View source for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 23

<noinclude><div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px">
{| width = "100%"
|-
! width="50%" align="left"  | <span style="color:gray">&lt;</span> [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 22|May 22]]
! width="50%" align="right" | [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 24|May 24]] <span style="color:gray">&gt;</span>
|}
</div></noinclude>

=== May 23 ===
<!-- Please do not add new nominations here.
     Use the current day's NEW NOMINATIONS section
     (to properly order entries and avoid edit conflicts).
     Thank you for your cooperation.
  -->

==== Iranic categories ====
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''

:''The result of the discussion was:'' <!-- Template:Cfd top --> '''do not delete''', and '''no consensus''' on renaming. A further nomination on renaming may be appropriate if there are any good suggestions for "Iranian (ethnolinguistic group)". – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''<span style="color: #FF0000;">L</span>'''ondon]] 13:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

:* '''Propose deleting''' [[:Category:Iranic people]]
:* '''Propose deleting''' [[:Category:Iranic music]]
:* '''Propose deleting''' [[:Category:Iranic folklore]]
:* '''Propose deleting''' [[:Category:Iranic art]]
:* '''Propose deleting''' [[:Category:Iranic women]]

:'''Nominator's rationale:''' The term is barely used. We don't even have a article of the term or anything. The common term is [[Iranian peoples|Iranian]], not Iranic. --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 19:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - More of Krakko's attempt to ethnicise things that shouldn't be. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 20:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
* '''Question''', shouldn't some of these categories be merged, e.g. [[:Category:Iranic people]] to [[:Category:Iranian ethnic groups]]? [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 20:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
:*[[:Category:Iranic people]] is a container for categories about [[Iranian peoples|Iranian]] individuals, such as [[:Category:Saka people|Saka people]], [[:Category:Alanic people|Alanic people]], [[:category:Scythian people|Scythian people]], [[:Category:Sarmatian people|Sarmatian people]] etc. Merging those into [[:Category:Iranian ethnic groups]] would not be helpful. [[User:Krakkos|Krakkos]] ([[User talk:Krakkos|talk]]) 21:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''  - The "common term" is already applied in the following categories:
:*[[:Category:Iranian people]]
:*[[:Category:Iranian music]]
:*[[:Category:Iranian folklore]]
:*[[:Category:Iranian art]]
:*[[:Category:Iranian women]]
:Those categories are about the people, women, music, folklore and art of the '''country''' of [[Iran]], which includes non-[[Iranian peoples|Iranian]] peoples like the [[Azerbaijanis]]. The categories that are proposed for deletion are about the people, women, music, folklore and art of '''Iranian peoples''', which includes peoples like the [[Ossetians]], who are not citizens of the country of Iran. Iranian peoples and citizens of the country of Iran are two very different subjects, and cannot be merged under one and the same category. This is a case of [[WP:SHAREDNAME]]. [[WP:DEL-REASON|WP:DEL-REASON#11]], therefore, does not apply in this case. As a substitute for the common term ''Iranian'', ''Iranic'' is the best option. [[User:Krakkos|Krakkos]] ([[User talk:Krakkos|talk]]) 21:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
*Pinging [[User:PPEMES|PPEMES]], [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]], [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]], [[User:Peterkingiron|Peterkingiron]], [[User:Inter&anthro|Inter&anthro]], [[User:Aleksandr Grigoryev|Aleksandr Grigoryev]], [[User:Florian Blaschke|Florian Blaschke]] and [[User:Spinningspark|Spinningspark]], who have participated in related discussions at [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 5#Category:Germanic people|Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 5]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anatolian peoples]], as per [[WP:APPNOTE]]. [[User:Krakkos|Krakkos]] ([[User talk:Krakkos|talk]]) 21:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
*Pinging [[User:Rye-96|Rye-96]], who moved [[:Category:Ethnic Iranian culture]] to [[:Category:Iranic culture]],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Iranic_culture&diff=865659357&oldid=855454656] as per [[WP:APPNOTE]]. [[User:Krakkos|Krakkos]] ([[User talk:Krakkos|talk]]) 22:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
::Iranic is barely used though. Even in more recent sources the term Iranian is favoured by a huge margin. We have a policy in Wikipedia that we use the common version, this is far from the case. Also what Johnbod said is completely true as well. --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 13:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
::* [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] - Of course the term ''Iranian'' is favored by a huge margin for peoples speaking [[Iranian languages]]. But that term is also favored by a huge margin for the people of the country of [[Iran]]. Currently, [[:Category:Iranian people]] covers people from the country of Iran, which means that the favored title is already in use by a different category. I hope you understand that we cannot have two categories with the same title, nor should we merge peoples speaking Iranian languages and people of the country of Iran into the same category, as these are two substantially different things. [[Wikipedia:Article titles|Policy]] does not encourage the deletion of categories with unconventional or inconsistent titles. It encourages that the title be renamed, if more suitable alternatives exist. As this nomination seems misplaced, i would encourage you to withdraw it and initiate a move discussion, if you know of a better title. On your userpage, it says that you categorize yourself as being "of [[Iranian peoples|Iranian]] ancestry" and "proud to be [[Iranian peoples|Iranian]]". It seems strange that you would agree with Johnbod, as he advocates deleting the category covering the ethnicity to which you claim to belong. [[User:Krakkos|Krakkos]] ([[User talk:Krakkos|talk]]) 15:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC) 
*'''Comment''' – I think Krakkos might have a point here. I do not want to give away my credibility completely by stating that I am not really familiar with the subject, but there definitely exist such a [https://books.google.com/books?id=Us5wDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT90&lpg=PT90&dq=iranic+definition&source=bl&ots=F7oOGvcGre&sig=ACfU3U34tMCVYM1K0X4Hyv1b1j5baBOQSQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiAqqKmmbPiAhUFS60KHbpnClU4ChDoATAIegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=iranic%20definition&f=false term]. On the other hand [[wikitionary]] has following definition for [[wikt:Iranic]]. The next [https://www.v-stetsyuk.name/en/Alterling/Iran.html reference] points that the term Iranic follows the same word morphing as Germanic, Slavic and others. Apparently Professor [[John Perry]] also stated that Iranic has a right on existence according to this [https://www.jstor.org/stable/4311186?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents reference]. [[User:Aleksandr Grigoryev|Aleksandr Grigoryev]] ([[User talk:Aleksandr Grigoryev|talk]]) 03:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' – per [[User:Krakkos|Krakkos]]'s explanation. Comparing the frequency of the terms would be biased, because "Iranian" has the meaning of "from the country of Iran" in addition to "of the Iranian ethno-linguistic group", while "Iranic" is used exclusively to refer to the ethno-linguistic group in a way that it wouldn't be confused with the other. Naming categories based on this essential distinction would be reasonable, in my opinion.<br/>—[[User:Rye-96|Rye-96]] ([[User talk:Rye-96|talk]]) 04:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Per {{u|Krakkos}}.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 12:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
* '''Support in principle'''. This is apparently about Iranian peoples, and since we already have [[Iranian peoples]] and [[:Category:Iranian peoples]] let's please keep consistent terminology. The only thing I am not certain of is whether some of it needs to be merged or renamed rather than deleted. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 12:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
:*[[Wikipedia:Categorization#General conventions|Wikipedia's principles]] does not encourage categories with inconsistent terminology to be deleted. It encourages them to be moved. As the conventional title is already used for [[:Category:Iranian people|a category covering a different subject]], moving the title of the [[:Category:Iranic people|the category with the unconventional title]] cannot be done. As the category with the conventional title covers [[Demographics of Iran|a different subject]] than [[Iranian peoples|than the subject of the category with the unconvential title]], the category with the unconventional title cannot be merged into the category with the conventional title either. The least bad option is then to use the second-most conventional title for these categories, which is ''Iranic''. [[User:Krakkos|Krakkos]] ([[User talk:Krakkos|talk]]) 15:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
::* Ok, here is an alternative proposal:
:::* '''Propose deleting''' [[:Category:Iranic people]] because the content is already in the tree of [[:Category:Iranian peoples]]
:::* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Iranic music]] to [[:Category:Music of Iranian peoples]]
:::* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Iranic folklore]] to [[:Category:Folklore of Iranian peoples]]
:::* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Iranic art]] to [[:Category:Art of Iranian peoples]]
:::* '''Propose deleting''' [[:Category:Iranic women]] because the content is already in the tree of [[:Category:Iranian peoples]]
::* - [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 07:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
::::*[[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] - This is a better proposal, but it still makes the deletion of useful categories a requirement to ensure consistent terminology. Another proposal might be to simply revert these categories back to the way they were a few days ago:
:::::* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Iranic people]] to [[:Category:Ethnic Iranian people]]
:::::* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Iranic music]] to [[:Category:Ethnic Iranian music]]
:::::* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Iranic folklore]] to [[:Category:Ethnic Iranian folklore]]
:::::* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Iranic art]] to [[:Category:Ethnic Iranian art]]
:::::* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Iranic women]] to [[:Category:Ethnic Iranian women]]
:::::Such titles would be consistent with naming conventions used within the Iranian framework and for related categories:
:::::* [[:Category:Ethnic Kyrgyz people]] -[[:Category:Ethnic Kyrgyz culture]]
:::::* [[:Category:Ethnic Tajik people]] to - [[:Category:Ethnic Tajik culture]]
:::::* [[:Category:Ethnic Turkmen people]] to [[:Category:Ethnic Turkmen culture]] 
::::*[[User:Krakkos|Krakkos]] ([[User talk:Krakkos|talk]]) 11:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::* I hadn't realized these categories were renamed a few days ago. <s>Yes I definitely support reversal.</s> [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 11:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
::::::* {{Re|Marcocapelle}} That's not so clear cut. The ''Ethnic Iranian...'' categories were also created by the same user which copy-paste-renamed them a few months later, so "reversal" does not really apply. ''Ethnic Iranian'' is even worse, as it seems very derogatory for other Iranians that would not fit the descriptive, and I don't even think it is commonly used in any context. [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] ([[User talk:Place Clichy|talk]]) 13:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::::* I was enthusiastic too quickly, also for another reason: Kyrgyz etc refers to an ethnicity, so ethnic Kyrgyz makes sense. But Iranian/Iranic refers to a ''collection'' of ethnicities, which makes ethnic Iranian quite problematic. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 18:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::* These examples do not even follow common usage, in which Kyrgyz/Tajik/Turkmen is used for the ethnic group, and Kyrgyzstani/Tajikistani/Turkmenistani for what relates to the country. [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] ([[User talk:Place Clichy|talk]]) 13:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' We need a way to distinguish between the people and cultural products of the country of [[Iran]] and the people and cultural products of the  [[Iranian peoples]], an [[ethnolinguistic group]] spead over much of Asia and Europe. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 14:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
* '''Support deletion'''. While the distinction between the country of Iran and the ethnic family is useful at the article level, we clearly don't need an umbrella category tree for topics at the language-family level. [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] ([[User talk:Place Clichy|talk]]) 13:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
:* In addition to the alternative proposal I offered earlier, a complete deletion as originally nominated is also a fair option, per Place Clichy. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 18:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose deletion and renaming''' per [[User:Krakkos]]'s explanation. I just found this after viewing the category. Does it even need an explanation? Most sources I come across use Iranic as the anthropological/linguistic term. And while we're discussing it here, can we remove all references to Turkic ethnicities from Iran as "Turks". Turk refers to the primary ethnicity/language group of Turkey, which is clearly not the appropriate label for the the Turkic minorities in Iran. Iranian Azeris and Iranian Turkomans are commonly refereed to as "Turks" by outsiders which frustrates me because there is a clear distinction between Turkish and Turkic yet it's not being applied here. I want to move "List of Iranian Turks" to [[List of Turkic peoples of Iran]]. I don't know exactly how to do this. Can someone please help me here? And also one more thing about the category. Iranic people should not be singular, but plural as Iranic peoples since they consist of a number of ethnicities.--[[User:Persian Lad|Persian Lad]] ([[User talk:Persian Lad|talk]]) 00:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
*::'''Additional comment''' I don't oppose removing categories like Category:Iranic women from articles on individual Kurdish women. Those should be subcategories for category:Iranic women.--[[User:Persian Lad|Persian Lad]] ([[User talk:Persian Lad|talk]]) 23:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
*: Nobody contests that the difference between Iranian (the country) and Iranic (the language group) exists, but it is not the subject here. The subject is that these categories, e.g. [[:Category:Iranic women]] are essentially [[WP:NONDEF|non-defining characteristics]]. For instance, individual Kurdish women would usually be defined as ''Kurdish women'', not ''Iranic women''. The fact that ''Tajik music'' is also ''Iranic music'' is also clearly non-defining, nobody would call it ''Iranic music'' in the first place. [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] ([[User talk:Place Clichy|talk]]) 10:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent ====
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''

