Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 23

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< May 22 May 24 >

May 23

Iranic categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: do not delete, and no consensus on renaming. A further nomination on renaming may be appropriate if there are any good suggestions for "Iranian (ethnolinguistic group)". – Fayenatic London 13:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The term is barely used. We don't even have a article of the term or anything. The common term is Iranian, not Iranic. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The "common term" is already applied in the following categories:
Those categories are about the people, women, music, folklore and art of the country of
WP:DEL-REASON#11, therefore, does not apply in this case. As a substitute for the common term Iranian, Iranic is the best option. Krakkos (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Iranic is barely used though. Even in more recent sources the term Iranian is favoured by a huge margin. We have a policy in Wikipedia that we use the common version, this is far from the case. Also what Johnbod said is completely true as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • HistoryofIran - Of course the term Iranian is favored by a huge margin for peoples speaking Iranian languages. But that term is also favored by a huge margin for the people of the country of Iran. Currently, Category:Iranian people covers people from the country of Iran, which means that the favored title is already in use by a different category. I hope you understand that we cannot have two categories with the same title, nor should we merge peoples speaking Iranian languages and people of the country of Iran into the same category, as these are two substantially different things. Policy does not encourage the deletion of categories with unconventional or inconsistent titles. It encourages that the title be renamed, if more suitable alternatives exist. As this nomination seems misplaced, i would encourage you to withdraw it and initiate a move discussion, if you know of a better title. On your userpage, it says that you categorize yourself as being "of Iranian ancestry" and "proud to be Iranian". It seems strange that you would agree with Johnbod, as he advocates deleting the category covering the ethnicity to which you claim to belong. Krakkos (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I think Krakkos might have a point here. I do not want to give away my credibility completely by stating that I am not really familiar with the subject, but there definitely exist such a term. On the other hand
    wikitionary has following definition for wikt:Iranic. The next reference points that the term Iranic follows the same word morphing as Germanic, Slavic and others. Apparently Professor John Perry also stated that Iranic has a right on existence according to this reference. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose – per Krakkos's explanation. Comparing the frequency of the terms would be biased, because "Iranian" has the meaning of "from the country of Iran" in addition to "of the Iranian ethno-linguistic group", while "Iranic" is used exclusively to refer to the ethno-linguistic group in a way that it wouldn't be confused with the other. Naming categories based on this essential distinction would be reasonable, in my opinion.
    —Rye-96 (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Krakkos.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 12:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle. This is apparently about Iranian peoples, and since we already have Iranian peoples and Category:Iranian peoples let's please keep consistent terminology. The only thing I am not certain of is whether some of it needs to be merged or renamed rather than deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, here is an alternative proposal:
  • Marcocapelle - This is a better proposal, but it still makes the deletion of useful categories a requirement to ensure consistent terminology. Another proposal might be to simply revert these categories back to the way they were a few days ago:
Such titles would be consistent with naming conventions used within the Iranian framework and for related categories:
  • I hadn't realized these categories were renamed a few days ago. Yes I definitely support reversal. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: That's not so clear cut. The Ethnic Iranian... categories were also created by the same user which copy-paste-renamed them a few months later, so "reversal" does not really apply. Ethnic Iranian is even worse, as it seems very derogatory for other Iranians that would not fit the descriptive, and I don't even think it is commonly used in any context. Place Clichy (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was enthusiastic too quickly, also for another reason: Kyrgyz etc refers to an ethnicity, so ethnic Kyrgyz makes sense. But Iranian/Iranic refers to a collection of ethnicities, which makes ethnic Iranian quite problematic. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • These examples do not even follow common usage, in which Kyrgyz/Tajik/Turkmen is used for the ethnic group, and Kyrgyzstani/Tajikistani/Turkmenistani for what relates to the country. Place Clichy (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We need a way to distinguish between the people and cultural products of the country of Iran and the people and cultural products of the Iranian peoples, an ethnolinguistic group spead over much of Asia and Europe. Dimadick (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion. While the distinction between the country of Iran and the ethnic family is useful at the article level, we clearly don't need an umbrella category tree for topics at the language-family level. Place Clichy (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to the alternative proposal I offered earlier, a complete deletion as originally nominated is also a fair option, per Place Clichy. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion and renaming per User:Krakkos's explanation. I just found this after viewing the category. Does it even need an explanation? Most sources I come across use Iranic as the anthropological/linguistic term. And while we're discussing it here, can we remove all references to Turkic ethnicities from Iran as "Turks". Turk refers to the primary ethnicity/language group of Turkey, which is clearly not the appropriate label for the the Turkic minorities in Iran. Iranian Azeris and Iranian Turkomans are commonly refereed to as "Turks" by outsiders which frustrates me because there is a clear distinction between Turkish and Turkic yet it's not being applied here. I want to move "List of Iranian Turks" to List of Turkic peoples of Iran. I don't know exactly how to do this. Can someone please help me here? And also one more thing about the category. Iranic people should not be singular, but plural as Iranic peoples since they consist of a number of ethnicities.--Persian Lad (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional comment I don't oppose removing categories like Category:Iranic women from articles on individual Kurdish women. Those should be subcategories for category:Iranic women.--Persian Lad (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody contests that the difference between Iranian (the country) and Iranic (the language group) exists, but it is not the subject here. The subject is that these categories, e.g.
