Category talk:Noongar people

text on main page
The text is placed very specifically to combat the general misunderstading the cfontext of the project - this is a wikipedia category for a project, where the tendency should be to help, not be ambiguous. It has nothing whatsoever to do with identification or self identification - the project has had too many of its components interfered with by well meaning editors who nothing of the place, the people or the context of the project. JarrahTree 12:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The category is in article space, not project space. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As the project transition from incubator to existing in wp en main space - no one yet has worked upon or developed or applied adequate 'boundaries' to establish specific project space - as it stands - categories such as this are in fact de facto project space. JarrahTree 09:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

categorizing Noongar people
If a person self-identifies as Noongar, eg by ancestry, even they are not from the south-west of WA, should we categorize them as Category:Noongar people? I would have thought that we should, but apparently disagrees, wanting to limit the scope of that category to those from the south-west of WA.


 * n.b.: unsigned by User:Mitch Ames - making this section confusing as to who is asking what question in this section JarrahTree 10:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Is this just a theoretical/future concern, or are there actual existing articles which would be included or excluded based on that edit/revert? In any case, perhaps it would be better to have something more along the lines of the Noongar article's first sentence – e.g. This category is for individual people of Noongar identity. The Noongar are an Indigenous Australian people from the southwest corner of Western Australia. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 16:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Is this just a theoretical/future concern, or are there actual existing articles It's a theoretical/future/definition issue. We have enough trouble with categories as it is, so I think we should be accurate in our definitions.
 * This category is for individual people of Noongar identity. The Noongar are an Indigenous Australian people from the southwest corner of Western Australia. This would work.
 * (Actually just the first sentence is sufficient. I disagree with the need to define Noongar here, because categories are not articles, but that's a separate issue, which is not the topic of debate here.)
 * Mitch Ames (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure where all that is leading, noongar 'home country', 'land' lies basically in the broadest sense of the south west of the state. If people choose to self identify, and are in fact from somewhere else, it is because part of the parentage/ancestry is linked to the original area. It is not possible to be a noongar from the kimberley, without connections to the noongar land by ancestry JarrahTree 09:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If people choose to self identify, and are in fact from somewhere else, it is because part of the parentage/ancestry is linked to the original area. Yes, but in normal English Wikipedia use, "people from south-west WA" implies that the person is physically from that part of the country, not that they have ancestors from that location. Defining the category as being "for individual people from the southwest corner of Western Australia" would exclude those people "from somewhere else" from the category, and I don't think we should do that.
 * It's a question of accurate definition of the intended category contents.
 * It's also a matter of simplicity. "Noongar people" are people who identify as Noongar. We don't need to make the definition any more complicated than that - but you have complicated it unnecessarily by making the physical location an explicit part of a cultural definition. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)