April 16

Category:Christian anti-Zionism

Category:Anti-Zionist Christians

Category:Anti-mainlander sentiment in Hong Kong

Category:Deaths due to hippopotamus attacks

Category:Orange Twin albums

Category:Citizens of Indonesia through descent

Category:History of Austria-Hungary by topic

Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

• Propose renaming Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States to Category:Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes

Nominator's rationale The category should be renamed to match the main article, List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For sure "Native American tribes" is clearer than "tribes in the United States". However "unrecognized" is clearer than "self-identify" because tribes that are recognized also self-identify as such but that is obviously not in scope here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle They aren't tribes though. They are organizations. To incorrectly call them "tribes" implies that they are indeed tribes but are merely waiting to be recognized. That's a POV. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Opposed -

  Dear Wikipedia Editors,

  I am writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed amendment that seeks to rename the category “Unrecognized tribes in the United States” to “Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes.” This change not only misrepresents our tribe but also undermines the historical and cultural recognition we have long held.

  The Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe of Wampanoag Nation has a well-documented history in Plymouth, Bourne, Massachusetts dating back thousands of years. We still have care and custody of our sacred places, burial grounds and our 1838 Meetinghouse, one of 3 built for the Tribe after the arrival of the colonizers. Our continuous presence and stewardship of these lands are recognized by historical records,deeds and treaties and so on. Additionally, our status is acknowledged by the two MA federal tribes, the Commission on Indian Affairs, Plymouth, Bourne and the Commonwealth which affirms our legitimacy beyond mere self-identification.

  The proposed renaming of the category on Wikipedia is not only inaccurate of many but also insulting. It disregards the deep cultural and ancestral ties we have to our land—ties that are integral to our identity and existence. Labeling us as an organization that self-identifies as a Native American tribe fails to recognize these ties and the acknowledgment we have received from authoritative entities.

  Mislabeling our tribe and any other legitimate Tribes in this manner can lead to the spread of hate, misinformation and further marginalization. It is crucial that platforms like Wikipedia, which serve as a global source of information, ensure the accuracy and integrity of the content they host.

  Tribes without legislative recognition often face significant administrative hurdles to gain federal recognition, and being labeled as "self-identified" can add to these challenges by casting doubt on our legitimacy.

  We face persistent disparagement on platforms like Wiki All the while we are still walking the path to recognition.

  The lack of recognition does not protect tribes from discrimination or persecution, and the term "self-identified" can perpetuate these issues by invalidating their identity.

  The term "self-identified" can be problematic for tribes like the Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe, especially in states like Massachusetts that lack a legislative recognition process, for several reasons: diminished sovereignty, historical erasure, legal implications, administrative challenges, discrimination and persecution.

  It's important for platforms like Wikipedia to use terminology that accurately reflects the status and history of tribes, especially those with longstanding recognition by other tribes and federal entities, rather than terms that can lead to misinterpretation and misrepresentation of their identity and rights. The Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe's situation exemplifies the need for careful consideration of how tribes are categorized and described in public and legal contexts.

  We urge you to consider the implications of this change and to seek a category name that respects and reflects the recognized status of tribes like the Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe. We are open to dialogue and collaboration to find a solution that honors the truth of our history and existence. Goldendragonfly77 (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename per WP:C2D. NLeeuw (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose. I think that this rename has major negative connotations that are unwarrented. Category:Unrecognized tribes does the same thing without the connotation. Mason (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What negative connotations? "Unrecognized tribes" doesn't work because these organizations are not actually tribes. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Mason and Marcocapelle. While I understand the idea behind the "self-id" part, I think it should be on a case-by-case basis, rather than a blanket statement on all unrecognized groups. Self-ID also carries highly negative connotations, as Mason stated, and I don't think that warrants being a blanket statement. "Unrecognized" is also by far the most common term in literature, afaik, however I don't have any data to back that up. PersusjCP (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How is self-id a negative? It is simply describing that we don't have a citation to support their claims. I disagree with the statement that recognized tribes self-identify. The process to gain recognition is rigorous and recognized tribes, at least those federally recognized, have to document their continuous direct connection with the original tribes that were here prior to and during colonial contact. With no direct proof connecting them they are therefore self-identifying. They may very well share a heritage and be descendants but they cannot verify by showing a direct connection. That is only a negative because people on Wikipedia and even some of those who self-identify are trying to push that perspective to distort reality. At no point are we saying they are "pretendians". That would require reliable sources stating it through investigation. Self-identify does not equal "pretendian". --ARoseWolf 13:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Saying someone "identifies" as something vs "being" something very much does have a negative connotation. It implies it is only in their head. There is even a famous transphobic joke (I identify as an attack helicopter/whatever) about how one's self-ID is meaningless. PersusjCP (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We cannot declare every one of these groups to be tribes; that's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Is there a term you see as more neutral than "identifies"? I don't mind if "self" is removed. Re: transphobia, a Native American tribe is a collective political identity, while a person's gender and sex is an individual identity; the two concepts are completely different from each other. Yuchitown (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

