Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a list of all open CfD discussions more than seven days old. It is maintained by a bot.

May 25

Category:Buildings Downtown Portland, Oregon

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: --Another Believer (Talk) 14:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It's the "Downtown" that distinguishes this category. Portland is a major city with many distinct neighborhoods. It would be helpful to look up buildings by neighborhood, rather than lumping every building in the city together. Thanks. Pickwiki (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pickwiki: If you're going to create subcategories, then I'd suggest Category:Buildings and structures in North Portland, Oregon, Category:Buildings and structures in Northeast Portland, Oregon, Category:Buildings and structures in Northwest Portland, Oregon, Category:Buildings and structures in South Portland, Oregon, Category:Buildings and structures in Southeast Portland, Oregon, and Category:Buildings and structures in Southwest Portland, Oregon, based on Category:North Portland, Oregon, Category:Northeast Portland, Oregon, Category:Northwest Portland, Oregon, Category:South Portland, Oregon, Category:Southeast Portland, Oregon, and Category:Southwest Portland, Oregon. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, rename to Category:Buildings and structures in Downtown Portland, Oregon. No opinion on whether than warrants a category. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery I've proposed a different way to subcategorize above, if you are interested in revisiting this discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Art awards by country

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There's a bit of an inconsistency issue in this category tree that's causing some confusion. All of the subcategories here are named "X art awards" except the American one, which is Category:American visual arts awards -- but the parent category is Category:Visual arts awards rather than "Art awards", which resulted in me having to do a major cleanup run to move a whole lot of articles that had been left in the parent instead of being moved to any of these subcategories, potentially because these are named differently than the parent and thus people didn't realize they existed. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this old chestnut keeps rearing it's ugly head, Art is not a sub-category of Visual arts and Category:Art awards by country has been incorrectly categorised subsequently to its creation. Category:Arts awards by country etc would be a better parent category. "Art" includes more than just the 'visual'. Sionk (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Art" includes more than just the 'visual'. Indeed. The recent CfR on art festivals (see below) established that music / dance festivals and literary festivals are not considered "visual arts" festivals, but they are "art festivals". If musical/dance and literary artists are suddenly excluded and disqualified from membership in this tree, that has a lot of consequences. We need to work out the semantics first, and then assess the consequences any changes would have for the category tree. NLeeuw (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and if there are any articles about awards that are not for visual arts then move them to a new Category:Art awards. Sionk has a point but by just opposing we don't solve the problem that Bearcat put on the table. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is basically recommending renaming these categories then recreating them again. The sensible approach would be to extend the "Visual arts" tree, if that is what Bearcat thinks is needed. Sionk (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and also support Marco's proposal. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sionk's commentary is worth examining. I'll add that Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 14#Category:Art festivals in the United States was recently withdrawn by nom who couldn't justify renaming "art" to "visual arts" on second consideration. We need to consider the semantics and consequences for the tree. (Not voting on this proposal yet myself). NLeeuw (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom and also support Marco's proposal. We have "considered the semantics and consequences for the tree" many times, and they would be very extensive, not worth the trouble, and introduce large numbers of clashes between article and category names. So don't let's do that. We know that there are senses of "Art" that include literature etc, but the restriction in many if not most contexts of "art" to visual art, and Arts for the wider sense is normative in English, and Sionk should learn to live with that. In category names, with no immediate accompanying text, more precision may be needed, hence my support. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. In places where "art" proves to be a confusing term for some (I myself don't have any trouble with it) we should remove the ambiguity by having only "arts" or "visual arts", as appropriate. Ham II (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Singles by decade by record label

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No need to break them up by decade--that would be better handled with a discography anyway--and no need to have the scheme Category:Singles by decade (in the 21st century only) and record label. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, there was already a discussion about this. Sahaib (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 01:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nomination and my reasoning in the previous nomination linked by Sahaib. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alder carrs

[edit]

Convert Category:Alder carrs to article Alder carr
Nominator's rationale: I don't really know what to do with this category. I think it's for a very specific kind of wetland that only applies to a specific kind of tree. This category feels like a non-defining intersection between kind of tree and kind of landform, but I'm not an expert. Mason (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This category appears regularly as a feature on early Ordnance Survey maps. Leutha (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious buildings and structures destroyed in the Muslim period in the Indian subcontinent

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content. They are all Hindu temples. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the alt rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose nom. If they ever were "all Hindu temples", they are not now. More Buddhist structures could be added. But this is an unsatifactory category, on a highly sensitive issue. Many of the buildings have not really been "destroyed", though the generally rather chaotic articles are not good at clarifying the dates of remaining parts - Hoysaleswara Temple for example. Probably this is often unclear to historians - as is who did the damage. Hmmm. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Great Britain

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Option A: remove header and a remove a number of parent categories. Option B: nominate subcategories for merger. In any case, the current content of the category is completely out of sync with how the category creator(s) intended. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, please clarify the issue with this particular category. I don't really follow. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just Delete & re-home articles as necessary. The period of the Kingdom of Great Britain - from 1707 to 1800, is not really used by historians or the public. If kept it should be more clearly named to avoid confusion with the (main) geographical meaning of Great Britain, which has clearly been taken by some adders as the intended meaning. In fact such a category might make more sense, at the top of trees with UK, English, Scottish & Welsh sub-cats. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women speculative fiction editors

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between editor, genre of editing, and gender. There's no male editor category in general. Mason (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:OCEGRS, trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question At which upward level will gender become WP:DEFINING? Or: At which downward level will gender become WP:NONDEFINING? Would parent Category:Women editors and potential parent Category:Women print editors also fail WP:OCEGRS as a trivial intersection? If so, then Merge and follow-up nomination. If not, then Keep and Re-parent Category:Women speculative fiction editors from Category:Women editors to Category:Women print editors. The current proposal seems a bit piecemeal, and not based on precedents of similar cases. There's no male X category in general is an argument that can be made for countless trees for which the female/women category (tree) has been found to be WP:DEFINING. NLeeuw (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that my nom was piecemeal, quite literally (if you look at the edit history). To answer @Nederlandse Leeuw , my point about male editors was that Category:Male speculative fiction editors did not have a gendered parent category, not that we should do away with the gendered editor category. In general, I think that the subject matter of the content that the editor is editing is not a defining intersection with gender, whereas the fact that one is female and an editor is defining given that the vocation has been described as a "gentleman's career" [1][2]. In terms of the specific kind of publishing, film, magazine, etc that probably is worth keeping because most people are described as a film editor, magazine editor etc, rather than just as an editor.Mason (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Template Large category TOC on category with up to 1200 pages

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: We have sub-tracking categories either to avoid a massive parent category or because different situations require different fixes. The category tree is currently empty, so it is not the first one. And they all require the same fix (swapping to {{Automatic category TOC}}; you don't need a large TOC for categories which have fewer than 1200 members). Therefore, there is no need for this amount of granular detail; one tracking category is plenty. (See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 23#Category:Categories without CatAutoTOC and friends.) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Template Category TOC on category with X–Y pages

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: After Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 23#Category:Categories without CatAutoTOC and friends, these are all redundant category layers with one subcategory. Merge all to Category:Template Category TOC tracking categories. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Activists for Palestinian solidarity

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This is a random mix of people who aren't activists. Purge the category and leave in actual activists. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I'm not too sure about it but maybe rename to "Pro-Palestinian activists". Any other suggestion would be helpful; this one seems rather vague. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to "Pro-Palestinian activists", if only because that new name would be shorter and simpler, yet also straight to the point. AHI-3000 (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait for some consensus here before I proceed with the subcategories. Honestly, going through them, I don't think any of these people in any of these categories were checked to see if they actually were activists for Palestinian solidarity, particularly given a number of these aren't pro-Palestinian but rather anti-Israeli. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer keeping this category, I should add, since there is a big Palestinian movement and activists who are pro-Palestinian. I just think we should be careful who to put in. Some of these "pro-Palestinian" people aren't pro-Palestinian at all. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think renaming it to "Advocates for Palestinian Solidarity" would be best. NesserWiki (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support doing something, but mixed on the alternative rename. I think that the "Pro-Palestinian activists" are indeed a more specific subgroup that are definitely nested within Anti-racist activists. Perhaps splitting or nesting/reorganizing to acknowledge that there are also activists for Palestinian civil rights etc. idk 🤷 It's really complicated.Mason (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smasongarrison, it is quite complicated, you're right. I'm not too sure about myself but, IMO and as you have said yourself, "Pro-Palestinian" is less vague and more definable than "Activists for Palestinian solidarity". Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair point. (To be clear, I'm not opposed to the rename if that's were consensus goes. ) I've started cleaning up the ethnic/religious intersections with the group in the hope that I'll have some inspiration. Mason (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smasongarrison, I only just noticed this and wanted to say thank you! Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge: a removal of articles about people who weren't activists is a no-brainer. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Painters of the Holy Land pre-1948

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I'm not really sure what to do with this category name, because it isn't particularly helpful/descriptive. Is this painters from after 1948 who painted the "holy land" or is it painters of what the "holy land" looked like after 1948. Mason (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early modern period

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename. First, a capital M is not needed, per Early modern period, Category:Early modern period and Category:Early modern period by country. Next to that, we may harmonize the categories further to either "Early modern country" or "Early modern history of country". I will add targets to the nomination when the latter becomes a bit more clear in the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, by the way! This must have been quite an effort to set up and work out. NLeeuw (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting how little consistency there is in the parent articles' titles: Early modern Britain; France in the early modern period; Germany in the early modern period; History of early modern Italy; History of Poland in the early modern period (1569–1795); Scotland in the early modern period; Early modern history of Serbia; Early Modern history of Spain (a redirect); Early modern Switzerland; Early modern history of Ukraine (another redirect) – and Pomerania during the Early Modern Age, Early Modern Romania and Early modern period in Wales for good measure. Do we need to look at these first? Ham II (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to Early modern history of Fooland, lowercase "m" (following several recent precedents), and "history of" to prevent any anachronisms about countries that didn't yet exist, or didn't yet have their modern names (at least not in contemporary sources, or historiographical convention / common parlance), e.g. the Netherlands (most but not all was the Dutch Republic), the United Kingdom (most but not all was the Kingdom of Great Britain), Ukraine (most but not all was the Cossack Hetmanate or Hetmanshchyna), Germany (HRE, you know the drill), Belarus, India, etc. NLeeuw (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and Nleeuw. Excellent points! Mason (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and Nleeuw. I concur with Mason. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, but merge the United Kingdom category into Category:Early modern history of Britain, which serves any purpose the UK one would have and is less anachronistic. Ham II (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough to merge, but then Irish redirect should presumably be purged? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Involving countries

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with Category:Wars involving former countries and similarly-named categories of non-state actors (e.g. Category:Battles involving peoples, Category:Wars involving peoples; supranational organisations like Category:Peacekeeping missions and operations involving the United Nations; rebel groups like Category:Military operations involving the al-Nusra Front; alliances like Category:Wars involving NATO and Category:Military operations involving the Warsaw Pact, etc.), and to avoid confusion with "countries formerly involved in war X". Follow-up to preliminary discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 22#Involving former countries or by former country involved, where it was found best to let go of the "by country involved" formula as the de facto standard. NLeeuw (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: courtesy ping for follow-up discussion. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 24

Category:Intersex plurisexual people

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: These categories are too small, merging would make them bigger together. --MikutoH talk! 23:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intersex gay people

