Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 7



Category:People associated with the Dissolution of the Monasteries

 * 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: no consensus. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting people associated with the dissolution of the monasteries


 * Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCASSOC, as a too vague basis for categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I wonder about this. There were people charged with carrying out the royal policy. There were also people who benefited by the policy (either through royal gifting or bargain basement purchase prices). There were also people who were in both camps. Then there were the people who suffered from the policy (e.g. dispossessed abbots and monks). Is it possible to re-purpose and re-name the category to cater for one or more of these groups? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is doubtful whether we can distinguish defining characteristics that we can use for diffusion. There is already Category:16th-century English politicians and Category:16th-century English clergy, but further than that? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This is an important topic but this is a category with no clear boundary; something that cannot be allowed. Parenting this is "Scandals" is particularly inappropriate.  A category for abbots and monks displaced by the Dissolution might be appropriate.  English politicians active during the Reformation Period 1530s-1547, might also be valid.  At a later period we categorise politicians by Ministry, but before there were Prime Ministers, that does not work well, so that we might use reigns, in this case dividing the reign in the middle, divided by the fall of Wolsey.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * keep This seems like a reasonable grouping of the people involved in this historic event, making no judgement whether they personally benefitted from the action or were victims in some way. Subcategories can always be created when deemed necessary. Hmains (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Involvement in a historic event is quite similar to WP:PERFCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Historic events are not artistic performances by any stretch of the imagination. Hmains (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is similar to performing because it's accidental and incidental, not defining. Apart from wars (which are more a period than an event) I doubt if we have any other "people associated with historic event" categories. And if we do, they should probably be nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * perpetrators and victims of a crime (if this is what it is) are not 'accidental and incidental'.  Hmains (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a political event. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That obvious fact changes nothing. Hmains (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't categorize politicians by political event. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment This is not a "crime" since it was done as a legal action, therfore is default not a crime. Also, I am unconvinced we have a clear guidelines on what exactly makes someone associated with this event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. This was one of the major political and economic events of its era in England: the state broke the economic power of the church, and privatised lots of land. It's at least as significant as categoising people by war. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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:Movable Western Christian observances

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Movable Western Christian observances to Category:Moveable Christian observances
 * Propose merging Category:Movable Eastern Christian observances to Category:Moveable Christian observances
 * Nominator's rationale: merge these two categories together, they are currently each based on a trivial triple intersection. "Western" and "Eastern" have nothing to do with movability. A potential more relevant intersection would be "Christian Sunday observances" and "Christian Easter-based observances" since these characteristics are related to both Christianity and to movability. (Note: movability in this context refers to a movable calendar date, not to the liturgical year.) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Disagree Eastern and Western Churches celebrate Easter at times (this year was a rare exception) and celebrate other fixed holidays at different times. There are also movable observances that are ONLY observed by one tradition and not the other. If a movable observance is based around certain holidays, then it must be in a separate Eastern or Western category. Furthermore, not using the term "movable" in the proposed category just leads to confusion. If you read the articles List of movable Western Christian observances and List of movable Eastern Christian observances, you'll see where major differences lie. Asarelah (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing against having a tree for Category:Eastern Orthodox liturgical days‎ on its own, it is just the intersection with moveability that goes a bit far. Even more so because almost half of the articles in the Eastern category are also in the Western sibling. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Probably best to listify also. The exceptions noted above by Asarelah mean that they are sufficiently complex that categorisation is not the best treatment at all. Make a nice list with columns for RC and for EO instead. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, listification is much better, also because a few of these observances are celebrated in just one country, that kind of information can be included in the table as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I did listify them already. The lists are List of movable Western Christian observances and List of movable Eastern Christian observances. Asarelah (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be more useful to have one common list as a table in which one can easily see which days are celebrated by which denomination. The overlap between Western and Eastern would become much clearer, and the distinction within Western and Eastern would become more clear as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * comment Almost everything in these two categories actually belongs in Category:Holidays based on the date of Easter. There is (or was) a recent discussion of holidays around Christmas which depend on the day of the week on which it falls, which should receive almost everything else. After that, most of the difference revolves around ethnic holidays (as opposed to feasts and fasts of the church proper), so the Western vs. Eastern distinction becomes incidental. Mangoe (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:Vagrant birds of Europe

