Category:Azusa Pacific Cougars football seasons[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Why creating and merging to a brand-new category called "College football seasons" with only a very very very tiny fraction of the actual ones that have articles being entered is an absolutely inappropriate option has been explained several times already. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
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) 22:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: The term "people's peers" is chiefly informal, while the new title is unambiguous as to its scope and resembles other similar category names, e.g. "Peers appointed by [monarch]". — RAVENPVFF·talk·13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Nominator's rationale: The term 'Arab Jews' is politically contested, often by Zionists or by Jews with roots in the Arab world who prefer to be identified as Mizrahi Jews. This category may inappropriately label persons. Aldij (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aldij It is a fact that there are people who identify as Arab Jews. If someone is miscategorized, they can be removed from the category. There is no reason to delete it. Are there any people in the category that you deem miscategorized? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aldij It is especially egregious to merge this category into the category for Mizrahi Jews, as many people who identify as Arab Jews very vocally do not identify as Mizrahi Jews. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose Many people self-identify as Arab Jews. Whether anyone else likes that or not or agrees with that or not, that is a reality. We shouldn't erase the identity of Arab Jews due to a political agenda that objects to Arab-Jewish identity. More broadly, I am deeply concerned with the targeting and deletion of numerous categories related to Arabs in general and Arab Jews in particular, and worry that this is an expression of anti-Arab racism and Arab erasure on Wikipedia. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not useful to keep categories split when people use different words that have (almost) the same meaning. Self-identification is not decisive. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 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.
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 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:Continental Army soldiers from North Carolina[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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.
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.
@Smasongarrison I'm not sure if Estopedist would appreciate it that you changed their nomination. It makes sense, but I think it's better to ask the nominator to include other categories to their nomination than to do it yourself without their prior consent.
@Estopedist1 @Smasongarrison @Nederlandse Leeuw thanks very much for the work here, I was looking at these last night but then had to go to sleep! I've done a little more tidying:
Category:Czechoslovak numismatists is empty (with one moved to Czech
Category:New Zealand numsimatists is empty (the one classed as numismatist is really a coin designer, so moved to that category)
Category:Belarusian numismatists - I can't seem to locate the proposal for it?
Glad to know you didn't mind. Personally I usually don't appreciate it when other people change my nomination without asking, but not everyone is the same way. NLeeuw (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think for the discipline it's useful for catgeories that reflect more than one article to be separate, and I believe the nominations were made prior to the addition of more people to the categories Lajmmoore (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These categories also show users which articles still need to be created in the English Wikipedia based on the categories in other language Wikipedias. For example, I was surprised by how many articles we are still missing for Estonian numistamists in enwp. Obliterating the categories won't help people with that.
On a side note, I was also surprised by how few of the people in the same category in other language wps had properly filled out items in Wikidata that could be used to query numistamists from these places, even when they are in the properly titled categories in other wps. To me, this looks like a very good reason to get people together to expand and create articles on these people in enwp, filling out the categories, instead of deleting the categories. - Yupik (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Albanian, Algerian, Azerbaijani, Czechoslovak, Jordanian, Latvian, New Zealand Serbian, Slovak, Sri Lankan, but ...
@Nederlandse Leeuw - apologies for the late reply. My opinion is that all the numismatist by nationalisty categories should remain, but I also recognise that compromise is important, so I would would suggested that the Belarusian, Estonian and Lithuanian categories are kept (since they have more than one person in each), and the others deleted if need be Lajmmoore (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you merge the Jordanian, Slovak, Czechoslovak, Belarusian, Algerian, and Albanian numismatists, you also need to put them into categories for their nationalities, like Category:Jordanian people or a subcategory. It would be wrong to take these people out of their nationality categories entirely. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Comment@Marcocapelle: "Species described in year" and "IUCN vulnerable species" categories are not defining characteristics, either, but those are widely used. How are those acceptable but this isn't? For the record, I oppose deletion. - UtherSRG(talk)10:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Strong Keep: It looks like the nominator has no understanding of the importance of Sahitya Akademi Awards in India. While List article may exist, it is important to have this category for the recipients. The award is presented every year to writers of the most outstanding books of literary merit published in any of the 22 languages separately. Nobel prize list articles also exists, as well as categories for recipients of each categories of Nobel prizes.
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.
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.
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, SviatoslavichitoSviatoslav II of Kiev, and VolodimerovichitoVladimir 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]
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.
@MarcocapelleFamily 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]
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]
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.