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Merge both to intersex gay people as separately they are too small, also based on Category:Non-binary gay people (though it should be noticed that Category:Gay people is a soft redirect). See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Intersex lesbians and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Intersex transgender people. --MikutoH talk! 23:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, we do not have a category tree for gay people. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Marcocappelle. If the intersections are too small, they should be deleted, but the proposed name doesn't fit in the category tree.--Trystan (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Marcocapelle. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works set in abandoned buildings and structures

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename, this is follow-up after this earlier discussion, it is a first trial nomination. The word "setting" is only or mainly used in the context of fiction. With non-fiction we use "works about" rather than "works set in". The proposal is to rename the subcategories and purge any non-fiction that is still in them. I don't think there is any non-fiction in the currently nominated subcategory though. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03, Zxcvbnm, RevelationDirect, and Jc37: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment/Question I agree "set" implies fiction. One possible alternative to changing the (potential) scope might be to change the wording. Looking at Category:Television shows by location, which includes tons of allegedly non-fiction reality shows, would Category:Works located in abandoned buildings and structures work as an alternative? (This is a sincere question, I'm open to either approach so long as we follow this trial nomination with renaming the rest.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. @Marcocapelle That prior discussion was based on flawed reasoning. The assumption that setting is not related to non-fiction writing is categorically false. As any English teacher would tell you, literary non-fiction also includes setting as a defining feature (see https://study.com/academy/lesson/literary-nonfiction-essays-diaries-letters-more.html where setting is listed as the third defining element of literary non-fiction). It’s ill advised to move an entire category tree structure that is working, and the tree does include some non-fiction works mixed in with the fiction where appropriate. There are literary non-fiction works that are encyclopedic and as setting is a defining element of those works, they should be categorized by setting. The current structure works well for both fiction and non-fiction literature and I see no reason to start differentiating in this way.4meter4 (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This isn't a strong oppose, because I think I see the reasoning, but opposing because a non-fiction work (or a fiction one, for that matter) can be set in a location, and not be about the location. - jc37 19:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 23

Category:Ipswich town preachers

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category that is effectively is the same. Mason (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Propose capitalisation: move Category:Ipswich town preachers to Category:Ipswich Town Preachers. When this category entered the jigsaw world of signs, known as wikipedia, it was unclear whether the category should use uppercase letters to initialise not merely Ipswich, but also "Town Preacher". The Oxford Academic use lower case, but local historian John Blatchly goes for uppercase. I think the advantage of this that it is clear that this refers to people who held a formal role, rather than a simply being a wikipedia category that lists Clergy from Ipswich. Often Ipswich Corporation appointed people from elsewhere. Bearing in mind the significance of some of those who occupied this role such as Samuel Ward (minister) or Cave Beck, it would seem appropriate to have such a category. I feel that capitalisation will indicate the category is more formal/historical. Leutha (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I've reverted your unexplained removal of this category from the proposed merge target. How is this category not Clergy from Ipswich? And why is the current category parented by 17th-century clergy. Mason (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen from the discussion above, the category is quite formal. Many people filing this role were not from Ipswich: Samuel Ward (minister) was from Haverhill, Matthew Lawrence (preacher) was from North Lincolnshire, Cave Beck was from London. The references for the Town Preachers are largely consistent from 1604, G. R.Clarke gives a list of 7 before 1604 in his 1830 The history and description of the town and borough of Ipswich : 343 . However only one appears in Blatchly's list in his book on The Town Library of Ipswich (1989): 177 . Any suggestions as regards how to handle the earlier individuals such as Roger Kelke, the Marian exile who returned to become Ipswich Town Preacher from 1560 until 1575, according to Blatchly? ibid : 4 . Leutha (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok... so it sounds like this information would be better served as a list. Categories are supposed to be there to help people navigate between pages. I would *strongly* encourage you to look at how other categories handle clergy from a region.
It seems like you are under the impression that People from a city is only for people who were born from the city. That's too narrow of a definition, as Bishops of CITY/ diocese are placed within the clergy from CITY/REGION etc category. And, so if I am understanding your very long comment, you're added the parent because there's only one example of of a precher from before the 17th century, but you don't speak to what about after the 17th century. Mason (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Oxford University Press Delegate

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non defining. If not merged, it should be renamed to Oxford University Press "delegates" Mason (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unreal Engine 5 games

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Duplicative with Category:Unreal Engine games. No merge required, as all members of the nominated category are in the original already. Each version of Unreal Engine is not independently notable or distinct. -- ferret (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree because Category:Unreal Engine games is very large and spans more than two decades of video games. There isn't much use in knowing that a game was made with "just" Unreal Engine from the point of view of someone reading about the game compared to knowing that it was made in Unreal 5 which tells you a lot more about what you can expect from the game both in terms of graphics and gameplay (that is, within a given specific genre). Similarly, there isn't much use in knowing a game was made in "just" Unreal from the point of view of someone reading about Unreal itslef as nobody develops games in "Unreal Engine." Consider also that the Video Game infobox Engine field usually has the Unreal Engine version listed, not just "Unreal Engine", because just listing "Unreal Engine" is not so useful. Each version of Unreal is a separate piece of software. Also, not all members of the nominated category are in the original already (at least at the time that I added some of them).
As a separate but related point, I feel that all versions of Unreal Engine should be separate articles on Wikipedia. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I propose instead of deleting the category, it should be a sub-category under Category:Unreal Engine games. In fact, I think the all the pages under this category also should be sorted by Unreal Engine type, i.e. UE1, UE2, UE3 and UE4. This rationale is made since the list of games for each Unreal Engine version is deleted, and there should be categories that list by version to clean up Category:Unreal Engine games. Otherwise the alternative is to simply delete Category:Unreal Engine games. ~ Limyx826 (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criteria for categories are stricter than for lists so if lists per version were deleted, categories per version should certainly be deleted as well. Then Category:Unreal Engine games suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female drug traffickers

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between gender, criminal, and specific kind of crime committed. I don't think that this holds up under WP:EGRS. Mason (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, how is this any less defining than other subcategories of Category:Female criminals? AHI-3000 (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: What do you think of this? AHI-3000 (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, it is hardly ever a defining intersection. That is why we have WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this any less defining than other subcategories for female criminals? AHI-3000 (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Feel free to nominate the sibling categories too. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not at all what I'm implying. AHI-3000 (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Question: Can any of the opposers (@AHI-3000@Dimadick) make the case that this specific intersection with gender and type of crime is actually defining per EGRS? No one is saying that crime and gender isn't defining, but I struggle to see how this specific crime type is defining. Mason (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 20

Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Technically all G13 eligible AfC submissions are candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions. I see little reason to isolate this category since the latter category will give a larger list for users to find a draft and update so it does not meet G13. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A merge closure was overturned per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 4.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 16:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose These are two categories for two very specific and different use cases. The Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions tracks not only drafts that are 6 months of inactivity, but also 5 months of inactivity. This category is specifically for AfC reviewers and other editors to rescue these drafts, if the topic is notable or has turned notable, before the drafts hit the guillotine block at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions, which is an outright CSD category that is meant for draft of 6 months of inactivity and above. In my experience, the Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions category has been used by well-meaning editors, and if there are dummy edits made nefariously, these editors should be surfaced at an appropriate forum. Merging the categories will not resolve the behavioural issue, they will just monitor the CSD category more rigorously to make the dummy edits before an admin can action on it. – robertsky (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is meant to contain drafts of more than 5 months old then the category name is obviously not clear enough. The category is currently empty, so is anyone actively using it? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a bit of a misnomer to say that because it is empty no one is "actively using it"; the category is automatically populated based on the age of the draft; if there are no drafts that are old enough then it will be empty (hence the {{empty category}} tag). Given that we have (literally) hundreds of drafts submitted every day, and only a fraction of those are ever worked on past their initial decline, I would say that someone is keeping an eye on it to make sure that drafts worth keeping are saved, and drafts worth nuking are then G13'd. Primefac (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category is probably never populated. Note that quarry:query/25817 yields 115 drafts as of now, while this is supposed to replicate the category content. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That quarry was last run in 2018... Primefac (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It also, as of about thirty seconds ago, has three pages in it. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Just so I don't have to keep updating this page, it has 0 pages as of the time of last refresh. Primefac (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertsky: I believe you are thinking of Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions (5-6 months), which is a different category from this one (6+ months). See Template:AfC submission/draft (lines 22-23) or the description on each category's page. SilverLocust 💬 07:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverLocust thanks for clarification. I was/am still recovering from effects of a flu, after having travelled for half the month for various conferences. In this case, I would question if there is indeed a need to have two separate categories for the same purpose. – robertsky (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robertsky, the intention is to have a category for pages that are eligible for G13, and a category for pages that have been nominated for deletion under G13. I've asked Liz and Explicit to comment since they've been deleting G13 pages straight out of this category, which might give a better indication of how best we could utilise it if it's kept. Primefac (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I have notified Liz and Explicit about this discussion, since they seem to be patrolling it and directly deleting pages from it. Primefac (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed. While automatic (i.e. bot) tagging of eligible drafts has been approved in the past, populating this category instead of directly feeding a page into the G13 cat itself means that there is one more set of checks that users can do before a page is formally nominated for deletion. Primefac (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 17

Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: no accurate reliable sources to verify such a classification, even the category descroption says "This category is not necessarily indicative of total loss of population, traditions, language or culture - each specific case may have particular individual contexts" that its unable to be clearerly define or even confirm that the launguage, culture, people, knowledge, country is actually extinct Wikipedia should not be categorising as such. Gnangarra 13:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnangarra The category description can be changed. If articles can use past tense words like "were" and "was" in reference to a tribe, I'm not seeing why the word "extinct" is out of question. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is the issue of using the "tribes" to decsribe Indigenous Countries, Cultures and People in Australia is inaccurate at best racist at worst. The term itself implies a lot of colonial misinformation and a distinct lack of understanding of Indigenous Cutlures in Australia. The use of past tense in words like were or was is also not an indicator of the Indigenous Countries, cultures, languages or peoples continuation. Very specifically by calling a Country extinct that frees the restriction of cultural protocols applying when working on with Indugenous Cultural materials. All countries are still in existance and are represented through Land Councils who manage everything from protocols on entering a country, to land rights. My reasoning is not playing words games its saying that the assumption of being extinct is a misnomer, even in languages and cultures where a recent Language conference in Queensland a professor was luaghed off stage when he stated that a language was extinct yet multiple people stood up and spoke the language. Without rocksolid gold plate sources published within the last 4 years the label of extinct is a false narrative derived from the recent history wars, and anti landrights campaigners. The other issue we have is the Australian Bureau of Statistics problematic collection of reliable data as it records just one language spoken not all In the context of the Census, 'Indigenous' or 'First Nations' results are defined by respondents who have answered that they are of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander background. There are over 230 Australian Indigenous Languages that the Census records which is less than the actual number of Indigenous languages.[3]. Gnangarra 09:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the use of "tribe" isn't my decision. It is used for many articles about Aboriginal Australian groups, so that seems to perhaps be a wider issue worth fixing. What is the continuation of a group like the Toogee? What is the relevant land council? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tribe is not used in Australia, the poor use of terms in Wikipedia articles is one of the many barriers people working with Indigenous cultures struggle to address as shows Wikipedia in a bad light and not respectful of the culture. Basically ticks all the racists, Inforwar, challenge faced out on the street its up to us to lift our standards. Gnangarra 12:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it is questionable if ethnic groups become extinct at all. A language may become extinct for sure, but ethnic groups mostly dissolve in other ethnic groups. - But this comment applies to the whole tree of Category:Extinct ethnic groups. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle Aren't we talking about cultural extinction? Are you defining extinction as the literal death of all group members without any descendants? That seems like an unorthodox interpretation. The Susquehannock people are extinct as a tribe, despite having some descendants in the Seneca-Cayuga Nation. I don't see any contradiction here. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Frustratingly, the term "extinct" seems to be used somewhat inconsistently for both cultural extinction and the death of all group members (at least, from a google search). Is there a better term we could use to distinguish the two? Category:Extinct ethnic groups is currently a subcategory under Category:Human extinction which implies the latter, so perhaps it should be renamed and/or categorized differently if most of the members are groups that are only culturally extinct. Psychastes (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seneca-Cayuga Nation is not an Indigenous Country in Australia, you are making comparisons that are not like for like. Gnangarra 09:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And? I'm addressing Marcocapelle's statement about the broader category tree. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If not an outright deletion then certainly a renaming to be more clear would seem to be a good idea.★Trekker (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What would you propose and why? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Genocide happens. Wishful thinking doesn't change that. "Extinct" is a harsh and ugly word to apply to people; it's natural to recoil in disgust at the idea. It may be very appealing to think that a group "didn't really go extinct" because some of their descendants blended into other groups. But if the group no longer exists as a distinct people with a distinct culture and language, the group really is extinct. Perhaps something like Category:Former Indigenous peoples would be less noxious to the moral sense of the reader. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Genocide happens — In particular Genocide of Indigenous Australians. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mitch Ames That leads to two questions. Is there even one example in all of Australian history of an entire group being murdered without any known descendants? Are there any examples of groups who, through genocidal violence and assimilation, ceased to exist as distinct cultural groups? In both cases, there would have to be terminology to describe a group that once was and now is no longer. If not "extinct", there would still have to be some other description. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, we need to be careful not to conflate "genocide" and "extinction". Genocide does not require killing all of the people - it is defined as "intentional destruction ... in whole or in part". Extinction requires that they all die, but doesn't require intent. There may be an overlap, but they are not the same thing, and neither implies the other. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    agree genocide doesnt equate to extinction. @Bohemian Baltimore perhaps you should start with List of massacres of Indigenous Australians to understand the extent of Geonicidal acts in Australia. Gnangarra 12:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gnangarra Since my meaning apparently wasn't clear; there are genocidal acts of violence which lead to the literal or cultural destruction of peoples. What terminology would you use to refer to groups that have been physically annihilated in entirety through genocidal violence, disease, etc? What terminology would you use to refer to historical groups that may have living descendants but that are no longer culturally distinct due to genocidal violence, etc? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the issue the assumptions here are made based on the use of past tense language in the article, none of them have any reliable sources to support being included in this category. Given that the category itself should be deleted. Gnangarra 13:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gnangarra There are a small number of articles. I do not have a strong opinion on the category, whether it should be renamed or deleted. But I reiterate my question; are there any historical Indigenous Australian groups that can be said to have once existed but that no longer do? What terminology should be used to refer to those historical groups? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont have any reliable sources to answer that question, all I know is the articles in this category dont have reliable sources to even be included in the category. The whole purpose of raising it here is exatcly the category itself not some wider theoretical discussion on meanings or what ifs. I gather I can remove them all from this category for lack of sourcing that clearly supports the claim. Gnangarra 12:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gnangarra How would you feel about a category such as Category:Historical Indigenous peoples in Australia, Category:Historical Indigenous peoples, etc. or would that involve the same quandaries? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    to quotes The articles are fine in Category:Aboriginal peoples of Queensland anyway. Marcocapelle Gnangarra 05:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mitch Ames I'm not conflating genocide and extinction; I myself belong to a group whose history includes the former but not the latter. But I would question why the word extinction has to automatically mean everybody dies. I don't think a term like "cultural extinction" implies that. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    why the word extinction has to automatically mean everybody dies — Because when we are talking about people, that's what the word means "Extinction is the termination ... by the death of its last member." Admittedly if we are talking about culture we could say that the group is extinct if nobody belongs to it. (If we all gave up editing and WMF deleted Wikipedia, Wikipedians could be said to be "extinct", but most us would still be alive.)
    My main point here is that we should probably not use the word "genocide" in this discussion, because it is neither necessary nor sufficient for "extinction", and is unnecessarily emotive. Yes genocide happened, but that does not determine whether a particular people is extinct or not. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mitch Ames Okay. So what terminology should we use for "cultural extinction"? What terminology should we use to refer to historical groups that no longer exist as distinct cultures? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term "cultural extinction" is not helpful at all. Even if there is no tangible remainders of a culture you never know how much of customs and oral literature have been exchanged with and integrated in other cultures. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but that doesn't mean that the group still exists. So what terminology would you use for a group that once existed and does not now? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: having now been through every article not one defines the culture, people, or country as extinct, sadly Tindale works from 1974 is the primary source in every article and the most recent. The issue there their inclusion is based on whoever started the article using a generic type sentence like according to tindale they (some past tense word) from this area in Queensland. Ironically the only article with recent sourcing is about the current issue of domestic violance in Australia which makes no sense as its in this category. Gnangarra 12:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably you could solve the problem by changing "The Xxxx were ..." to "The Xxxx are ..." (other verb tense changes as appropriate), and providing a reliable source to support the statement of their continued existence. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I could change the wording, but as all the articles are basically say Tindale described these countries on his map as being xxxx, their inclusion in the category isnt based on reliable sources or hints of a reference to Extinct. I suggest the category becomes extinct. Gnangarra 14:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Possible alternatives to "extinct", for the purposes of renaming the category (tree):
    * Historical: we already have Category:Historical ethnic groups of Australia - which possibly should be merged (one way or the other) with Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia. Note that Category:Extinct ethnic groups is a subcat of Category:Historical ethnic groups, so probably Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia (if it remains) should be a subcat of Category:Historical ethnic groups by continent
    * nonextant
    Mitch Ames (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 01:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - for the record I had created this category in response to seeing a universal category being created for Extinct Indigenous groups, including Australian people, it seemed at the time better to identify the Australian component of an apparent claim. Note that by creating the category, I did not necessarily agree with either the category title or its assumptions, which is why I placed in bold comments as to the very specific event/issue raised in articles. I am intrigued by the discussion to date, as it seems either concentrating upon category trees and related subjects, or the issues of how to name groups of people who have been affected by reduction or severe loss of population. As the process in this particular part of wikipedia is relative to categories, there is a problem as to whether the actual subject is best ventured as to the veracity of terminology. It could be for everyones advantage to delete the original parent category, and find somewhere other than this CFD to explore the issues that are raised here. A collaborative approach to the wider wikipedian understanding of how to 'frame' the larger world wide issue of how and when ethnic groups have decimation of population is something well beyond the bounds of this cfd, and to simply arrive at a decision here on one small perspective does the larger project some significant disservice. Definitely not a 'free for all' RFC or similar, it needs a very specific guideline and process that works through the issues raised here, for the larger project. But then this is wikipedia, anything could happen. JarrahTree 02:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 15

Category:People of West Asian descent

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category tree is not needed. Western Asia is often conflated with the Middle East. Western Asia includes the South Caucasus but does not include Egypt (outside the Sinai Peninsula) and Turkish Thrace (geographically in Southeast Europe). Now "West Asian descent" categories merely serve as containers for "Middle East descent" and "Caucasus descent." However, these classifications are not entirely accurate. The term "People of Middle East descent" includes individuals from the African part of Egypt and Turkish Thrace in Europe, while "People of Caucasus descent" encompasses individuals from the North Caucasus in Europe. Aldij (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Asian parent categories. I agree that West Asia and Middle East are largely overlapping and we do not need both. However, it does not make sense to remove the content from the Asian tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, merge to Asian parent categories is better. Aldij (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Merging to Asian parent categories is my second choice per Marco. NLeeuw (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First, Category:Canadian people of West Asian descent has been emptied. Secondly, if we have categories for South Asia and Southeast Asia, wouldn't it make more sense to keep West Asia and dump the "Middle East" categories instead? They both are a little imprecise but what would make more sense fitting in with the existing geographic categorization? Liz Read! Talk! 19:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it would be better to merge the category trees of South Asia and Southeast Asia into Asia as well. I will nominate them separately now. Regarding the decision to discard the "Middle East" categories, I'm not certain there is consensus for this, nor am I sure whether I will personally support it. However, perhaps they need to be deleted as well. Aldij (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aldij, I would oppose deletion of "South Asia" categories since that is the region's name. "West Asia" is covered by the "Middle East". Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of locations that could be considered to be in West Asia that are no where near the Middle East, that are on the Europe-Asia border. Liz Read! Talk! 20:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)C[reply]
@Liz in principle, I am not opposed to your suggestion of merging the categories of Middle Eastern people into the categories for West Asian people. However, this clearly requires a separate discussion, as the category:Middle Eastern people contains many different subcategories. I fear that the term "Middle East" is more commonly used than "West Asia." In any case, the main point of my proposal, and the most important one, is the unification of the two trees. The specific name chosen is not so important.
P.S. I have only nominated Category:People of West Asian descent so far. Once consensus is reached, I will nominate either the Category:Middle Eastern people tree or the Category:West Asian people tree, depending on the result of this discussion. Aldij (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 13

Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category. Let'srun (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; standard cat scheme. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Saying something is standard, so we should keep it, is not a compelling reason. Having only one category is not helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Parallelism matters and should be considered a central pillar of Wikipedia. If this cat merged as nominated, then 1943 Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football team is lost from the tree at Category:College football seasons by team. User:Let'srun's notations here are becoming tiresome and obstructive. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic bishops in Macau

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, per article List of bishops of Macau, Catholic bishops are primarily bishop of a diocese. This is follow-up on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_16#Category:16th-century_Roman_Catholic_bishops_in_Portuguese_Macau. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Although I'm on the fence about merging to Category:FOO-century Macau people, because not everyone is from Macau. Mason (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category tree is now a big mess.  · There were Catholic bishops who were appointed bishops or titular bishops elsewhere but stationed in Macau, some of them as coadjutor/auxiliary bishops or administrators or governors of this diocese. These bishops were not bearers of the title Bishop of Macau although they were bishops who worked in Macau. Further the diocese covered a much much larger area in the Far East. It's only since the 1950s (or the 1980s if the two parishes in Malacca Malaysia and Singapore are taken into consideration) the Diocese of Macau is coterminous with the present-day territorial extent of Macau. From its founding in the 16th century hundreds of dioceses have been carved out from this diocese. The first proposal regarding Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Macau is therefore opposed.  · Likewise the second and the third proposals for the 19th and 20th century categories are opposed for the reasons as stated above, and that this is also a vote for the restoration of the 16th to 18th century categories. If the 19th and the 20th century categories (and the 16th to 18th century categories as well) were to be merged the target should be Portugal since the territory was over the period a Portuguese province (save for the last twelve days of the 20th century).  · For the fourth proposal on the 21st century category, bear in mind that the bishop does not participate in any conference of bishops or anything similar of the Chinese catholic church, and that the present bishop is not a native of Macau – There is no point to proceed as proposed.  · Overall this is a keep vote (and a vote to clear the mess under the preexisting structure prior to CfD 16 April). 58.152.55.172 (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: To the closer, this IP is WP:HKGW and has been the one making a mess of this and other similar categories. Mason (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user labelled me as such with no explanation and I simply don't understand why she gave me such a label. It appears she just labels when she's running out of supporting arguments. I took no part in making this mess. The categories nominated in this CfD or the 16 April one were created by other editors, and I'd done nothing to change them. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • By all means purge bishops who were appointed bishops or titular bishops elsewhere, but stationed in Macau. If the tree is a mess we simply should have a clean-up. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of a larger categorisation scheme. Moving articles from categories of dependencies to those of the sovereign powers is not uncontested. 42.200.80.48 (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional animals by taxon