 * 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 (non-admin closure) . After the previous discussion it would be a matter of common sense to close this discussion as delete anyway. In addition, the appeal to WP:OVERLAPCAT was not contested. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting vagrant birds of europe


 * Propose deleting Category:Vagrant birds (currently empty)
 * Propose deleting Category:Vagrant birds of North America
 * Propose deleting Category:Vagrant birds of the Caribbean (currently empty)
 * Nominator's rationale: WP:NON-DEFINING - These categories were inadvertently omitted from Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_23. DexDor(talk) 19:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. The argument was made at that CfD (which I just missed) that these are supposed to be for wintering birds, not vagrants, however that is still overcategorisation. We categorise birds by their (continent-level) range, full stop, not when they happen to be in that range. That is what lists are for. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. But they aren't just lists, they are categories ; for relevance and clarity it is much more pragmatical to include birds with a particular range of presence in their relevant sub-categories, rather than lumped all together. This is how the integrity of the bird project is elaborated. --Couiros22 (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if these categories were made "wintering" rather than "vagrant", they would not be helpful. What about young birds that spend their first full year on the wintering grounds? What about species that don't migrate? Why categorize wintering grounds and not breeding grounds? The permutations are legion! MeegsC (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Birds that do not migrate should only be listed in the "birds of..." cat., that either corresponds to their residential and/or breeding range (both are conterminous). Birds' ranges are generally displayed according to two factors: native range (breeding or residential) and wintering range (cf. IUCN, BirdLife Int. etc.) ; I don't see why we should list birds exclusively according to their vaguely misleading generic sphere of presence. --Couiros22 (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Because there are too many possible permutations to avoid anything else being WP:OCAT. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, because those "other categorizations" are trivial in comparison :-( --Couiros22 (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Couiros22, you continue to show that you don't really understand the biological terminology in use here. Native in the biological sense means that an organism naturally occurs in an area (as opposed to being introduced). Species that overwinter in an area are native too! MeegsC (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A wintering birds category would be also be useful, which for some trivial reason you refuse to acknowledge.
 * Please provide a valid definition of what a 'native bird' is and how it is applicable to regions where birds go only to escape the cold winter. --Couiros22 (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 'It's useful' is not a solid criterion. Definition of 'native bird' = 'not introduced by mankind'. I'm frankly astonished you have to ask that. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course it's useful, because distinguishing birds according to their seasonal repartition is a major aspect. --Couiros22 (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between native and migratory ; ie. many sites make the distinction, such as this one : http://nevadawild.org/native-and-migratory-birds-in-nevada/. --Couiros22 (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but for categorisation, usefulness is not the be-all and end-all. And that site may use "native" wrongly, but that doesn't mean that we should. In biology, "native" means "lives there naturally, without having been introduced by man", full stop. I.E. an American Robin is native in North America, the Rock Pigeon is not. It doesn't matter whether the robin is wintering or, a mere 20 miles north, lives year-round, it's still native. Categorising birds by where they naturally occur is reasonable. Categorising birds by when they occur is overcategorisation. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is it wrong to specify the wintering birds from the rest in a separate cat. though ? --Couiros22 (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * First you need to define "wintering birds". If one or two pairs, tops, nest in an area, but the same area is overrun with the species in winter, does it count? If one bird every few years appears in winter, does it count? Why not, then, also categorise by summer residency, permament residency, migration? Especially at the continent level, this level of granularity in categorisation is in fact dis-useful to the readers. This is information for List of birds of Foo, not categories. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Two major bird list references (Avibase & BirdLife International) highlight to important asects : the common range (whether only breeding or permanently residential throughout the year) and wintering ranges ; both websites tend to corroborate each other 99% ; hence we can have a well-defined interpretation of the common and wintering ranges for every bird species. We could also include the handful of summer ranges into a 'migrant birds' cat. rather than a 'wintering birds cat'. All in all, how would that pose a problem ? --Couiros22 (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OCAT. (Also, your comment "handful of summer ranges into a migrant birds cat" - statments like this make me scratch my head, summer range =/= migratory, and there's more than a "handful" of species that have seperate summering ranges...) - The Bushranger One ping only 10:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you please refer to the section relevant to this discussion ? Also, from my browsing experience, only a very modest amount of birds have summer ranges. --Couiros22 (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OVERLAPCAT. At the continent level, most birds will have summer, resident, and winter ranges on different parts of the continent. This means either they will have to be in multiple overlapping categories, or just "resident" in which case it carries the implication they do not migrate. In addition, in many cases birds that are found in the same area in summer and winter are not the same birds - Blue Jays, for example, fly south for the winter, but are replaced by birds that summered further north, producing the appearance of residency. Also, if I may speak very frankly? Given that in the original discussion you implied you believed "vagrant birds" was a suitable term for winter residents, and you believed then and still state now that "summering birds are extremely rare", I would suggest you step back and study birds and their ranges for a while before returning to attempting to categorise them by range. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The breeding and residential areas are always conterminous ; therefore there is only the need to distinguish between common range (whether breeding only or residential) and wintering ranges.
 * Could you please specify how summer ranges are significantly as important as wintering ranges ? --Couiros22 (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The breeding and residential areas are always conterminous - While technically true, there is still a difference, as the vast majority of North American hummingbirds, flycatchers, warblers, and other neotropical migrants will happily tell you. Maybe only a small handful of birds have summer-only ranges in Europe, but it's dramatically different in other parts of the world. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If only you could provide a handful of such examples (from the BirdLife Int. site) of birds with :
 * a) widely separated breeding and residential ranges
 * b) summer ranges --Couiros22 (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Acadian Flycatcher, Purple Martin, Mexican Whip-poor-will, to list three of hundreds. Forgive me for using strong emphasis here, but birds with summer-only ranges are not rare, or even uncommon, and by continually claiming they are and demanding multiple levels of proof that they are not you are simply demonstrating that you should consider following the First Law of Holes. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They aren't summer ranges (only the winter ranges overlapping into the southern hemisphere can be considered as summer ranges, but not in the sense of *like wintering ranges* migrating before the summer to escape the warm temperatures.
 * How do any of these ranges display a relevant disparity between breeding and residential range ?
 * The only thing wrong with the category is its title, which should be renamed "wintering" or "migrant birds". Apart from that, what is wrong in categorizing birds according to their common range ("birds of...") and their migrant range ? --Couiros22 (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ...that...I...literally have no idea how to respond to that beyond quoting Kermit the Frog about being "100% wrong". I'm sorry, but you have clearly demonstrated you have no idea how bird ranges actually work and you keep insisting on more and more detailed refutations of your misunderstandings, so I am withdrawing from this conversation, as I believe it speaks for itself. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Reciprocally, i.e. :
 * a) when birds have summer ranges, they are clearly displayed on the Birdlife Int. website (in a different color)
 * b) birds having different breeding and summer ranges are still conterminous (without necessarily overlapping) compared to their wintering ranges
 * Hence, the onus is still on you to demonstrate why common and migrant range are not the two preeminent ranges worthy of categorization. --Couiros22 (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ...since this raises a new question: you do realise there are many birds for which there is no such thing as a "permament resident" range, right? - The Bushranger One ping only 07:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but when they do, they are conterminous to other breeding ranges rather than wintering range. --Couiros22 (talk) 07:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That there are two main outstanding ranges worthy of categorization :
 * - common (breeding and/or year-round residential)
 * - wintering range (or migrant range if winter and summer ranges are included together in the same cat.). --Couiros22 (talk) 08:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ...there is no such thing as "common" range. "Common" refers to abundance, not range. "Migrant range" is not WP:DEFINING. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They are simply categorized as "birds of...", so I don't see where the problem lies.
 * Which part of the page you referred to suggests that "migrant birds of..." is over-categorization ? --Couiros22 (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Categorising migrant birds could be valid, but this is NOT about migrants. Vagrants are birds that got lost when migrating. Where they get lost is not defining.  A list of vagrants might be useful, but a category is certainly over-categorisation.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 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 have committed sexual harassment