:''The result of the discussion was:'' <!-- Template:Cfd top --> '''split''', as there appear to be grounds for keeping both. The target category is the logical place to hold the sub-categories by tribe, and [[user:Dlthewave]] has already put them back there. I will leave it to the editors who are active in this area to recategorise articles as appropriate. NOTE: if it appears that I have misunderstood major considerations and that my close is wrong in principle, please discuss it and ping me at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Related discussion: Category:American people of Native American descent]]. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''<span style="color: #FF0000;">L</span>'''ondon]] 10:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
:* '''Propose merging''' [[:Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent]] to [[:Category:American people of Native American descent]]
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' Non-standard criterion by self-identification, which is prone to misinformation and factual inaccuracies. If there's a corresponding reliable source for each of them, then they should be moved to "of Native American descent". Selective merge looks like a suitable option. [[User:Brandmeister|Brandmeister]]<sup>[[User talk:Brandmeister|talk]]</sup>   17:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' -- The target is currently a cat-redirect to the subject, but it is contradictory, because it has subcats by each native people, with a headnote saying it is for those not identified with a tribe.  The target is in a standard format (though mostly used for non-Americans).  I understand that having some native ancestry is relatively common in descendants of those who were in frontier zones during the expansion into the West.  The issue of self-identification is probably better addressed by the headnote saying that the category should not include those for whom native ancestry is minor and incidental.  [[User:Peterkingiron|Peterkingiron]] ([[User talk:Peterkingiron|talk]]) 14:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Since when is "self-dentification" important in a topic relevant to [[genealogy]]? What matters are the sources. People may self-identify as Martians for all we know. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 14:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I don't deal much in CfD but is merging the correct description? The [[:Category:American people of Native American descent]] only exists as a redirect, I would think renaming would be the correct description. Anyway whatever the case, I would note the current self-identify name for the cat was from what I can tell, itself a rename from the merge/rename target after this discussion [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Related discussion: Category:American people of Native American descent]]. That discussion was mentioned on the cat talk page [[Category talk:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent#Discussing criteria again over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Related discussion: Category:American people of Native American descent]]. I'm not sure where else it was advertised. The discussion also doesn't seem to have been formally closed but was enacted by one of the participants after a few days. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 15:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
::I've mentioned this new discussion on the old discussion. I didn't give any notice on the talk page since AFAIK it's not generally considered necessary if the cat itself is tagged. Also I forgot to mention but even before the rename, the cat text itself said it was for people who self-identify, see e.g. this minor wording change from 2016 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:American_people_who_self-identify_as_being_of_Native_American_descent&diff=701549311&oldid=582522039] which hasn't changed until now (i.e. it was the same prior to the recent move) [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 15:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Please, everyone, first see the discussion at the Indigenous wikiproject. We had a long discussion and reached '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America&oldid=897676160#WP:RS_Sources_for_Native_Identity consensus to move this to where it is now]''' As Nil Einne said, all we did was align the category name with the description. We did this informally at the Wikiproject because it involves issues around sourcing that require some familiarity with the field. Or, that was my rationale. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|<span style="font-family:georgia"><b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b></span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]]</sup> [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 17:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
* If I understand correctly, this category and all of its subcategories are intended for people who are not recognized as Native Americans by [[WP:RS]]. Why do we have these categories at all? [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 17:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
:::I initially did not want these categories and lists (yes, there are lists). I wanted them all XfD'd. Then one of the long-term editors in this field reminded me that, no matter what we do, we keep getting editors adding self-identified people to the Native American and tribal categories, based on no better sourcing than a People magazine or TV Guide piece where they said, "Yeah, my great-grandmother was Cherokee." Right now we are still going through exhausting cleanup on articles over this stuff. I would vastly prefer to just cut all the people who aren't sourced to reliable, tribal sources that claim them. But this editor reminded me that, since tribes rarely make the effort to put out statements that people are false claimants (there are just too many), we wind up with a lot of people with shaky claims, and their fans saying that an otherwise RS source that they made this claim means it's "sourced that they're Native" or "sourced that they're a descendant"... often when we know it's not true. So, it gets into shaky territory, especially on BLPs. There are all kinds of edit-wars over this stuff, and most editors don't know how to evaluate the claims and sourcing. Only a bare few of us keep an eye on the veracity of the claims, and we're exhausted. I would love to have more help with this, but it hasn't been forthcoming. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|<span style="font-family:georgia"><b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b></span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]]</sup> [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 18:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I'll add my voice to CorbieV's explanation above. The cat is hardly ideal but it is necessary. I think the category itself needs to be explicit, not just the description on the cat page. Many/most of the people who fall under this cat are entertainers: actors, musicians, etc. They have fans who will edit-war passionately over this. If you're not familiar with how ''many'' people claim to be Native American who have neither tribal membership or only distant/non-existent ancestors, it might be difficult to understand why this distinction needs to be made. Tribal citizenship (enrolled member of a tribe) is provable by [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]] most of the time. That means they are citizens of a Tribal [[Nation]]. Outside of that, there are many "self-identified" Native Americans with little-to-no hard proof of the claim. As CorbieV mentioned, there are handful of editors (at most) willing to monitor the articles and category. ETA: Stupidly forgot to sign the comment. Sorry. Cheers, [[User:Mark Ironie|Mark Ironie]] ([[User talk:Mark Ironie|talk]]) 01:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oh no''' {{yo|R'n'B}} we did not want to move all these the tribal descendant categories into self-identified![https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:American_people_of_Lakota_descent&diff=prev&oldid=898687374] <strike>Please revert these moves</strike> Actually, no, '''I've edited since then to do further cleanup, and reversion would wipe that out. Just leave them.''' There's at least one or two I'm leaving as self-identified until we can do the needed cleanup (Seminole, Cherokee, maybe another, if they're still full of unsourced claimants). If they know the tribe, it's more likely the claims are real; at the very least they can be checked. Jesus, some of these people are enrolled citizens! Others of these people you moved into self-identified are actual descendants who simply don't meet enrollment criteria. We've been cleaning those up, checking the sourcing and, if they're unsourced, we either deleted all claims or move them to simply "self-identified Native". See, this is all very complicated, which is why we had to have a long discussion with people who understand the intricacies here. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|<span style="font-family:georgia"><b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b></span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]]</sup> [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 02:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
:::'''Crap'''. R'n'B just took RussBot through again and reverted my cleanup. This is out of control. Russ! - [[User:CorbieVreccan|<span style="font-family:georgia"><b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b></span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]]</sup> [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 17:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support'''.  See [[Race and ethnicity in the United States Census]] — race is already a matter of self-identification, so if you don't self-identify as Native American, you aren't.  [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 03:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
:::But Native American identity isn't based in race, it's based in citizenship. Stuff like this continues this misconception. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|<span style="font-family:georgia"><b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b></span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]]</sup> [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 17:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
::::Oh I beg to differ [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]]. If you have status or are enrolled and chose to identify as some other ethnicity you are still Native according to the federal government and the Nation in which you have status or enrollment. Once you're enumerated you are enumerated regardless of what you say. The only way around that is to have ones self purged from the rolls. I'm not aware of anyone who has done this successfully. I know of people who have cut up their cards but that doesn't mean anything, they are still enumerated. [[User:Indigenous girl|Indigenous girl]] ([[User talk:Indigenous girl|talk]]) 21:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
