[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 9 December 11 >

December 10[edit]

Category:Indigenous peoples of India[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 result of the discussion was: delete and move any members that belong in Category:Scheduled Tribes of India into that category. People have argued credibly that the overlap is not 100%, and that some of the articles in the Indigenous category don't belong there. So merging all the members into the new category won't work. I do see a consensus here to get rid of the Indigenous category, one way or the other. And it doesn't seem like there's opposition to having Category:Scheduled Tribes of India; the opposition revolves around whether that is an appropriate rename for Category:Indigenous peoples of India, and whether the new name is too narrow. This close doesn't address the latter concern, but it also doesn't prevent the creation of a new category at some point if people can figure out an appropriate name. It seems pretty clear to me from this that "indigenous" is not it. Since we will have to manually move only the articles into Category:Scheduled Tribes of India that belong there, I'm going to list this at WP:CFDWM--if anyone feels like helping to do this, please do! delldot ∇. 16:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Added: After a bit of research I'm not so sure that OP is incorrect. It appears that the concept of indigeneity as applied to India's adivasis is not as clear as I initially, and admittedly naively, thought. ([1], [2], for example). --regentspark (comment) 14:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]
The way I see it, 'Scheduled Tribe' is an official designation that likely comes with political implications while "Indigenous people' is a scholarly designation that is relatively neutral. I read your note in the discussion you link to above and don't see that as an issue because the existence of indigenous people in India is fairly well recognized, particularly in Eastern and Central India and in the Andamans. Unfortunately, JohnpackLambert's (the OP of this CfD) references to 'Hindi people' in that same link leads me to believe he/she is unfamiliar with this subject. --regentspark (comment) 16:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It probably would dramatically narrow the scope, and detrimentally so. As said above, Scheduled Tribe is a statutory classification and "tribe" doesn't have a formal definition in India, not even in the constitution that underpins the reservation system. There are many communities whom I would call indigenous but who are not Scheduled Tribes, examples being among the groups that RegentsPark has mentioned. "Social groups of ..." gets round all of the definition problems - indigenous and tribes - but I'm not sure how it fits in with our wider categorisation schema. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not going to comment on the necessity/validity of this category -- I'm not familiar with our "indigenous" etc kind of categorization and the criteria, but a rename to the proposed category is not the solution here. There's a significant overlap between the two, but they are not the same. The current name reflects (or is supposed to) scholarly consensus while the proposed name reflects a governmental labeling that can and (sometimes does) change -- there have been five modifications in the past fifty years, three of which have occurred in the past decade, and there's also some geographical inadequacies to deal with there -- some tribes can be classified differently in different states etc (e.g. Toda people are considered ST all over TN, but govt of India/constitution doesn't consider them so if they belong to Kanyakumari district) -- so net effect, if we are looking at "indigenous" as a marker, then it shouldn't be confused with the "Scheduled". While the category of Scheduled Tribes would be valid on its own, I don't think renaming this would be the right way to achieve it, if needed create that and populate it separate from this -- and either delete or keep this one (I'm not entirely sure which way to go here, it looks like the category is a mess of articles that don't belong in there). —SpacemanSpiff 17:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - "Scheduled tribes" is very differently used from indigenous people within India. Not all indigenous people may be designated as scheduled tribes. ST (scheduled tribe) is an official status granted by Govt of India — Ramit(talk) 18:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment The claims that Hindi are not "indigenous" are just bizarre. They reflect a certain view on the history of India which lacks scholarly consensus, because there is just plain not enough evidence more than 2000 years ago to make definite pronouncements. We should go with a category that can be easily definied, not a one that is open to debates with very few sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC) I figure I have said enough above.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2012 (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.

1824 establishments in Michigan[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 result of the discussion was: rename. I see the point about doing the same thing to Category:1820s establishments in Michigan, but I don't think I see enough discussion here to justify my doing that just from this cfd. I think it will have to be dealt with in a separate cfd. delldot ∇. 05:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
if there is an issue with the use of decades in this tree then anyone can think through the implications and propose an alternative structure - I would suggest getting WP:YEAR's engagement in this first. Ephebi (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2012 (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:People from Ningbo (hometown)[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 result of the discussion was: rename and merge first and second respectively. delldot ∇. 05:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See below.
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:Unpublished author or book awards[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 result of the discussion was: rename. The Bushranger One ping only 19:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Switching our "author" for "writer" and recasting phrasing.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2012 (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.

Identical twins by occupation[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 result of the discussion was: Double upmerge all. The question of the existance of the parent categories is a separate isse beyond the scope of this discussion; as long as these parent categories exist, no reason for the contents of the nominated categories not to be in them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. I'm not sure that these triple intersections barrelled categories (twin+identical+occupation) are a useful subcategorization. Categorizing twins by occupation is a bit of a strench, in my opinion, but then breaking it down into identical twins by occupation? I can't see how being an identical twin in these professions is any more significant than simply being a twin. As they stand, these are probably woefully underpopulated compared to what they could be. (I have not nominated ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Identical twin actors, since that combination actually has some relevance—twins are often used interchangeably for the same acting role, especially for child roles.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. I have to admit I am not convinced that twin classifications really make sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. These are not triple intersections. "Identical twins" is a subset of twins, rather than the intersection of twins with another category.
    However, I agree that there is no reason to subcategorise identical twins by occupation, so I support the upmerger.
    (I don't so far see any reason for categorising any twins by occupation unless their twin-ness had a direct bearing on that occupation, such for twins who worked together as entertainers. But that's a matter for a later discussion). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being a twin (or identical twin) is trivial (in the same sense as being married, childless, divorced, etc. - none of which are categorized in WP due to their perceived immateriality). But alas, this small camel's nose in the tent of birth order categorization persists. Why not have first born categories; lots of studies about eldest children. And the long suffering middle child, certainly that deserves categorization on sibling status and birth order. Only children?? Only surviving children? Babies of the family. There are so many categories to create and so little time. Or we can nip it in the bud here by deleting the lot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only time I can see this being a useful cat is if there happened to be a TON of musicians that marketed themselves as twins. Like, 15 two-person twin bands or something. But short of that, there really isn't a reason for it. Jeancey (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge unlike actors, being identical twins does not appear to be relevant to being a musician, sportsperson, or writer. --Qetuth (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_10&oldid=1138396148"