But from this example, one can see that there is a strong tendency to promote "was he gay or wasn't he" to encyclopedia level just for the pleasure of idol-smashing. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is deleted so should Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity. The rationale behind keeping/deleting both are the same. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That category doesn't specify if one is gay/lesbian or bisexual, or another sexuality. Also, currently only the notable cases are in it, many of which "suspected" or "closeted" don't apply because most of them publicly lived this way without such words being coined. But I could argue that some articles within it overlap with Category:Sexuality of individuals. Web-julio (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: doesn't the term ambiguous sexuality have another meaning? At least "sexually ambiguous" technically meant bisexual/asexual, androgynous/gnc/n-b, or intersex in the past. I think we can use synonyms, such as questionable, or dubious. Web-julio (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it is a borderline defining characteristic. A list may be better than a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The distinction between historical figures and BLP is relevant only to the first paragraph of WP:CATLGBT. Anyway, the last paragraph says this:

Categories that make allegations about sexuality—such as "closeted homosexuals" or "people suspected of being gay"—are not acceptable under any circumstances. If such a category is created, it should be immediately depopulated and deleted. Note that as similar categories of this type have actually been attempted in the past, they may be speedily deleted (as a G4) and do not require another debate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.

Why is this not applicable? Why shouldn't I just speedily delete? Why is this discussion going on anyway, and why am I even in it? Bruce leverett (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That guidance dates from an era when there was a much thinner consensus for any categories for LGBTQ people at all. I don't think it is overkill to have a discussion on the merits every couple decades or so (though participation is of course not mandatory). Given that there was no consensus three years ago to delete Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity, there is a significant question whether a broad interpretation of CATLGBT to long-dead figures still accurately reflects consensus.--Trystan (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The guidance actually dates from 2009. I have not found, and don't know where to look for, discussions that led to that guidance being added, or subsequent discussions of it on its merits. If you are claiming that it is outdated, the burden of proof is on you.
Just looking at the population of the "disputed gender identity" category and this "disputed sexuality" category suggests that they are not closely comparable. For example, disputed gender identity was certainly defining for James Barry (surgeon); as pointed out in the early discussion of that category, it was a major contributor to his notability. But the "disputed sexuality" category is full of celebrities: Joan of Arc, Edward II, Leonardo da Vinci, Frederick the Great, James Buchanan, Abraham Lincoln, Alberto Santos-Dumont, J. Edgar Hoover, Adolf Hitler. Ambiguous/disputed sexuality is defining for all these worthies? For any of them? Bruce leverett (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French troubadours

edit
Category:12th-century French troubadours to Category:12th-century troubadours from France
Category:13th-century French troubadours to Category:13th-century troubadours from France
Category:14th-century French troubadours to Category:14th-century troubadours from France
Category:Spanish troubadours to Category:Troubadours from Spain
Category:12th-century Spanish troubadours to Category:12th-century troubadours from Spain
Category:13th-century Spanish troubadours to Category:13th-century troubadours from Spain
Category:14th-century Spanish troubadours to Category:14th-century troubadours from Spain
Category:Italian troubadours to Category:Troubadours from Italy
Category:12th-century Italian troubadours to Category:12th-century troubadours from Italy
Category:13th-century Italian troubadours to Category:13th-century troubadours from Italy
Nominator's rationale: The troubadours wrote in Occitan, not French (or Spanish or Italian). They are defined by the language they used. The current category names are confusing. The equivalent of a troubadour writing in French is a trouvère. The problem is the ambiguity of the terms "French", "Spanish" and "Italian". It is absolutely non-obvious that they are non-linguistic terms in cases like this where they modify a literary term like "troubadour". Srnec (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think that its non-obvious that these are nationalities. The norm for FOOian occupation is nationality, not language. I think that it would be better to create a language tree. French-language troubadours etc. or Category:12th-century French-language troubadours or something to that effect. And, frankly, I'd rather not have to rewrite the brand new {{Troubadours by nationality and century category header}} Mason (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no French-language troubadours. Srnec (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know what the point I'm trying to make is. There are traveling poets etc in different languages. There's a category called Galician-Portuguese troubadours, that describes both the language and the occupation. That could be a full tree. Mason (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, a troubadour wrote in Occitan, so obviously these must be nationality categories, there is no ambiguity about that. One might argue that it is a trivial intersection but a rename does not solve that. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Criminals from Fort Lauderdale, Florida

edit
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. There's no need to diffuse by city. I'm also ok with deletion. Mason (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


October 18

edit

Category:People by republican city or municipality in Latvia

edit
Nominator's rationale: rename, according to Administrative divisions of Latvia the correct name is state city. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reformed Christianity

edit
Nominator's rationale: Now that the main article has been moved to the correct title, these categories should also be moved according to the C2D criteria ('Consistency with the main article's name'). --Humpser (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of concert tours

edit
Nominator's rationale: Both categories seem to perform the same function... both categories have the same type of content, both categories are a mix of "List of X concerts and performances", some "List of X concerts tours", some "List of X live performances"... all the same content with just different wording for the article titles.
When merging, I would also propose moving the following subcat so it is consistent with existing subcats in the destination cat:
Category:Lists of concert tours of South Korean artists → Category:Lists of concerts and performances of South Korean artists RachelTensions (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Speedrunning communities

edit
Nominator's rationale: This isn't because the category's small, but because it isn't being 100% clear with the definition of community and besides, just looks a like small yet unorganized mess. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Hartshead

edit
Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful for navigation as contains only a single article. Merge to larger parent. AusLondonder (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Hamstall Ridware

edit
Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful for navigation as contains only a single article. Merge to larger parent. AusLondonder (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Doveridge

edit
Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful for navigation as contains only a single article. Merge to larger parent. AusLondonder (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2028 United States Senate elections

edit
Nominator's rationale: Created too soon, a category full of 34 redirects to the same page. Unhelpful for readers. AusLondonder (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mosques of Leicestershire

edit

Also propose renaming Category:Mosques of Lincolnshire to Category:Mosques in Lincolnshire
Nominator's rationale: Compatibility with Category:Mosques in England and Category:Churches in Leicestershire, etc. PamD 10:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge Category:Mosques of Leicestershire? I am not seeing objections to renaming if kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


October 17

edit

Category:Esports techniques

edit
Nominator's rationale: This rename will make this category more broad, the Russian Wikipedia ironically already goes for more board scope as opposed to targeting esports specifically. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
edit
Nominator's rationale: Single-member category for an unused userspace template. Merge it to Category:User custom license tags. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra — talk — c 20:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:World Series at Yankee Stadium

edit
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE. All of the articles are already in the appropriate subcategories so merging is not necessary. User:Namiba 18:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe music

edit
Nominator's rationale: C2D: Consistency with Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Order of the Holy Sepulchre

edit
Nominator's rationale: This category is superfluous. If you're a member, you're a knight, and vice versa. M.O.X (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Daniel the Monk's objection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 12:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support a reverse merge. M.O.X (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Knights of the Holy Sepulchre.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Botswana constituencies in Selebi-Phikwe

edit
Nominator's rationale: There is no parent category for Selebi-Phikwe, so this is not a useful subcat of the district parent. – Fayenatic London 14:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Elk and red deer

edit
Nominator's rationale: This conflates two Cervus species. Splitting them as suggested at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_9#Category:Elk_and_red_deer could be confusing, as sub-species Kansu red deer and Tibetan red deer are Cervus canadensis (elk) rather than Cervus elaphus (red deer). Central Asian red deer may also be a separate species (its 3 subspecies also have articles), but there does not seem to be scientific consensus on that yet. Upmerging as suggested by the previous CFD closer Debresser may be best. – Fayenatic London 11:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prohibition-era gangsters

edit
Nominator's rationale: These are really overlapping categories. Does anyone have ideas for how to make these two categories more distinct, or perhaps combine them? For the record. Prohibition in the united states was from Jan 17, 1920 – Dec 5, 1933, whereas the great depression was from 1929 to 1939ish. Mason (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment Merging in this way does not seem to be the answer, as it is not true that all Category:Depression-era gangsters also were active in the Depression era. Perhaps, someone can make a count of the actual overlap of articles, not just the time period overlaps. thanks Hmains (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Depression-era gangsters. Consensus seems to favor merging that and Category:Prohibition-era gangsters into a new category; what should that category be called?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hate Category:American gangsters of the interwar period. And think it does a good job of covering the defining features. I think we'll need a category description to help contextualize the category. Mason (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ugandan dermatologists

edit
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry LibStar (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters who can manipulate reality

edit
Nominator's rationale: Way too vague of a category. I can manipulate reality just by picking up a piece of paper, since the paper is part of reality and I'm changing it. I suggest upmerging its more specific subcategories, however, this deletion does not imply deleting those too. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