'''Question''' - If we remove "self-identified", and can stop Russ and his damn bot, will all of you commit to removing the badly-sourced people from these cats and keeping them out when their fans keep re-adding them? Last night I removed over a dozen people who were listed as, say, Lakota, because they did an art show with that in the name. Or European models listed as descendants of a tribe because they posed in a hipster headdress. That's the type of crap we deal with on here. AND will you help us keep actual tribal citizens and leaders from being degraded by being described as only "descendants" when they are full citizens? That's the type of both perennial and recent POV push that went on, that we are still cleaning up, and that started the rename discussion. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|<span style="font-family:georgia"><b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b></span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]]</sup> [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 17:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''The catagory isn't perfect but it is necessary as is a very detailed description. Indigeneity is not about race. There are brown, black and white presenting Native Peoples. It is about citizenship <i>and</i> nationhood. A person can't just say oh hey, I am Armenian and expect to be allowed into Armenia and be recognized as an Armenian citizen without a passport, only their word. There are significant legal ramifications like the Indian Arts and Crafts act regarding self-declaration. There are also descendants that are fully integrated into their communities but they cannot get enrolled because of blood quantum. They will, however, be entitled to a Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood card. If their claim is not backed up by a legitimate source then they are a self-identified descendant. Being indigenous is about culture and community, not race. [[User:Indigenous girl|Indigenous girl]] ([[User talk:Indigenous girl|talk]]) 21:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
**No, indigenous means bloodline, in this case at least some Native American blood. For encyclopedic purposes a European American cannot claim Native American (or any other) descent merely because he/she embraces that American culture or lives in their community. This is why we don't have other self-identity categories based on purported descent. [[User:Brandmeister|Brandmeister]]<sup>[[User talk:Brandmeister|talk]]</sup>   17:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
* '''Weak support.''' [[WP:EGRS]] is clear that biographical articles should only be added to ethnic categories if reliable sources clearly and consistently define the article subject's ethnicity, and all articles not complying '''should be purged'''. In this sense, [[:Category:American people of Native American descent]] is sufficient as weak self-made allegations should be kept out. Note that actual tribal affiliation is quite irrelevant. However, if the field of phoney or challengeable native ascendancy claims grows into a topic in its own right (i.e. if a number of academic papers are published about it), then it may be the topic of a dedicated category, but probably not with the current name. [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] ([[User talk:Place Clichy|talk]]) 10:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Indigenous identity is not racial, but is a matter of community.  Therefore community recognition is important.  Regarding the point made by  [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] above, a ''huge'' number of academic papers and books have been published about "phoney or challengeable native ascendancy" (descendancy?).  See: Circe Sturm, ''Blood Politics Race, Culture, and Identity in the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma'' (2002); Steve Russell, ''Sequoyah Rising: Problems in Post-Colonial Tribal Governance'' (2010); Kim TallBear, ''Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science'' (2013) for starters. [[User:Vizjim|Vizjim]] ([[User talk:Vizjim|talk]]) 19:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - We have categories for tribal members, and we have [[:Category:American people of Native American descent]] for people who have Native American ancestry but are not enrolled in a tribe. I'm not sure what purpose the "self-identified" fork is meant to serve, and the label doesn't seem to be supported by reliable sources. –[[User:Dlthewave|dlthewave]] [[User_talk:Dlthewave|☎]] 04:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
::{{ping|Dlthewave}}: Per my above comments, I'm pretty sure [[:Category:American people of Native American descent]] is not supposed to exist as a unique category anymore. It was rename to the self-identified category from the discussion I linked, and the ApoNAd cat is supposed to just be a redirect. When the ApoNAd category existed, it did say it was for people who self-identify for several years until the rename. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 21:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
:::{{re|Nil Einne}} I have concerns about the use of "self identified" and "identified by sources" labels, which seem to have been invented by Wikipedia editors and are used on a number of related lists and categories. If a source describes someone as a descendant, we need to describe them as such without the use of these weasel words. I understand that tribal ''citizenship'' is determined only by the tribes themselves, but someone can make a legitimate claim of ''descent'' or ''ancestry'' without being enrolled or acknowledged by a tribe. We don't typically use these qualifiers for other ancestry-related categories with similar criteria.
:::You bring up a good point regarding move vs merge. Previous discussions notwithstanding, my preference would be to move the "self-identified" category back to ApoNAd. –[[User:Dlthewave|dlthewave]] [[User_talk:Dlthewave|☎]] 22:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
* '''Support''', the category mostly consists of (1) people whose article does not mention anything about Native American so they should be purged, and (2) people who have Native American ancestors for whom the category name [[:Category:American people of Native American descent]] is perfectly suitable. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 17:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
:* Some examples: [[Aaliyah]] had a Native American grandmother, but she does not self-identify as Native American. [[Tyra Banks]] is 6% Native American according to a DNA test, but she does not self-identify as Native American. [[Dick Enberg]]'s mother had some Native American ancestry but he does not self-identify as Native American. [[Scott Glenn]] has some Native American ancestry but he does not self-identify as Native American. Must I carry on?  [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 21:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. The people opposing are the ones who done the *constant* purging and correction of false (intentional or innocent mistakes) claims of Indigenous ancestry for years. [[User:Yuchitown|Yuchitown]] ([[User talk:Yuchitown|talk]]) 15:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown
*'''Support'''. Dubious and unsubstantiated claims do not deserve a category, while plenty of people have verifiable Native American ancestry without meeting the requirements/being a member of a particular tribe. [[User:זָרַח|Zerach]] ([[User talk:זָרַח|talk]]) 04:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' There is a stark, clear difference between people who claim without ''any'' verification to be "Native American" because it’s trendy (here’s looking at you, Johnny) / people like myself who have family members bragging that we’re "part Choctaw!" (when the reality is we’re only 1%)... and people who ''actually are'' Native American. And you know exactly what I’m talking about. It must be differentiated. I think this category speaks for itself. Yes, it’s an anomaly. [[User:Trillfendi|Trillfendi]] ([[User talk:Trillfendi|talk]]) 14:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
:::'''Comment'''. Percent or blood quantum isn't an issue here. There are enrolled tribal members (Native Americans), then there are people with provable ancestry (Native American descendants), then there are people who think/say they have Native ancestry with no proof (self-identified descendency—this category). If you are talking about Johnny Cash, he conducted his own genealogical research and freely admitted that his family stories of being of Cherokee descent were incorrect. Re: Zerach's comment, the dubious claims are notable only because they are widely published in secondary sources. [[User:Yuchitown|Yuchitown]] ([[User talk:Yuchitown|talk]]) 16:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown
::::{{re|Yuchitown}} Which sources describe these ancestry claims as dubious, self-identified or unproven? How are we, as editors, making that determination? –[[User:Dlthewave|dlthewave]] [[User_talk:Dlthewave|☎]] 16:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - if there isn't comprehensive proof regarding Native American identity, then the articles should not be classified by that subject matter anyway. We do not categorize people by what they are not or negative aspects, see [[WP:COP]]. [[User:Inter&#38;anthro|Inter&#38;anthro]] ([[User talk:Inter&#38;anthro|talk]]) 18:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Do we have any other categories like this? ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 00:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
:'''Comment'''. Do you have other real life situations like this, where people who are not part of a group or do not have the heritage they claim still claim it in vast numbers? Are there other parallel situations? [[User:Yuchitown|Yuchitown]] ([[User talk:Yuchitown|talk]]) 14:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown
:* Could you please list biographies in this category in which the person claims to be Native American? In a sample I could not find any, but maybe there are a few specific well-known cases. Other than for those few, the category name with "self-identify" is simply misleading. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 17:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
:::Sure, although it's claiming "of descent" not claiming to be "Native American." Sure, picking some out at random: [https://www.biography.com/musician/wayne-newton Wayne Newton],  [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-aug-04-sp-10009-story.html Cherokee Parks], [https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/michael-jackson-rosa-parks-10-black-icons-you-didn-t-know-had-native-ancestry-BLzksPt3qkOiLBgcPzc4Wg/ Jimi Hendrix, Martin Luther King Jr., Coretta Scott King, Lena Horn, Michael Jackson and family, James Earl Jones, Beyoncé, Rosa Parks, James Brown, LL Cool J, Oprah Winfrey] (none of them are enrolled in tribes), [http://nativeyouthmagazine.com/media.html Chuck Norris], [https://www.suggest.com/celebs/6522/17-celebs-you-didnt-know-are-of-native-american-descent/ Angelina Jolie, Kid Cudi, Rosario Dawson, Johnny Depp (has since been adopted by the Comanche Nation), Miley Cyrus, Elvis Presley, Cameron Diaz, Chuck Norris, Jennifer Tilley, and Ben Harper] (some of these are in tribal-specific cats). [[User:Yuchitown|Yuchitown]] ([[User talk:Yuchitown|talk]])Yuchitown
::::How do these sources show that they're claiming Native American descent with no proof? Is the lack of tribal enrollment supposed to mean that their ancestry is unverified? –[[User:Dlthewave|dlthewave]] [[User_talk:Dlthewave|☎]] 12:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