  It's wordy, but I would think along the lines of "claims descent/to be the successor from historical tribe/the aboriginal ___ people" or something like that. Maybe "Organizations that claim descent from Native American tribes." Since "descent"or being the "successor" is generally the more politically accurate idea to what modern day tribes are to historical entities. PersusjCP (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So sorry, but I believe that would be original research since not all the groups claim descent from Native American tribes, like the Una Nation of Mixed-Bloods from Eugene, Oregon, who see themselves as a completely new entity (that is somehow still Native American). Just as a reminder, the corresponding article is List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes, so this proposal isn't charting new territory but trying to bring the category inline with the article. Yuchitown (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah that's a good point, I forgot about them... Okay, I support the current/future wording of "Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes," unless someone else can think of a more neutral, all-applicable wording. Maybe alternatively: get rid of the "self" in "self-identify," but I don't know if that makes it more neutral. Or like, "Orgainzations not recognized as Native American tribes," although that's kind of broad. Unfortunately I think because it is such a contentious topic that it is hard to be truly "neutral" in this. PersusjCP (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I can see how "self-identifying" could be regarded as problematic, as if they could be somehow "delusional" (although I must say this is the first time I've heard it having any negative connotation).

  But so can "unrecognised", right? Doesn't this imply that that these people are in fact tribes, but the U.S. government is just being 'stubborn, uncooperative and discriminatory' in 'refusing' to recognise them as such? The word "unrecognised" arguably carries a subtle WP:POV in it in favour of recognition, and arguably an implied criticism against the government that has so far not extended it to the applicants. NLeeuw (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support. All we can substantiate is that these organizations have collectively have identified as being Native American tribes. We cannot go further and do not have that authority; an outside authority having nothing to do with Wikipedia would have to make that distinction. Saying they identify does not mean none of the groups have Native American ancestry or that none of the groups are respected as successors of historical political tribes. But to collectively say all these groups are "tribes" is WP:OR and beyond our capacity or what we can support through published sources. Yuchitown (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

• That does not solve the problem that recognized tribes also identify as being Native American tribes. The question is what distinguishes the two groups and the answer is that one group is recognized and the other group not. Not recognized is the key descriptor here. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As mentioned above the article is already named List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. There are already List of federally recognized tribes in the contiguous United States, List of Alaska Native tribal entities, and State-recognized tribes in the United States, which are cross linked in the introduction of List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. Several federally recognized tribes are also state-recognized, but the general pattern is to go from broadest category into more specific classifications. Yuchitown (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes but this does not address the objection. The objection is not about recognized, it is about unrecognized. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What about "Organizations not recognized as Native American tribes" as I said in another thread here? The only problem is pretty much this applies to anything except federally-and-state recognized tribes, but maybe it is clear enough with context. PersusjCP (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That would include almost every organization on the planet. I’m not being facetious. “Identifying as Native American tribes” is a necessary component. Yuchitown (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I've watched this discussion for a few days and tried to understand or see all the perspectives. I disagree with the negative connotation many are trying to place on self-identification and I think that term should defined somewhere on Wikipedia much like other terms have. The fact that it can be negative or potentially be negative shouldn't be considered because anything can be negative depending on who is defining it. What we should be looking at is the literal meaning of self-identification. These entities are the ultimate source of their identification. I know, some will say, The most notable ones did get recognized by reliable sources or government resolutions. But ultimately the source of their legitimacy when you dig into it is the subject entity itself. If they had proof of their connection to the original people they would have gotten federal recognition. So we are left with an entity that identifies itself as Native American. This may be true and it may not be true, it's still self-identification at its foundation. I support the change in title on that basis. Calling them "unrecognized tribes" places a legitimacy on these groups that cannot be verified. It is wholly non-neutral for Wikipedia to be the one conferring legitimacy. Many don't even call themselves tribes. --ARoseWolf 12:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just following up, "self-identified" is as broad and neutral as possible because a vast range of entities are in this category, including many with verified American Indian ancestry such as the Verona Band of Alameda County, Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, and the Yuchi (who are almost all enrolled in the Muscogee (Creek) Nation). Yuchitown (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per what Mason and Marcocapelle said, which is that self-ID can have a highly negative connotation and "unrecognized" is the common term in literature. I've already encountered the issue of self-ID violating BLP in an article. If the category was changed as proposed, it's likely we'd have many more BLP issues in individual articles about people. This may seem like a minor word change, but there are strong negative connotations to saying someone who is Native "self identifies," because the inference is that they are Native in name only or falsely claiming to be Native. A change like this will impact countless articles covered by BLP because articles about Native people typically link to their tribe's article. --SouthernNights (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no consensus in any discussion you can point to that says "self-identification" is considered a BLP violation. If I remove anything that I believe "can" be considered negative from every BLP on Wikipedia how long do you think it would take before I was community banned? Yet that's what you did based on your own personal opinion, not consensus. That is the worst obvious and most ridiculous example of POV pushing I have ever seen and quite frankly what I consider very much a misuse of the admin tools. It calls into question your neutrality, not on a personal level because we are all biased to some degree, but your willingness to use the tools you were granted to support your bias despite other good faith editors objecting. --ARoseWolf 13:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  BLP guidelines state that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced — whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable — must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." In the case of the article I'm referring to, the recent edits that her tribe supposedly self-identifies absolutely qualified as such which is why I removed them. And I'm hardly the only one who sees it this way -- several editors raised concerns in this very category discussion about such descriptions being seen as negative. For more perspectives on this topic, check out this 2021 research paper published in the American Sociological Association journal (pdf download). Finally, your personal attacks here cross a definite line and violate Wikipedia policy. I strongly advise you do not continue with such attacks. SouthernNights (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Her self-identification as Lipan Apache is not unsourced. We know that her non-profit organization has neither state nor federal recognition. That is a fact, not an opinion. Their identity as a Native group comes purely from their own self-identification, not from government recognition. You referring to "her tribe" is itself a POV and also factually untrue, because it isn't actually a tribe. It's a non-profit organization. There's nothing supposed about it. That's what it is. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If my statements were attacks then so were yours when you attacked good faith editors by declaring us POV pushers. What does that make you pushing your personal point of view? --ARoseWolf 12:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There are a number of reasons why this conversation about Native American identity should not be renamed self-identify. Here are the top four in my mind:

1. The term self-identify as proposed is unmistakably negative, intentionally so. It’s negative in that it’s divisive, exclusionary, and demeaning. It attacks a significant part of Indian Country, like Lily Gladstone, by claiming they’re not real Native Americans, only pretending to be ones (of course there’s a page for that). No, it’s not racism, certainly not colorism. It’s crude chauvinism. It says that on one hand there are normal real Native Americans and on the other there are abnormal people who illegitimately and with no more foundation than their own volition identify as Native Americans, on no better basis than folks who identify as attack helicopters (credit Persus). Everybody hates attack helicopter wannabes. Native American, normal, positive. Self-identify Native American, abnormal, negative. The dots connecting the term as proposed to its pejorative roots couldn’t be drawn closer.

2. It effaces the concept of indigeneity. It says Native American is an identity established, not by self-identity, but by the US govt through a CDIB card. It says that Native Americans are creations not of thousands of years of independent existence and identity, but of the power that recently in their history came to occupy their land. Further, that occupying power can take back the identity only it, nobody and nothing else, can confer, as it has demonstrated in the past it can do.

3. The question is much bigger than this discussion setting can possibly do it justice. It’s not just a matter of slightly adjusting the name of a WP page. It’s a matter of possibly stumbling into a big philosophical and political decision due to a slight of hand; that self-identity is just a clearer way of saying not acknowledge by the US. No scholarly citations. No peer-reviewed article(s), it would never cut muster in that environment-- that's why there's none (I checked). Just the argument that, you know, it’s neater to say self-identify than non-recognized. And should it be done, a micro-minority POV has been imposed on a long-settled question of who decides who's Native American. From that point on, Native American identity means US citizenship and a CDIB. Born and raised in Paris and just found out you had a % grandparent with a CDIB, you're in. Born and raised in a historical Indigenous community in, say, Guatemala or Canada and migrated to an enclave of your community in Miami or LA where everybody still speaks your native language, you're out. Of course, it's a settled question that Indian Country is no bigger than the United States and Native American identity is entirely a Unitedstatean question. Not.