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:merge LGBT intersex categories, there is fairly strong consensus that LGBT + intersex is unnecessary. There is no consensus on whether the first four categories in the nomination are WP:DEFINING; that is, whether or not the intersection between being intersex and transgender/gay is a notable one. No prejudice against speedy renomination of those categories, so they can be discussed separately. (non-admin closure)Qwerfjkltalk16:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01 Comment: Regardless of whether all intersex people are part of the LGBTQ community, it remains uncontested that not every intersex person identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. An argument to delete a category such as "LGBT intersex people" on the basis of the claim that "all intersex people are LGBTQ" fails to demonstrate why the subcategories should be merged or deleted. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other commenters have said it better than me. I would say that categories like ""LGBT intersex people" are too narrow. I wouldn't mind there being "Category:Intersex men" and "Category:LGBT men", "Category:Intersex women" and "Category:LGBT women", and "Category:LGBT people" and "Category:Intersex people". Under the merger proposed by the OP, if the categories were merged, no information would be lost. In fact, only a total of 11 pages are listed in "Category:Intersex transgender people", so I see no issue in adding them to similar categories instead, as the OP as proposed. If it was many more pages in the category the OP proposed be deleted, I would certainly feel differently. Historyday01 (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there is not enough academic literature for the EGRS intersections of LGBTQ+ intersex people, and the reasons include:
oppression
low representation
struggle for notability
lack of job opportunities in academic research
lack of interest among academic researchers
lack of diversity, encouragement, and inclusion of intersex academic researchers, LGBTQ+ academic researchers, and LGBTQ+ intersex academic researchers, and so on.
Is it reasonable to delete or merge these categories just because there is not enough academic literature? Even when we know the reasons why there is not academic literature?
Only one category was proposed to be deleted by the OP (Category:Intersex transgender people). I don't doubt there are notable intersex transgender people, nor do I doubt academic literature. I noted it elsewhere, but if there were more pages in "Intersex transgender people" category I wouldn't support deletion. As for the mergers, I don't think any content would be lost... Historyday01 (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison Setting aside the broader discussion of whether or not all intersex people are LGBTQ, it is undeniably true that not every intersex person identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender, so that argument falls flat when it comes to merging the subcategories. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Raladic An argument that "all intersex people are LGBTQ", which many intersex people find misinformed and offensive, still doesn't say anything as to the subcats. Gay, lesbian, bi, and trans intersex people would still exist even if all intersex people are LGBTQ+ in a broad sense. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with exception of "Intersex transgender men" and "Intersex transgender women," as those can be useful categories and don't have the same issue as the other proposed categories for deletion.ForsythiaJo (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the last three (LGBT intersex categories), keep the rest per ForsythiaJo. All intersex people are categorized as LGBT, but are all intersex men gay men or transgender men? The rationale doesn't apply to these categories. --MikutoHtalk!23:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question for the keeps, I don't think the 3x intersection is supportable in terms of category size or under EGRS. Can somebody point to some literature that supports these intersections? Mason (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm not disputing that these people exist or that they experience hardships, but what I haven't been able to find is academic literature that would support this as a defining intersection, which is typically the benchmark for EGRS intersections. Mason (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are "EGRS intersections"? I doubt that academic literature is inherently required for validation of people at the intersections of transness and variations in biological sex. Anyway, there is academic and scientific literature for transgender people, and also for intersex people.
According to Diamond 2013, many genetic and epigenetic factors are involved in being transgender.
If you are talking about population statistics of intersex transgender people, there are many reasons why such research is hard to find. Such research is banned, purposely edited for unethical erasure of these people, and/or censored by unethical governments and authorities. — CrafterNova[ TALK ][ CONT ]11:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:EGRS. It lays out the requirements for intersections related to ethnicity, gender, race, sexuality, and disability. It isn't a question of whether these people exist; it's whether the academic literature says that this is a DEFINING intersection. Mason (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison: And we need to be willing to do teamwork to find such academic literature. If you do believe that these people are real, trying to search for the literature first, preferably on Google Scholar, is definitely more reasonable before nominating any EGRS intersectional category for deletion and/or merging.
On Google Scholar, a simple search for the string "intersex transgender people" does not give much relevant results, but that does not refute the existence of such academic literature. It's just very difficult to find, and also very difficult to make and publish because of censorship, erasure, discrimination, and many other reasons. — CrafterNova[ TALK ][ CONT ]12:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW: I already looked (using my university's library resources) and agree that there is not much. That is why I asked if others had found any. However, the fact that it is difficult to find is evidence against the topic meeting the EGRS criteria.
> But, such categories should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a defining topic that has already been established in sources as academically or culturally significant in its own right.