:'''Comment'''. So we have different kinds of people to categorize:
::# People who are citizens of Native American tribes (categorized by tribe).
::# People who are genealogically descended from members of a Native American tribe, but for whatever reason do not have membership. Either they didn't want to apply for membership, or they do not qualify for membership. You can have solid genealogical evidence you are descended from a Native American and still not qualify for tribal citizenship. The qualifications vary from tribe to tribe. Indian tribes are not the same as genealogical lineage societies. Thorough genealogical research (not amateur research or legends) can prove to varying degrees whether or not someone was descended from a Native American, depending on the genealogical sources available, and in this case a specific tribe or group of tribes will be known. Also, regarding DNA: DNA testing through a site like Ancestry.com don't usually tell you what tribe you are from. Often they only give a vague result: "X% Native American," and sometimes they are wrong about ethnicity estimates, as they are still developing the technology. DNA testing can be used to identify if you are a descendant of a specific tribe, but it requires thorough research.
::# People who have a Native American ancestor remembered in myth or legend, but no one has bothered to find out if this story is true or not, or only has weak evidence.
::# People who have claimed to be Native American and have been exposed as frauds such as [[Dwight York]] or [[Iron Eyes Cody]] (although there may be some controversy among editors of Wikipedia as to whether or not they are really Native American, there are sources to document the questionability of their heritage claims).
::A category with the title "American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent" sounds like it would fit individuals from #3 and #4, perhaps even #2, depending on the available evidence. That is my observation. Are there other categories that cover these types of people? [[User:Tea and crumpets|Tea and crumpets]] ([[User talk:Tea and crumpets|talk]]) 23:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
* Apparently the category needs to be split between [[:Category:American people who self-identify as Native American]], containing #4 e.g. [[Iron Eyes Cody]], and [[:Category:American people of Native American descent]], containing #2 which is the large majority of this category. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 07:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
::::People who have legitimate descent can name the tribe/nation they descend from, and the specific ancestors, so are already in a category. We already have the categories for legitimate descendants. We worked very hard to clean it all up. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|<span style="font-family:georgia"><b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b></span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]]</sup> [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 21:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
::::* People either descend or they don't (in the latter case they should be purged), but in this context there is no use in distinguishing legitemate versus illigitemate descent. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 05:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''': The categories were split to separate those who are registered members of tribes from those who simply say they are of Native American heritage but do not have a tribal registration. [[User:Jjj1238|<b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b>]] [[User talk:Jjj1238|<b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b>]] 04:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
*: Does it work? If the intent is that contributors do not add to [[:Category:American people of Native American descent]] people who "do not have a tribal registration", then this should be the category with the specific name, such as [[:Category:American people who have Native American tribal registration]] or maybe [[:Category:Native American tribal registered people]]. [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] ([[User talk:Place Clichy|talk]]) 08:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
*::All the many subcats of [[:Category:Native American people]] are for Native Americans; they have categories. [[User:Yuchitown|Yuchitown]] ([[User talk:Yuchitown|talk]]) 15:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown
:::* Does it work? No it does not. The nominated category was supposed to contain people from group #4 (per discussion further above) but in fact it largely contains people from group #2. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 10:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::There's no problem with the Native American categories, and they have not been brought up for discussion. The challenges are with the categories for people of Native American descent and the people who ''claim'' Native American descent. Since people with no experience working with Native material have joined this discussion, just to be clear: the Native American/Native American descent categories fit perfectly with established protocol of Foo Nationality vs. National of Foo descent categories (e.g. [[:Category:German people]] vs. [[:Category:American people of German descent]]) in that [[German people]] have German citizenship, while [[Americans of German descent]] do not have German citizenship, only German ethnic heritage. The people in Native American categories are tribal citizens. The people in "of descent" categories are not members of the tribes in question and if they can't even name a tribe, they are definitely not members of tribes (people with legitimate descent know their tribal ethnic group). The difference between being Native Americans and other ethnic groups is that there is such a widespread, documented phenomenon of people who have no reliable proof of Native American ancestry still claiming it. So for this category, we cannot document actual ancestry (#2) but we can positively document that a claim to the ancestry has been made (#4). [[User:Yuchitown|Yuchitown]] ([[User talk:Yuchitown|talk]]) 16:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown
*'''Strong Support''' As a citizen of a tribe I deeply understand the arguments of some of the editors. This category in itself is about heritage and as one editor has already said to say that an individual self identifies is a weasel word in itself. It brings suspicion on that individual essentially calling them a liar.  Now to address the issue some users seem to keep making vague statements about: Yes white people in Hollywood have lied about have native blood (again this category is about heritage). The only person that literally fits the name of this category is [[Iron Eyes Cody]] and you could throw [[Cher]] in there but her article is actually accurate cause she's Armenian.  
:# is there a legal definition of Native American yes but this is mainly to dictate who gets funds, scholarships, tribal sovereignty is absolutely involved, etc. however this category isn't about citizenship
:# Either your a descendent or not period. To say self-identify is honestly subliminal to say they are "supposedly" of Native blood
:# I've looked through the discussions today and the complaint that someone can't name the tribe they descend from therefore they're a liar is a weak argument period. If you're native and at least know some of our history you know not everyone stuck together, some were adopted/stolen as children, or elders didn't pass down genealogical information.  Some are the descendants of slaves that still carry the bloodline and they'll never be able to figure out which tribe they come from to culturally reconnect they can reconnect in the general culture but not specifically nor will they ever be able to become a citizen of a tribe. Those are not individuals that self-identify. Yet they are legitimate descent irregardless that they lack knowledge.
:#Not everyone that is a descendant is going to be recognized by the community nor be able to be a citizen.  There seems to be a double standard here in which some individuals are in categories that seem to only be for citizens or people that are "communally involved/recognized" but they're in those categories b/c a citation says their parents were of this tribe or they are only said to be "this" However, there is no citation that they are a citizen of a tribe/s so they should go into the category American people of Native American descent. I also believe this is b/c they look "Native enough"  
:#We're the only race that people ask for proof and yes the only race people do lie about having, but at the same time how can we put people that are legitimate brothers and sisters by blood (b/c this category is about heritage) in the same category as people we may personal deem suspect.
:#Plus it is up to the parent/s to enroll their children into a nation and that doesn't always happen. You do have some irresponsible individuals. 
:#Like [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] said the majority of these people should be in the category American people of Native American descent. They are a descendant and to be honest some may be more culturally connected than those that are citizens of a tribe. I have to say it is the most annoying thing when other natives call someone's heritage in question b/c they lack genealogical information when many don't even know which clan they come from and know squat about their own culture. We are the only race that has this problem and yes white ppl (sorry to other editors that are white) largely created this problem by lying, $5 Dollar Indian and all that trash. 
:Again I support this b/c as a proud citizen that has a long history of resistance against the U.S. I won't support throwing our brothers and sisters into the same category as lying white ppl (sorry to be blunt) b/c they're uncertain about the tribe or b/c the tribe hasn't claimed them which is a ridiculous high standard. Also yes in general being Native American isn't about race in regards to citizenship but this category is about heritage. Aho (And no I'm not Lakota for those of u that recognize that).[[User:Seminolegirl94|Seminolegirl94]] ([[User talk:Seminolegirl94|talk]]) 18:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
:::This category is ''not'' about heritage. This category is about people who claim a heritage. I am an enrolled Native tribal member as well; that status neither imbues you or I with authority in Wikipedia. [[User:Yuchitown|Yuchitown]] ([[User talk:Yuchitown|talk]]) 21:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown
*'''Comment''' - I've already !voted but a couple thoughts since then: I think it is ludicrous that categories where the subject has proven Native American ancestry but are not registered with tribes (such as [[Dan Henderson]], whose great-grandmother was proven to belong to the [[Walla Walla people|Walla Walla]] tribe) are included in this category, their identity is proven and there fore including "self identify" seems like casting skepticism into their ancestry. Also not all articles in this category identify with being Native American, many may have an Indian ancestor but do not necessarily identify as Native American, bringing issues to the "self-identify" part of the title. Also what about members who have been expelled from tribes or reservations, are they now just "self-identifying" too? Overall I think that this category and the mentality of many of its supporters may fall into the [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]] way of thinking. The problem is that Wikipedia is a places for factual based and neutral tone, not the place to [[WP:OR|come up with]] list of individuals whose ancestry you doubt. [[User:Inter&#38;anthro|Inter&#38;anthro]] ([[User talk:Inter&#38;anthro|talk]]) 17:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
::Yuchi this category American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent isn't about heritage okay, but American people of Native American descent is however the majority of the people that belong in that category that are not listed in that category they have been placed in American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent. The only person that can literally go into American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent is [[Iron Eyes Cody]] and Cher if her article wasn't cleaned up. The rest have Native American ancestry recent and not recent whether you or other editors have personal doubt. '''If there is no merge than every page that was moved into American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent with the exception of [[Iron Eyes Cody]] should be moved back to American people of Native American descent.''' Again I've seen a few articles were it's cited that an individual's parents were from a tribe, but there is no citation that the individual is a citizen of that nation however they are treated like they are a citizen that was/is active in the community. Unlike people who were placed in American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent who have a parent that was native but have no citation that they are a citizen.[[User:Seminolegirl94|Seminolegirl94]] ([[User talk:Seminolegirl94|talk]]) 20:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' If the categories are merged then [[Iron Eyes Cody]] should be excluded from the category American people of Native American descent because that category is about heritage. That seems to be the major problem here is that majority of the articles moved into '''American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent''' DO NOT belong in the category. Unless we move all the articles except Iron Eyes Cody back into American people of Native American descent and allow American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent to remain only leaving Iron Eyes Cody in that category. Either way this needs to be fixed.[[User:Seminolegirl94|Seminolegirl94]] ([[User talk:Seminolegirl94|talk]]) 18:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
::I agree, it appears that "American people of Native American descent" was changed to "self-identified" without any evidence that the new label applied to all of the entries. There may be a few exceptions, for example the only source for [[Adelaide Hall]]'s ancestry seems to be a statement that she made, however in any other situation we would either consider this sufficient proof (assuming that it was vetted by the publisher) or not include them in the category at all. –[[User:Dlthewave|dlthewave]] [[User_talk:Dlthewave|☎]] 20:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Pro-choice organizations ====
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''