4. It goes against a vast and longstanding consensus on the concept of indigenous identity. This discussion has already been had over a much longer period, involving many many more participants, in a much more transparent and deliberative fashion. And a consensus was reached. Then instead of being shelved or secreted away, it was announced to the world and has been in place for years, known today as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UN). This widely publicized consensus speaks directly against the proposal to change the name of this page by declaring that indigenous identity is necessarily self-identify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsideh (talk • contribs) 05:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC) There are more, but I'll stop here for now. Tsideh.:Tsideh Tsideh (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC) — Tsideh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Could you share where on Wikipedia this conversation took place? “It goes against a vast and longstanding consensus on the concept of indigenous identity”: I’ve never seen such a conversation on Wikipedia. Yuchitown (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I don't see any BLP violation or anything objectively negative about the term self-identify. I do see a big NPOV problem with the current category name as it uses the word "tribes" suggesting in Wikivoice that these are actual tribes in the context of indigenous American tribes. Doug Weller talk 11:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would say that is my biggest concern even more than the self-identity argument that seems to have developed. Some of these are organizations that have filed for 501C3 status with the same government they decry as holding them back from recognition. While some are heritage groups trying to bring awareness to Native American topics. Others may have legitimate claims. Still others are pretendian organizations seeking financial gain on the backs of Native Americans. The one thing that is common between them all is they cannot provide evidence which link them to the sovereign nations they claim to be part of with any continuity. Had they been able to do so they would have gained the political recognition from the US government to be able to speak for the respective nation they associate with. Without a doubt Wikipedia should not legitimize them in Wiki-voice as Native American/American Indian tribes, recognized or unrecognized, self-identified or otherwise and even if reliable sources that are not owned by legitimately recognized nations identify them as such. --ARoseWolf 17:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose. The proposed renaming would result in very awkward-sounding categories that thousands of readers and article subjects could find to be inaccurate, biased, or even offensive.

"Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes" is not wording that is typically used in academic literature.

Federal recognition is a controversial topic that should be discussed in the article text itself. It should not be forced into category names.

Category names should be based on serious non-biased anthropological and sociological research, and should not be based on decisions made by bureaucratic governments that may not always be fair.

I primarily focus on ethnic groups in the Middle East and Balkans, and categorizing thousands of individuals and entire clans as "self-identified" would be extremely offensive. For example, what if Serbia, Iran, or others do not officially recognize certain ethnic groups that Western anthropologists would certainly recognize as genuine ethnic or ethnoreligious groups? For example, if we were to label Yazidis or Alevis as self-identified minorities, that would be completely unencyclopedic, POV, and totally unsuitable for Wikipedia.

There are also many unrecognized ethnic groups in China, since the Chinese (PRC) government officially recognizes only 56 ethnic groups. Should we also categorize every single individual from those unrecognized minorities as "self-identified minorities"? Certainly not, as that would be very awkward, controversial, and out of line with what Wikipedia categories should really be all about.

Another good reason to oppose this renaming is the WP:CONCISE guideline. We shouldn't make category names overly long and complicated.

The same should apply to Native Americans, First Nations, and other indigenous peoples in North America.

I would also suggest taking a look at this book which discusses this issue in detail: Forgotten Tribes: Unrecognized Indians and the Federal Acknowledgment Process.

Equiyamnaya (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NDNID was written by members of the Indigenous peoples of North America Wikiproject. It was thoughtfully constructed and thoroughly discussed to aid non-Native editors on Wikipedia gain an understanding of what being Native American is. Native American identity is not a matter of race or ethnicity. There is not a unified "Native American" ethnic identity. So the ethnic groups mentioned would not be an accurate comparison. This should not be a one-size-fits-all approach. --ARoseWolf 13:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: To label all of the entities in the category tribes is definitely original research. The article was renamed to accurately and honestly include groups such as the Kaweah Indian Nation, Ani-Stohini/Unami, and Vinyard Indian Settlement as well as the Mississippi Choctaw Indian Federation, Brothertown Indians, and Verona Band of Alameda County (i.e. those with no demonstrated connection to historic Native American communities to those with well-documented connections). I've cited Miller's book, but it was also written in 2006; many of these groups have formed since then. This lengthy discussion will probably result in "No Consensus"; however, all of the editors who actively contribute to and improve Native American topics on Wikipedia have voted to "Support" the renaming. Yuchitown (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't seen any opposition to using "Native American" instead of "in the United States" so we seem to have a minimal consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would absolutely be opposed to changing the category to "Category:Unrecognized Native American tribes" which is what seems to be implied here. --ARoseWolf 12:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian massacres

• Propose merging Category:Indian massacres to Category:Massacres of indigenous North Americans