    non-defining characteristics. For instance, individual Kurdish women would usually be defined as Kurdish women, not Iranic women. The fact that Tajik music is also Iranic music is also clearly non-defining, nobody would call it Iranic music in the first place. Place Clichy (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: split, as there appear to be grounds for keeping both. The target category is the logical place to hold the sub-categories by tribe, and user:Dlthewave has already put them back there. I will leave it to the editors who are active in this area to recategorise articles as appropriate. NOTE: if it appears that I have misunderstood major considerations and that my close is wrong in principle, please discuss it and ping me at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Related discussion: Category:American people of Native American descent. – Fayenatic London 10:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-standard criterion by self-identification, which is prone to misinformation and factual inaccuracies. If there's a corresponding reliable source for each of them, then they should be moved to "of Native American descent". Selective merge looks like a suitable option. Brandmeistertalk 17:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned this new discussion on the old discussion. I didn't give any notice on the talk page since AFAIK it's not generally considered necessary if the cat itself is tagged. Also I forgot to mention but even before the rename, the cat text itself said it was for people who self-identify, see e.g. this minor wording change from 2016 [2] which hasn't changed until now (i.e. it was the same prior to the recent move) Nil Einne (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I initially did not want these categories and lists (yes, there are lists). I wanted them all XfD'd. Then one of the long-term editors in this field reminded me that, no matter what we do, we keep getting editors adding self-identified people to the Native American and tribal categories, based on no better sourcing than a People magazine or TV Guide piece where they said, "Yeah, my great-grandmother was Cherokee." Right now we are still going through exhausting cleanup on articles over this stuff. I would vastly prefer to just cut all the people who aren't sourced to reliable, tribal sources that claim them. But this editor reminded me that, since tribes rarely make the effort to put out statements that people are false claimants (there are just too many), we wind up with a lot of people with shaky claims, and their fans saying that an otherwise RS source that they made this claim means it's "sourced that they're Native" or "sourced that they're a descendant"... often when we know it's not true. So, it gets into shaky territory, especially on BLPs. There are all kinds of edit-wars over this stuff, and most editors don't know how to evaluate the claims and sourcing. Only a bare few of us keep an eye on the veracity of the claims, and we're exhausted. I would love to have more help with this, but it hasn't been forthcoming. -
☼ 18:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Crap. R'n'B just took RussBot through again and reverted my cleanup. This is out of control. Russ! -
☼ 17:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
But Native American identity isn't based in race, it's based in citizenship. Stuff like this continues this misconception. -
☼ 17:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh I beg to differ Nyttend. If you have status or are enrolled and chose to identify as some other ethnicity you are still Native according to the federal government and the Nation in which you have status or enrollment. Once you're enumerated you are enumerated regardless of what you say. The only way around that is to have ones self purged from the rolls. I'm not aware of anyone who has done this successfully. I know of people who have cut up their cards but that doesn't mean anything, they are still enumerated. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - If we remove "self-identified", and can stop Russ and his damn bot, will all of you commit to removing the badly-sourced people from these cats and keeping them out when their fans keep re-adding them? Last night I removed over a dozen people who were listed as, say, Lakota, because they did an art show with that in the name. Or European models listed as descendants of a tribe because they posed in a hipster headdress. That's the type of crap we deal with on here. AND will you help us keep actual tribal citizens and leaders from being degraded by being described as only "descendants" when they are full citizens? That's the type of both perennial and recent POV push that went on, that we are still cleaning up, and that started the rename discussion. -

☼ 17:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@Dlthewave:: Per my above comments, I'm pretty sure Category:American people of Native American descent is not supposed to exist as a unique category anymore. It was rename to the self-identified category from the discussion I linked, and the ApoNAd cat is supposed to just be a redirect. When the ApoNAd category existed, it did say it was for people who self-identify for several years until the rename. Nil Einne (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nil Einne: I have concerns about the use of "self identified" and "identified by sources" labels, which seem to have been invented by Wikipedia editors and are used on a number of related lists and categories. If a source describes someone as a descendant, we need to describe them as such without the use of these weasel words. I understand that tribal citizenship is determined only by the tribes themselves, but someone can make a legitimate claim of descent or ancestry without being enrolled or acknowledged by a tribe. We don't typically use these qualifiers for other ancestry-related categories with similar criteria.