Difficulty to publish suggests that there isn't a critical mass of academics who publish about the topic. The category already needs to be established as defining in sources, which again, I don't think it is yet. Perhaps in the future it will be, but until then I don't think it means the criteria. Mason (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I strongly oppose the erasure of asexual and intersex people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender and the subsequent eradication of any categories that mention LGBT intersex and asexual people. Being both LGBT and intersex or LGBT and asexual is a relevant and defining intersection of two oppressed groups, a minority within a minority. Likewise, there are many intersex people who identify as cis/hetero or straight and many asexuals who identify as cis/heteroromantic or straight. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison Yes, it is erasure. And "LGBT" is the standard acronym used for articles and categories for Wikipedia. Not all asexual people are gay, lesbian, bi, or transgender. Gay asexual men exist. Lesbian asexual women exist. Biromantic asexuals exist. Transgender asexuals exist. Just as there are asexuals who identify as straight and/or hetero. There needs to be a way to describe and acknowledge the reality of asexuals who are LGB and/or T. A marginalized group within a marginalized group. As a compromise, I'd be fine with merging the LGBT categories but keeping the L, G, B, and T subcategories. Those are undoubtedly valid. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "All intersex people are LGBT" is a blatant assumption made without listening to all intersex people, and made on basis of only the acronyms LGBTI+, LGBTQI+, LGBTQIA+, LGBTQIAP+, LGBTQ2SIA+, LGBTQ2SIAP+, etc.
"I’m Bonnie Hart, I’m a woman, and I’m kind of straight-ish. Being intersex has nothing to do with gender identities or presentations, or sexual orientation. Intersex people identify as female, male, both, and all sorts of identities between the binary. It’s a lived experience"
The LGBQIAP+ acronym includes only those intersex people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer (non-binary, genderfluid, agender, polygender, pangender, and so on) and/or polyamorous, asexual, graysexual, ace-spec, aromantic, grayromantic, aro-spec, and so on. Intersex people who are straight, monoamorous, cisgender, binary, and/or allosexual and so on, and rest of the non-LGBTQ+ intersex people have constantly stated again and again that they are not lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer, and hence they are not LGBTQ+.
Just like there are many overlaps between and among all groups of people everywhere, there are many overlaps between groups of LGBTQ+ people and non-LGBTQ+ people, whether they are intersex or endosex, cisgender or transgender, binary or non-binary or agender. All ethically good people's sexualities, biological sex, and genders must be respected. — CrafterNova[ TALK ][ CONT ]09:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CrafterNova: what you arguing is that Intersex categories should not automatically have LGBT parents. Whether one agrees with that or not, for the merge discussion it is not really relevant. The merge proposal is about avoiding trivial intersections. E.g. there does not have to be a micro category for people who are intersex and gay man simultaneously, instead articles may well be put in an intersex category and in a gay men category independently of each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: There do have to be subcategories and microcategories. There are many examples where secondary, tertiary, and quaternary categories are required, such as:
The people, whose articles are in such subcategories and microcategories, have criteria that makes them eligible to be placed in such categories.
These are not "trivial intersections", rather intersections of various forms of oppression and discrimination, various professions, eras and time periods, nationalities, genders, biological sex, sexualities, etc.
Representation of people at these intersections is important, especially people who face long-term discrimination based on genders, biological sex, sexualities, nationalities, race, ethnicities, and so on. — CrafterNova[ TALK ][ CONT ]07:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CrafterNova: no that is not the purpose. The goal of categories is to allow easy navigation between related articles for readers, and by creating many layers in categories we merely make navigation more difficult. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle:by creating many layers in categories we merely make navigation more difficult.
Readers can navigate through secondary, tertiary and quarternary categories just as easily as all categories. Ease of navigation does not depend on subcategorization and microcategorization. Rather, ease of navigation depends on accessibility features, and whether category naming criteria, intersection criteria, and rest of relevant criteria are met or not. — CrafterNova[ TALK ][ CONT ]07:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Readers do not have to navigate in the tree at all if they find a sufficient amount of content in the category that they find at the bottom of the article that they are reading, it then suffices to select every article in that category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you are saying, but personally I think a deletion of a category would a better option considering the small number of pages in "Category:Intersex transgender people". As I said in another comment, if there were more pages in the category, I would feel differently about it. Historyday01 (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily see an issue if the pages in those categories are added to the related categories as the OP proposed. Besides, if the others ("Intersex transgender men" and "Intersex transgender women") are merged, then the "Intersex transgender people" would be empty... and it would be deleted regardless. If the merger of those 11 pages is done with care and those pages are put into the related categories as proposed by the OP, then I don't see an issue with this... In terms of "Intersex non-binary people", I think that has enough entries to justify being its own category at this point. Historyday01 (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
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]
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:Unrecognized tribes in the United States[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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]
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]
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". --ARoseWolf13:19, 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]
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. --ARoseWolf12:12, 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. --ARoseWolf13:07, 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? --ARoseWolf12:58, 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 Wellertalk11:33, 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. --ARoseWolf17:52, 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 YazidisorAlevis 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.