October 16

edit

Category:Urdu-language women writers

edit
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between language, gender, and occupation, per WP:EGRS Mason (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on NL's objection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's the not question. The intersection is gender with language and occupation. I don't think this meets the criteria for EGRS, and there are no other categories at this intersection. @Nederlandse Leeuw do you have evidence to the contrary that Urdu-language women writers meet the criteria at the intersection? Aka is the "combination [] itself recognized as a defining topic that has already been established (in reliable sources showing substantial existing research specific to the topic), as academically or culturally significant in its own right"? Mason (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About 49.300 results for "women urdu writers" in Google Scholar. Just to highlight a few:
  • The Role of Female Writers in the Promotion of Popular Literature in Urdu.
  • Women Reading/Women Writing: Anxiety and Āzādī in Twentieth Century Urdu Pulp Fiction
  • Female Voices: Women Writers in Hyderabad at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century: there has been a whole movement of female writers in Urdu, both of poetry and of prose
  • Images of Women in Urdu Novels Written by Muslim Women: An Analysis from A Feminist Perspective
  • Articulation, agency and embodiment in contemporary Pakistani Urdu poetry by women
  • Urdu women's magazines in the early twentieth century
  • Urban Women Rebels: Voices of Dissent in Urdu Popular Fiction
  • Feminine or Patriarchal: Story of Adam and Eve in Urdu Novels by Women Writers
Etc.
Also plenty of Google Books, e.g.
  • The Language They Chose: Women's Writing in Urdu Vol I: Fiction
  • The Language They Chose: Women's Writing in Urdu Vol II: Non-Fiction
  • Women's Writings from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh: The Worlds of Bangla and Urdu
  • Parwaaz: A Selection of Urdu Short Stories by Women
  • Portrayals of Women in Pakistan: An Analysis of Fahmīdah Riyāẓ’s Urdu Poetry
Etc.
So yes @Smasongarrison, I think I might have some evidence. Arguably, it's high time that this topic received its own stand-alone article. NLeeuw (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on NL's response?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edit
Nominator's rationale: The current title may be misleading implying that all those people died due to LGBTQ issues. Some of them, however, committed suicide for other reasons, such as Alexander McQueen. Proposed title would also be consistent with the Foo who died by suicide scheme: Category:College students who died by suicide‎, Category:People who died by suicide in prison custody‎, etc. Brandmeistertalk 08:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am not seeing objection to the rename, regardless of if it represents a change in the category's scope or not. In other words: If you object to the new name (and the potential new scope), please speak up :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Louisville Black Caps

edit
Nominator's rationale: Only one category layer. Both are basically the same team but changed their names. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The normal CFD jargon for "combine" is "merge". Is merging an acceptable alternative?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's question?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by fighter aircraft shootdowns

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category name seems self-contradictory or even oxymoronic, and inherently implies a cause. Shootdowns are typically intentional acts and not accidents; in the rare occurrences in which aircraft have been shot down under circumstances that may be truly accidental, considerable controversy typically exists, and blanket categorization implying a cause could be a violation of WP:NPOV. Proposed category name is less subjective. Carguychris (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename. This is inconsistent with the rest of the category tree. Mason (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This CFD and the aforementioned "missile shootdown" category effectively created a branch of Category:Aviation accidents and incidents that duplicates Category:Aircraft shootdown incidents. These incidents only need to be listed in one category tree, and the "shootdown incidents" tree existed first; these new "shootdowns" branches of the "accidents and incidents" tree are redundant and should be deleted. Pardon my failure to mention that in the initial proposal. Carguychris (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by missile shootdowns

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category name seems self-contradictory or even oxymoronic, and inherently implies a cause. Shootdowns are typically intentional acts and not accidents; in the rare occurrences in which aircraft have been shot down under circumstances that may be truly accidental, considerable controversy typically exists, and blanket categorization implying a cause could be a violation of WP:NPOV. Carguychris (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "accidents and incidents " includes non-accidents. Please suggest an alternative name if you dislike it. Mason (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Aircraft shootdown incidents already exists, so this branch of Category:Aviation accidents and incidents seems redundant. Suggest Category:Aircraft shootdown incidents involving surface-to-air missiles. (It is unclear whether the creator of this subcategory intended to restrict it to SAM shootdowns, but the only article currently in the category is a SAM shootdown, and I would argue that in air-to-air or fighter shootdowns, the weapon used is non-defining.) Carguychris (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Airliner bombings in the United States

edit
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:OCLOCATION and WP:NARROWCAT; the absolute number of airliner bombings is too small to warrant subdividing, it's unlikely to grow substantially in the future, and the country where a bombing took place is not a central defining characteristic. OCLOCATION dictates that countries of occurrence may be useful for dividing up huge and unwieldy categories, but this isn't one of them, and is unlikely to ever be. Carguychris (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep Nomination does not consider the effect of this deletion on Category:Improvised explosive device bombings in the United States where this will result in declining navigation abilities to get to quickly see those articles about IEDs involving aircraft in the United States. Hmains (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I considered that. There are only about twenty listings in that category. Adding nine more should not make the category unwieldy, and since the articles are all named "<airline name> <flight number>", it's obvious which ones are airliner bombings. Carguychris (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Hmains's most recent comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See above relisting comment. Thoughts on Hmains's latest comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct airlines of Réunion

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category contains a single page, unhelpful for navigation. Propose merge to Category:Defunct airlines of France. AusLondonder (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge per above discussion. Suggest follow-up CfM for
Category:Defunct airlines of Mauritius (1P) and other underpopulated child cats of Category:Defunct airlines of Africa like Eritrea, South Sudan and Somalia.
Category:Defunct airlines of Europe: Faroe Islands‎ (1 P); Guernsey‎ (1 P); Belarus‎ (2 P); Montenegro‎ (1 P)
Category:Defunct airlines of Asia by country: East Timor‎ (2 P); Kuwait‎ (2 P); Mongolia‎ (2 P); Oman‎ (1 P); Syria‎ (1 P)

NLeeuw (talk) 06:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Defunct airlines of Overseas France and Category:Defunct companies of Overseas France. Triple merge and delete these two categories, as suggested by FL?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct airlines of Guadeloupe

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category contains a single page, unhelpful for navigation. Propose merge to Category:Defunct airlines of France and Category:Defunct airlines of the Caribbean. AusLondonder (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 16#Category:Defunct airlines of Réunion lower down on the page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Wild Thornberrys films

edit
Nominator's rationale: Only contains two articles. Fails WP:NARROWCAT. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Crigglestone

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Bounds Green

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Bamber Bridge

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Anderton, Lancashire

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Polgooth

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Manaccan

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Yugoslavia

edit
Nominator's rationale: Because Yugoslavia is a historical topic as such, this title is redundant, all this should simply be upmerged into the parent category, there's no apparent benefit in having the readers do an extra click. Joy (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NB: if there's actual historiography topics that should be categorized, we should make a Category:Historiography of Yugoslavia for that. --Joy (talk) 07:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree The "History of Yugoslavia" category is one of about 20 country categories in Category:History of Europe by former country and there are more “Histories of former countries in the “other continent” countries. Hence it should not be deleted or upmerged. Hugo999 (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean look at the content of the category, it's a handful of vaguely appropriate articles and subcategories, the core historical content is meager. None of this would do worse if it was directly in Category:Yugoslavia, and would save a click for whoever is browsing the category tree
    Other examples may or may not be similar: for example, the Soviet Union's category has at least some historiographical stuff under it, and in turn a main space article History of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, History of Yugoslavia was upmerged into Yugoslavia fifteen years ago and it's doubtful there's a need to split it out as a whole (individual periods already have separate articles).
    Surely the point of the category tree isn't just nice and orderly existence, rather it's to get people reading more of the encyclopedia. I don't quite see how this would be helping that, it seems more like a small obstacle. --Joy (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, not all former countries have a history category so we should check this case by case. In this case, after applying WP:SUBCAT, the parent category will contain only two subcategories and two articles more than before the merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles on pre-1900 earthquakes

edit
Nominator's rationale: No longer used in Template:Infobox earthquake and was added in 2018 at Talk:List_of_historical_earthquakes#Proposal_to_redefine_as_"before_1900"_(not_1901) and was removed from the template in 2019. See more discussion. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Second ladies and gentlemen of the Philippines

edit
Nominator's rationale: WP:NEOLOGISM, Second Ladies are not a thing in Philippine politics. We are not like the United States which uses such term. Second Ladies/Gentlemen at best are just a synonym for the Vice President's spouse, unlike the First Lady/Gentlemen who actually serves a role for being the host at the Malacanang Palace and is distinct from the Spouse of the President of the Philippines Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To further emphasize, there is no such role as "second lady" in the Philippine context, so the question whether it is a defining characteristics for its member articles is moot. Being a spouse is a different thing and if the intent of the article is to cover vice president spouses then a rename should be in order.. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early abbots by century

edit
Nominator's rationale: the earliest non-Christian (Buddhist) abbot that we have an article about is Yishan Yining who lived in the 13th century. These categories don't contribute to navigation until we have articles about earlier Buddhist abbots. All Irish abbots of this period were Christian abbots and can be added as subcategories thereof. It would be naieve to state that these Irish abbots do not belong in Christian abbots just because the Irish category name does not specify "Christian". Wikipedia should reflect the real world and not get stuck too much in its internal organization. The real world is that there weren't Buddhist abbots in medieval Ireland, they were all Christian. This nomination is of course without objection to recreation once we have articles about earlier Buddhist abbots. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. > It would be naieve to state that these Irish abbots do not belong in Christian abbots just because the Irish category name does not specify "Christian".
I never said that the individuals in the page don't belong in the Christian abbots category. I said that you shouldn't be conflating nationality and religion at the category level. Three things: I don't see why you're suggesting deletion, instead of merging. This deletion is going to break the abbot by nationality template. This seems premature, given that I asked you about this on your talk page. Mason (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge, as suggested by NL?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apart from Byzantine abbots there isn't anything specifically medieval about abbots. Should we then also create a separate category for medieval Christian abbots, and for medieval Irish abbots? I don't think so, the century categories seem to suffice. Having said that, I have not nominated Category:Medieval abbots and it's probably too late to add this now. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Society of Ukrainian Progressors members

edit
Nominator's rationale: Emptied: no refs. No such society. Mistranslation? --Altenmann >talk 21:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:16 Smasongarrison talk contribs (Dmytro Doroshenko added to category, this page is included within other pages) diffhist 