:''The result of the discussion was:'' <!-- Template:Cfd top --> '''rename'''. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 09:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Pro-choice organizations]] to [[:Category:Abortion-rights organizations]]
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Pro-choice organisations in Australia]] to [[:Category:Abortion-rights organisations in Australia]]
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Pro-choice organizations in Canada]] to [[:Category:Abortion-rights organizations in Canada]]
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Pro-choice organisations in Ireland]] to [[:Category:Abortion-rights organisations in Ireland]]
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Pro-choice organisations in the Netherlands]] to [[:Category:Abortion-rights organisations in the Netherlands]]
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Pro-choice organisations in New Zealand]] to [[:Category:Abortion-rights organisations in New Zealand]]
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Pro-choice religious organizations]] to [[:Category:Abortion-rights religious organizations]]
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Pro-choice organisations in the United Kingdom]] to [[:Category:Abortion-rights organisations in the United Kingdom]]
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Pro-choice organizations in the United States]] to [[:Category:Abortion-rights organizations in the United States]]

:'''Nominator's rationale:''' As explained in the [[Abortion-rights_movements#Terminology|terminology section of the abortion-rights movements article]], "pro-choice" is an imprecise, POV slogan that we should be avoiding except in quotes and proper names. Same goes for "pro-life". I would presume if this were moved it would apply to the subcategories, too, but I'm leaving them off for now in case there's a reason to discuss separately that I'm not thinking of. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 13:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
*{{ping|Rhododendrites}} please do add the sub-cats. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''<span style="color: #FF0000;">L</span>'''ondon]] 13:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
:*{{ping|Fayenatic london}} Ok. Think I got them all. I was going to add the [nationality] pro-choice activists in [[:Category:Abortion-rights activists]], but it looks like you're already working on that? &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 13:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
::*Thanks. Yes, I found that [[:Category:Abortion-rights movement]] & the top "activists" category had been moved via the Speedy page, so I nominated those sub-cats likewise using the Speedy route. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''<span style="color: #FF0000;">L</span>'''ondon]] 17:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
* '''Support '''- moreover [[pro-choice]] redirects to [[abortion rights movements]]. [[User:Oculi|Oculi]] ([[User talk:Oculi|talk]]) 14:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
*: Actually, it redirects to [[Abortion-rights movements]]. [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] ([[User talk:Place Clichy|talk]]) 16:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' for consistency. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''<span style="color: #FF0000;">L</span>'''ondon]] 17:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' to avoid weasel words. [[User:Laurel Lodged|Laurel Lodged]] ([[User talk:Laurel Lodged|talk]]) 12:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' To properly depict which legal choice they propagate. By the way, the main article is quite a mess. Entire sections are devoted to abortion-related laws, not to the organizations which support or oppose them. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 14:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. A [[Talk:United States anti-abortion movement/Archive 8#Requested move 19 May 2018|well-attended May 2018  move discussion]] has established a clear consensus in favour of using "anti-abortion..." and "abortion-rights..." across the table. This comes after [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 17#"Pro-life" categories|this August 2016 CfD]] which led to a clear decision in the same direction but with a caveat for American categories, which can be considered lifted by the May 2018 article move. Pretty much all "pro-life" categories have been changes to "anti-abortion", it is only logic that "pro-choice"/"abortion-rights" follow suit. [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] ([[User talk:Place Clichy|talk]]) 16:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals ====
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''