You bring up a good point regarding move vs merge. Previous discussions notwithstanding, my preference would be to move the "self-identified" category back to ApoNAd. –dlthewave ☎ 22:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some examples: Aaliyah had a Native American grandmother, but she does not self-identify as Native American. Tyra Banks is 6% Native American according to a DNA test, but she does not self-identify as Native American. Dick Enberg's mother had some Native American ancestry but he does not self-identify as Native American. Scott Glenn has some Native American ancestry but he does not self-identify as Native American. Must I carry on? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Percent or blood quantum isn't an issue here. There are enrolled tribal members (Native Americans), then there are people with provable ancestry (Native American descendants), then there are people who think/say they have Native ancestry with no proof (self-identified descendency—this category). If you are talking about Johnny Cash, he conducted his own genealogical research and freely admitted that his family stories of being of Cherokee descent were incorrect. Re: Zerach's comment, the dubious claims are notable only because they are widely published in secondary sources. Yuchitown (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
@Yuchitown: Which sources describe these ancestry claims as dubious, self-identified or unproven? How are we, as editors, making that determination? –dlthewave ☎ 16:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Do you have other real life situations like this, where people who are not part of a group or do not have the heritage they claim still claim it in vast numbers? Are there other parallel situations? Yuchitown (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • Could you please list biographies in this category in which the person claims to be Native American? In a sample I could not find any, but maybe there are a few specific well-known cases. Other than for those few, the category name with "self-identify" is simply misleading. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, although it's claiming "of descent" not claiming to be "Native American." Sure, picking some out at random: Wayne Newton, Cherokee Parks, Jimi Hendrix, Martin Luther King Jr., Coretta Scott King, Lena Horn, Michael Jackson and family, James Earl Jones, Beyoncé, Rosa Parks, James Brown, LL Cool J, Oprah Winfrey (none of them are enrolled in tribes), Chuck Norris, Angelina Jolie, Kid Cudi, Rosario Dawson, Johnny Depp (has since been adopted by the Comanche Nation), Miley Cyrus, Elvis Presley, Cameron Diaz, Chuck Norris, Jennifer Tilley, and Ben Harper (some of these are in tribal-specific cats). Yuchitown (talk)Yuchitown
How do these sources show that they're claiming Native American descent with no proof? Is the lack of tribal enrollment supposed to mean that their ancestry is unverified? –dlthewave ☎ 12:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So we have different kinds of people to categorize:
  1. People who are citizens of Native American tribes (categorized by tribe).
  2. People who are genealogically descended from members of a Native American tribe, but for whatever reason do not have membership. Either they didn't want to apply for membership, or they do not qualify for membership. You can have solid genealogical evidence you are descended from a Native American and still not qualify for tribal citizenship. The qualifications vary from tribe to tribe. Indian tribes are not the same as genealogical lineage societies. Thorough genealogical research (not amateur research or legends) can prove to varying degrees whether or not someone was descended from a Native American, depending on the genealogical sources available, and in this case a specific tribe or group of tribes will be known. Also, regarding DNA: DNA testing through a site like Ancestry.com don't usually tell you what tribe you are from. Often they only give a vague result: "X% Native American," and sometimes they are wrong about ethnicity estimates, as they are still developing the technology. DNA testing can be used to identify if you are a descendant of a specific tribe, but it requires thorough research.
  3. People who have a Native American ancestor remembered in myth or legend, but no one has bothered to find out if this story is true or not, or only has weak evidence.
  4. People who have claimed to be Native American and have been exposed as frauds such as Dwight York or Iron Eyes Cody (although there may be some controversy among editors of Wikipedia as to whether or not they are really Native American, there are sources to document the questionability of their heritage claims).