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No reason has been given why this unnecessarily WP:NARROWCAT has been created. It only contains two taxons which is not enough to justify an entire separate category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Fictional animals by taxon, but merge Category:Fictional invertebrates and Category:Fictional vertebrates into Category:Fictional animals by taxon. AHI-3000 (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately doing that is just shuffling around deck chairs and makes no real difference. But I think the more longstanding categories (since 2006) should take precedence over your new 2024 category, not things be merged just because you want your category to be prominent. You have just stated an opinion but not provided a reason to back why taxon is better than the vertebrate/invertebrate split. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: My suggestion is to leave "Fictional animals by taxon" with 8 subcategories instead of 2, if your only argument is that it's too small right now. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the nominated and the alt proposal could be an improvement, but I prefer the alternative, in order to keep taxa together as a recognizable attrribute. I have tagged the two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: So do you support my suggestion? AHI-3000 (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as originally nominated. The alt proposal is no good because it would leave the articles directly in Category:Fictional invertebrates orphaned and I see no reason true taxonomic category need to be categorized separately from folk taxonomic ones. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 4

Category:Fictional West Asian people

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 29#Category:Fictional Western European people (all Upmerged) per WP:NONDEFINING and WP:ARBITRARYCAT. NLeeuw (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, European regions do not have natural geographic boundaries and in history the European countries have interacted with each other heavily irrespective of any region definitions. I am not sure if the same applies to Asia. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all except West Asia. Most people agree on the definitions of the subregions of Asia, except for West Asia and the classification of Afghanistan. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do a simple reading, shall we?
South Asia#Definition: The geographical extent is not clear cut as systemic and foreign policy orientations of its constituents are quite asymmetrical. Beyond the core territories of the Indian Empire (territories of the British Empire which were under the system of British Raj), there is a high degree of variation as to which other countries are included in South Asia.
Central Asia#Definition: The borders of Central Asia are subject to multiple definitions.
East Asia#Definitions: (complicated, read for yourselves)
Southeast Asia#Definition: Although from a cultural or linguistic perspective the definitions of "Southeast Asia" may vary, the most common definitions nowadays include the area represented by the countries (sovereign states and dependent territories) listed below. (WP:UNSOURCED, typical case of WP:OR)
West Asia#Definition The term West Asia is used pragmatically and has no "correct" or generally accepted definition.
It's quite evident that there are no universally accepted definitions of these subregions. Same as with Europe. East Asia seems closest to having a commonly accepted definition, but even there we see lots of variation in official usage by governments and international organisations like the UN. Geography doesn't really provide natural boundaries, at least very few that seem to follow present-day national borders. (E.g. the Himalayas do represent the northern boundary of "South Asia", but UNESCO includes Tibet and Uyghur in "Central Asia", which most definitions include into "East Asia", so that doesn't help very much.) As LP indicates, Afghanistan could be included in Central, South and even West Asia (for biological, geological or cultural-linguistic reasons); Pakistan is also sometimes included in "Middle East / West Asia and North Africa". Myanmar could be both South and Southeast Asia. And so on. NLeeuw (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • LaundryPizza03's made a comment about West Asia. It does make sense to merge West Asia and keep Asia as a parent of Middle East because West Asia and Middle East are almost coterminous. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm even more opposed to "Fictional Middle Eastern people", actually. It's one of the most arbitrary eurocentric neologisms of the 20th century, rarely has a positive connotation, and comes with numerous generalisations. I've been gently steering towards commonly accepted continental categorisations where that seems appropriate instead of these arbitrary regions and subregions that everyone seems to have a home-made arbitrary definition for. NLeeuw (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge West Asia. For the rest I have no opinion. --Aldij (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natural history

[edit]

  • Propose deleting:
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: delete, Natural history used to be what we call Natural sciences today, the umbrella term of biology, physics, chemistry etc. The current meaning of natural history is very fuzzy. The content of these categories largely overlaps with Category:Environment of Bangladesh, Category:Environment of Barbados etc. This is a follow-up nomination after Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_11#Natural_history. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. These are WP:ARBITRARYCATs which do not aid navigation. NLeeuw (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a confused nomination citing another confused discussion as precedent. There is certainly a reasonable intersection between the natural sciences, such as the biology, botany, zoölogy, paleontology, geology, etc. of a place, and the place that they represent. The nominator here and in the previous discussion linked above notes that the term "natural history" is somewhat synonymous with "natural sciences", which would be a valid reason to move these categories or change the titles to "natural history of foo", but not to delete them unless they simply duplicated "natural sciences of foo" or "environment of foo", or a similarly-named set of categories.
But in many instances there are no such categories; I came here from WikiProject West Virginia, and there does not seem to be a similar category combining the included articles or subcategories. The overlap mentioned by the nominator does not exist in this instance, and probably does not in many others. It makes no sense to use the supposed overlap with categories that do not exist as a justification for deleting others that do. The second comment above, supporting deletion, is for a completely different reason: the supposition that there is no valid intersection between the natural sciences of an area, region, or country.
The nominator seems to suppose that there is value in collecting these articles and subcategories, but that these are redundant and mistitled; the other person does not think there is any point in collecting them in the first place. This is the same pair of contradictory reasons provided by the same two editors in the above-linked discussion being cited as precedent. I also submit that said discussion involved only these two and one other editor, and so does not set a very strong precedent for deciding the fate of hundreds of existing categories. P Aculeius (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Natural history of West Virginia consists like its siblings of biota, flora, fauna, forests which are or belong in environment. There are also geology and paleontology subcategories which are very unrelated. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are related in the sense that "environment" is related to both geology and paleontology, and readers might be served by finding a category or container category for these items together, grouped by state, region, or country. Just as a category for "natural sciences" groups these topics (or parent categories containing them), someone studying a particular place wold benefit from being able to find a grouping of biology, geology, paleontology, etc. relating to that place.
    It also makes sense to group the natural sciences away from cultural topics, such as history, politics, education, etc., rather than just having one overarching category for the place containing all of the subcategories or topics relating to it. For example, it makes sense to have "Fauna of West Virginia", "Geology of West Virginia", "Cheat Canyon", and "Mingo Oak" grouped together with each other, but not with "List of governors of West Virginia", "Taxation in West Virginia" and "Tennessee Gas Pipeline".
    As far as the title is concerned, alternative formulations—"environment of", for example—can be a bit vague; is a list of species part of "environment", or the geography of the Appalachians? Is paleontology a topic within "environment"? It seems to me that "natural history" is the broadest formulation, as "natural sciences" might be understood to have a more limited scope; a salamander or a canyon might not sound like it fits in the latter category—although I suppose someone unfamiliar with the term "natural history" might regard it similarly. Either way, deleting the category seems unhelpful to readers. P Aculeius (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per P Aculeius, whose arguments have completely convinced me that these categories are both useful and not redundant. Whether "natural history" or "natural science" is the better title I'm unsure of, but whichever is deletion is not the answer. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't any grouping in science that treats biology (flora and fauna), geology and paleontology as a coherent group. Neither "natural history" nor "natural sciences" are commonly used for such combinations. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet, it seems that all of these are included under the headings of "natural history" and "natural sciences". So are those groupings invalid, or just not the categories that come first to mind when thinking of individual sciences? P Aculeius (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are included under the headings of "natural history" here in Wikipedia categories. But that does not mean anything. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If "natural history" and/or "natural sciences" are valid categories of science, as they seem to be, then it makes sense to group the subjects of these headings by location. Anyone researching places, such as West Virginia, California, Poland, Saudi Arabia, etc. would presumably benefit from finding categories containing sciences related to those specific places, as opposed to history, politics, economics, etc. It may be possible to subdivide "natural history" or "natural sciences" into narrower groups of topics—but that doesn't mean that the overarching categories are of no value to readers. P Aculeius (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all country and continent categories as an unnecessary duplication of existing categories. We should probably keep Category:Natural history and Category:Natural history museums by country‎. But if not deleted, due to lack of consensus, then restore those deleted in the previous nomination. – Fayenatic London 13:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 30