 * 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. WP:BLP, WP:SNOW, WP:NOTBURO. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting american people who have committed sexual harassment


 * Nominator's rationale: Created and subsequently depopulated category, potentially with serious BLP issues. See also Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.  G M G  talk   15:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support About 30 articles added by creator and then removed by multiple editors as BLP vios. Delete before more BLP vios occur. O3000 (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Yeah pretty much. Impossible to police, too vague to be defined. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete due to BLP issues. A potential ATTACK category.  We could have Category:People convicted of sexual harassment crimes, which in UK might cover sexual assault and stalking.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support deletion for reasons stated above. JTRH (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Impossible to define, and people just accused could end up on here as there are two sides to every story. Donmike10 (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-defining per WP:CATDEF. There is far too much category clutter as is. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. We can't have this kind of category about living people, seriously. Too much potential for BLP violations and attacks. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC).


 * 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:National parks of Greenland

 * 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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:National parks of Greenland to Category:National parks in Greenland
 * Nominator's rationale: This was nominated at CFDS, on the grounds that the rest of the National parks of foo tree uses "in", not "of", for subnational categories, and it was objected to on the grounds that Greenland is, technically, a country (if still subordinate to Denmark), and it is somewhat unclear as to whether it's a Danish national park or a Greenlandic national park. Accordingly, this should be discussed here. Given that the park in question - Northeast Greenland National Park - is referred to in its article as having been the "first national park to be created in the Kingdom of Denmark" (emphasis mine), I believe this move is the appropriate one. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Category:National parks of Greenland to Category:National parks in Greenland – C2C: per subnational subcategories of Category:National parks, which use "in". The Bushranger One ping only 06:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose speedy: Greenland is a constituent country of Denmark, so I am not sure it should follow the "in" convention of subnational entities (e.g. provinces, states). I am not certain that "of" is necessarily more appropriate in this case, but this should have a full discussion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I considered that, but the description on Northeast Greenland National Park that "It was the first national park to be created in the Kingdom of Denmark" (emphasis mine) was what convinced me. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support The Danish name appears to translate as Greenland National Park. Greenland is an overseas territory of Denmark, which is outside European Union.  Having "in" fits the context well, though "of" is also potentially correct.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:Keys of Florida

