Category talk:Lands reserved for indigenous peoples

Category rationale
I moved the name of this category to Lands inhabited for indigenous peoples, because each country has a especific treatment, legislation, definition, nomenclature, etc, for those lands, and sometimes there isn't the terms reserved, indian reserve or reservation, or they have a different meaning.Tiberti (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You didn't move it propally - see WP:MOVE for future reference. Mdann52 (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm reverting, Category:Lands inhabited for indigenous peoples is not proper grammar, and changes the meaning. Reserved indicates some special rule that protects the right of the indigenous people to keep live on the land, whereas inhabited just means then live on it, and I don't think such a category really makes sense. Monty  845  17:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think is better maintain (and create too a article for) "Lands inhabited for indigenous peoples". It's intentionally generalist. The term "reserved" may have different meanings (e.g., in Brazil, Indigenous Reserve is just a category of area inhabited for indigenous peoples, with specific characteristics). Each country has different laws about lands inhabited for indigenous peoples, with specific nomenclature. And there are too countries that don't recognise the land rights of indigenous peoples (their lands are not "reserved", in the meaning you said). Tiberti (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw the article Indigenous land rights. Maybe is better maintain just the category, and don't create a article for "Lands inhabited for indigenous peoples". Tiberti (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be Lands inhabited BY indigenous people, 'for' doesn't make sense in the context. Monty  845  19:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok (I don't speak English very well, thanks.)Tiberti (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)