Category:First Nations drawing artists

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There is no "drawing artists" category. Mason (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would these categories be acceptable if there was a larger "drawing artists" category? We already have Category:Cartoonists, Category:Draughtsmen, and Category:Illustrators, plus artists in Category:Ballpoint pen art, and we don't yet have a category for artists who use charcoal, so there would be plenty to fill a larger umbrella category. ForsythiaJo (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't think that drawing artist is a defining category. Mason (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is Ledger art but I am not sure if the articles would fit that. In fact most articles just say "artist", so the merge seems reasonable. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. There are not good terms for fine artists who prominently draw (pen and ink, pencil, pastels, etc.). Illustrators, draftsmen, and graphic artists are sometimes used, but the phenomenon of Native American, First Nations, and especially Inuit artists who predominantly draw is well established. Yuchitown (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point to literature on the this predominance? And do you have a suggestion for better name for the occupation? Mason (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Firstly, we should never localize by using just "First Nations", a term large numbers of our readers won't be familiar with. Secondly, whilst I recognise issues mentioned above, I don't think we want a new overall category for "drawing artists" or even "graphic artists". In most traditions, few artists worked exclusively in drawing. "Artists" is enough. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, First Nations people are absolutely categorized. See Category:First Nations people and its numerous subcats. Yes, numerous fine artists do specialize in drawing (pen and ink, graphite, pastels, etc.). Seems like some familiarity with the subject at hand should be valued in these conversations. Not everyone understands Category:Axiomatic quantum field theory but we don't upmerge it. Yuchitown (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
    They may be, but they shouldn't be! "of Canada" needs to be added for our many (cough) NON-CANADIAN readers. Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The term "First Nations" is widely known throughout the U.S. and the difference between Native Americans (used for the Indigenous peoples of the US) and First Nations (used for Indigenous peoples of Canada) is quite clear. The term "First Nations", also is used in Australia, another English-speaking country, although other terms are used there as well. It may not be as commonly used in the UK, but I don't think that should rule out its use as a category. Netherzone (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And are Australian artists going to be added here? Or American ones? You say the term is "clear", but I repeat it is not globally well-known. What do you think our vast numbers of Indian readers will make of it? Or doesn't that matter? If a term is essentially only known in North America, and Australia where it means entirely different people, it should NOT be used in a category name. Johnbod (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since we're supposed to continue discussion after the relisting, I'm responding here to Mason request. Like I said in my "oppose", there isn't a good term for artists who specialize in drawing. Draftsman has gender issues. Graphic artist is widely used, especially in regard to Inuit artists (examples at Inuit Art), but is confused with graphic design. Illustrator suggests an image to support text as opposed to a free-standing work of art. Sometimes the Inuit artists who primarily draw and whose work is made into prints are lumped in with printmakers but are not the same person making the print. Inuit drawings are a well-established subject of literature. Drawing artist is an easily understood compromise. Yuchitown (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • Oppose merge - I find the term "Drawing artist" awkward, I've always used the gender neutral "Draftsperson", but some may think of that awkward as well. Nevertheless, it's an important category to retain because there are artists who work primarily in drawing media. As Yuchitown explains above, Graphic artist often gets confused with Graphic design; it is also confused with etching which a printmaking process. Any thoughts on Draftsperson? Netherzone (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm totally find with replacing "drawing artists" in the category names with "draftspeople." Yuchitown (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
    I noticed that "Draftspeople" is used in this article: List of Indigenous artists of the Americas Netherzone (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I say above, I don't see any need to go beyond plain "artist", especially as some carved etc, but if we must "graphic artist" is best - "draftspeople" will puzzle many readers. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned before, graphic artist gets confused with graphic designer. If we are going for understandable "drawing artist" is pretty clear. But the proposal to delete/merge was made 26 days ago, and yours was the only vote to "delete/merge." Yuchitown (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
    Apart from the nom. And there are only 2 opposes. But your rationale makes very little sense. In fact you give no reasons for not deleting/merging, but go straight into renaming arguments.
    Johnbod, do you prefer "draftsmen" to "draftspeople"? I'm not opposed to the gendered term since it is in widespread use, but I do think draftspeople is more appropriate and inclusive. I agree with Yuchitown that "graphic artists" gets confused with graphic designers and the more commercial sense of the term rather than the fine arts. The term graphic artists is also used for printmakers. I'm also not opposed to leaving it as "drawing artists" since there is no ambiguity as to the meaning. Netherzone (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm firm that we should have any such categories - if Rembrandt, Guercino etc can do without them, I don't think we should start a whole new type of category for these guys. I repeat, "artists" is fine. "Drawing artists" is a made-up term we shouldn't use. Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The equivalent categories for those artists do exist: Rembrandt is in Category:Dutch draughtsmen and Guercino could be added to Category:Italian draughtsmen. The Category:Draughtsmen category tree, with 10 subcategories by nationality, is the one for "drawing artists". "Draughtsmen" as a term has met with some disapproval – there have been attempts to rename it in 2020 and in 2024 – so renaming these categories to "First Nations draughtsmen", etc., would be presumably be a non-starter. I could accept "draftspeople" for these three categories if we do want to incorporate them into a category tree with other artists who draw (or who drew) – I'm not finding any usage of "drawing artist". Ham II (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Native American drawing artists has been around since 2011, and no one previously had a problem with it. Rembrandt, Guercino, etc. aren't Indigenous artists of the Americas so have a different art history with different access to supplies. Can this please close as no consensus? It's been a month. Yuchitown (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Category:Neo-Latin writers

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C: Per all child cats and per parent Category:Writers in Latin by period.
Copy of speedy discussion
The 5 speedy nominees were opposed by Jim Killock, see Copy of speedy discussion above. NLeeuw (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not follow the objection. If this is about style then the categories should be named Category:Writers in foo-style Latin and the larger part of the proposal follows that format. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Category:Writers of late antiquity in Latin" is extremely clunky; I have no opinion about the rest. Furius (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, for consistency this should become Category:Writers in late antique Latin Category:Writers in Late Latin. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So these are the style names: Old Latin; Classical Latin; Late Latin; Medieval Latin; Renaissance Latin; Neo-Latin.
      We have instead Category:Writers of late antiquity in Latin; Category:Renaissance writers in Latin; Category:Medieval writers in Latin. These remove or obscure the "styles" and make them in effect "period".
      The grammar objection is this. I write in Noun-Neo-Latin. I am a adjective-Neo-Latin noun-writer. I am not in Neo-Latin. Thus a writer is not "in" Neo-Latin. Thus writers cannot be "in" Neo-Latin. At least; it's not great English. I can imagine someone saying "A list of writers in English"; yet this isn't really correct, it should be a "A list of English writers", for the same reason (English here is an adjective, not a noun) (or "A list of writers writing in English", so that English can be used as a noun). see wiktionary:en:Latin#English regarding the noun and adjectival uses of Latin. Jim Killock (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Note that Category:Latin-language writers of late antiquity is a child of Category:Writers of late antiquity. "late antiquity" refers to the time they lived in, not (directly) what kind of Latin they wrote in. Alt renaming to something like Writers in late antique Latin would change the scope.
      I must say I find the category fairly dubious to begin with: it has only 6 articles (which could easily be diffused to "by century" categories), and the rest are just Xth-century writers in Latin‎ from the 3rd to the 8th, all of which are already children of Category:Writers in Latin by century. The added value of such arbitrary duplication eludes me. "Late antiquity" isn't a very commonly used term anyway; the conventional timeframes are "Antiquity" and "Middle Ages". If we can't agree on how to properly phrase the catname, maybe we should just delete or upmerge it instead.
      it should be a "A list of English writers" This is the kind of convention we have been phasing out for years, because adjectives such as "English" (or "Latin", for that matter) are ambiguous due to their multiple meanings (language, country, nationality, ethnicity, geography/location, "style" (e.g. English landscape garden, which you could surprisingly create anywhere on Earth outside England as well)), which almost inevitably leads to confusion and miscategorisation. "Latin-language writers of late antiquity" is hardly a prettier phrase than "writers in Latin", which at least makes clear that the writers wrote in Latin, and that they were not ethnically speaking one of the Latins, or from the Latin League, or from Latin America, or a songwriter of Latin music songs etc. etc. NLeeuw (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree the categorisation is not done correctly overall. They conflate period and style. The category names are mostly unambiguiously about style. The socially predominate categorisation of Latin is by style, so that is what people will expect.
      I also agree with the principle of removing ambiguous phrases, I just don't agree with naming things with incorrect grammar. Writers are not in a noun-Language. People do something in a language; books and poems are written in a language. A different formulation is needed for "writers" to use the adjectival form avoiding "in". Jim Killock (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What about Category:Books in Latin? Is that also grammatically incorrect? If not, why not?
      I see both catnames as merely an abbreviation of a longer phrase.
      Books in Latin = Books that were written in Latin
      Writers in Latin = Writers who wrote in Latin
      Makes sense to me. (Also per WP:CONCISE, or whatever the category equivalent of that is). NLeeuw (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "Books in Latin": it isn't incorrect, to my understanding, as a thing can be in a language. There may be an implied "is". Perhaps the omission of "is" feels natural in contractions ("the book is in Latin" vs "the writer is in Latin", doesn't work). Perhaps it is also because writers can change their language, so one can't say a writer is "in" a language. At some point one has to ask what "sounds" right; I feel it doesn't. Jim Killock (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is always possible to read things differently than intended. "Neo-Latin writers" could be read, hypothetically, as writers who are Neo-Latin themselves. Likewise, reading "writers in Neo-Latin" as if the writers are in something themselves is equally bizarre. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's talk together!) 22:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is that contractions normally omit a part of the verb "to be" rather than some other verb. However "Neo-Latin writers" is clearer because NL is an adjective not a noun, so the phrase does not need a verb. Jim Killock (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 29

Category:Muppet performers

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Performers by performance is textbook WP:PERFCAT. --woodensuperman 09:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These actors are on contract with either Jim Henson Company or Disney (Muppet), Sesame Workshop (Sesame Street), or Jim Henson Company (Fraggle Rock), to perform numerous roles. Such contracts are incredibly rare, and even the most finite involvement with any of them, the puppeteer remains known as having been part of the troupe, akin to a college alumni category.
For reference, they also each play endless characters, so it's not really by performance.
I'd propose Category:Muppet Studios performers, Category:Sesame Workshop performers, and Category:Jim Henson Company performers. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, especially the Muppet category. They're distinct performances/performers, categories and brands of puppeteering. Scanlan (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 27

Category:Volodimerovichi family

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Rurikids. "Volodimerovichi" is rarely used in comparison to "Rurikids", also does not follow the title of the main article. Mellk (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This category is fine as it is. It is part of larger tree of princely clans and branches of Kievan Rus'. During several renamings and recategorisations last year, it was agreed to be cautious with categorising anyone as a "Rurikid", as the historicity of Rurik (as well as Sineus and Truvor) is disputed as a possibly a founding myth (similar to Remus and Romulus etc.), and there is no concept of a "Rurikid dynasty" in historical sources until the 16th century. However, Volodimer' (Vladimir, Volodymyr, Uladzemir) is a well-known historical figure, and his family / descendants are commonly known as "Volodimerovichi" in English-language reliable sources. Just like, for example, Category:Sviatoslavichi family and Category:Olgovichi family. It is preferable if there is a main article with the same name for these families, but so far, there are only redirects to the founder of each princely branch, e.g. Olgovichi redirects to Oleg I of Chernigov, Sviatoslavichi to Sviatoslav II of Kiev, and Volodimerovichi to Vladimir the Great. It's also much better for navigation not to lump all these people into one big category, but by commonly recognised princely branches. NLeeuw (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW if the main article title is important, shouldn't this be WP:C2D to Category:Family life and children of Vladimir I? (I wouldn't be in favour of that, but that would make better sense according to the rationale). NLeeuw (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • As there is no article Volodimerovichi yet, it would be helpful to add a source in the header of the category page indicating that this is a common name among historians indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sounds like a good idea. NLeeuw (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no such branches at this stage, this comes later and we already have cats for those as they are widely accepted Rurikid branches. The term "Volodimerovichi" is used by a couple of historians instead of "Rurikids". Whether Rurik existed or not is irrelevant because the term "Rurikid" is widely used by later historians (similarly to the term "Kievan Rus" even though the state was not called as such then), hence this is POV to use an uncommon term that has not been widely accepted (yet). Mellk (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm now I'm beginning to doubt. Christian Raffensperger seems to use it for all members of princely clans of Kievan Rus' in general, as a replacement "Riurikovichi", rather than just Volodimer' and his descendants. One wonders about the predecessors of Volodimer' (Yaropolk, Sviatoslav, Igor, Oleg and the alleged Riurik), who could hardly retro-actively be called "Volodimerovichi". I'll think about it some more, I'll get back to this issue. NLeeuw (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have checked the literature more thoroughly, and I think it might have been a mistake to name this category in this way. Since the early 2010s, scholars including Raffensperger, Ostrowski, Halperin and others have been using "Volodimerovichi" as an alternative to "R(i)urikovichi" or "R(i)urikids" altogether, and not as a specific branch within the larger clan structure of Kievan Rus', like the later -ovichi families. Theoretically, "Volodimerovichi" could still be used that way (and sometimes it is), but this is not widespread in historiography yet.
    I do think it's useful to keep it as a separate category, but it's better to change the name according to our conventions. As both nom and I have suggested, it is useful to follow the main article title wherever possible. However, the current main article title is Family life and children of Vladimir I. The last part probably should be Vladimir the Great instead of Vladimir I, given the Vladimir the Great biography title. (I myself prefer Volodimer I of Kiev, which is common amongst modern scholars, but not (yet) the WP:COMMONNAME in all English-language literature). The first part is also unusual; there is no other enwiki article title with Family life and children of X. The common formula is Family of X. So per WP:TITLECON, it should be Family of Vladimir the Great.
    Therefore, I would like to propose the following:
    Defer decision in this CfR, and initiate Requested Move of Family life and children of Vladimir I to Family of Vladimir the Great.  Done. If the RM is approved, then
    Rename to Category:Family of Vladimir the Great. Does that seem like a good solution? NLeeuw (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case I would prefer merge as nominated. We could hypothetically create a "family of" for every grand prince but it would just overlap with Category:Rurikids. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Marcocapelle Family life and children of Vladimir I is the only "Family of" main article of a (grand) prince of Kiev. So I'm not worried about having to create a "family of" category for every grand prince as long as there is no "family of" main article for every grand prince. Moreover, it arguably merits a category on account of his many wives and children, and subsequent princely branches directly and exclusively descended from him. That is quite uncommon in Kievan Rus' history. NLeeuw (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have initiated the RM at Talk:Family life and children of Vladimir I#Requested move 10 April 2024. I'll ping the relevant users. NLeeuw (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So far everyone seems to be supporting the RM. We'll see what happens. NLeeuw (talk) 06:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The fact that the article exists, with this name, does not mean a category should also exist. I still think it is rather arbitrary to split off one particular "family" from Category:Rurikids. Ultimately Rurikids is the family. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian massacres