 * 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 to Category:Islands of Florida. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Keys of Florida to Category:Islands of Florida
 * Nominator's rationale: This is textbook categorisation by shared name. The only significant characteristic of the contents of this category is the presence of "key" in the name, and none of them are actually cays (sandy islands atop coral reefs), but rather islands that were given the name "key" because it would attract tourists. The Bushranger One ping only 11:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * support per proposer's rational, as it makes more sense to group all Florida islands into the same category. I must point out, however, that the term "key" in these names has nothing whatever with "attracting tourists" as suggested above but comes from the Spanish "cayo", which is a loose term that usually denotes a small island near a mainland. Zeng8r (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A good point, but still, per cay, it's at least now defined as specifically a coral-reef-topping island, which none of these are. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * support especially since none of the membership is in the Florida Keys. There's no point in singling out various islands which happen to be named a particular way. Mangoe (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * do not merge reading the articles in the category finds they are about certain populated places with key in their name. They do not belong in an island category. Hmains (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked at that before nominating, . Every one is about both the island and the community on it. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree they are not part of the Florida Keys, but this is what I find in the articles:
 * Cedar Key, Florida (the city) is on 'Way Key', one of the 'Cedar Keys' cluster of islands. The Cedar Keys redirect needs to be categorized as an island, not this city.
 * Longboat Key, Florida (the town) is on a barrier island of the same name. It is the redirect Longboat Key that needs to be categorized as an island, not this town.
 * Lovers Key State Park says that the state park is on 4 barrier islands: 'Lover's Key', 'Black Island', 'Inner Key' and 'Long Key', not otherwise described.
 * Manasota Key, Florida is a census designated place in Charlotte County. 'Manasota Key' refers to a peninsula/barrier island that is in both Charlotte and Sarasota Counties. It is the redirect Manasota Key that needs to be categorized as an island, not this place.
 * Perdido Key, Florida is an unincorporated community on 'Perdido Key' which includes more land that what is just occupied by 'Perdido Key, Florida'. It is the redirect Perdido Key that needs to be categorized as an island, not this community.
 * Hmains (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But how does this counter the WP:SHAREDNAME rationale of the nomination? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The articles are also about the islands. The content on the islands in question is on the pages, which happen to be titled for the communities that share the same area as the islands. There are times where categorising redirects is a useful thing to do, but when the article actually covers the subject in question, it is more useful for the reader for the article, on the island, to be categorised in the island category. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This type of coverage is true of most redirected-to-articles and changes nothing about the desirability of having and using redirects with the appropriate categories. Also, as I pointed out in my summary above of each article, it is not always true that the communities and islands exactly share the same land space or the same name. Hmains (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - confusing to the reader. Neutralitytalk 19:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:Indigenous Australians from Western Australia