A category with the title "American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent" sounds like it would fit individuals from #3 and #4, perhaps even #2, depending on the available evidence. That is my observation. Are there other categories that cover these types of people? Tea and crumpets (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
People who have legitimate descent can name the tribe/nation they descend from, and the specific ancestors, so are already in a category. We already have the categories for legitimate descendants. We worked very hard to clean it all up. -
☼ 21:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Does it work? No it does not. The nominated category was supposed to contain people from group #4 (per discussion further above) but in fact it largely contains people from group #2. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no problem with the Native American categories, and they have not been brought up for discussion. The challenges are with the categories for people of Native American descent and the people who claim Native American descent. Since people with no experience working with Native material have joined this discussion, just to be clear: the Native American/Native American descent categories fit perfectly with established protocol of Foo Nationality vs. National of Foo descent categories (e.g.
Americans of German descent do not have German citizenship, only German ethnic heritage. The people in Native American categories are tribal citizens. The people in "of descent" categories are not members of the tribes in question and if they can't even name a tribe, they are definitely not members of tribes (people with legitimate descent know their tribal ethnic group). The difference between being Native Americans and other ethnic groups is that there is such a widespread, documented phenomenon of people who have no reliable proof of Native American ancestry still claiming it. So for this category, we cannot document actual ancestry (#2) but we can positively document that a claim to the ancestry has been made (#4). Yuchitown (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply
]
  1. is there a legal definition of Native American yes but this is mainly to dictate who gets funds, scholarships, tribal sovereignty is absolutely involved, etc. however this category isn't about citizenship
  2. Either your a descendent or not period. To say self-identify is honestly subliminal to say they are "supposedly" of Native blood
  3. I've looked through the discussions today and the complaint that someone can't name the tribe they descend from therefore they're a liar is a weak argument period. If you're native and at least know some of our history you know not everyone stuck together, some were adopted/stolen as children, or elders didn't pass down genealogical information. Some are the descendants of slaves that still carry the bloodline and they'll never be able to figure out which tribe they come from to culturally reconnect they can reconnect in the general culture but not specifically nor will they ever be able to become a citizen of a tribe. Those are not individuals that self-identify. Yet they are legitimate descent irregardless that they lack knowledge.
  4. Not everyone that is a descendant is going to be recognized by the community nor be able to be a citizen. There seems to be a double standard here in which some individuals are in categories that seem to only be for citizens or people that are "communally involved/recognized" but they're in those categories b/c a citation says their parents were of this tribe or they are only said to be "this" However, there is no citation that they are a citizen of a tribe/s so they should go into the category American people of Native American descent. I also believe this is b/c they look "Native enough"
  5. We're the only race that people ask for proof and yes the only race people do lie about having, but at the same time how can we put people that are legitimate brothers and sisters by blood (b/c this category is about heritage) in the same category as people we may personal deem suspect.
  6. Plus it is up to the parent/s to enroll their children into a nation and that doesn't always happen. You do have some irresponsible individuals.
  7. Like Marcocapelle said the majority of these people should be in the category American people of Native American descent. They are a descendant and to be honest some may be more culturally connected than those that are citizens of a tribe. I have to say it is the most annoying thing when other natives call someone's heritage in question b/c they lack genealogical information when many don't even know which clan they come from and know squat about their own culture. We are the only race that has this problem and yes white ppl (sorry to other editors that are white) largely created this problem by lying, $5 Dollar Indian and all that trash.