      		13:16  Smasongarrison talk contribs (Mykhailo Hrushevsky added to category, this page is included within other pages) diffhist
      		13:16  Smasongarrison talk contribs (Mykola Vasylenko added to category, this page is included within other pages) diffhist
      		13:16  Smasongarrison talk contribs (Symon Petliura added to category, this page is included within other pages) diffhist
      		13:16  Smasongarrison talk contribs (Serhiy Yefremov added to category, this page is included within other pages) diffhist
      		13:16  Smasongarrison talk contribs (Volodymyr Vynnychenko added to category, this page is included within other pages) diffhist

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now that the premature emptying issue is resolved, do people support a merge to Category:Ukrainian Democratic Party (1904) politicians (as suggested by Mason)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


October 15

edit

Category:Pilot intake jet fighter

edit
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: procedural close, the category has already been deleted (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contested speedy deletion. This category is an apparent recreation of a previously deleted category, the terminology used is nonsense and would be a non-defining feature in any case. The creator of both categories appears to be using two accounts. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion at project level here. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and what Canterbury Tail said. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 21:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:National Hockey League in the Sun Belt

edit
Nominator's rationale: The Sun Belt is an imprecise term for the southern and western United States. There is no accompanying Category:Sports in the Sun Belt. User:Namiba 17:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Hockey League in Alberta

edit
Nominator's rationale: A small category which does not aid navigation. Both articles are already in appropriate subcategories. User:Namiba 17:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Hockey League in Winnipeg

edit
Nominator's rationale: Duplicative, contains only 2 categories, and generally hinders navigation. User:Namiba 17:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct airlines of the Northern Mariana Islands

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article. Unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Egyptian Royalty

edit
Nominator's rationale: New category that duplicates the existing Category:Egyptian monarchs tree. AusLondonder (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Human resource management books

edit
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one page in here and no other books in Human resource management publications Mason (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Strange World (film)

edit
Nominator's rationale: A category for the film with its only articles being the film itself and its soundtrack is a bit overkill and unnecessary. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Legend of Qin characters

edit
Nominator's rationale: An AfD in 2017 resulted in the redirect of articles for characters from this series to the list that remains as the sole entry in this category. This category is no longer warranted. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent

edit
Nominator's rationale: Failed verification and WP:NONDEF issues. I checked several articles at random and most do not support the source of the claim of Native American descent being "self-identification" or that the individuals have not "shared proof of this heritage" (proof is not mentioned). The insinuation here is that these people are not genuinely of Native American descent but sources don't support (or contradict) that. As for some self-sourced claims of descent being false, that is true for all other types of descent but we justifiably don't have Category:People who self-identify as being of Sephardic Jewish descent. Furthermore, people saying "I'm Native American" in an interview, if they lack a genuine connection to Native American culture, is never going to meet the standard for categorization in WP:NONDEF. (t · c) buidhe 21:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe, I agree that these should be deleted per nom but definitely nominate all the subcategories too. Per the below discussion, I'm changing my vote to neutral for now. Was not aware of a previous discussion on this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose. This was the subject of a very long CFD, the contributors of which should be pinged. Mason (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that there had been a prior CfD but the result is hard to reconcile with the P&G. Seems like a better solution to the identified problem might to be enforcing existing wp:defining rules or even eliminating Native American categories by descent that aren't for registered tribal members. The situation as it is now feels like Wikipedia trying to decide who is proven to be a real Native American or not—which the sources, in the vast majority of cases, don't allow us to do. (t · c) buidhe 02:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, it's unclear to me what differentiates this category tree from the People of Native American descent tree. Articles like Tiffany Darwish seem like they could be placed into either. What type of source is required to declare Native American identity "proven" rather than a mater of "self-identification"? (t · c) buidhe 02:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many people are of descent and not enrolled tribal citizens but this is still a defined aspect of their biography. The point of this broad category is that Wikipedia is *not* trying to decide who is or is not of Native ancestry but reflecting what published, sources state: that these individuals have stated they have Native ancestry in their published biographies. What would move someone into just the "descent" category would be confirmation from the tribe, which might come in the form of their parent being a tribal citizen. User:Netherzone created List of Indigenous newspapers in North America, which helps make it easier to find tribal newspapers. Yuchitown (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that almost all articles in the category fail verification as it is currently drafted. This is a problematic category, especially for BLPs. It is a subcat of Category:American people who self-identify as being of Indigenous descent, which makes the stronger claim that the indivudals have no proof of the heritage. (Previous parent categories put everyone in this category under Category:Native American cultural appropriation and Category:Transracial (identity), but those at least have been removed.) It is of limited use to have a category that groups together known frauds, people who have a genuine but incorrect belief that they have Indigenous ancestry, and people who do have Indigenous ancestry but a particular standard of proof hasn't been found in reliable sources.--Trystan (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE Goldendragonfly77 (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per nom Goldendragonfly77 (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete - This hostility towards state/informally recognizes Tribes has caused significant harm to our community, and we believe it is imperative to address this issue promptly and effectively by strong delete of this category.
The Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe, a first contact Tribe the predates the federal government is located in Plymouth Massachusetts and has a rich history documented history and a cultural heritage that is integral to not only the formation of this country, but to our identity and well-being. The Wikipedia pages created purposely by these editors to cause further harm while we were prevented from creating it due to conflict of interest. Our dedicated pages should serve as a vital resource for educating the public about our history, traditions, and contributions. Unfortunately, the recent assaults on these pages have resulted in the dissemination of misinformation, the erasure of important historical facts, and the misrepresentation of our Tribe.
Additionally, it has come to our attention that the pages of other state-recognized tribes have also been sabotaged by certain editors. This pattern of behavior is deeply troubling and highlights a broader issue of systemic bias and hostility towards state-recognized tribes on Wikipedia. The deliberate alteration and removal of accurate information from these pages not only disrespects the affected tribes but also undermines the credibility and reliability of Wikipedia as a source of information.
It is important to emphasize that the sovereignty of Indigenous tribes is inherent and not granted by the federal government. Sovereignty is a fundamental aspect of our identity and existence as Indigenous peoples. The federal government does not have the authority to determine who is or is not Indigenous. This principle is crucial to understanding the legitimacy and rights of state-recognized and unrecognized tribes. The actions of certain editors on Wikipedia to label us as self-identified undermines this inherent sovereignty by attempting to erase or delegitimize our status and history.
These actions have several detrimental effects:
Erosion of Cultural Integrity: The deliberate alteration and removal of accurate information undermine the integrity of our cultural narrative. This not only disrespects our ancestors but also distorts the understanding of our heritage for future generations.
Damage to Reputation: The spread of false information damages our tribe's reputation and credibility. It creates confusion and mistrust among those seeking to learn about our community, including researchers, educators, and the general public.
Emotional and Psychological Impact: The continuous attacks on our pages have caused emotional distress within our community. Seeing our history and identity misrepresented is deeply hurtful and demoralizing.
Barrier to Advocacy and Support: Accurate information on Wikipedia is crucial for our advocacy efforts. It helps us secure funding, support, and recognition for our initiatives. The sabotage of our pages hinders these efforts and affects our ability to effectively advocate for our rights and needs.
Weesôus8ee Ahp8tashqônâhs (Golden Dragonfly)
Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe
128 Herring Pond Road
Plymouth, MA 02360 Goldendragonfly77 (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will ping all participants at the previous CFD. I will also note (without comment) that since the previous discussion, ArbCom has passed a motion stating that Mark Ironie and CorbieVreccan (who both participated in the prior CFD) are to be considered a single user.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Brandmeister, CorbieVreccan, Dimadick, Indigenous girl, Jjj1238, Koavf, Marcocapelle, Mark Ironie, Moxy, Namiba, Place Clichy, Qwerfjkl, RevelationDirect, TheMainLogan, ValarianB, and Yuchitown: Pinging previous participants, regardless of participation in the above discussion. I have no opinion on the merits of the proposal. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose deletion the category was created because of the very specific and nuanced differences between claiming Native American heritage and claiming any other kind of heritage. There are numerous cases (as the amount of articles in the category suggests) where an individual's claim to Native American ancestry is relevant enough for inclusion, but they are not considered to be Native American by the Native American community because of the aforementioned nuances that exist here. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 02:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment does not engage with the deletion argument at all and should be disregarded by the closer. Unless there is more clarity about how the two sets of categories are distinguished in reliable sources and how we can verifiably distinguish them, there is no basis for categorization. You also haven't explained how people in this category meets the defining criteria. I wonder if there is even any evidence in reliable sources that native American heritage (as opposed to being an actual tribal member) is somehow distinct from all other ethnicities that it requires a different categorization scheme (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Yes, this is often defining and also Native American is a unique political classification in the United States, not an ethnicity. Yuchitown (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To expand further, these are longstanding categories based on self-identification (a term widely used in literature about Native American identity) by individuals in secondary, published sources. These are the broadest possible categories that reflect that the individual has claimed Native American ancestry. I hope everyone in this discussion have familiarized themselves with the topic of Native American identity in the United States, and how it is a unique political status that is not comparable to ethnic or racial classifications or other identity classifications, such as those of the LGBTQ+ communities. Being Native American is a communal identity, not an individual identity. While being a tribal citizen clearly requires confirmation from the tribe in question, being a descendant also requires confirmation and also has real-world implications (for instance, direct descendants of tribal citizens are still eligible to use the Indian Health Service, even if they aren't enrolled. Innumerable individuals make claims to Native American descendency, but often these claims are unsubstantiated so they go into this category or its subcategories. That doesn't mean they do *not* have Native American ancestry; it just means confirmation in reliable, secondary, published sources needed to recategorize them haven't been found yet. These are broad, Schrödinger's cat categories. Without them (and anyone here who has edited Native topics for years will know), these individuals repeated get added to the specific tribal categories (e.g. Category:Mohawk people) and repeatedly have to be removed. The name of this category is factually accurate and meets Wikipedia's requirements for what can be verified. Yuchitown (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose This is both defining and relatively easy to source. Dimadick (talk) 07:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That someone has made a claim of Native American ancestry is often easy to source. Where almost every article fails verification for this cateogry is in sourcing the claim that they have no proof of that ancestry (as the parent category words it), or that they have not shared such proof (as this category words it). Our failure to find a source making a certain claim can’t be used as verification for the claim that no such source exists; that is WP:OR, used here to make contentious claims about BLPs.--Trystan (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't prove a negative. This larger, baseline category is for people who claim descent. If reliable, published sources confirmed descent, then the person moves to a smaller category. Yuchitown (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't prove a negative. But that's the problem with the scope note as currently written; it claims an unproven negative (that they have no or have not shared proof). It then goes on to heavily cast aspersions on the subjects in the category ("In some cases, they make the claim despite having been proven to have no Native American heritage at all," and "See also: Pretendian"). The way you characterize the scope in your comment above is much more neutral, and it would go a long way to addressing the BLP concerns if the scope note were revised to say "This category lists notable citizens of the United States who claim to have some Native American ancestry. For individuals whose descent is confirmed by the tribe in question in reliable, published sources, use Category:American people of Native American descent."--Trystan (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t create this category, but I agree that it would be much better and more helpful to edit the description to be completely neutral. (I have done so with various subcats). Is it okay to make these edits now or wait until this discussion runs its course? Yuchitown (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume it would be fine to make the edits now, if there are no objections.--Trystan (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify I get the point of opposers, but because of apparent doubts in some (or many) of such claims, this is clearly WP:OPINIONCAT and hardly WP:DEFINING as compared to e.g. established Category:Native American people. Brandmeistertalk 08:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Inclusion here is not an opinion. All the people included in these categories have identified as being of Native American descent (generally or of a specific tribe, in which case they go under the appropriate subcat) in secondary, published records. Often that's all that can substantiated; that they include that in their biography. When tribes confirm their citizenship or descendancy in secondary, published sources, then they can be moved into the smaller categories. Yuchitown (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Different Procedural Oppose Since the original nomination, there have been a number of subcategories which this parent category serves to group and shouldn't be deleted in isolation. (I do have concerns about most of the subcats though.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Subcategories Two of these subcategories serve a clear purpose: The Cherokee heritage groups are why the Cherokee group is so large and descendants of multi-racial people who fibbed about their identity to utilize the Pocahontas exception to racial segregation justifies a subcategory. (The Category:American people who self-identify as being of Powhatan descent subcategory is misnamed though, since few would be able to name Pocahontas' tribe.) I'm less sure what the purpose is for all the other, mostly small, tribal categories though since the exotic sounding name of the tribe may have basically been picked at random. Occupational subcategories for actors and politicians dubiously claiming ancestry might be a better approach. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These categories are based on how the individuals have self-identified in secondary, published sources and use the terminology they use. For instance, this article mentions Nadema Agard identifying being of "Powhatan" descent. Speculation, second-guessing, and original research isn't permitted on Wikipedia. Yuchitown (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suport per nom. Better editing can eliminate the issues around WP:BLP.--User:Namiba 14:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Deletion I also have checked many of these articles, and so far, the majority fail verifiability on self-identification, resulting in such claims for people, including BLPs and BLP notables of non-BIA tribes, that are not supported by reliable, published sources and seem to, instead, be the implications of original research. The insinuation for the people categorized as self-identifying is that they are frauds. Wikipedia, which now plays a significant role in AI-generated searches, relies on its policies that require all material in its mainspace must be verifiable so as not to spread disinformation.Bcbc24 (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wikipedia requires that the categorization of articles must be verifiable, "clear from verifiable information in the article" why it was placed in a particular category. If the article does not mention that an individual self-identifies, then it is OR to say they do and that they belong in a self-identifying category.Bcbc24 (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (including subcategories) to regular descent categories, but purge obvious cases of fraud. The articles usually contain very little information about this topic, in most cases they just rely on the subject's own statement about their descent. But that applies to every other descent too. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The determining "obvious cases of fraud" is beyond Wikipedia's capacity and would constitute original research. Yuchitown (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't if reliable sources agree on it. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Those individuals are listed in the pretendian article. The U.S. press doesn’t cover the subject (so Wikipedia doesn’t either except in a few cases).
      Although a merge might be a good idea but merge the “descent” categories into the “self-identified descent” container categories since an individual stating they have Native American ancestry is extremely easy to verify with sources. Yuchitown (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The articles in this category are evidence that it is not always that easy. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I should follow up that there are countless articles, books, and even academic journals about Native identity, descendancy, genealogy, Indigenous identity fraud, tribal rolls, etc. and these are referenced in the many, many Wikipedia articles on these various subjects. What’s easy to verify with published, secondary sources is when an individual has publicly stated that they have Native American ancestry. The public statement is what’s easily verified. Yuchitown (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agree with that, but my point is that a subject's own statement is sufficient for regular descent categories. There is no reason to add "self-identification" because that is what descent categories imply in the first place. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion Wikipedia has no standards for white people or Italian Americans to prove their race, ethnicity, heritage, or descent, beyond what RL states. It's discriminatory to insist on increased racial scrutiny for Native people. Further it's unreasonable (and invasive) to expect to see a Native subject's personal identification and demographic papers which could "prove" their identity online. Using those if they were available would be OR. The language of "self identify" when not supported by RL is additionally against BLP. Commenters should know the users originating this category are POV pushing across Wikipedia for Native racial purity standards that don't exist even among the most conservative Native people offline. They do not speak for even a vocal minority of Native people. This ideology is only prevalent on Wikipedia, on pages they have edited. See a previous convo here. See also the BLP Noticeboard. Check their history for many many more. Pingnova (talk) 05:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging previous participants in this subject: @CaroleHenson, @Morbidthoughts, @David Fuchs, @Only in death, @Alanscottwalker. Pingnova (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pingnova, being Native American or First Nations is not about race or ethnicity, and to frame it as such is simply wrong. Native American tribes are sovereign nations - it's about citizenship (political status; participating in cultural community). It's about who claims you (meaning which tribe claims someone as being a member of the tribe). It has nothing whatsoever to do with what a person claims about themselves. You have made a very strong statement by saying It's discriminatory to insist on increased racial scrutiny for Native people. No one is or was ever arguing for increased racial scrutiny, that's simply nonsense, and it is degrading towards your fellow editors. Please stop framing your arguments in terms like "discrimination" and making this into an argument about race and ethnicity when it is most certainly not. Netherzone (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit I'm not sure how to respond to a statement like "being Native American or First Nations is not about race or ethnicity," considering it very much is about race and ethnicity. The US Census is just one major institution that treats it as such, not even including the rest of scholarship. Wikipedia itself acknowledges Native people as a racial category. I find this a very disturbing response to my concern. Pingnova (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pingnova, sorry you find this disturbing but Indigeneity is not about race - it is about nation-hood and/or citizenship....it's about who claims the person (meaning tribe or nation), not who the person desires to be affiliated/identified with. There are Native Americans who are white, black, brown, red and yellow in their appearance or "presentation", however what distinguishes these individuals from those who are self-identifying is the fact that they are enrolled in a recognized tribe - they are citizens or members of their tribe or tribal nation (in other words, they are claimed by the tribe or nation) - they are part of those communities - and this fact must be backed up by verifiable, reliable sources (the tribes or Indigenous press, or other verifiable source knowledgeable on Indigeneity). Honestly, I don't understand why we are going over this again - there was a CfD re: this category in 2023, and an earlier one in 2019, both of which supported keeping the categories. Netherzone (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually its both, depending on who you are talking to and the context. And sometimes neither. Citizenship of a nation is generally a functional issue to do with where/how you live, your rights and benfits etc. Race & ethnicity less so except where by extension it affects the citizenship. Race & ethnicity is cultural heritage, which can be entirely divorced from citizenship. And certainly is in cases of forced dispossession. My comment on the BLP board (linked above) was in regards to an issue which people were overthinking in regards to wording in prose. The problem with categories is there is no nuance, you are either in the category or you are not. For someone who says "I have heritage X" - absent reliable sources it is a self identification. But there is no way in the current climate to indicate (in a category title, that lacks the prose available) that is distinctly different from people who are citizens of a tribe or who have recognised descent, without sourcing that verifies that. You cannot prove they are not without delving into original research. So insofar as this is a category, its named accurately enough for the large body of people who lack sourced proof they are of X tribe, or X heritage. Which, also like it or not, would rule out huge amounts of people who genuinely are of X tribe because reliable sources, as wikipedia defines them, do not support that stated fact. For a category to apply, it must be sourced reliably in the article. Doubly-so for a BLP. TheMainLogan has an illustrative example below of the issues, LDP has reliable sourcing that his father is part Cherokee, its not original research to say he is of Cherokee heritage in factual voice. It would be to say he is a citizen of the Cherokee nation, without reliable sourcing that indicated that. So any self-described category would clearly be inappropriate, but (and I havnt looked this far) if the category for cherokee is limited to cherokee citizens only, that would also be inappropriate. Which is why my general stance has always been "does this help a reader find the person's article? otherwise fuck da category police". Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, being Native American is a unique, political status (this was substantiated, 7 to 2, in the Haaland v. Brackeen case). The example previously given, the U.S. Census, uses the terms "American Indian" and "Alaska Native", and they do so because while some Alaska Natives, such as the Tlingit and Athabascans, are American Indians, many are not. Yupiit, Unangan, and Inupiat are *not* American Indian; however, they *are* Native Americans in the United States, as that article explains. Being of descent also has political ramifications; even members of unrecognized historical California tribes have CDIBs and can access Indian health services. These various terms mean specific things and even have Wikipedia articles. Within the umbrella term of Native American are hundreds of distinct ethnicities. Lou Diamond Phillips is a case that demonstrates the need for a vague, all-encompassing category. This phenomenon is so commonplace entire books are written on the subject and there's a Wikipedia article for Cherokee descent. Yuchitown (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion but support restructuring this BS. I think something should be done about the individual articles in this category and subcategories that outright say their subjects are of indigenous origin but users insist should use self-identification categories. For example, Lou Diamond Phillips' article outright says under "Early life" that his dad is part Cherokee, and "Personal life" notes that this was reported by Indian Country Today. Yet, despite the article pushing his Native roots, users insist on only using the self-identification category. It's contradictory nonsense. —theMainLogan (t•c) 14:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I strongly oppose deleting this category. We already decided thru consensus to keep this category just last year. [4]. I do not understand why some think that self-identifying as Native American is not a relevant category. Why would anyone think it is the same as saying someone is a Pretendian or some other offensive slur? It is not. It simply means the person has said themselves that they are NA or have ancestors who were NA, but if these claims are not confirmed by the tribes themselves, or by the Indigenous press, then it is simply a claim. Self-identification is not a judgement or a form of prejudice or a badge of shame. At all. As Yuchitown has pointed out, being Native is a political status - Native American and First Nations are sovereign nations. Indigeneity is not the same as race or ethnicity. If editors want to look deeper into the status of a person, here is a list of Indigenous newspapers and newsletter: List of Indigenous newspapers in North America where one can search for articles on Native identity, and for articles on many notable Native American and First Nations people. If confirmation of tribal citizenship is found, then self-identification is no longer relevant, because the person's status has been confirmed. We all know that anyone can say anything about themselves that they wish to proclaim, however that does not necessarily make it true. It's heresay. Honest or naive mistakes can be made by people, family stories exist about these things, as we have seen in recent news reports. The category itself is neutral, serves a useful encyclopedic purpose and I feel very strongly that it should not be deleted. Netherzone (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Pinging people who haven't edited this category and who didn't engage in the previous deletion discussion is WP:CANVASSING. Yuchitown (talk) 03:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to descent, per the above. Unfortunately, whatever they think their doing, as seen in their arguments supporters want to use this for politics untethered to sources directly about the subject, or based on their own original research, practicing a kind of legalism-dispute against subjects. I came across this relatively new political effort on a long-standing article of an historical (long-dead) person where there is no support that that subject ever 'claimed'. What you have is independent RS (not self-anything) flat out ascribing that this was of their descent. So, in that sense, it is a lie that 'the subject claimed' or that they self-anythinged. We can't go back in history to bolster political claims of today, and we can't sue and bring to trial long dead subjects based on legalisms and original research (and we can't do it to BLPs), nor can we lie about them. Should it ever matter to the subject (DUE) that this controversy (ie., controverting prior independent RS) belongs anywhere near their article, new independent RS will have to write the person up specifically, not Wikipedians.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't edited this category or participated in the previous Cfd or 2019 failed merge proposal and did not stumble upon this discussion organically but are here due to WP:CANVASSING. Your previous statement is a diffuse attack against "they." I didn't participate in an editing discussion about a "long-standing article of an historical (long-dead) person" with you. Let's please stick to the subject and facts at hand. Yuchitown (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alanscottwalker, who is the "they" that you speak of? Netherzone (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    'They . . . supporters' should be clear. 'Singular they . . .subject' should be clear. It is the supporters who base the reason for this category to exist on politics and original research. Anyone can see that's not an attack, it is a critique of their basis argument. Nor is the critique diffuse, it is trenchant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worse than I thought: I didn't realize that the criteria for being in the "actual Native American descent" category wasn't something like "independent reliable source" but rather "the tribe says so". Given that decisions on enrollment are political and not infrequently controversial/contested, it seems like a serious POV issue to rely on the tribal government as sole arbiter. Maybe we should rename this category"People of Native American descent" and make the other one, which apparently should be called "People descended from enrolled Native American tribal members", a subcategory. The distinction between ethnicity and political status is a red herring: we don't make the Austrian government the sole source for whether someone is allowed to call themselves of Austrian descent either, nor is the Israeli government allowed to decide who is Jewish. (This does not relate to the WP:DEFINING issue, which has never been satisfactorily answered). (t · c) buidhe 21:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Descent, by definition, is not the same as tribal enrollment. Seems like you should support this category, Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent, since any notable American who has publicly stated that they are of Native American descent and that statement has been published in a reliable, source is in—viola!. It’s verifiable and factually correct (BTW in the US tribes determine tribal citizenship, in Canada the federal government determines who has status as a First Nations person or not). Yuchitown (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Political status is not the same as ethnicity, which is why recognizing a single political entity as sole arbiter of ethnicity (the people of native American descent subcategories) is a serious POV problem. Besides enrollment controversies, there are many people who have confirmed native American descent (not self identified) by genetics, genealogical research, or other means. (t · c) buidhe 14:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Breaking it down because there's obviously a lot of miscommunication:
    • I was saying that descent is not tribal enrollment. This is about a descent category, not a tribal enrollment category.
    • There is no single political entity as sole arbiter (this is not a category about status First Nations people in Canada).
    • Native American is not an ethnicity; Native Americans includes hundreds of different ethnicities.
    • Disenrollment would be another conversation (in fact, there's a Tribal disenrollment article). If someone was disenrolled, they would still be of descent.
    • Incidentally, User:Trystan added confirmation from a tribe. If people don't like that edit, have a conversation on the category talk page. It was just added; it can be removed. Yuchitown (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe, rarely does a BIA-tribe or non-BIA tribe publish through secondary RS that a person is or was an enrolled member. Even notable people I have met and know to be members of a BIA tribe would fail to get into a "People descended from enrolled Native American tribal members" because the "tribe says so" RS does not exist. Yet they are categorized as Native American in their Wikipedia articles even when verifiable RS does not support their enrollment status.
    So descent categories might work if applied equally to all and no verifiable source disputes the descendancy because categorizing people as self-identifying is a problem. If the article supported by RS does not explicitly say the person self-identifies, it is WP:OR to categorize a person as self-identifying. And how about someone like Kali Reis, who is categorized in her article as self-identifying as Wampanoag, although she is a member of the Seaconke Wampanoag Tribe, a non-BIA tribe? Or Edwin Gourdin, who died in 1966. None of the verifiable RS on Gourdin's article or off says he self-identifies, yet within the last two years, his categories have moved him from being Native American and Seminole to self-identifying as Seminole descent. His article lead has also changed so that instead of Gourdin being "the first African-American and the first Native-American (Seminole) to be appointed a Superior Court judge in New England", he is now "the first African-American and the first self-identified Native American (Seminole descent) to be appointed a Superior Court judge in New England."Bcbc24 (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that's the exact NOR problem I identified. (t · c) buidhe 14:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And refusal to follow WP:INDEPENDENT sources. Indeed, Wikipedians are attempting to create something about a subject -- that the subject did something, or Wikipedians are, in effect, original-research-doxing the subject, to prove or disprove. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Bcbc24, Tribes publish articles about their citizens constantly. List of Indigenous newspapers in North America provides examples for searching. However, as I pointed out in my above comment, the category was just edited; the edits can be undone with discussion on the category talk page. Yet they are categorized as Native American in their Wikipedia articles even when verifiable RS does not support their enrollment status. If you find something uncited, feel free to request citation or delete the information. If an article is miscategorized, remove the category. Yuchitown (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to the Indigenous press and media outlets, there are Native American scholars whose well-researched academic papers and/or published books can be trusted as independent reliable sources. Netherzone (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is an intractable BLP problem with throwing everyone into a vaguely defined, broad category, and then stating in the category description "In some cases, published sources refute their statements of Native American heritage." That casts negative aspersions on everyone in the category. There isn't a clear articulation of what standard of verification is being applied to elevate subjects from this category to Category:American people of Native American descent, and I suspect any such differentiation would run afoul of WP:NOR, given that it seems to go far beyond WP:V. A category for individuals whose claims to Native American ancestry have been challenged or debunked in reliable sources may be warranted. But the majority of this category is just people who failed to meet whatever standard is being applied to Category:American people of Native American descent, and I don't see how that is defining.--Trystan (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you aren't angry that I reverted your text from the category. It seems since the idea of publishing sources connecting an individual to a tribe or tribal member to confirm descent is so repelling to Wikipedians, as seen the comments immediately above, the "Native American descent" categories should be merged into this larger category. If a person's biography in an entertainment magazine is deemed an acceptable RS, then they only thing can be factually taken from that is self-identification. Perhaps some of the commenters here who seldom or never contribute to or create Native American articles can share why they feel so particularly, strongly about eliminating this category. Yuchitown (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not angry at all; I understand the reversion given the above discussion. As for why I personally feel strongly about this category, it is for the BLP concerns I discuss above. Some have previously been addressed (we no longer categorize everyone in this category as being transracial and guilty of cultural appropriation), but others remain. I have particularly in mind those individuals in Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent and its subcategories who are in fact of Native American descent, including those who have proof of that (it's just Wikipedia and published reliable sources that don't have that proof). Grouping those individuals in a category that says their claims are unsubstantiated and in many cases debunked seems inescapably pejorative to me. I don't object to Category:American people of Native American descent having a higher standard of verification than other descent categories, given that reliable sources well establish that an inordinately large number of individuals incorrectly claim Indigenous descent (whether through a good-faith mistake or deliberate fraud). But whatever that standard is, it should be clearly articulated. For individuals who don't meet that standard due to a lack of sufficient sourcing, my strong preference would be not to categorize them on this aspect at all, rather than to put them into a category framed in such a way that casts suspicion.--Trystan (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for responding. This category was definitely created as a compromise to accommodate Wikipedia's understandable needs for citation balanced with the need for factual accuracy. An attempt to address means of confirmation of descent was made at WP:NDN-ID; however, that appears to be too offensive to non-Native Wikipedians and those unfamiliar with Native issues to be adopted. Entertainment media, like People Magazine, are simply not going to be reliable sources for anyone's Indigenous ancestry. That's why I would be fine with just folding all the "descent" categories into the "self-identified descent" categories, if it's too offensive to request informed, authoritative sources (i.e. academic journals, tribal media, etc.).