Nominator's rationale: merge/redirect, it looks like the scope of the two categories coincides. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom Mason (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge given that main article is List of Indian massacres in North America. I don't think that title is very helpful though, as the scope is both of and by "Indians". But that should be discussed at its talk page, not here. NLeeuw (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there have been massacres in India... so the category name is ambiguous. This category name should be salted, so that India cannot use this category name either. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree that "Indian" is ambiguous, so I'd rather stick to merge as nominated rather than reverse merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcocapelle (talk • contribs) 06:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose full merge because half the contents are "massacres by" rather than "massacres of". Partial merge and disambiguate between the merge target, the two "massacres by" categories, and the unrelated Category:Massacres in India. The subcats are now part of the appropriate military history categories Category:Battles involving Native Americans and Category:Indigenous conflicts in Canada, and it's WP:SHAREDNAME that puts them together. – Fayenatic London 15:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds good to me. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merge on the grounds "Indigenous" should be capitalized in accordance with WP:INDIGENOUS and MOS:RACECAPS. --ARoseWolf 11:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• That is not a reason to oppose the merge. If you think Category:Massacres of indigenous North Americans should be renamed, you can just nominate it separately. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Can someone tell me what is the difference between Category:Massacres of indigenous North Americans and Category:Massacres of Native Americans? (Please ping me when replying - TIA). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Piotrus: "Native Americans" is used as in Native Americans in the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intersex transgender people

• Propose deleting Category:Intersex transgender people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose merging Category:Intersex gay men to Category:Gay men and Category:Intersex men
• Propose merging Category:Intersex transgender men to Category:Intersex men and Category:Transgender men
• Propose merging Category:Intersex transgender women to Category:Transgender women and Category:Intersex women
• Propose merging Category:LGBT intersex men to Category:Intersex men and Category:LGBT men
• Propose merging Category:LGBT intersex women to Category:Intersex women and Category:LGBT women
• Propose merging Category:LGBT intersex people to Category:LGBT people and Category:Intersex people

Nominator's rationale: Redundant, as all intersex people are LGBT. Editor has been warned about their alternative definition of LGBTQI+ User_talk:Bohemian_Baltimore#Category:Pansexual women#Aromanticism_and_Asexuality_are_the_A_of_LGBTQIA+_and_Intersex_is_the_I_and_is_inherently_an_LGBTQIA+_identity Mason (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like the other comments, I support this merger. These categories were erroneously created and this needs to be corrected. Historyday01 (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - As proposed (disclosure, I was the user that warned them about their misinformed interpretation of LGBTQIA+ at User_talk:Bohemian_Baltimore#Aromanticism_and_Asexuality_are_the_A_of_LGBTQIA+_and_Intersex_is_the_I_and_is_inherently_an_LGBTQIA+_identity). Raladic (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but manually merge because articles may already be in a subcategory of a merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, with exception of "Intersex transgender men" and "Intersex transgender women," as those can be useful categories and don't have the same issue as the other proposed categories for deletion.ForsythiaJo (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge the last three (LGBT intersex categories), keep the rest per ForsythiaJo. All intersex people are categorized as LGBT, but are all intersex men gay men or transgender men? The rationale doesn't apply to these categories. --MikutoH ^talk! 23:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Question for the keeps, I don't think the 3x intersection is supportable in terms of category size or under EGRS. Can somebody point to some literature that supports these intersections? Mason (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Smasongarrison:

  Dr. Small Ela Luk is an intersex transgender woman.

  Interview: We talk to intersex person Dr Small Luk about her gender struggles

  Kristian Ranđelović is an intersex transgender man.

  Kristian Randjelovic is Championing Trans and Intersex Rights in Serbia | OutRight - LGBTIQ Human Rights

  There are many more intersex transgender people around the world, and their struggle for notability is hindered by oppression faced by them. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 07:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I'm not disputing that these people exist or that they experience hardships, but what I haven't been able to find is academic literature that would support this as a defining intersection, which is typically the benchmark for EGRS intersections. Mason (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I strongly oppose the erasure of asexual and intersex people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender and the subsequent eradication of any categories that mention LGBT intersex and asexual people. Being both LGBT and intersex or LGBT and asexual is a relevant and defining intersection of two oppressed groups, a minority within a minority. Likewise, there are many intersex people who identify as cis/hetero or straight and many asexuals who identify as cis/heteroromantic or straight. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not erasure of people who are asexual and LGBTQIA. It is literally in the acronym already. Mason (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Smasongarrison Yes, it is erasure. And "LGBT" is the standard acronym used for articles and categories for Wikipedia. Not all asexual people are gay, lesbian, bi, or transgender. Gay asexual men exist. Lesbian asexual women exist. Biromantic asexuals exist. Transgender asexuals exist. Just as there are asexuals who identify as straight and/or hetero. There needs to be a way to describe and acknowledge the reality of asexuals who are LGB and/or T. A marginalized group within a marginalized group. As a compromise, I'd be fine with merging the LGBT categories but keeping the L, G, B, and T subcategories. Those are undoubtedly valid. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bohemian Baltimore: I totally agree. I hope we can gather more support and achieve consensus from a neutral point of view to oppose deletion of this of category. I left a message on your talk page for the same. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 16:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "All intersex people are LGBT" is a blatant assumption made without listening to all intersex people, and made on basis of only the acronyms LGBTI+, LGBTQI+, LGBTQIA+, LGBTQIAP+, LGBTQIAP+, LGBTQ2SIA+, LGBTQ2SIAP+, etc.