Again I support this b/c as a proud citizen that has a long history of resistance against the U.S. I won't support throwing our brothers and sisters into the same category as lying white ppl (sorry to be blunt) b/c they're uncertain about the tribe or b/c the tribe hasn't claimed them which is a ridiculous high standard. Also yes in general being Native American isn't about race in regards to citizenship but this category is about heritage. Aho (And no I'm not Lakota for those of u that recognize that).Seminolegirl94 (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This category is not about heritage. This category is about people who claim a heritage. I am an enrolled Native tribal member as well; that status neither imbues you or I with authority in Wikipedia. Yuchitown (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • Comment - I've already !voted but a couple thoughts since then: I think it is ludicrous that categories where the subject has proven Native American ancestry but are not registered with tribes (such as
    come up with list of individuals whose ancestry you doubt. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Yuchi this category American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent isn't about heritage okay, but American people of Native American descent is however the majority of the people that belong in that category that are not listed in that category they have been placed in American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent. The only person that can literally go into American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent is Iron Eyes Cody and Cher if her article wasn't cleaned up. The rest have Native American ancestry recent and not recent whether you or other editors have personal doubt. If there is no merge than every page that was moved into American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent with the exception of Iron Eyes Cody should be moved back to American people of Native American descent. Again I've seen a few articles were it's cited that an individual's parents were from a tribe, but there is no citation that the individual is a citizen of that nation however they are treated like they are a citizen that was/is active in the community. Unlike people who were placed in American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent who have a parent that was native but have no citation that they are a citizen.Seminolegirl94 (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the categories are merged then Iron Eyes Cody should be excluded from the category American people of Native American descent because that category is about heritage. That seems to be the major problem here is that majority of the articles moved into American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent DO NOT belong in the category. Unless we move all the articles except Iron Eyes Cody back into American people of Native American descent and allow American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent to remain only leaving Iron Eyes Cody in that category. Either way this needs to be fixed.Seminolegirl94 (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it appears that "American people of Native American descent" was changed to "self-identified" without any evidence that the new label applied to all of the entries. There may be a few exceptions, for example the only source for Adelaide Hall's ancestry seems to be a statement that she made, however in any other situation we would either consider this sufficient proof (assuming that it was vetted by the publisher) or not include them in the category at all. –dlthewave ☎ 20:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pro-choice organizations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 09:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As explained in the terminology section of the abortion-rights movements article, "pro-choice" is an imprecise, POV slogan that we should be avoiding except in quotes and proper names. Same goes for "pro-life". I would presume if this were moved it would apply to the subcategories, too, but I'm leaving them off for now in case there's a reason to discuss separately that I'm not thinking of. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - moreover
    Oculi (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Actually, it redirects to Abortion-rights movements. Place Clichy (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency. – Fayenatic London 17:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to avoid weasel words. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support To properly depict which legal choice they propagate. By the way, the main article is quite a mess. Entire sections are devoted to abortion-related laws, not to the organizations which support or oppose them. Dimadick (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A well-attended May 2018 move discussion has established a clear consensus in favour of using "anti-abortion..." and "abortion-rights..." across the table. This comes after this August 2016 CfD which led to a clear decision in the same direction but with a caveat for American categories, which can be considered lifted by the May 2018 article move. Pretty much all "pro-life" categories have been changes to "anti-abortion", it is only logic that "pro-choice"/"abortion-rights" follow suit. Place Clichy (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 09:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per consensus to rename other categories of "child sex abuse cases" to "child sexual abuse scandals" at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 18#Category:Child sexual abuse in religious groups.
Note 1: I have used "Catholic Church" following
Catholic Church abuse cases, Catholic Church sexual abuse cases (renamed in 2014, see Talk:Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases/Archive_15#Requested_move
) and the majority of current categories. Alternatives include "Catholic", "Roman Catholic", "Roman Catholic Church" or "in Catholicism", although the latter would be clumsy when combined with "in [location]".
Note 2: the word "child" was added into the parent category names at the March CFD. However, I have not proposed to add this, to avoid unnecessarily long category names. It is not present in some of the article names, where the content may also cover abuse of adults.
This nomination supersedes an earlier nomination of the Australian category alone at
Oculi, and Laurel Lodged: Pinging participants in previous discussions. – Fayenatic London 13:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:French rule in the Ionian Islands

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename, deleting the original rather than making it a parent or disambiguation page.