:''The result of the discussion was:'' <!-- Template:Cfd top --> '''rename'''. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 09:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Catholic sex abuse cases]] to [[:Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals]]
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Catholic Church sex abuse cases by country]] to [[:Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals by country]]
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Catholic Church sex abuse scandal in Australia]] to [[:Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals in Australia]]
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse cases in Canada]] to [[:Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals in Canada]]
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Catholic Church sex abuse cases in Germany]] to [[:Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals in Germany]]
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Catholic Church sex abuse cases in Ireland]] to [[:Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals in Ireland]]
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Catholic Church sex abuse scandal in New Zealand]] to [[:Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals in New Zealand]]
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Catholic Church sex abuse cases in the United Kingdom]] to [[:Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals in the United Kingdom]]
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Catholic Church sex abuse cases in the United States]] to [[:Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals in the United States]]
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Catholic Church sex abuse cases in Europe]] to <s>[[:Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals in Latin America]]</s> [[:Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals in Europe]]
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Catholic sexual abuse cases in Latin America]] to [[:Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals in Latin America]]
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Catholic Church sex abuse scandal in Oceania]] to [[:Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals in Oceania]]
:* '''Propose merging''' [[:Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse cases in Oceania]] to [[:Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals in Oceania]]
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Academic literature of Catholic sex abuse cases]] to [[:Category:Academic literature about Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals]]
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Anti-pedophile activists in Catholic sex abuse cases]] to [[:Category:Anti-pedophile activists in Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals]]
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Curial response to Catholic sex abuse cases]] to [[:Category:Curial response to Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals]]
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Media coverage of Catholic sex abuse cases]] to [[:Category:Media coverage of Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals]]
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Abuse by members of Catholic orders]] to [[:Category:Sexual abuse scandals in Catholic orders]]

:'''Nominator's rationale:''' Per consensus to rename other categories of "child sex abuse cases" to "child sexual abuse scandals" at [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 18#Category:Child sexual abuse in religious groups]]. 
:Note 1: I have used "Catholic Church" following [[Catholic Church abuse cases]], [[Catholic Church sexual abuse cases]] (renamed in 2014, see [[Talk:Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases/Archive_15#Requested_move]]) and the majority of current categories. Alternatives include "Catholic", "Roman Catholic", "Roman Catholic Church" or "in Catholicism", although the latter would be clumsy when combined with "in [location]". 
:Note 2: the word "child" was added into the parent category names at the March CFD. However, I have not proposed to add this, to avoid unnecessarily long category names. It is not present in some of the article names, where the content may also cover abuse of adults.
:This nomination supersedes an earlier nomination of the Australian category alone at [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_2#Category%3ACatholic_Church_sex_abuse_scandal_in_Australia|CFD May 2]], and of three categories on the Speedy page; in both cases, there was support for a wider nomination. {{ping|Steel1943|Danski454|Armbrust|Black Falcon|PPEMES|Marcocapelle|Oculi|Laurel Lodged}} Pinging participants in previous discussions. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''<span style="color: #FF0000;">L</span>'''ondon]] 13:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. '''Support ALT''' on all: "Catholic Church sexual abuse in X". While it is certainly relevant to cover the ensuing scandals, the main scope are the deplorable very  cases, which should in my opinion be in focus as seen also in the title. The scandals are due and relevant, but they are not what's most alarming in this content. Something we should not divert from for a number of reasons, one of them being slippery slope towards two different articles. [[User:PPEMES|PPEMES]] ([[User talk:PPEMES|talk]]) 14:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per the cited consensus of March 2019. Scandal is somewhat wider than 'case'. [[User:Oculi|Oculi]] ([[User talk:Oculi|talk]]) 14:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
* '''Support''' per previous discussion. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 20:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per previous discussions [[User:Laurel Lodged|Laurel Lodged]] ([[User talk:Laurel Lodged|talk]]) 12:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' For consistency reasons. Note however, that the main article [[sexual abuse]] also covers the abuse of people with developmental disabilities, people with [[dementia]], elders in [[nursing home]]s, and sexual harassment and coercion within schools and workplaces. Should the categories also cover cases where Catholic church employees were abused by their co-workers? For example, Catholic priest [[Joseph Maskell]] is known to have sexually abused the [[Religious sister (Catholic)|religious sister]] [[Murder of Catherine Cesnik|Catherine Cesnik]], and is considered a main suspect in her murder. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 15:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose'''</s>.  Are you 100% sure that all of these cases are scandals, or if you're not, are you intentionally seeking to exclude articles about cases that didn't result in scandals?  On principle I'm okay with the change, but in practice I can't support it unless I know that nothing's going to get dropped by mistake.  I'm particularly concerned about incidents during the [[Saeculum obscurum]]; it's quite likely that there were cases of sexual abuse, and given the culture and politics of the period, some or all probably did not result in public scandal.  [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 02:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
**'''Comment'''I don't think we have articles on incidents of this period. At least we didn't when I last checked, a year or so ago. Of the Popes from this period:
***[[Pope Sergius III]] (term 904-911). Alleged lover of the noblewoman [[Marozia]], and alleged father of [[Pope John XI]]. No known abuse scandals, though he was accused of murdering his predecessors [[Pope Leo V]] and [[Antipope Christopher]]. 
***[[Pope Anastasius III]] (term 911-913). Allegedly one of Pope Sergius III's illegitimate children. A puppet ruler for [[Theophylact I, Count of Tusculum]] and senatrix [[Theodora (senatrix)|Theodora]].
***[[Pope Lando]] (term 913-914). Another puppet ruler for Theophylact I, Count of Tusculum and senatrix Theodora, who were controling the papal finances, the Roman militia, and the [[Roman Senate]].
***[[Pope John X]] (term 914-928). A kinsman of senatrix Theodora, and allegedly her lover. Appointed to the position by the Roman nobility, without ever being elected. Following Theophylact I's death in 925, John started trying to become the [[de facto]] ruler of the [[Papal States]] instead of another puppet ruler. His kinswoman Marozia (Theodora's daughter) had him deposed, and he died in prison in 929. Otherwise John X is known for his support of the [[Rule of Saint Benedict]], for the [[Cluny Abbey]], and for his attempts to reform [[Christian monasticism]].
***[[Pope Leo VI]] (term 928-929). Appointed by senatrix Marozia and her husband [[Guy, Margrave of Tuscany]]. Mainly known for trying to raise an army against the Saracens who were threatening Rome for most of the 10th century.
***[[Pope Stephen VII]] (term 929-931). Appointed by Marozia alone. A strict disciplinarian, "noted for the severity with which he treated clergy who strayed in their morals". He reportedly broke with Papal tradition by being cleanshaven, instead of bearded during his term.
***[[Pope John XI]] (term 931-935). Son of Marozia and alleged son of Pope Sergius III. Also alleged half-brother to Pope Anastasius III. He was appointed Pope by his mother Marozia, and served as another of her puppet rulers. In 932, Marozia was overthrown and John XI became a puppet ruler for the new ruler of Rome, his half-brother [[Alberic II of Spoleto]]. John XI is known for his support for the Cluny Abbey.
***[[Pope Leo VII]] (term 936-939). Appointed by Alberic II of Spoleto, despite being a mere monk. Leo VII is known for authorizing persecution of the Jews, but not endorsing the forced baptism of Jews. 
***[[Pope Stephen VIII]] (term 939-942). Another puppet of Alberic II, but Stephen reportedly tried to assassinate Alberic. He was reportedly tortured to death for his crime.
***[[Pope Marinus II]] (term 942-946). Appointed by Alberic II. Supported the monasteries in their conflicts with the local bishops.
***[[Pope Agapetus II]] (term 946-955). Appointed by Alberic II. Agapetus started an initiative aimed at further Christianizing [[Denmark]].
***[[Pope John XII]] (955-964). Son of Alberic II, grandson of Marozia, and great-grandson of Theodora. Reputedly John's birth was the result of a controversial sexual relationship between Alberic and his stepsister Alda. He was appointed Pope by the nobility, a year following the death of his father. He was between 17 and 25-years-old at the time of his appointment, one of the youngest Popes. Personaly led the Papal Army in a campaign against the Lombard duchies, but met with humiliating defeat. Offered poitical support and the imperial crown to [[Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor]], in exchange for Otto's patronage and protection against the enemies of the Pope. He later conspired against Otto, and the emperor deposed him. John's enemies accused him of maintaining several mistresses: the "widow of Rainier", Stephania (one of his father's concubines), the "widow Anna", and one of his own nieces. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 19:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
****Okay, thank you for the detailed accounting.  Since you've done your homework, I can '''support''' this proposal.  [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 22:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:French rule in the Ionian Islands ====
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''