    On a complete flipside, it's standard for individuals to *not* be added to LGBTQ+ categories unless the person themself publicly identifies as such. So Wikipedia has made an accomodation to the real-world situation of a specific group that doesn't allow for *anything* published, such as in People Magazine, to define how someone is categorized. Yuchitown (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A person's public identification as Native American is defining and can be reliably sourced, particularly through tribes themselves and affiliated publications. The comparison of being Native American to be Jewish or some other ethnicity is fatuous; Native Americans are not members of a race or an ethnicity, but rather are citizens of sovereign nations. There is no insinuation that the people in these categories are not of Native American heritage. There are a number who were adopted and likely do have Native American ancestry, but because they are not citizens of a tribe, the source of their identity is through self-identification. "Self-identification" is not a pejorative term. I would like to reiterate that the clear majority of Native and Native allied editors who are involved with the Indigenous WikiProject and/or who regularly edit Native American-related articles favor the retention of these categories. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no insinuation that the people in these categories are not of Native American heritage. The category description says In some cases, published sources refute their statements of Native American heritage. Coupled with the statement that if the claim were substantiated, they would be in a different category, there is a clear casting of doubt onto the subjects in this category. Not to the extent that there formerly was when everyone here was categorized as transracial, but still problematic in my view.--Trystan (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This category has been a lightning rod for POV pushing, with the label of "self-identifying" used to imply that certain people are not truly Native or are a "pretendian." Add into this the selective use of citations by supporters of this category to determine if a person is self-identifying, such as in the situation described by User:theMainLogan where an article in the very reliable publication Indian Country Today about the Native ancestry of Lou Diamond Phillips wasn't considered sufficient to avoid having him labeled self-identifying, and you have a category that raises serious BLP issues. If the consensus is to not delete this category, then at a minimum all reliable citations proving someone is Native should be accepted, not simply the current standard being used.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. As I've pointed out in a previous category discussion, this is a very awkward-sounding categories that thousands of readers and article subjects could find to be inaccurate, biased, or even offensive.
"American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent" is not wording that is typically used in academic literature.
Federal recognition is a controversial topic that should be discussed in the article text itself. It should not be forced into category names.
Category names should be based on serious non-biased anthropological and sociological research, and should not be based on decisions made by bureaucratic governments that may not always be fair.
I primarily focus on ethnic groups in the Middle East and Balkans, and categorizing thousands of individuals and entire clans as "self-identified" would be extremely offensive. For example, what if Serbia, Iran, or others do not officially recognize certain ethnic groups that Western anthropologists would certainly recognize as genuine ethnic or ethnoreligious groups? For example, if we were to label Yazidis or Alevis as self-identified minorities, that would be completely unencyclopedic, POV, and totally unsuitable for Wikipedia. Would we the generic Wikipedia reader out there be all right with "Self-identified Jewish people"? "Self-identified Hazaras"? "American people who self-identify as being of Jewish (or black, etc.) descent"? Most likely not!
There are also many unrecognized ethnic groups in China, since the Chinese (PRC) government officially recognizes only 56 ethnic groups. Should we also categorize every single individual from those unrecognized minorities as "self-identified minorities"? Certainly not, as that would be very awkward, controversial, and out of line with what Wikipedia categories should really be all about.
Another good reason to oppose this renaming is the WP:CONCISE guideline. We shouldn't make category names overly long and complicated.
As a result, the same should apply to Native Americans, First Nations, and other indigenous peoples in North America. Intra or intercommunity politics considered to be obscure, confusing issues by the general public should not be allowed to force its way into category names.
The subjects of various BLPs would also find this category, and related categories to be very offensive, and as a result this would violate Wikipedia's BLP policies.
I would also suggest taking a look at this book which discusses this issue in detail: Forgotten Tribes: Unrecognized Indians and the Federal Acknowledgment Process. Equiyamnaya (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've used that exact book as a citation many times in Wikipedia. I heartily recommend reading it. As demonstrated below, "self-identified" and "self-identification" are commonly used terms in literature about Native American identity. Ethnic groups, especially those on other continents, are not comparable to Native American identity, and "tribes have a unique political relationship with the U.S. federal government." [5] —Yuchitown (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - It is truly shocking to me that so many of the "d*lete commenters are ignoring the thoughts, words and knowledge of our community members who are themselves Indigenous Americans, as well as the long-time members of Wikipedia Project Indigenous peoples of North America. Yet another erasure of Indigenous voices on WP. Netherzone (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Although some editors at the Wiki Project IPNA have self-identified as Indigenous Americans, we all can agree that Indigenous Americans are not a monolith. A very few do not represent the whole. So, it's problematic to suggest that editors arguing for deleting these self-identifying categories are examples of erasure of Indigenous voices. We all strive to follow the guiding rules of Wikipedia, presenting information that is supported in a neutral manner and by verifiable, independent RS and not OR. I am a Native American enrolled in a recognized tribe and am glad that Wikipedia provides the means by which I can engage in these civil discussions. Bcbc24 (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am going to tag the subcategories so they can be discussed here. This is also your general reminder to remain civil, please. If being respectful is not good enough a reason, closing discussions is much harder when there is a bunch of incivility.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. The argument for a "self-identifying" category of Indian doesn't stand. It's vicious onto its own premise. It says that, while sovereignty implies a self-confered status and identity, only tribes that are recognized by the US Govt are true tribes. And folks who don't belong to the latter are self-dentify, not real Native Americans. I totally understand the concern about the Buffies of the world, but the conversation about this isn't improved by throwing in pejoratives like self-identify, which is what that nomenclature is. Then consider this angle: Buffy ain't self-idenitfy like members of North American tribes that aren't recognized by the US or, say, Mayan descendants. She doesn't have any tribe at all. She's European, not at all Native of the Americas. Maybe a different kind of self-identify? But by the proponents' arguments above, Buffy's gonna get the same status as full-blood tribal Mayans, Aymaras, and Huicholes living in Los Angeles. Then there are the Jenisaros (janissaries) of New Mexico and Texas. You see? There's not bottom. This discussion is far, far more complex than can be resolved with categories like self-identify. Tsideh (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on the merits of this proposal; listing these out so people can see what is being discussed. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ethnicity ≠ citizenship, and tribe membership is closer to citizenship. Belonging to a tribe is associated with ethnicity but is not 1-1 and this issue is highly contested and complicated - removing this category would mean a massive, highly misleading oversimplification. The wording is awkward but the issue at hand is awkward. There’s not a perfect fit for everything. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:American people of Abenaki descent etc. Or in case a regular descent category does not exist yet, rename to it. As said earlier, there is no need to include self-identification in the category name, we do not do this in any other descent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are legal ramifications to the distinction between claiming descent from an Indian/Native American group and being recognized as such by an "Indian tribe" recognized by the Federal government or a state government (see Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, for example). Family legend says that I have Cherokee ancestry (oh, wait, maybe it was Choctaw), but no government-recognized tribe will accept me as a member. - Donald Albury 14:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ancestry is not membership. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the key term User:Donald Albury used "family legend" — regarding his own family, so not an insult but just a common reality. A broad category encompassing a wide range of possibilities is needed. Wikipedia depends on verifiability, and actual descent from tribal citizen is seldom verified in secondary, published literature. What is commonplace are published statements by an individual. Yuchitown (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actual descent is hardly ever verifiable and still we have thousands of descent categories. With few exceptions, sources take a subjects's own statement about descent for granted. After all, apgain with few exceptions, people don't have a reason to lie about descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Actual Native descent *can* be verifiable (mentioned below Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s work). And then people who's parents are citizens of different tribes than them (like Category:Kiowa people of Comanche descent and an example of a source explaining that Jesse Ed Davis is a Kiowa citizen and Comanche descendant; this can be corroborated by many, many other sources).
      Here's a secondary, published article about the 200+ groups claiming to be Cherokee tribes. The number is past 400 now. I don't believe these groups are lying; they likely believe their descent with all their hearts, but their descent is unconfirmed. There's entire scholarly books published about these organizations, such as Circe Strum's Becoming Indian: The Struggle Over Cherokee Identity in the Twenty-first Century. More at Cherokee descent (not original research, everything over there is cited).
      I'm honestly not sure where you live. Are you unfamiliar with how contested Native ancestry claims are and how widespread the phenomenon of unconfirmed family stories such as User:Donald Albury discussed are in the United States? (Which, of course, doesn't not make him a bad person in the least or anyone his family liars.) Yuchitown (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mentioned sources about the topic of false claims about one's ancestry, but it is entirely unclear how that can be used to classify all individual biographies as true or false. And again, biographies shouldn't be in a descent category at all when sources generally agree on the falsehood of claims. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Except the statement is notable, is published, is easily verified, and countless Wikipedia editors find these statements significant enough to be actionable (i.e. repeatedly adding these articles to Native categories). This category is about the statement, not necessarily about the descent. Yuchitown (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If the problem is what is the line between "Native American descent" categories and "self-identified Native American descent" categories, I would vote for collapsing the "descent" categories into the "self-identified descent" categories, due to the ease of verifying public statement of descent versus verifying actual descent by Wikipedia-acceptable published, secondary sources. Yuchitown (talk) 02:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      My family legend ties into this account, although the written version my grandmother had said Suki was Cherokee. I have a lot of distant cousins (whom I have never met) who have posted different versions of the story on the Internet. Normally, people don't identify with ethnicity of ancient ancestors (I have French Huguenot ancestors from the 17th century, but I don't self-identify as French), but there are a lot of people in the United States who do claim Native American ancestry no matter how diluted that ancestry has become. Some people self-identify as Native American on tenuous grounds in order to received benefits reserved for Native Americans, or to otherwise benefit financially or otherwise from the association. In my own family history, when my grandmother was a little girl (late 19th century), the whole Townsend clan picked up and moved from Kentucky to the Indian Territory to claim their "heritage" in land there, only to find out that Suki had not been registered with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (not surprising as she was born in the 18th century, had a white father, and apparently had been raised by her father's brother). I think it is important to maintain the distinction between people who are accepted as Native American by a government-recognized tribal entity, and those who self-identify as Native American, but have not been recognized as such by a government-recognized tribal entity. Donald Albury 13:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for sharing. Yes, the BIA is completely irrelevant in earlier centuries. Genealogy is the key in real life, and in some instances, like with Henry Louis Gates Jr., these primary sources get published and can be used on this platform. Yuchitown (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No one proposing to delete or merge has provided a single published citation supporting the idea that "self-identification" is not a commonly used term when discussing Native American identity. Native Americans and scholars in Native American studies are familiar with the term since it is, in fact, ubiquitous in these discussions. Some examples:
These are examples I could quickly grab. This is the terminology used in relation to Native American identity. I would never dream of jumping into a conversation about Jewish-Arabic identity and start demanding changes based my personal feelings. Yuchitown (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the category is useful. It isn't impugning the character of people to be included in the Cat. People in the US think they have Native ancestry for a number of reasons, family stories among them. So they might believe it's true in some cases. Others may have more nefarious and/or deliberate reasons to claim a Native "identity". Some are modern day carpetbaggers, looking for benefit by starting a casino. For some, it's to enhance their public image (e.g., Buffy Sainte-Marie.) Anyway, Yuchitown has made some good points. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've just characterized these categories as full of frauds, fakes, and people with unreliable family histories, and the category descriptions make a similar suggestion. But some of the people in these categories will genuinely have Indigenous ancestry, and have (non-published) proof of that. How is it not impugning their character for us to state that they "claim to have [tribe] ancestry but have no proof of this heritage" and lump them in with proven pretendians?--Trystan (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many people are members of tribes recognized by states but not the federal government. They do not belong in the same category as "Pretendians."--User:Namiba 20:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is one user's characterization. The category is necessarily broad due to the core tenant of Wikipedia being verifiability through secondary, published sources. These are all of the people who have made published statements of Native American descent (e.g. mentions in People magazine or TMZ), but reliable sources haven't substantiated the statements, for instance, scholarly sources that confirm their grandparent is a tribal citizen. Mainly it's celebrities who have stated they are of Native descent, and prior to these categories creation, their fans would repeatedly insert them into tribal categories. (The original nominator believes self-identified Native descent is not defining, but dozens/hundreds of Wikipedia editors apparently think otherwise.) Many might indeed have Native ancestry but be completely unconnected from the tribes they claim and sources haven't emerged to connect them (Henry Louis Gates Jr. has been great about publicly exploring people's genealogies and confirming or refuting Native ancestry). These are practical categories developed to follow Wikipedia's policies. If anyone wants to rephrase descriptions, the talk pages are a good place for discussion. Yuchitown (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's just simply not true. Look at Category:American people who self-identify as being of Abenaki descent. The majority of the articles are about scholars and/or writers of indigenous history and culture. Several of them are members of group of Abenaki recognized by Vermont but not yet but the United States. They are not "self-identified" nor are they merely mentions in celebrity media.--User:Namiba 18:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, people from entire Indigenous communities are pulled into or can be placed into Native American self-identifying categories if they achieve notability status because their community has been categorized as self-identifying as Native American. I previously gave the example of BLP Kali Reis, a member of the Seaconke Wampanoag Tribe, which is recognized by the Massachusetts Commission on Indian Affairs and, therefore a state-recognized tribe. However, this formal state recognition does not carry the force of law, so they have been placed on the List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. Consequently, all their members are considered self-identifying, although no verifiable RS states it. For the Seaconke Wampanoag and their notable Reis, as with other articles in these NA self-identifying categories, categorizing them as NA-self-identifying fails verification. And Wikipedia requires WP:CATV, that "Categorization of articles must be verifiable." Bcbc24 (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether an article should or shouldn't be included in a category is a discussion that should take place on that particular article's discussion page. There's some published material about the Seaconke Wampanoag Tribe, but there is a wealth of published sources discussing Vermont's four state-recognized tribes. Yuchitown (talk) 04:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bcbc24 The Seaconke Wampanoag are not state-recognized in any state. Massachusetts only has one state-recognized tribe, the Hassanamisco Nipmuc. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earlier in this discussion, User:Goldendragonfly77 outlines the real-time damage that the self-identification category misinformation is causing the hundreds of people in Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe: (1) Erosion of Cultural Integrity, (2) Damage to Reputation, (3) Emotional and Psychological Impact, and (4) Barrier to Advocacy and Support. She notes the mental health impact of the misinformation: "The continuous attacks on our pages have caused emotional distress within our community."
Like the Seaconke Wampanoag, the Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe has been not legally but still formally state-recognized by the Massachusetts Commission of Indian Affairs and is another example of a Native American WP:BLPGROUP that fails verification for NA self-identification. All members of the Herring Pond are automatically categorized as self-identifying in Category:American people who self-identify as being of Wampanoag descent with the description "This category page lists notable citizens of the United States who claim to have Wampanoag ancestry but who have no proof of this heritage. In some cases they make the claim despite having been proven to have no Wampanoag heritage at all."  The Herring Pond and Seaconke are then subcategorized under Category:Wampanoag Heritage Groups, described as organizations interested in Wampanoag heritage that are not members of the three federally recognized Wampanoag tribes. This wording implies uncertainty about whether members of these two tribes are Wampanoag people, suggesting that only those belonging to federally recognized tribes are such.
The potential for misusing these NA-self-identifying categories and damaging the mental health and well-being of people is significant. For the majority of articles placed here, the RS saying that they self-identify does not exist. I am therefore modifying my vote from "Support deletion" to "Strong Delete." Bcbc24 (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Asian actors