Closer's note: I may not close a discussion in which I am
Speedy page. My subsequent participation was solely to seek clarification on the views of other participants. I therefore hold myself "uninvolved", having interacted with this topic area purely in an administrative role. Also, having left a good long time during which no-one else has closed this, I therefore consider that it is permissible and reasonable for me to close it now. – Fayenatic London 19:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination, opposed on Speedy page as ineligible. The nomination would remove ambiguity with Category:French rule in the Ionian Islands (1807–1814). – Fayenatic London 09:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of Speedy discussion
  • Marcocapelle, I fully intend to write the article French rule in the Ionian Islands (1807–1814) very soon, and the existence of two distinct periods of French rule is pretty clear, so the disambiguation for the extant article is necessary. I should have disambiguated right away when I created both article and that category, but didn't, for some reason. I am now merely seeking to rectify my previous oversight. It really shouldn't be that difficult. I feel caught up in a bizarre bureaucratic process over a non-issue. Constantine ✍ 19:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per Wikipedia:Categorization#General conventions#2: "Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article". Krakkos (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Why do we need separate categories for these two periods? Between them, the two categories have thirteen articles, one subcategory with three articles, and one redirect. We could retain this category at this name and merge Category:French rule in the Ionian Islands (1807–1814) into it. Alternately, if merger be a bad idea, we ought to retain this category as a form of disambiguation (see Category:Disambiguation categories) rather than deleting it; just create the 1797-1799 category, move this category's contents there, and replace this category's current text with {{Category disambiguation}}. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The two periods are different and have little in common. Place Clichy (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely. The first and second periods of French rule are vastly different in character: in the first there was a revolutionary, republican regime, in the second an oligarchic-imperial one. Even the personalities involved, apart from Napoleon, were different. There are simply no real continuities between the two, other than France's interest in holding this territory for strategic reasons. Constantine ✍ 15:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A disambiguation page is pointless when the first 20+ characters of the name of the disambiguation page are identical to its both targets. However, now I'm thinking this over again, a parent category with just two subcategories is very inefficient from a navigational point of view, so neither a dab page nor a parent category are a superb solution. Ultimately Nyttend's original proposal to merge the both categories makes the most sense to me, while the proposal of Place Clichy and Cpalkidas to have two separate siblings (without a parent category or disambiguation page) is a second best option. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: Actually I am in favour of "two separate siblings" as Marcocapelle puts it, and as Constantine nominated it. A parent category, or a dab page, seems less practical to me. A merger contradicts history, and, even worse, comes in the way of Constantine's current efforts to structure articles on the topic. Place Clichy (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure what the purpose and usefulness of a disambiguation category would be. As for the proposal to merge the two categories, it is utterly incomprehensible to me how this could seriously be considered as a good solution, particularly when the only two people in this discussion with any knowledge of the subject insist it is not. This discussion has already dragged on for far too long for such a (one would think) clear-cut case. Can we please, please wrap it up? Constantine ✍ 14:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
XFD backlog
V Feb Mar Apr May Total
CfD 0 0 18 12 30
TfD 0 0 0 3 3
MfD 0 0 0 2 2
FfD 0 0 0 0 0
RfD 0 0 17 57 74
AfD 0 0 0 5 5
  • I have notified additional WikiProjects, which may attract further participation. Unfortunately there is currently a backlog here at CfD, and this one is some way down the queue. – Fayenatic London 20:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Montreal bus routes

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 18:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Almost no notable bus routes, category is populated unanimously with redirect articles. As bus routes are generally non-notable this category is unlikely to ever be useful. Ajf773 (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mathematician politicians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: listify. MER-C 16:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An unremarkable intersection of categories Rathfelder (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify at least, as this intersection has been subject to research and comment; e.g. a very quick search turned up Forbes, Springer academic article re Italy, National Review. – Fayenatic London 18:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there are more politicians who are doctors, but we dont have a category for that. Rathfelder (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Politicians will bring a particular expertise to politics according to their previous profession, so that this is not trivial. I may be in a minority, but I consider that such categories should be allowed. I think we have in the past deleted actor-politicians, a case where previous profession would be less important. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't really envisage how mathematical expertise is relevant in politics. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, possibly listify. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There is a longstanding consensus that we do not want a comprehensive scheme of "prior-occupation/politician" intersections for every job that people might have held before getting into politics — and while there are a couple of standalone cases (e.g. actors, sportspeople) where consensus has deemed that particular intersection to be more defining than the norm, those are special exceptions and not a license to build out a comprehensive set for every possible combination of prior occupation with politician. (And, in fact, I don't actually agree that actors or sportspeople or astronauts should actually warrant such categories either, but consensus has established that some people think they're special cases and I'm not overly inclined to stick my neck out on rechallenging that.) No prejudice against a list if desired, but I don't have a strong opinion on the listify vs. delete issue. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Literature of England

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 12:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It seems like these two categories could be merged. Although I'm sure there are editors who will respond who can tell me the difference between Category:English literature and Category:Literature of England. From a laywoman's perspective, it looks like these two categories could be combined. If not, I'm sure you will let me know. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Following Fayenatic london suggestion, I withdraw this proposal with the possibility that it is refiled. Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- I cannot believe the nom looed at the subject category before nominating it. The nom category is mostly about literature that is not in English. There is probably a case for a separate Category:English literature and Category:English-language literature, the latter including American, Australian, Indian, etc and the former specifically that of England, but this nom would not achieve that. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If I remember rightly, Das Kapital was written in England, so it's part of the literature of England, even though it's obviously not English literature. Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_23&oldid=1169470199"