< December 9	December 11 >

December 10

Category:Indigenous peoples of India

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]

Rename Category:Indigenous peoples of India to Category:Scheduled Tribes of India.
Nominator's rationale The groups that are being identified by this category have not been in India longer than other parts of its population, as is normally the case when the term "indigenous" is used. These people are culturally marginal, which is why they are Scheduled in the constitution, but to claim they are someone "indigenous" and the main culture of India is thus "forign" just makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The category links to Tribes of India, which redirects to Adivasi. That article describes "a heterogeneous set of ethnic and tribal groups claimed to be the aboriginal population of India", which seems to contradict JPL's assertion above about the use of the word "indigenous". I know little about this myself, but would be very uncomfortable with this nomination proceeding unless there is significant input from WP:INDIA, where I presume there is some expertise on the topic.
Has WP:INDIA been notified of this discussion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The key is the statement "claimed". This is built around interpretations and debates about things that happened several milenia ago, and we are best off not taking sides on it. We should define this category in a way that is beyond dispute, not one that invokes debates about the truly obscure past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The India project has been notified. This current name involves a very problematic assertion of who is "indegenous" that I do not think we can define in a neutral way considering the completity of India's history and the length of time some peoples who are being defined as "non-indigenous" have lived in India.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This may relate to these comments in another CfD. It looks like I am going to have to make my mind up! - Sitush (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, if it is moved then the "tribes" word should probably be capitalised. It is a statutory definition. - Sitush (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is how I meant it to be. I have fixed the nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At some level this is like creating Category:Indigenous peoples of Britian and including the Welsh and Scottish but not the English. That might have almost worked 100 years ago, but with modern work in population genetics it becomes a more difficult prospect with a genetic connection shown between modern populations in England and remains of pre-Saxon invasion people. It also seems a bit like creating Category:Indigenous peoples of South Africa and excluding the Zulu and other Bantu people because "they arrrived in South Africa just before the white people", which maybe is sort of truee if 500+ years counts as "just before", and we count the first landing of European navigators for the arrival of white people in South Africa.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Category:Scheduled Tribes of India (purging if necessary). This is a concept that is well-recognised in India; indeed provided for in the Constitution. How to apply the situation in other countries does not need to be decided as part of this CFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment~~Oppose~~ The adivasi are generally considered to be indigenous and that's all that should matter to us. I'd like to see evidence that the indigenous nature of these tribes is a mainstream dispute before we even consider this change. --regentspark (comment) 14:08, 12 December 2012 (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]

Indeed and this is the problem that I'm pondering. I think that the category may be widely misused but that is not necessarily the same as saying it is invalid. - Sitush (talk) 14:15, 12 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]

Would the proposed rename remove the potential for misuse without unreasonably narrowing the scope? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 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]
- Reply. Thanks, SpacemanSpiff, that's a very informative explanation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 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]

I would agree to a "Delete" for reasons mentioned by Carlossuarez46. Indigenous is a very loose term in the context of India — Ramit^(talk) 08:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Something needs to be done regarding the indigenous category and its subcats but moving to the Scheduled Tribes category is inappropriate for the reasons I and others have outlined above. - Sitush (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no consensus what "indigenous" means in India. Is it pre-Aryan invasion? Pre-Moghul invasion? Or just people who the Europeans found there when they arrived? Since we cannot define it, we cannot categorize it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Scheduled Tribes is well defined. Indigenous is not. Ergo we should use the term that is well defined over one that does not. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:19, 13 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]

Support, but better to redirect to a Category:Adivasis. 'Indigenous' is a politically very loaded term. --Soman (talk) 07:31, 14 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

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]

Rename Category:1824 establishments in Michigan to Category:1824 establishments in Michigan Territory
Nominator's rationale we should name categories by place and time based on what the place was called at the time. Thus Category:1927 establishments in India includes things established anywhere in what was India in 1927.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article on the Michigan Territory clarifies that it was somewhat larger than the later state of Michigan. It included wholly or in part the later states of Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota. A category about "Michigan Territory" should probably extend to cover events in all of them. Dimadick (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That works for the Wisconsin issue. I am less sure it works for anything west of the Mississippi since while they were claimed by Michigan Territory the people actually living there were not functionally under the government of Michigan Territory but were in various Sioux and other native polities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - For what its worth none of the other contents of Category:1824 establishments in the United States would fit within any definition of Michigan Territory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:1820s establishments in Michigan of which this is the only member. Annual categories are unnecessary, indeed obstructive at distant periods. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All the things in this category were clearly established in 1824. Merging to a more general time category would remove the current contents as children of Category:1824 establishments in the United States. The establishments by place by year tree is still not very developed. In fact lots and lots of articles in wikipedia that explicitly give a year of establishment have not yet been categorized at all, so it is unwise to judge the usefulness of the establishment by place categories by their current contents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd delete Category:1820s establishments in Michigan before this one was deleted or merged! Decade categories function as an unnecessary level of navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Vegaswikian has a particular dislike of decade categories and has sought to delete lots of them, but with only limited success. I take a very different view of decade categories. If properly organised, they don't add an extra layer to navigation, just an extra route, so the downside is entirely avoidable. On the upside, they have two important functions: 1) grouping topics which span several years, and for which single-year categorisation would cause unnecessary clutter; 2) grouping topics for which precise years are unknown; 3) grouping topics in periods where our coverage is so sparse that categorisation-by-year would produce a lot of small categories, but where centuries are too broad a grouping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - If they were only used for 1, 2 or 3 (but by century often works as well or better), then maybe they are of value. But all too often they are or become just an extra level with 10 categories and no articles. Be aware that in the past I have cleaned up articles which claimed to not have a know year, but a known decade and research shows that there was a year in various sources, and in about 20% (as I recall) of the cases, it was not the decade used here. So while I agree with you exception cases in principal, I still can't support them, especially for category trees that are for items in a single year like establishments. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom; and Vegaswikian's comments resonate with me; we can have the navigation templates without overarching category clutter. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Tim! (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The reason for not leaving the category as Category:1824 in Michigan is that the Michigan Territory is larger than the present boundaries of Michigan. But many states have had different (eg larger or smaller) boundaries in the past, notably India (as mentioned) and Poland. And if it is changed, Category:1820s establishments in Michigan should also be changed similarly or deleted. Are any more “XX Territory by year” categories proposed for the United States? Hugo999 (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Keep if we go to Michigan today, we will find the 5 places founded in this one year in that state. We are not recording these places which were founded as a part of an earlier incarnation of Michigan. Building a separate tree for just one year is grossly :WP:OC Ephebi (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2012 (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]

- They were not founded in the state, there was no state in 1824. We are attempting to reflect the reality of 1824, which is when these places were established and thus the only reality that matters to their being established.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. You can't establish something in a political body that does not exist. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Ningbo (hometown)

The result of the discussion was: rename and merge first and second respectively. delldot ∇. 05:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Ningbo (hometown) to Category:People of Ningbo descent
Propose merging Category:People from Ningbo (birthplace) to Category:People from Ningbo

Nominator's rationale: See below.

Rationale: These two categories, as currently cast, are not named or used in standard practice with other similar Wikipedia categories, and don't really match their names' meanings anyway -- as the people who are said to have Ningbo as "hometown" actually are usually not people who had spent any significant parts of their lives in Ningbo; rather, they have ancestry stemming from Ningbo. "People of Ningbo descent" is more descriptive and consistent with other categories of a similar nature. Once renamed, it should really become a subcategory of Category:Ningbo directly, while Category:People from Ningbo can be a more proper category for people who were born there. --Nlu (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and merge per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and merge. I have to admit I would have assumed these were the same, since I assume a "home town" is where someone was born (or maybe even where they were raised, but not born). Also we have never agreed to create categories specifically for birth that exclude people who lived large parts of their life in a place but happened to have been born in some other place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This will match the standard from for categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose creation of Category:People of Ningbo descent. Why would we create a "descent" category for one particular city? That seems very unusual to me. Just merge the articles from both categories into Category:People from Ningbo that belong there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename second per standards. For the first, as GO raises this seems unusual. The articles in question refer to Ancestral home (Chinese) to explain inclusion - is there any existing scheme based on this idea? Should there be? --Qetuth (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since the Chinese have a system of tracing ancestry to a specific place, it is noted and thus categorizable, so I think we should respect that and categorize by it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be done; I'm wondering if there is a pre-existing scheme that does this, or would this be the first one? I can't find anything similar, but I don't exactly know my way around these relevant category trees. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would consider as partial precedents Category:Taishanese people (which I nominated for a split pretty much contemporaneous to this nomination on converse grounds) and Category:Chaoshanese people (which I am not touching right now since it already has a subcategory of Category:People from Chaozhou which I feel much more qualified to judge/verify about than I would as to who is Chaoshanese and who is not). Basically, I must say that I am not satisfied with the existence of a Category:People from Ningbo (hometown) category as relatively unverifiable, but I also don't want to ignore the feelings/opinions of those who do think such things are verifiable. That's why I'm proposing a renaming to make the name and the substance match more closely. --Nlu (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unpublished author or book awards

The result of the discussion was: rename. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Unpublished author or book awards to Category:Literary awards honoring unpublished books or writers

Nominator's rationale: Switching our "author" for "writer" and recasting phrasing.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename it is the writers or books, not the awards, that are unpublished. the current name sounds like awards that do not actually tell people who is winning them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Current title is confusingly worded. --Qetuth (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Identical twins by occupation

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]

Propose merging Category:Identical twin musicians to Category:Twin musicians and Category:Identical twins
Propose merging Category:Identical twin sportspeople to Category:Twin sportspeople and Category:Identical twins
Propose merging Category:Identical twin writers to Category:Twin writers and Category:Identical twins

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 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]