:''The result of the discussion was:'' <!-- Template:Cfd top --> '''rename''', deleting the original rather than making it a parent or disambiguation page. 
:Closer's note: I may not close a discussion in which I am [[WP:INVOLVED]]. However, I started this section explicitly as a procedural nomination on behalf of [[User:Cplakidas]] (Constantine) since his initial nomination was stalled on the [[WP:CFDS|Speedy]] page. My subsequent participation was solely to seek clarification on the views of other participants. I therefore hold myself "uninvolved", having interacted with this topic area purely in an administrative role. Also, having left a good long time during which no-one else has closed this, I therefore consider that it is permissible and reasonable for me to close it now. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''<span style="color: #FF0000;">L</span>'''ondon]] 19:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:French rule in the Ionian Islands]] to [[:Category:French rule in the Ionian Islands (1797–1799)]]
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' Procedural nomination, opposed on Speedy page as ineligible. The nomination would remove ambiguity with [[:Category:French rule in the Ionian Islands (1807–1814)]]. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''<span style="color: #FF0000;">L</span>'''ondon]] 09:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
{{collapse top|Copy of Speedy discussion}}
* [[:Category:French rule in the Ionian Islands]] to [[:Category:French rule in the Ionian Islands (1797–1799)]] – C2D per [[French rule in the Ionian Islands (1797–1799)]]. [[User:Cplakidas|Constantine]]  [[User talk:Cplakidas| ✍ ]] 16:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
*: '''Oppose speedy''' Only recently renamed and without [[WP:RM|discussion]] so C2D doesn't apply. [[User:Armbrust|Armbrust]] <sup>[[User talk:Armbrust|<span style="color: #E3A857;">The</span> <span style="color: #008000;">Homunculus</span>]]</sup> 09:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
*::{{ping|Armbrust}} I am practically the sole author of the relevant main article in its present form, as well as the creator of the category, so this is really objecting on a technicality. [[User:Cplakidas|Constantine]]  [[User talk:Cplakidas| ✍ ]] 10:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
*:::In other words, it's a C2E. [[User:HandsomeFella|HandsomeFella]] ([[User talk:HandsomeFella|talk]]) 20:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
*:::: [[User:HandsomeFella|HandsomeFella]] C2E doesn't apply because the category was created more than six months ago. [[User:Armbrust|Armbrust]] <sup>[[User talk:Armbrust|<span style="color: #E3A857;">The</span> <span style="color: #008000;">Homunculus</span>]]</sup> 20:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
*:: The move to [[French rule in the Ionian Islands (1797–1799)]] is so uncontroversial seen the ambiguity with the later French rule in the same islands (see [[:Category:French rule in the Ionian Islands (1807–1814)]]) that a RM for the article would have been overkill. Arguing that C2D doesn't apply (and that CfD is necessary) because the article move is so uncontroversial that discussion there is not necessary is head over heels. [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] ([[User talk:Place Clichy|talk]]) 13:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
*:Can we move ahead please? Either let's move th ecategory already or let's move this to regular discussion. This is getting ridiculously complicated. [[User:Cplakidas|Constantine]]  [[User talk:Cplakidas| ✍ ]] 13:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
* '''Support''' - seems straightforward. [[User:Oculi|Oculi]] ([[User talk:Oculi|talk]]) 09:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''', but no objection creating subcategory [[:Category:French rule in the Ionian Islands (1797–1799)]] next to [[:Category:French rule in the Ionian Islands (1807–1814)]] which should also become a subcategory of the nominated category. Note that currently the information about the second French rule in the Ionian Islands (1807–1814) is hidden in the article [[French rule in the Ionian Islands (1797–1799)]], so the article may better be renamed back. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 20:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
:* [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]], I fully intend to write the article [[French rule in the Ionian Islands (1807–1814)]] very soon, and the existence of two distinct periods of French rule is pretty clear, so the disambiguation for the extant article is necessary. I should have disambiguated right away when I created both article and that category, but didn't, for some reason. I am now merely seeking to rectify my previous oversight. It really shouldn't be that difficult. I feel caught up in a bizarre bureaucratic process over a non-issue. [[User:Cplakidas|Constantine]]  [[User talk:Cplakidas| ✍ ]] 19:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - per [[Wikipedia:Categorization#General conventions|Wikipedia:Categorization#General conventions#2]]: "Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to [[French rule in the Ionian Islands (1797–1799)|the name of a Wikipedia article]]". [[User:Krakkos|Krakkos]] ([[User talk:Krakkos|talk]]) 10:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''.  Why do we need separate categories for these two periods?  Between them, the two categories have thirteen articles, one subcategory with three articles, and one redirect.  We could retain this category at this name and merge Category:French rule in the Ionian Islands (1807–1814) into it.  Alternately, if merger be a bad idea, we ought to retain this category as a form of disambiguation (see [[:Category:Disambiguation categories]]) rather than deleting it; just create the 1797-1799 category, move this category's contents there, and replace this category's current text with {{tl|Category disambiguation}}.  [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 03:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
*: The two periods are different and have little in common. [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] ([[User talk:Place Clichy|talk]]) 10:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
::*Precisely. The first and second periods of French rule are vastly different in character: in the first there was a revolutionary, republican regime, in the second an oligarchic-imperial one. Even the personalities involved, apart from Napoleon, were different. There are simply no real continuities between the two, other than France's interest in holding this territory for strategic reasons.   [[User:Cplakidas|Constantine]]  [[User talk:Cplakidas| ✍ ]] 15:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
* '''Strong support'''. There's no or little connection between the two periods. The fact that they can be easily confused shows the need for 2 separate categories. Similarly, we have [[:Category:German occupation of Belgium during World War I]] and [[:Category:German occupation of Belgium during World War II]] for two periods of occupation close in time of the same country by the same country. Plus [[User:Cplakidas|Constantine]] is in the process of improving and structuring content for these articles, and should be given credit for that. The categories and the articles should both follow the same logic used in restructuring work in progress. [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] ([[User talk:Place Clichy|talk]]) 10:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
*: So, [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]], if it's important to keep them separate, why must we delete this category instead of making it a disambiguation category, or a parent to the two periods?  [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 11:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
*:: It does not seem to be common practice in [[:Category:Military occupation]] to have container categories for the couple of occupying country plus occupied country. And looking at {{C|Occupations by occupied country}} and {{C|Occupations by occupying country}}, I don't really see the value of such intersections. [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] ([[User talk:Place Clichy|talk]]) 13:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
*If I understand the participants correctly, [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] and [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] are both willing to see the nominated category used as a disambiguation page. {{ping|Marcocapelle}} would you object to that? – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''<span style="color: #FF0000;">L</span>'''ondon]] 16:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
:* A disambiguation page is pointless when the first 20+ characters of the name of the disambiguation page are identical to its both targets. However, now I'm thinking this over again, a parent category with just two subcategories is very inefficient from a navigational point of view, so neither a dab page nor a parent category are a superb solution. Ultimately Nyttend's original proposal to merge the both categories makes the most sense to me, while the proposal of Place Clichy and Cpalkidas to have two separate siblings (without a parent category or disambiguation page) is a second best option. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 20:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
::* {{Re|Fayenatic london}} Actually I am in favour of "two separate siblings" as [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] puts it, and as [[User:Cplakidas|Constantine]] nominated it. A parent category, or a dab page, seems less practical to me. A merger contradicts history, and, even worse, comes in the way of [[User:Cplakidas|Constantine]]'s current efforts to structure articles on the topic. [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] ([[User talk:Place Clichy|talk]]) 13:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
:::*I am not sure what the purpose and usefulness of a disambiguation category would be. As for the proposal to merge the two categories, it is utterly incomprehensible to me how this could seriously be considered as a good solution, particularly when the only two people in this discussion with any knowledge of the subject insist it is not. This discussion has already dragged on for far too long for such a (one would think) clear-cut case. Can we please, please wrap it up? [[User:Cplakidas|Constantine]]  [[User talk:Cplakidas| ✍ ]] 14:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
::::*{{Re|Fayenatic london}} Just a small reminder. Cheers, [[User:Cplakidas|Constantine]]  [[User talk:Cplakidas| ✍ ]] 09:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
{{XFD backlog|right}}
:::::* I have notified additional WikiProjects, which may attract further participation. Unfortunately there is currently a backlog here at CfD, and this one is some way down the queue. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''<span style="color: #FF0000;">L</span>'''ondon]] 20:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
::::::* {{ping|Fayenatic london}} As there appears to be no further interest for three weeks since my last query, can we please close this? [[User:Cplakidas|Constantine]]  [[User talk:Cplakidas| ✍ ]] 19:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Montreal bus routes ====
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''