edit
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The practically same category was deleted un British actors of Asian descent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_20#Category:British_people_by_ethnicity_and_occupation Pinging @LaundryPizza03: from last discussion. Mason (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 06:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Empires and kingdoms of foo

edit
Nominator's rationale: These are not all "empires and kingdoms", but rather include all historical states which once inhabited the modern-day territory of these countries. Opting for "polities" rather than "states" to remove any ambiguity (and these were not all "countries" either). Category:Former political entities in Afghanistan (currently the lone country cat in Category:Former territorial entities in Asia) and Category:Former countries in Indian history already exist, and thus Category:Empires and kingdoms of Afghanistan and Category:Empires and kingdoms of India should be merged there, and the two parents renamed with the desired naming scheme. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact there is a Category:Italian states. I sympathize with the argument of anachronism, but merging to general history categories would result in these categories becoming very messy. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, I think that Category:Italian states does not pose a similar issue as it seems to be based on ethnicity and/or a link to a historical region, and thus is not anachronistic. To me, anachronism seems to be a significant issue in the case of the nominated categories, which needs to be addressed in one way or another. PadFoot (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how to conclude that it is based on ethnicity or historical region. The category just lists all states within the boundaries of 21st-century Italy. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, See the category itself. It says in the top:

This category contains articles on former Italian countries and polities. This category contain all the former states south of the Alpine water divide (North Italy) and in the Italian Peninsula and all the states of Italian language and or culture.