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. --ARoseWolf13:12, 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]
I would absolutely be opposed to changing the category to "Category:Unrecognized Native American tribes" which is what seems to be implied here. --ARoseWolf12:02, 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]
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]
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. --ARoseWolf13:26, 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]
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.
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.
Comment Can we at least merge these categories into centuries in Judaism categories? It seems like some articles were removed from categories not manually but just mistakes in a template. LizRead!Talk!19:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retain: As the creator of these (and several other Jewish categories by year spanning four or more centuries), please tell me why the dates 1800 and 1700 have been arbitrarily selected as the dates by which categorisation by year should start; and prior to these dates, categorisation should occur only by decade. Was there some momentus event in Jewish history that I'm not aware of that has been determined by Wikipedia editors through consensus that this is the effective start date by year? If there is such debate, please direct me to the discussion, as I'm keen to understand the logic and reasoning behind such a decision reached by consensus. Or is this a classic case of WP:RECENTISM, in the context of Jewish history, where, because there is currently more recent content in Wikipedia, categorisation by year is deemed necessary; and because prior to this arbitrarily selected date, there is less content in Wikipedia, and hence categorisation by year is deemed unnecessary? I'm also keen to understand if there is a discussion about adopting the same/similar approach for other religions; say, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc.? Looking forward to reading the rationale, here. Rangasyd (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is all about reducing the over-detailed virtually empty category schemes that some people like to create, but are nothing but a nuisance to readers. Many such schemes have been reduced here, no doubt including ones for other religions. If you are that "keen" to find out, why don't you check on them? I see eg Category:1733 in Christianity is still there, but currently consists only of church buildings. The other thing about these category trees is that having set them up, usually neither the creator nor anyone else bothers to populate them properly, a rather more difficult task. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 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.
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.
No, it is not an established enough convention. Not all sibling categories only contain "by descent" subcategories; especially the US categories contain a mix of descent and ethnic subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American politicians who are the most recent member of their party to hold statewide office[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep: Let’s consider what Wikipedia:Overcategorization defines as non-trivial characteristics: “For biographical articles, it is usual to categorize by such aspects as their career, origins, and major accomplishments. In contrast, someone's tastes in food, their favorite holiday destination, or the number of tattoos they have would be considered trivia.” It is indisputably a major accomplishment and notable career event to have been the very last member of a political party to win a statewide election. These people were alone and remain alone as members of their parties with statewide power, reflecting ideological transitions and resource disparities. That is why this trait is noted in the introduction of almost every biography under the category. It does not remotely compare with arbitrary preferences or traits, and you have failed to elaborate about why it should. You have essentially conceded that there is no formal rule whatsoever against categories which are so-called “temporary.” Of course elections and generational turnover mean that pages will eventually be swapped out. In many cases in this category, this will likely take years to decades - underscoring how the category is illustrative of partisan leans and relevant to understanding both the unique "maverick" identities of some politicians as well as the electoral geography of the United States. Wikipedia is updated to reflect current events. This category, along with many other categories and biographies, is no different. Finally, it is hardly narrow to cover 23 politicians from 23 22 different states and multiple decades. 1Matt20 (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others, and because this is presumably a temporary position for most, and the category will be hard to maintain. Johnbod (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a trivial and non-defining characteristic, and furthermore it can be a transient characteristic — any given person here will no longer belong here if and when somebody from their party wins another statewide election in their state in the future, but there's no guarantee that they'll actually be removed from it when it's no longer applicable. We don't categorize people for temporary characteristics that may cease to be true in the future — we only categorize people on characteristics that once they've become true, will always remain true forever. Phil Bredesen, for example, will never cease to have been a ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:Governor of Tennessee — but it is entirely possible that he will sooner or later cease to have been the last Democrat to hold statewide office in Tennessee. So we categorize him as the former thing, but not as the latter, because the former will never stop being true while the latter might. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Nominator's rationale: This epon category has the poet and the one of their colleagues. That's not helpful for navigation, considering that they already link to each other. Mason (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 5#Category:Sikh warriors
Comment: by nominator. Excellent job, mates! Thanks for modifying my original nomination!--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. If the RM is approved, then