:''The result of the discussion was:'' <!-- Template:Cfd top --> '''delete'''. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 18:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
:* '''Propose deleting''' {{lc|Montreal bus routes}}<br />
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' Almost no notable bus routes, category is populated unanimously with redirect articles. As bus routes are generally non-notable this category is unlikely to ever be useful. [[User:Ajf773|Ajf773]] ([[User talk:Ajf773|talk]]) 09:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
* '''Support''', all redirects link back to the same article [[List of Société de transport de Montréal bus routes]], which makes the category entirely pointless. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 16:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
* '''Delete'''. We don't need a category to hold a bunch of redirects which all point back to the same category's head article. Categorization of redirects is ''optional'', unlike articles — it can be done in some cases, but is not invariably required, and this is the kind of situation where it isn't useful. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 15:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Mathematician politicians ====
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''

:''The result of the discussion was:'' <!-- Template:Cfd top --> '''listify'''. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 16:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
:* '''Propose deleting''' {{lc|Mathematician politicians}}<br />
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' An unremarkable intersection of categories [[User:Rathfelder|Rathfelder]] ([[User talk:Rathfelder|talk]]) 07:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Listify''' at least, as this intersection has been subject to research and comment; e.g. a very quick search turned up [https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelcrowell/2018/08/24/mathematicians-would-make-great-elected-officials-heres-why/ Forbes], [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40329-016-0149-x Springer] academic article re Italy, [https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/politics-mathematicians-john-derbyshire/ National Review]. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''<span style="color: #FF0000;">L</span>'''ondon]] 18:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
*I think there are more politicians who are doctors, but we dont have a category for that. [[User:Rathfelder|Rathfelder]] ([[User talk:Rathfelder|talk]]) 22:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' -- Politicians will bring a particular expertise to politics according to their previous profession, so that this is not trivial.  I may be in a minority, but I consider that such categories should be allowed.  I think we have in the past deleted actor-politicians, a case where previous profession would be less important.  [[User:Peterkingiron|Peterkingiron]] ([[User talk:Peterkingiron|talk]]) 14:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
:* I can't really envisage how mathematical expertise is relevant in politics. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 05:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
* '''Support''' per nom, possibly listify. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 05:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. There is a longstanding consensus that we do ''not'' want a comprehensive scheme of "prior-occupation/politician" intersections for every job that people might have held before getting into politics — and while there are a ''couple'' of standalone cases (e.g. actors, sportspeople) where consensus has deemed that particular intersection to be more defining than the norm, those are special exceptions and not a license to build out a comprehensive set for every possible combination of prior occupation with politician. (And, in fact, I don't actually agree that actors or sportspeople or astronauts should actually warrant such categories either, but consensus has established that some people think they're special cases and I'm not overly inclined to stick my neck out on rechallenging that.) No prejudice against a list if desired, but I don't have a strong opinion on the listify vs. delete issue. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 15:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Literature of England ====
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''

:''The result of the discussion was:'' <!-- Template:Cfd top --> '''withdrawn'''. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''<span style="color: #FF0000;">L</span>'''ondon]] 12:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
:* '''Propose merging''' [[:Category:Literature of England]] to [[:Category:English literature]]
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' It seems like these two categories could be merged. Although I'm sure there are editors who will respond who can tell me the difference between [[:Category:English literature]] and [[:Category:Literature of England]]. From a laywoman's perspective, it looks like these two categories could be combined. If not, I'm sure you will let me know. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
::Following [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic london]] suggestion, I withdraw this proposal with the possibility that it is refiled. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' The main article [[English literature]] is about literature written in the [[English language]], not literature written in [[England]]. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 11:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
:* In that case, shouldn't [[:Category:English literature]] be merged to [[:Category:English-language literature]], or vice versa? [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 20:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
:**Yes, it should be merged with that one. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 21:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
:*** [[:Category:English literature]] has been tagged as well so this discussion might immediately be closed as merge [[:Category:English literature]] to [[:Category:English-language literature]] if there is consensus about it. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 12:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
:**** I have also tagged the following. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''<span style="color: #FF0000;">L</span>'''ondon]] 07:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:16th-century English literature]] to [[:Category:16th-century literature of England]]
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:17th-century English literature]] to [[:Category:17th-century literature of England]]

*'''Support''' Marco's suggestions. [[User:Laurel Lodged|Laurel Lodged]] ([[User talk:Laurel Lodged|talk]]) 12:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
* After checking this in more depth the best solution is to '''split''' [[:Category:English literature]] between [[:Category:English-language literature]] and [[:Category:Literature of England]]. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 13:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': saving a link here to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3919946 (English lit) so that we don't lose it. Also https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16785991 for Lit of England. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''<span style="color: #FF0000;">L</span>'''ondon]] 07:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', for the predicted reason that they are different things. Though I agree [[:Category:English literature]] and [[:Category:English-language literature]] are the same thing, though commonly known as 'English literature' ...in England, at least! [[User:Sionk|Sionk]] ([[User talk:Sionk|talk]]) 09:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
*{{ping|Liz|Marcocapelle}} For clarity, I suggest withdrawing this one to facilitate a fresh nomination, to split and disambiguate [[:Category:English literature]] to [[:Category:English-language literature]] and [[:Category:Literature of England]]. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''<span style="color: #FF0000;">L</span>'''ondon]] 12:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
:* Sounds like a good suggestion. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 13:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' -- I cannot believe the nom looed at the subject category before nominating it.  The nom category is mostly about literature that is ''not'' in English.  There is probably a case for a separate [[:Category:English literature]] and [[:Category:English-language literature]], the latter including American, Australian, Indian, etc and the former specifically that of England, but this nom would not achieve that.  [[User:Peterkingiron|Peterkingiron]] ([[User talk:Peterkingiron|talk]]) 14:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''.  If I remember rightly, ''[[Das Kapital]]'' was written in England, so it's part of the literature of England, even though it's obviously not English literature.  [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 02:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>