Besides, what is important is that the nominated categories present issues of anachronism. Perhaps you could suggest a way to fix that? PadFoot (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Italian Peninsula may well be considered to be a region, but current North Italy isn't part of it. North Italy is included in the category just because it belongs to the current state of Italy. There is also Category:Former countries in Spanish history. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
North Italy is indeed a part of it. See the very first line of the article on Italian Peninsula:

is a peninsula extending from the southern Alps in the north to the central Mediterranean Sea in the south

Besides, the cat also mentions "states of Italian language and culture". However, you have convinced me that the categories should be retained and not merged, but should be renamed (in one way or another) to fix the anachronism. Perhaps, we should also expand in the categories. PadFoot (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AAGPBL teams

edit
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles and one category in each. Already covered by other categories so no need to merge. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 06:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba, in that sense you can make one for every team, plus a category for managers, but I don't think that will be good for navigation at all since only one team - the Rockford Peaches - was around long enough to have at least five managers. As I noted, these are all well covered with other categories in Category:All-American Girls Professional Baseball League so why keep?
@Marcocapelle, what do you think? I know you changed your vote but still. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should make one for every team. I'm personally trying to expand the categorization scheme for women's sports (see Category:Women's sports by populated place.)--User:Namiba 14:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diseases and disorders

edit
Nominator's rationale: This was moved to the current name via a 2008 decision with very little discussion. However, the main article is disease, not diseases and disorders. This makes the category not match the article. I believe it should be moved back to the broader "Disease" to match the main article, which does not only include individual diseases but also the entire topic of disease. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This category tree is suppose to include chronic disorders, not just diseases. Mason (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mason: The article disease states that a disorder is a form of disease. Disorder (medicine) is not an article. That means the current title is redundant. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This rename makes it seem like you're removing disability and related concepts from the tree. Even if that isn't your intent, I see no advantage to this rename beyond brevity. I actipate numerous removals of people with disabilities from the child categories, as well as the removal of chronic disabilities. Moreover, I do not want to have to argue that Autism is a disease rather than a neurological difference. Mason (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brevity is established Wikipedia policy, see WP:CONCISE. On the other hand, having something not cause offense to people is not. In fact the opposite is true, see WP:NOTCENSORED. So if the argument is that classifying many things under a disease banner will cause offense, it isn't really a policy-based reason. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have missing my point. @Zxcvbnm I am trying to avoid have people misunderstand the category. "I actipate numerous removals of people with disabilities from the child categories, as well as the removal of chronic disabilities." This means that I expect many people to misunderstand that disease includes disorders. And I do not want to have to explain to people that over and over again that this definition is broad. WP:CONCISE says that the goal is to "balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area." What I am saying is that the new name does not provide sufficient information, and that for example, Autism is not some term people intuitive consider a disease. Mason (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this is a thing that can be explained in the category's description. For example, "This category also contains things typically referred to as disorders in common parlance. Do not remove X and Y". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 06:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Events at Yankee Stadium

edit
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE, we do not categorize events by the venues they were held at. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Bearcat. Moreover, a season is not an event and all of the season articles should be removed, regardless of the result of this discussion.--User:Namiba 18:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. Those should remain. A season is a collection of events/games pbp 18:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your definition of a sports season as a singular event is contrary to widely established consensus on Wikipedia. A season includes far more than just "a collection of events/games." It involves obtaining players and much more. Moreover, the games themselves did not occur solely in one place. They occurred in dozens of stadiums.--User:Namiba 18:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat and Mason. No one has presented a cogent argument why Yankee Stadium should be an exception from WP:OCVENUE. It's a stadium in NYC where NYC baseball teams have routinely hosted games. What's exceptional about that? Additionally, I agree with Namiba that's it's nonsensical to categorize an MLB team's season as if it took place entirely in one venue. Carguychris (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as with recent CfD's on event-by-venue categories: 1 & 2. It's a perfectly good defining characteristic. The cited clause of OCVENUE has no rational basis. Agree with removing the season articles though, per Namiba's comment that a season is not an event. Toohool (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Without the seasons, there are very few events in this category.--User:Namiba 20:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added more articles to the category. Toohool (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


October 14

edit

Category:Lists of statutory instruments of the Welsh Assembly

edit

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two comments. First, noting for the record that OP was blocked in the interim (for non-sockpuppetry reasons). Second, the category was not tagged; I will do so now. If there are no further comments in a week, we should be all set for renaming.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European theatre of World War II people

edit
Nominator's rationale: The vast majority of these categories are not defined by the European theater of ww2 or Pacific theater. These are primarily people who are European or Asian nationals, but not associated with the specific military campaign. If not merged, it should be purged of nationals. Mason (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So do you mean that it's acceptable to associate people with a war but not with a military campaign? The problem is the original categorization of World War II people was too confusing and full of redundancy. In my opinion, the 'theater' categorization is merely a categorization by region to clarify the category and make it show what are the most important and relevant under the subject. Aronlee90 (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're not associated with a campaign. Jews of World War II‎ are not defined by the European military campaign. You're conflating region with military campaign. Not everyone in a region is associated with the war. If you wanted to break it down by region. What about Europeans who fought in the pacific? Would they go in both campaigns? This just doesn't seem helpful for navigation as it conflates several category trees.Mason (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus to merge; discussion on that point as well as Mason's alternative suggestion to purge nationals would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See above relisting comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Category:Washington Redskins currentteam parameter articles

edit
Nominator's rationale: Superseded by Category:Washington Commanders currentteam parameter articles, the current name of the team. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Category:Washington Football Team currentteam parameter articles

edit
Nominator's rationale: Superseded by Category:Washington Commanders currentteam parameter articles, the current name of the team. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a redirect. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Amirov brothers

edit
Nominator's rationale: I don't see the point of such a small category for navigating between two people. The article on one brother points to the other brother, and vice versa. Geschichte (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Joseon scholar-officials

edit
Nominator's rationale: I think we should split this category, as a non-defining intersection. There's no parent scholar-officials Mason (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pitcairn Islands people convicted of rape

edit
Nominator's rationale: I think we should broaden this category because there's no parent category Pitcairn Islands criminals, and I think that creating a parent category right now would just be redudant Mason (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the category is legitimate, although there are questions about what categories it should be under. I now think it shouldn't be under "British people convicted of rape" because people from the British Overseas Territories aren't classified as British people on Wikipedia, there are various categories relating to these territories. PatGallacher (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Pitcairn Islands criminals and Category:Sex offenders from British Overseas Territories. Pitcairn Islands the least populous territory in the world, with only 35 people as of the latest census. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older discussions

edit

The above are up to 7 days old. For a list of discussions more than seven days old, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions&oldid=1202523150"