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge/redirect, it looks like the scope of the two categories coincides. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom Mason (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge given that main article is List of Indian massacres in North America. I don't think that title is very helpful though, as the scope is both of and by "Indians". But that should be discussed at its talk page, not here. NLeeuw (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there have been massacres in India... so the category name is ambiguous. This category name should be salted, so that India cannot use this category name either. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that "Indian" is ambiguous, so I'd rather stick to merge as nominated rather than reverse merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcocapelle (talk • contribs) 06:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

[edit]

Nominator's rationale The category should be renamed to match the main article, List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For sure "Native American tribes" is clearer than "tribes in the United States". However "unrecognized" is clearer than "self-identify" because tribes that are recognized also self-identify as such but that is obviously not in scope here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle They aren't tribes though. They are organizations. To incorrectly call them "tribes" implies that they are indeed tribes but are merely waiting to be recognized. That's a POV. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposed -
    Dear Wikipedia Editors,
    I am writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed amendment that seeks to rename the category “Unrecognized tribes in the United States” to “Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes.” This change not only misrepresents our tribe but also undermines the historical and cultural recognition we have long held.
    The Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe of Wampanoag Nation has a well-documented history in Plymouth, Bourne, Massachusetts dating back thousands of years. We still have care and custody of our sacred places, burial grounds and our 1838 Meetinghouse, one of 3 built for the Tribe after the arrival of the colonizers. Our continuous presence and stewardship of these lands are recognized by historical records,deeds and treaties and so on. Additionally, our status is acknowledged by the two MA federal tribes, the Commission on Indian Affairs, Plymouth, Bourne and the Commonwealth which affirms our legitimacy beyond mere self-identification.
    The proposed renaming of the category on Wikipedia is not only inaccurate of many but also insulting. It disregards the deep cultural and ancestral ties we have to our land—ties that are integral to our identity and existence. Labeling us as an organization that self-identifies as a Native American tribe fails to recognize these ties and the acknowledgment we have received from authoritative entities.
    Mislabeling our tribe and any other legitimate Tribes in this manner can lead to the spread of hate, misinformation and further marginalization. It is crucial that platforms like Wikipedia, which serve as a global source of information, ensure the accuracy and integrity of the content they host.
    Tribes without legislative recognition often face significant administrative hurdles to gain federal recognition, and being labeled as "self-identified" can add to these challenges by casting doubt on our legitimacy.
    We face persistent disparagement on platforms like Wiki All the while we are still walking the path to recognition.
    The lack of recognition does not protect tribes from discrimination or persecution, and the term "self-identified" can perpetuate these issues by invalidating their identity.
    The term "self-identified" can be problematic for tribes like the Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe, especially in states like Massachusetts that lack a legislative recognition process, for several reasons: diminished sovereignty, historical erasure, legal implications, administrative challenges, discrimination and persecution.
    It's important for platforms like Wikipedia to use terminology that accurately reflects the status and history of tribes, especially those with longstanding recognition by other tribes and federal entities, rather than terms that can lead to misinterpretation and misrepresentation of their identity and rights. The Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe's situation exemplifies the need for careful consideration of how tribes are categorized and described in public and legal contexts.
    We urge you to consider the implications of this change and to seek a category name that respects and reflects the recognized status of tribes like the Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe. We are open to dialogue and collaboration to find a solution that honors the truth of our history and existence. Goldendragonfly77 (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per WP:C2D. NLeeuw (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I think that this rename has major negative connotations that are unwarrented. Category:Unrecognized tribes does the same thing without the connotation. Mason (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What negative connotations? "Unrecognized tribes" doesn't work because these organizations are not actually tribes. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mason and Marcocapelle. While I understand the idea behind the "self-id" part, I think it should be on a case-by-case basis, rather than a blanket statement on all unrecognized groups. Self-ID also carries highly negative connotations, as Mason stated, and I don't think that warrants being a blanket statement. "Unrecognized" is also by far the most common term in literature, afaik, however I don't have any data to back that up. PersusjCP (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is self-id a negative? It is simply describing that we don't have a citation to support their claims. I disagree with the statement that recognized tribes self-identify. The process to gain recognition is rigorous and recognized tribes, at least those federally recognized, have to document their continuous direct connection with the original tribes that were here prior to and during colonial contact. With no direct proof connecting them they are therefore self-identifying. They may very well share a heritage and be descendants but they cannot verify by showing a direct connection. That is only a negative because people on Wikipedia and even some of those who self-identify are trying to push that perspective to distort reality. At no point are we saying they are "pretendians". That would require reliable sources stating it through investigation. Self-identify does not equal "pretendian". --ARoseWolf 13:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying someone "identifies" as something vs "being" something very much does have a negative connotation. It implies it is only in their head. There is even a famous transphobic joke (I identify as an attack helicopter/whatever) about how one's self-ID is meaningless. PersusjCP (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We cannot declare every one of these groups to be tribes; that's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Is there a term you see as more neutral than "identifies"? I don't mind if "self" is removed. Re: transphobia, a Native American tribe is a collective political identity, while a person's gender and sex is an individual identity; the two concepts are completely different from each other. Yuchitown (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
    It's wordy, but I would think along the lines of "claims descent/to be the successor from historical tribe/the aboriginal ___ people" or something like that. Maybe "Organizations that claim descent from Native American tribes." Since "descent"or being the "successor" is generally the more politically accurate idea to what modern day tribes are to historical entities. PersusjCP (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So sorry, but I believe that would be original research since not all the groups claim descent from Native American tribes, like the Una Nation of Mixed-Bloods from Eugene, Oregon, who see themselves as a completely new entity (that is somehow still Native American). Just as a reminder, the corresponding article is List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes, so this proposal isn't charting new territory but trying to bring the category inline with the article. Yuchitown (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah that's a good point, I forgot about them... Okay, I support the current/future wording of "Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes," unless someone else can think of a more neutral, all-applicable wording. Maybe alternatively: get rid of the "self" in "self-identify," but I don't know if that makes it more neutral. Or like, "Orgainzations not recognized as Native American tribes," although that's kind of broad. Unfortunately I think because it is such a contentious topic that it is hard to be truly "neutral" in this. PersusjCP (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see how "self-identifying" could be regarded as problematic, as if they could be somehow "delusional" (although I must say this is the first time I've heard it having any negative connotation).
    But so can "unrecognised", right? Doesn't this imply that that these people are in fact tribes, but the U.S. government is just being 'stubborn, uncooperative and discriminatory' in 'refusing' to recognise them as such? The word "unrecognised" arguably carries a subtle WP:POV in it in favour of recognition, and arguably an implied criticism against the government that has so far not extended it to the applicants. NLeeuw (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. All we can substantiate is that these organizations have collectively have identified as being Native American tribes. We cannot go further and do not have that authority; an outside authority having nothing to do with Wikipedia would have to make that distinction. Saying they identify does not mean none of the groups have Native American ancestry or that none of the groups are respected as successors of historical political tribes. But to collectively say all these groups are "tribes" is WP:OR and beyond our capacity or what we can support through published sources. Yuchitown (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • That does not solve the problem that recognized tribes also identify as being Native American tribes. The question is what distinguishes the two groups and the answer is that one group is recognized and the other group not. Not recognized is the key descriptor here. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned above the article is already named List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. There are already List of federally recognized tribes in the contiguous United States, List of Alaska Native tribal entities, and State-recognized tribes in the United States, which are cross linked in the introduction of List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. Several federally recognized tribes are also state-recognized, but the general pattern is to go from broadest category into more specific classifications. Yuchitown (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes but this does not address the objection. The objection is not about recognized, it is about unrecognized. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What about "Organizations not recognized as Native American tribes" as I said in another thread here? The only problem is pretty much this applies to anything except federally-and-state recognized tribes, but maybe it is clear enough with context. PersusjCP (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That would include almost every organization on the planet. I’m not being facetious. “Identifying as Native American tribes” is a necessary component. Yuchitown (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've watched this discussion for a few days and tried to understand or see all the perspectives. I disagree with the negative connotation many are trying to place on self-identification and I think that term should defined somewhere on Wikipedia much like other terms have. The fact that it can be negative or potentially be negative shouldn't be considered because anything can be negative depending on who is defining it. What we should be looking at is the literal meaning of self-identification. These entities are the ultimate source of their identification. I know, some will say, The most notable ones did get recognized by reliable sources or government resolutions. But ultimately the source of their legitimacy when you dig into it is the subject entity itself. If they had proof of their connection to the original people they would have gotten federal recognition. So we are left with an entity that identifies itself as Native American. This may be true and it may not be true, it's still self-identification at its foundation. I support the change in title on that basis. Calling them "unrecognized tribes" places a legitimacy on these groups that cannot be verified. It is wholly non-neutral for Wikipedia to be the one conferring legitimacy. Many don't even call themselves tribes. --ARoseWolf 12:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just following up, "self-identified" is as broad and neutral as possible because a vast range of entities are in this category, including many with verified American Indian ancestry such as the Verona Band of Alameda County, Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, and the Yuchi (who are almost all enrolled in the Muscogee (Creek) Nation). Yuchitown (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per what Mason and Marcocapelle said, which is that self-ID can have a highly negative connotation and "unrecognized" is the common term in literature. I've already encountered the issue of self-ID violating BLP in an article. If the category was changed as proposed, it's likely we'd have many more BLP issues in individual articles about people. This may seem like a minor word change, but there are strong negative connotations to saying someone who is Native "self identifies," because the inference is that they are Native in name only or falsely claiming to be Native. A change like this will impact countless articles covered by BLP because articles about Native people typically link to their tribe's article. --SouthernNights (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no consensus in any discussion you can point to that says "self-identification" is considered a BLP violation. If I remove anything that I believe "can" be considered negative from every BLP on Wikipedia how long do you think it would take before I was community banned? Yet that's what you did based on your own personal opinion, not consensus. That is the worst obvious and most ridiculous example of POV pushing I have ever seen and quite frankly what I consider very much a misuse of the admin tools. It calls into question your neutrality, not on a personal level because we are all biased to some degree, but your willingness to use the tools you were granted to support your bias despite other good faith editors objecting. --ARoseWolf 13:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP guidelines state that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced — whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable — must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." In the case of the article I'm referring to, the recent edits that her tribe supposedly self-identifies absolutely qualified as such which is why I removed them. And I'm hardly the only one who sees it this way -- several editors raised concerns in this very category discussion about such descriptions being seen as negative. For more perspectives on this topic, check out this 2021 research paper published in the American Sociological Association journal (pdf download). Finally, your personal attacks here cross a definite line and violate Wikipedia policy. I strongly advise you do not continue with such attacks. SouthernNights (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Her self-identification as Lipan Apache is not unsourced. We know that her non-profit organization has neither state nor federal recognition. That is a fact, not an opinion. Their identity as a Native group comes purely from their own self-identification, not from government recognition. You referring to "her tribe" is itself a POV and also factually untrue, because it isn't actually a tribe. It's a non-profit organization. There's nothing supposed about it. That's what it is. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If my statements were attacks then so were yours when you attacked good faith editors by declaring us POV pushers. What does that make you pushing your personal point of view? --ARoseWolf 12:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are a number of reasons why this conversation about Native American identity should not be renamed self-identify. Here are the top four in my mind:

1. The term self-identify as proposed is unmistakably negative, intentionally so. It’s negative in that it’s divisive, exclusionary, and demeaning. It attacks a significant part of Indian Country, like Lily Gladstone, by claiming they’re not real Native Americans, only pretending to be ones (of course there’s a page for that). No, it’s not racism, certainly not colorism. It’s crude chauvinism. It says that on one hand there are normal real Native Americans and on the other there are abnormal people who illegitimately and with no more foundation than their own volition identify as Native Americans, on no better basis than folks who identify as attack helicopters (credit Persus). Everybody hates attack helicopter wannabes. Native American, normal, positive. Self-identify Native American, abnormal, negative. The dots connecting the term as proposed to its pejorative roots couldn’t be drawn closer.

2. It effaces the concept of indigeneity. It says Native American is an identity established, not by self-identity, but by the US govt through a CDIB card. It says that Native Americans are creations not of thousands of years of independent existence and identity, but of the power that recently in their history came to occupy their land. Further, that occupying power can take back the identity only it, nobody and nothing else, can confer, as it has demonstrated in the past it can do.

3. The question is much bigger than this discussion setting can possibly do it justice. It’s not just a matter of slightly adjusting the name of a WP page. It’s a matter of possibly stumbling into a big philosophical and political decision due to a slight of hand; that self-identity is just a clearer way of saying not acknowledge by the US. No scholarly citations. No peer-reviewed article(s), it would never cut muster in that environment-- that's why there's none (I checked). Just the argument that, you know, it’s neater to say self-identify than non-recognized. And should it be done, a micro-minority POV has been imposed on a long-settled question of who decides who's Native American. From that point on, Native American identity means US citizenship and a CDIB. Born and raised in Paris and just found out you had a % grandparent with a CDIB, you're in. Born and raised in a historical Indigenous community in, say, Guatemala or Canada and migrated to an enclave of your community in Miami or LA where everybody still speaks your native language, you're out. Of course, it's a settled question that Indian Country is no bigger than the United States and Native American identity is entirely a Unitedstatean question. Not.

4. It goes against a vast and longstanding consensus on the concept of indigenous identity. This discussion has already been had over a much longer period, involving many many more participants, in a much more transparent and deliberative fashion. And a consensus was reached. Then instead of being shelved or secreted away, it was announced to the world and has been in place for years, known today as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UN). This widely publicized consensus speaks directly against the proposal to change the name of this page by declaring that indigenous identity is necessarily self-identify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsideh (talk • contribs) 05:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC) There are more, but I'll stop here for now. Tsideh.:Tsideh Tsideh (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC) — Tsideh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Could you share where on Wikipedia this conversation took place? “It goes against a vast and longstanding consensus on the concept of indigenous identity”: I’ve never seen such a conversation on Wikipedia. Yuchitown (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't see any BLP violation or anything objectively negative about the term self-identify. I do see a big NPOV problem with the current category name as it uses the word "tribes" suggesting in Wikivoice that these are actual tribes in the context of indigenous American tribes. Doug Weller talk 11:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that is my biggest concern even more than the self-identity argument that seems to have developed. Some of these are organizations that have filed for 501C3 status with the same government they decry as holding them back from recognition. While some are heritage groups trying to bring awareness to Native American topics. Others may have legitimate claims. Still others are pretendian organizations seeking financial gain on the backs of Native Americans. The one thing that is common between them all is they cannot provide evidence which link them to the sovereign nations they claim to be part of with any continuity. Had they been able to do so they would have gained the political recognition from the US government to be able to speak for the respective nation they associate with. Without a doubt Wikipedia should not legitimize them in Wiki-voice as Native American/American Indian tribes, recognized or unrecognized, self-identified or otherwise and even if reliable sources that are not owned by legitimately recognized nations identify them as such. --ARoseWolf 17:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The proposed renaming would result in very awkward-sounding categories that thousands of readers and article subjects could find to be inaccurate, biased, or even offensive.
"Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes" 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.
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.
The same should apply to Native Americans, First Nations, and other indigenous peoples in North America.
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) 06:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NDNID was written by members of the Indigenous peoples of North America Wikiproject. It was thoughtfully constructed and thoroughly discussed to aid non-Native editors on Wikipedia gain an understanding of what being Native American is. Native American identity is not a matter of race or ethnicity. There is not a unified "Native American" ethnic identity. So the ethnic groups mentioned would not be an accurate comparison. This should not be a one-size-fits-all approach. --ARoseWolf 13:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To label all of the entities in the category tribes is definitely original research. The article was renamed to accurately and honestly include groups such as the Kaweah Indian Nation, Ani-Stohini/Unami, and Vinyard Indian Settlement as well as the Mississippi Choctaw Indian Federation, Brothertown Indians, and Verona Band of Alameda County (i.e. those with no demonstrated connection to historic Native American communities to those with well-documented connections). I've cited Miller's book, but it was also written in 2006; many of these groups have formed since then. This lengthy discussion will probably result in "No Consensus"; however, all of the editors who actively contribute to and improve Native American topics on Wikipedia have voted to "Support" the renaming. Yuchitown (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't seen any opposition to using "Native American" instead of "in the United States" so we seem to have a minimal consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would absolutely be opposed to changing the category to "Category:Unrecognized Native American tribes" which is what seems to be implied here. --ARoseWolf 12:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be possible to split the category to create one for Unrecognised (but attested and real) tribes, and one for organisations that claim to be? The problem seems to be that we're lumping a very diverse group of groups together under one label. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh lord no, that would be so unbelievably inappropriate. Wikipedia absolutely does not have the authority to confer legitimacy upon organizations. Yuchitown (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
    The problem I see with the rename is that it's just a euphemism for "organisations we don't think are native american" so in my view, we are already making that judgement, and my point here is that we should be careful with how we make it, if we're going to be making it at all. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that is not absolutely not true. As I've stated *so* many times including in the main article for this category that a minority of these organizations have documented ties to historical Native American tribes. Other examples are the Yuchi Tribal Organization and the Yuchi (Euchee) Tribe of Oklahoma, which are both organizations of people completely accepted as being Native American. Their members are almost all enrolled citizens of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. So an umbrella term is needed that covers the entire diverse spectrum of organizations who self-identify as being Native American tribes but are not federally or state-recognized. Yuchitown (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Mason and Marco. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion has been mentioned in a local news article.. (which can be accessed more easily here). It is, of course, full of the kind of typical misconceptions and misunderstanding of wikipedia's processes that are to be expected from someone who doesn't edit Wikipedia (much) themselves, but I think they make a fair argument when they point out that not all tribes are officially recorded by the US government, so it may be offensive to call them all "self identified". I see in WP:NDNID that this is the case for some tribes in California, for example. I concur that the current name isn't great, but I think this rename likely causes the same problems it is attempting to resolve. I also agree with several others here: "self-identified" carries a certain negative connotation to me, in that to me, it implies that no-one else agrees, which, as established, isn't necessarily true.--Licks-rocks (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What would be, in your estimation, a more neutral term than "self-identifying"? There is some genuine grey area around collective Native identity. The article has long been renamed to create a neutral, factually accurate umbrella term to encompass the whole range of organizations listed who self-identify as being Native American tribes but who are neither federally recognized or state-recognized (not that the latter confers or removes "legitimacy"; legitimacy is a whole other conversation that is outside Wikipedia's purview; state-recognized is just a classification used by some state governments, so a status not coming from within the organizations themselves). Yuchitown (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
    Just to clarify, federally recognized and state-recognized aren't the be-all-end-all of legitimacy; however, these are classifications that exist and are both defined by entities outside of the organizations themselves. We aren't creating classifications here. Yuchitown (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
    "Unrecognised" at least has the benefit of being based on a verifiable fact, as has already been pointed out by others. The degree to which they are unrecognised can then be elaborated at lower levels, such as in the individual articles, by using subcategories, or smaller list articles. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "tribe" is what cannot be verified. Yuchitown (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. as a compromise, what do you think of something like "Category of Unrecognised or (and? and/or?) Self-described tribes", that way we make it clear that we're lumping the two together without directly making the distinction in the category title. I admit, somewhat stilted, but if it works, it works. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how "self-described" is an improvement over "self-identify." All these organizations do self-identify. Self-identify does not mean "does not have Native American ancestry." I responded to your comments because you appear to be working in good faith with some awareness of the nuances of tribal identity. But this CfD has gone on for an absurd amount of time and should be closed as NO CONSENSUS. The category just won't match up with the main article. So be it. Yuchitown (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
    I was being loose with my wording, self described wasn't meant to have any advantage over self-identified, it was meant to be the same thing. (and agreed on the no consensus thing. I don't think we're going to get a consensus for a completely different rename in this discussion) --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it should be closed as NO CONSENSUS. We can have discussion elsewhere on why claiming to be Native American equates to claiming citizenship with a sovereign tribal nation. --ARoseWolf 13:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose: "Self-identify" has negative connotations almost universally for any identity, as other editors have explained. It is not a term used in respectful literature on ethnicity. This would be both offensive and inaccurate, as recognized tribes also "self-identify", and this category is intended for unrecognized tribes. It would be confusing in addition to the issues other editors have raised. I would also like to point out that the page this category is intended to match was renamed from "unrecognized" to "self-identified" by another editor that works closely with the group responding to opposition in this thread, who have been systematically replacing unbiased and verifiable vocabulary in Native-topic articles with their own POV pushing and original research. "Self-identified" and deciding who or what is Native based on US government recognition is a niche opinion among Native communities and academia at best. The linked local paper article does explain well why this would be a highly controversial and disrespectful change. Recognized and unrecognized is really the most common and recognizable phrasing for this particular topic, because it is only about what a US government entity has said about a tribe and nothing else. Pingnova (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:C2D for consistency. Opposers should get consensus to change the main article title first. Charcoal feather (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 23

Category:Mohave tribe

[edit]