Many intersex people are not LGBTQ+, such as Betsy Driver, Lisa Lee Dark, Sally Gross, Esther Morris Leidolf, Dan Christian Ghattas, Sarah Gronert, Phoebe Hart, Bonnie Hart.

Bonnie Hart has herself said:

"I’m Bonnie Hart, I’m a woman, and I’m kind of straight-ish. Being intersex has nothing to do with gender identities or presentations, or sexual orientation. Intersex people identify as female, male, both, and all sorts of identities between the binary. It’s a lived experience"

— at the 2014 Sydney Mardi Gras Parade^[1]

The LGBQIAP+ acronym includes only those intersex people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer (non-binary, genderfluid, agender, polygender, pangender, and so on) and/or polyamorous, asexual, graysexual, ace-spec, aromantic, grayromantic, aro-spec, and so on. Intersex people who are straight, monoamorous, cisgender, binary, and/or allosexual and so on, and rest of the non-LGBTQ+ intersex people have constantly stated again and again that they are not lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer, and hence they are not LGBTQ+.

Just like there are many overlaps between and among all groups of people everywhere, there are many overlaps between groups of LGBTQ+ people and non-LGBTQ+ people, whether they are intersex or endosex, cisgender or transgender, binary or non-binary or agender. All ethically good people's sexualities, biological sex, and genders must be respected. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 09:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @CrafterNova: what you arguing is that Intersex categories should not automatically have LGBT parents. Whether one agrees with that or not, for the merge discussion it is not really relevant. The merge proposal is about avoiding trivial intersections. E.g. there does not have to be a micro category for people who are intersex and gay man simultaneously, instead articles may well be put in an intersex category and in a gay men category independently of each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle: There do have to be subcategories and microcategories. There are many examples where secondary, tertiary, and quaternary categories are required, such as:

  Tertiary categories: Category:Nigerian women film directors‎, Category:Ethiopian women fashion designers‎, Category:Kenyan LGBT artists

  Quaternary categories: Category:2nd-century BC Chinese women writers and so on.

  The people, whose articles are in such subcategories and microcategories, have criteria that makes them eligible to be placed in such categories.

  These are not "trivial intersections", rather intersections of various forms of oppression and discrimination, various professions, eras and time periods, nationalities, genders, biological sex, sexualities, etc.

  Representation of people at these intersections is important, especially people who face long-term discrimination based on genders, biological sex, sexualities, nationalities, race, ethnicities, and so on. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 07:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This sounds like we categorize just because we can, not because it serves any purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Marcocapelle: People's recognition and representation are some of the purposes of such categories. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 07:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • @CrafterNova: no that is not the purpose. The goal of categories is to allow easy navigation between related articles for readers, and by creating many layers in categories we merely make navigation more difficult. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @Marcocapelle: by creating many layers in categories we merely make navigation more difficult.

      Yes, and Category:Intersex transgender people is just another layer in categories.

      How is navigating such categories difficult for readers?

      What is the purpose of quaternary categories such as Category:2nd-century BC Chinese women writers?

      According to your understanding of easy navigation of categories, wouldn't quaternary categories be more difficult to navigate than teritary categories such as Category:Intersex transgender people in this case?

      Readers can navigate through secondary, tertiary and quarternary categories just as easily as all categories. Ease of navigation does not depend on subcategorization and microcategorization. Rather, ease of navigation depends on accessibility features, and whether category naming criteria, intersection criteria, and rest of relevant criteria are met or not. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 07:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • Readers do not have to navigate in the tree at all if they find a sufficient amount of content in the category that they find at the bottom of the article that they are reading, it then suffices to select every article in that category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep transgender intersex people category (at least this one isn't a triple intersection, as much as Category:Intersex non-binary people isn't too). I'm neutral on merging the others. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per CrafterNova and Bohemian Baltimore. 59.152.195.28 (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Volodimerovichi family