 * 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: no consensus. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Indigenous Australians from Western Australia to Category:Indigenous Australian people from Western Australia
 * Nominator's rationale: C2.C per Category:Indigenous Australian people and Category:People from Western Australia. I am listing the category here instead of WP:CFD/S because it was previously nominated with a "no consensus" outcome, mainly due to lack of agreement on whether the category is needed. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Oppose. Tentatively, but there is something delicate and sensitive, and sore, to suggest that Indigenous Australian people are not Australians.  In "Indigenous Australian people", Australian may be read as possessive, as in "Australia's indigenous people(s)", which is the historical embarrassment.  Instead, I suggest renaming Category:Indigenous Australian people to Category:Indigenous Australians.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note the parent article, "Indigenous Australians". Follow the parent article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Categorization of people is one instance where we consistently follow the [X] people format in preference to the parent articles (see e.g. Americans and Category:American people), which are woefully inconsistent. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For as long as I have visited CfD, the rule "category names follow the name of the parent article" has been always the right thing to do. A lot more people invest a lot more effort into article titles.  Category:American people has an error in its header following the 2011 RM Talk:Americans/Archive_1.  These indigenous Australian categories are quite a mess.  I would fix them starting from the top.  Rename Category:Indigenous Australian people to Category:Indigenous Australians to follow the parent article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As with every rule, there are exceptions. There is a distinct advantage to having all nationality categories use either Fooian people or Fooians consistently, as opposed to a messy mix of the two formats. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not what I was suggesting, of course, but that's an interesting observation. Are you concerned, then, that Indigenous Australian people would be confused with Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia? If so, that could suggest a need to rename Category:Indigenous Australian people, but to what? Indigenous Australians could be confused just as easily (more so, in my opinion), so the exclusion or inclusion of the word "people" may not make much difference. There's also the poorly named Category:Australian people of Indigenous Australian descent, which appears to be identical in scope to Category:Indigenous Australian people. Hmm... this is stickier than I thought, though I still think for now we should align this category with its parent. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have specific worries, just big broad worries that the whole tree is a mess. Category:Australian people of Indigenous Australian descent has some scarily sensitive connotations, it touches issues with bad blood.  It has no parent article, such an article would have POV issues.  Try searching Wikipedia for "Australian people of Indigenous Australian descent".  The first focused articles listed are Stolen Generations and List of massacres of Indigenous Australians.  The category has few members. It should be deleted.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fair. I'll do some more digging/cleanup and nominate that one shortly. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggest -- Category:Indigenous people of Western Australia, which is briefer and more to the point. I assume this is to be populated with bio articles and that there are enough bios to do so.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggest 2 Category:Indigenous people in Western Australia. The people or tribes are not necessarily of the state; perhaps they roamed around the state or perhaps their tribal lands straddle multiple states. The states are, after all, an Anglo-centric caprice. Would it not be more accurate to say that they are in the state? I would be guided by the American tree structure (e.g. Category:Native American tribes in Montana). Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would not oppose that, though the American analogy is imperfect, as I do not think there are any equivalents of reservations in Australia. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh how I dislike relisting. Here, it means the conversation is arbitrarily continued off my watchlist.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Prefer Category:Indigenous people of Western Australia over Category:Indigenous people in Western Australia. These suggestions are acceptable, avoid the possibly read implication that some indigenous people are Australian while others are not.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Question - Why would we use either of or in, when this is a subcategory of Category:People from Western Australia and virtually all other categories for individual people by place use from? Also, though I hate to further muddle the conversation, should we consider just upmerging the category to both parents (or to Indigenous Australian people and appropriate subcategories of Category:People from Western Australia by occupation)? -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * from/of/in? Category:Indigenous people from Western Australia is perfectly fine. Upmerge to both sounds good too, but with the wish that Category_intersection were made easy to use from the category pages.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your alternative renames after relisting. Could you also comment on the latest alternative to upmerge this category? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I dislike "from" because it speaks more to a settled community (of white people) than to an indigenous population who may now (or who were in the past) semi-nomadic, in which case lines drawn by white men on maps would have been irrelevant to their self conception as a people. So while they may currently be "in" Western Australia, they might well reject the appellation that they are "of" WA or "from" WA. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Categories of people (individuals, not groups) by place are not intended to reflect self-conception or identification; that task is left to various identity categories (ethnicity, descent, etc.). Categories of people by place are intended to categorize notable residence, and nearly all of the people in this category (at least those who were born after 1890, when WA achieved responsible government) are unquestionably from WA. That's partly why I mentioned the option of upmerging, because it seems unnecessary to have a category that intersects identity with sub-national place of residence. However, if we keep this category separate, then we should not move away from using "from", which is the accepted convention for people-by-place categories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Black Falcon, I find it hard to read what you are now supporting. You nominated a rename to Category:Indigenous Australian people from Western Australia, and I thought we were converging to agree on Category:Indigenous people from Western Australia?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe, I'm torn between two options: to upmerge as a triple-intersection of nationality, ethnicity, and sub-national residence; and to rename to Category:Indigenous Australian people from Western Australia, given this is a subcategory of Category:Indigenous Australian people and the ambiguity associated with Category:Indigenous people from Western Australia, which could potentially include non-Australian people of indigenous descent with residence in Western Australia. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If we keep "from" then we do not need "Australian", it would be totally weird to add a native American with residence in Western Australia in Category:Indigenous people from Western Australia. With "in" we might have some ambiguity, but not with "from". Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * @Marcocapelle: Weird, perhaps, but the name Indigenous people from Western Australia does not itself suggest that. After all, nearly all of our people-by-place categories categories use the "people from" naming convention, and it would not be unusual to find a non-Australian in, for example, Category:People from Perth, Western Australia. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support upmerge to Category:Indigenous Australian people (or appropriate sub-cat) and Category:People from Western Australia (or approapriate sub-cat). This is the only by state sub-cat, and there is no strong justification for this fact. Beyond this, the parent cat is not so large that sub-dividing by location is justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.