Nominator's rationle: The Mohave people belong to two tribes, the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe and the Colorado River Indian Tribes. The current name implies that the Mohave people belong to a single tribe. Rename for accuracy. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I guess the proposed move is an improvement, although the fact that people belong to two different federally recognized tribes does not prevent them belonging to a single (non federally recognized) tribe. It is best to forestall readers drawing the inference, even if it is an invalid inference, hence deleting "peopletribe"† from the name is an improvement. OTOH article Mohave is currently a dab, so the shorter name may be ambiguous. I ask whether Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America has (or ought to have) any standard/guideline for category (and corresponding article) names —— e.g. capitalization; legal name vs common name; and group taxonomy labels (e.g. "people" vs "nation" vs "tribe" vs nothing; always vs disambiguation vs never). From browsing, I infer that "Category:Foo people" is the standard for subcats of Category:Native American people by tribe, so Category:Mohave people is about individuals (plural "people") whereas Mohave people is about the group (singular "people"). (The fact that Category:Mohave people is a subcat of Category:Native American people by tribe also seems to imply, contra the nomination, that that the Mohave people are in some sense a tribe.) jnestorius(talk) 23:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • † corrected myself: current name is "Mohave tribe", not "Mohave people" jnestorius(talk) 22:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless whether it is renamed or not, shouldn't we convert the category page to a disambiguation page just like in article space? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jnestorius Being a people is not the same as being a tribe. EG, the article for Cherokee refers to them as an Indigenous people belonging to three tribes; the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band, and the United Keetoowah Band. Mohave peoplehood doesn't imply being a single tribe. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the article for Cherokee refers to them as an Indigenous people belonging to three tribes No, it says "three Cherokee tribes are federally recognized", not the same thing. It also says 'By the 19th century, White American settlers had classified the Cherokee of the Southeast as one of the "Five Civilized Tribes"'. Five Civilized Tribes says "The term Five Civilized Tribes was applied ... to the five major Native American nations in the Southeast". Category:Cherokee people is a direct subcat of Category:Native American people by tribe. Article Tribe (Native American) says "In the United States, an American Indian tribe, Native American tribe, Alaska Native village, Indigenous tribe or Tribal nation may be any current or historical tribe, band, nation, or community of Native Americans in the United States. ... Many terms used to describe Indigenous peoples of the United States are contested but have legal definitions that are not always understood by the general public." We have a variety of words (tribe, band, nation, community, people, ...) used variously across different articles and categories, sometimes in accordance with a US federal legal definition, sometimes in a different sense used by ethnologists or historians; sometimes meaning an ethnic group, sometimes a subcomponent of an ethnic group split out by geography, administration, or something else. Are you implying that Wikipedia article/category titles should always used words in the sense given to them by U.S. federal law? That is certainly not true in general; it may be the consensus for WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America but I have not seen evidence of that yet. jnestorius(talk) 13:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for simiplicity's sake, although Category:Mojave would be even better. "tribe" lowercased isn't a problem, so not enthusiastic about massive renaming of all Foo tribe categories. Yuchitown (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments in general would be appreciated, but in particular input on whether this should be a {{category disambiguation}} and the precise new name – if it is to be renamed – whether the new name should be "Mohave" or "Mojave".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No need for disambiguation. User:Namiba 00:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition to deletion or, alternatively, renaming for the family patriarch and Angolan president José Eduardo dos Santos category:José Eduardo dos Santos. Do you have a preference Marcocapelle?--User:Namiba 18:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would make sense if we create category:José Eduardo dos Santos.--User:Namiba 11:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 21

Category:Crafts deities

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Just plain better English. PepperBeast (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support AHI-3000 (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I think what is meant here is wikt:craft#noun meaning #7 plural: A branch of skilled work or trade, especially one requiring manual dexterity or artistic skill, but sometimes applied equally to any business, calling or profession; the skilled practice of a practical occupation. So it's a bit like a patron saint of a branch of handicraft professions. I worry that by making it singular, "craft" can be misunderstood for any of its many other meanings, such as "vehicle" (aircraft, spacecraft etc.; I wouldn't be surprised if some religion came up with that if Pope John Paul II in 1997 could retroactively declare Isidore of Seville the "patron saint of the internet"), or as a colloquial conjugation of the verb "to craft", "craft(ed) gods", compare "graven images", human-made "idols" of gods. But I'm not a native English speaker so I'm not sure if this is a significant risk. NLeeuw (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I kind of see your point, actually, but 'crafts' is not the solution. I'd be ok with, say, handicraft deities. PepperBeast (talk) 07:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it not? I suppose it reads a lot better with 'the': "the crafts", just like "the arts", "the humanities". Some things are better in plural. Then again, "deities of the crafts" sounds a bit cumbersome. At any rate, would "handicraft deities" be correct for the contents of these categories? NLeeuw (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think handicraft fits pretty well, going by the articles I had a look at. Sorry, I ama native speaker, and I can't tell you why some noun modifiers can be plural and some not, but "crafts Gods" is just not normal English. Probably the same reason we don't have cars mechanics or brains surgeons :-) PepperBeast (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little worried that handicraft has connotations of a hobby or at best "artisanal" activity, distinct from mainstream manufacturing. In a pre-industrial society, activities like weaving and smithing are mainstream, the only ways clothes and metal objects are produced. Does it help that the ancient Greek word is τέχνη, techne, (the root of technical, technology and technique and by no means merely a philosophical concept as our article claims), translated as skill, craftsmanship, art, craft, technique, design and other such, rather than as handicraft? NebY (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point, too, but none of those suggestions strikes me as a really superior choice. A few years ago, I would have said artisan was perfect, but it seems to have gone all lumpy socks and unsliceable bread. Artificer seems too stilted. PepperBeast (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pepperbeast Ah! But you do have sales managers, liberal arts professors, arms dealers... ;) But alright, I'll drop my Weak oppose. It's probably okay. NLeeuw (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I'm fretting about this very small point. "War gods" is clearly better than "wars gods"; the singular stands for the general. But Hephaestus, for example, was a smith god, not a god of all craft/handicraft, so is a member of the set of deities of various crafts.... Aargh. NebY (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I find "gods of handicrafts" in the authoritative standard text Greek Religion by Walter Burkert, translated from the German by John Raffan. I often got the impression that Burkert's phrasing was better in German than could be translated but still, it seems "handicrafts" may be the best English term a good translator could find. Reckon I should stop worrying and accept it! It's better than either "craft" or "crafts". NebY (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but what are you proposing as an alt rename then? Handicraft deities or Handicrafts deities?
    And does choosing handicraft mean excluding larger-scale construction works in stoneworking/stonecraft such as bridge-building and, well, "building-building", as well as woodworking / carpentry such as shipbuilding? Because that would mean a significant narrowing of the scope, and I don't think any of us is advocating that. NLeeuw (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We currently include deities of shipbuilding and bridgebuilding? I'm beginning to think it's too complicated for me to suggest anything. NebY (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I was just being hypothetical, but if we look at some random examples:
    • Arazu a god of construction who built and restored temples.
    • Coyotlinahual a god of featherwork
    • Athena a goddess of handicraft
    • Brigid a goddess of smithing
    • Maliya a goddess associated with gardens and with artisanship, specifically with leatherworking and carpentry.
    • Mama Ocllo a goddess of weaving, sewing, and household duties.
    • Hedjhotep a god of fabrics and clothes and, to a lesser extent, of weaving and the deceased
    • Nunura a god of pottery
    • Ptah patron deity of craftsmen and architects
    • Vishvakarma deity of craftsmen, architects, crafters of chariots and weapons, city-builder.
    • Quetzalcoatl related to wind, Venus, Sun, merchants, arts, crafts, knowledge, and learning.
    • Uttu a goddess of weaving
    • Minerva a goddess of wisdom, justice, law, victory, and the sponsor of arts, trade, and strategy.
    • Ninmug a goddess of artisanship, especially with metalworking, as evidenced by her epithet tibira kalamma, "metalworker of the land."
    I don't see a really clear pattern here. Some articles do not seem to mention anything to do with "the crafts" at all (like Minerva being responsible for lots of things, but not really "the crafts"), and might have to be Purged from this tree. Part of them could reasonably be called deities of handicrafts like Athena, Nunura, and Hedjhotep. Others seem to be about larger structures, buildings, cities even. Architects design buildings, not decorative small objects normally associated with "handicrafts". I guess it was my mistake thinking that "handicrafts" and "crafts" meant the same, but evidently handicrafts are a subset of the crafts. NLeeuw (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for doing the legwork! I am uncertain that users of English distinguish handicrafts from crafts consistently. I haven't tried a survey; serendipitously, last night I read "the development of farming techniques, building skills, craft traditions such as pottery, trade networks" (Amélie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East). NebY (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand NebY's reaction. Shouldn't we rather split this to handicraft on the one hand and building/construction on the other hand? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, if the literature supports such a division. But lots of articles in this tree do not seem to mention any "crafts" at all, or I just don't properly understand the term. NLeeuw (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think such a split would make sense. We can easily conceive of a set that includes all of building, construction, weaving, smithing and pottery, and in at least one language it can easily be given a name. I fear that in English it can't and so en-wiki can't usefully have such a category. NebY (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, QueenofHearts 02:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further comments on splitting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Split to Category:Handicraft deities/Category:Construction deities, Category:Handicraft gods/Category:Construction gods, and Category:Handicraft goddesses/Category:Construction goddesses. To make this easier on a closer, does this work for you, @Nederlandse Leeuw, Marcocapelle, NebY, Pepperbeast, and AHI-3000? HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support split AHI-3000 (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems fine to me. I see a general division between deities for jobs creating handheld items and jobs for construction of buildings/cities or ships. (Carpentry/woodworking, smithing/metalworking and stonecraft/stoneworking/masonry does include a wide range of objects, such as furniture or heavy weapons / siege weapons (e.g. a scorpio (weapon) or small ballista, which you can carry, but are quite heavy for just 1 person), which are somewhere between "handheld" and "buildings/ships", so maybe there is no such thing as a clean split between "handicrafts" and "construction" here). But by now, I have concluded that my non-native English vocabulary around (pre-modern) labour terminology may simply be woefully inadequate to be very useful in this discussion. I do hope that my listing of examples above helps other participants to get a sense of the contents of this category tree. NLeeuw (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm beginning to think that English is woefully inadequate for this task! And those examples have certainly helped me see the current and potential scope better. NebY (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and "handicraft" is completely useless for core trades such as metalworking, so strongly oppose any use of that. "Deities of skilled trades" etc. seems better. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but isn't that too vague? It is my understanding that the trades under discussion involves skills in creating objects with wood, metal, stone etc., from handheld items to ships to buildings. Most trades/jobs require some sort of skill, like fishing or shepherding, but those do not involve creating such objects. NLeeuw (talk) 05:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm open to suggestions that don't include "craft", or still worse "handicraft", which in modern English inevitably imply an amateur hobby. I don't think the distinction you make above between handheld and larger objects helps - the skills are generally the same, for different materials. Do you have any evidence at all that the cultures with the deities made this distinction? Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fishing and shepherding may require some sort of skill but are not generally called trades. Our article Tradesperson - one of the targets of Trade (disambiguation) - has several lists of many skilled trades whose deities, if they had any, would fit comfortably in this category: bootmaker, brewer, shipwright, plumber, bicycle mechanic .... (I don't know if there is a Hindu deity of bicycle mechanics but if there is, their inclusion here would be as appropriate as the inclusion of those of farrier, shipwright, rope-maker or potter). There are bound to be edge cases (sex trades?) but "skilled trades" seems markedly better than craft, crafts and handicrafts. NebY (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_old_discussions&oldid=1049242785"