• Propose merging Category:Volodimerovichi family to Category:Rurikids

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Rurikids. "Volodimerovichi" is rarely used in comparison to "Rurikids", also does not follow the title of the main article. Mellk (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This category is fine as it is. It is part of larger tree of princely clans and branches of Kievan Rus'. During several renamings and recategorisations last year, it was agreed to be cautious with categorising anyone as a "Rurikid", as the historicity of Rurik (as well as Sineus and Truvor) is disputed as a possibly a founding myth (similar to Remus and Romulus etc.), and there is no concept of a "Rurikid dynasty" in historical sources until the 16th century. However, Volodimer' (Vladimir, Volodymyr, Uladzemir) is a well-known historical figure, and his family / descendants are commonly known as "Volodimerovichi" in English-language reliable sources. Just like, for example, Category:Sviatoslavichi family and Category:Olgovichi family. It is preferable if there is a main article with the same name for these families, but so far, there are only redirects to the founder of each princely branch, e.g. Olgovichi redirects to Oleg I of Chernigov, Sviatoslavichi to Sviatoslav II of Kiev, and Volodimerovichi to Vladimir the Great. It's also much better for navigation not to lump all these people into one big category, but by commonly recognised princely branches. NLeeuw (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  BTW if the main article title is important, shouldn't this be WP:C2D to Category:Family life and children of Vladimir I? (I wouldn't be in favour of that, but that would make better sense according to the rationale). NLeeuw (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • As there is no article Volodimerovichi yet, it would be helpful to add a source in the header of the category page indicating that this is a common name among historians indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like a good idea. NLeeuw (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are no such branches at this stage, this comes later and we already have cats for those as they are widely accepted Rurikid branches. The term "Volodimerovichi" is used by a couple of historians instead of "Rurikids". Whether Rurik existed or not is irrelevant because the term "Rurikid" is widely used by later historians (similarly to the term "Kievan Rus" even though the state was not called as such then), hence this is POV to use an uncommon term that has not been widely accepted (yet). Mellk (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmmm now I'm beginning to doubt. Christian Raffensperger seems to use it for all members of princely clans of Kievan Rus' in general, as a replacement "Riurikovichi", rather than just Volodimer' and his descendants. One wonders about the predecessors of Volodimer' (Yaropolk, Sviatoslav, Igor, Oleg and the alleged Riurik), who could hardly retro-actively be called "Volodimerovichi". I'll think about it some more, I'll get back to this issue. NLeeuw (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have checked the literature more thoroughly, and I think it might have been a mistake to name this category in this way. Since the early 2010s, scholars including Raffensperger, Ostrowski, Halperin and others have been using "Volodimerovichi" as an alternative to "R(i)urikovichi" or "R(i)urikids" altogether, and not as a specific branch within the larger clan structure of Kievan Rus', like the later -ovichi families. Theoretically, "Volodimerovichi" could still be used that way (and sometimes it is), but this is not widespread in historiography yet.

  I do think it's useful to keep it as a separate category, but it's better to change the name according to our conventions. As both nom and I have suggested, it is useful to follow the main article title wherever possible. However, the current main article title is Family life and children of Vladimir I. The last part probably should be Vladimir the Great instead of Vladimir I, given the Vladimir the Great biography title. (I myself prefer Volodimer I of Kiev, which is common amongst modern scholars, but not (yet) the WP:COMMONNAME in all English-language literature). The first part is also unusual; there is no other enwiki article title with Family life and children of X. The common formula is Family of X. So per WP:TITLECON, it should be Family of Vladimir the Great.

  Therefore, I would like to propose the following:

  Defer decision in this CfR, and initiate Requested Move of Family life and children of Vladimir I to Family of Vladimir the Great.  Done. If the RM is approved, then

  Rename to Category:Family of Vladimir the Great. Does that seem like a good solution? NLeeuw (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • In that case I would prefer merge as nominated. We could hypothetically create a "family of" for every grand prince but it would just overlap with Category:Rurikids. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Marcocapelle Family life and children of Vladimir I is the only "Family of" main article of a (grand) prince of Kiev. So I'm not worried about having to create a "family of" category for every grand prince as long as there is no "family of" main article for every grand prince. Moreover, it arguably merits a category on account of his many wives and children, and subsequent princely branches directly and exclusively descended from him. That is quite uncommon in Kievan Rus' history. NLeeuw (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have initiated the RM at Talk:Family life and children of Vladimir I#Requested move 10 April 2024. I'll ping the relevant users. NLeeuw (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So far everyone seems to be supporting the RM. We'll see what happens. NLeeuw (talk) 06:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Main article was moved to Family of Vladimir the Great by unanimous consensus (thanks for your participation). Therefore, let's also Rename the category to Category:Family of Vladimir the Great. NLeeuw (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that the article exists, with this name, does not mean a category should also exist. I still think it is rather arbitrary to split off one particular "family" from Category:Rurikids. Ultimately Rurikids is the family. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infrastructure

Category:16th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Portuguese Macau

• Propose renaming Category:16th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Portuguese Macau to Category:16th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Macau

Nominator's rationale: sibling are all called Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Macau, even though those were also during the time of Portuguese Macau (1557–1999) . Category:19th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Macau‎ Category:20th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Macau Mason (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't they all be bishops of Macau? Per List of bishops of Macau. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmmmm, I've been thinking of them like a country of work category, like that's where the bishop is serving, as opposed to the dioses. If we changed it to "of" Macau, would that mean that all the bishops would also have to be in the parent category? Category:XXXX-century Roman Catholic bishops in China (or Asia)? My goal is to make all the categories consistent, and possibly avoid having a perpetual edit war over the parent country category.[1] Mason (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Macau would be alike Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Dhaka and many similar categories. Surely the century Macau categories should be merged to Asia as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be fine with me. Although I think that the merge target should probably be China for the 20th and 21st centuries. Mason (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • With all respect this isn't and shouldn't be an entirely mechanical process as you put it. You have to read and understand the subject as well. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Long story short, there were bishops appointed to dioceses elsewhere who served and were based in Macau (e.g. as administrators of the diocese, which covered an area large enough to be subdivided into hundreds of dioceses in the following centuries). These were bishops in Macau but not Bishops of Macau. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse rename. That was the Portuguese period, and there was a time when it was a província ultramarina. 219.77.182.250 (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What does that even mean? Mason (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is obvious that it was Portuguese, that does not have to be added to the category name per se. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then name the categories accordingly. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I am just saying that it is not necessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not necessary per se; but, as I read it, not something that cannot and shouldn't be done. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A province, an overseas one. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Rename the 17th to 20th-century categories accordingly and make them along with the 16th-century category under the tree of Category:Portuguese Macau. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  FYI, these are all the same IP and a well-known one at that WP:LTA/HKGW Mason (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? 58.152.55.172 (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you at least make your attempt to sockpuppet less obvious? Mason (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award

• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Assamese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Bengali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Bodo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Dogri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in English (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Gujarati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Hindi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Kannada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Kashmiri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Konkani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Maithili (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Malayalam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Marathi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Meitei (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Nepali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Odia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Punjabi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Rajasthani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Sanskrit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Santali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Sindhi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Tamil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Telugu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Urdu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. Corresponding lists already exist. PepperBeast (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep: It looks like the nominator has no understanding of the importance of Sahitya Akademi Awards in India. While List article may exist, it is important to have this category for the recipients. The award is presented every year to writers of the most outstanding books of literary merit published in any of the 22 languages separately. Nobel prize list articles also exists, as well as categories for recipients of each categories of Nobel prizes.

  -- Tinu Cherian - 11:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of Indian civil awards and decorations

• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of Indian civil awards and decorations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Arjuna Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Bharat Ratna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Dhyan Chand Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Dronacharya Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Gandhi Peace Prize (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Kaisar-i-Hind Medal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Kala Ratna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Karnataka Kalashri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Karnataka Ratna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Kempegowda Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Khel Ratna Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Maharashtra Bhushan Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Trophy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of Pravasi Bharatiya Samman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Rashtriya Khel Protsahan Puruskar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of Kalidas Samman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sangeet Natak Akademi Fellowship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Tenzing Norgay National Adventure Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Thiruvalluvar Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAWARD PepperBeast (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The above awards aren't worth an exception from WP:OCAWARD, they are not comparable to a Nobel prize. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We're not starting this again, are we? Most of these are clearly notable and defining. They include the Bharat Ratna, the highest civilian honour that can be awarded by India, and the Kaisar-i-Hind Medal, an extremely prestigious award given in British India. If they're not defining, then what on earth is? WP:OCAWARD certainly does not say that awards have to be comparable to a Nobel Prize; neither does it say that only international awards should be categorised, which is what such a suggestion implies. The deletion rationale is entirely spurious and ridiculously brief. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I find it very hard to believe that a category based on India's highest civilian honour is not appropriate as defining. If that is the argument then the entire category tree at Category:Order of the British Empire, which contains about a hundred subcategories and many thousands of articles should be added to this nomination. As should the substantial category tree at Category:Recipients of United States civil awards and decorations. By singling out one country this nomination makes no sense. AusLondonder (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Temples (LDS Church) in Latin America

Category:Transport and the Mercosur

Category:Jewish nobility

Category:Canadian military personnel from Kelowna

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Canadian military personnel from Kelowna

Category:Lists of ambassadors to Northern Cyprus

Category:Public high schools in Chicago suburbs

Category:LGBT-related music

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:LGBT-related music

Category:Songs against capitalism

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Songs against capitalism

Category:Songs against racism and xenophobia

Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)

Category:.io video games

Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature & education

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature & education