From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 3 April 5 >

April 4

Category:Roman Catholic priests by country

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete; sole subcategory was moved to Category:Roman Catholic clergy by country. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only content is Category:Roman Catholic priests in New Spain. New Spain was not exactly a country as we now understand the term, and the subcategory is in Spanish Roman Catholic priests. I think we are agreed that priests are best categorised in Category:Roman Catholic priests by nationality - as the other 105 subcategories are. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete Underpopulated. We would need to create a new category tree to justify its use. Dimadick ( talk) 20:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
delete....but country is the wrong format a category by Episcopal Conference makes more sense as it where the priest practiced, and more nuanced than nationality as priest leave where they are ordained and move to other parishes which can be anywhere in the world. Its association with locations that is of encyclopedic value as is its association with the individuals as each country has a number of Episcopal Conferences or List of Catholic dioceses (structured view). This enable a category structure that can be kept to reasonable sizes, yet broken up logically as needed. Gnan garra 06:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • What we dont want is two trees, one called country and the other called nationality, as the resulting subcategories are then ambiguous - Fooish priests clearly might mean either priests of Fooish nationality or priests who work in Foo. Rathfelder ( talk) 23:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    • But we do have many such trees, eg Category:Sportspeople by nationality ('fooian') and Category:Sportspeople by country ('in foo'). The problem is that editors seem to insist of making one a subcat of the other, whereas in fact they are separate trees. ('fooian sportspeople' are not necessarily 'in foo' and 'sportspeople in foo' are not necessarily 'fooian'. The same applies to priests.) Oculi ( talk) 02:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply
      • It is quite clear that most editors do not understand the distinction when it comes to clergy. "Fooish bishops" categories have lots of articles about bishops in Foo who were clearly not natives of Foo. The sportspeople categories are aggressively policed and there are very clear internationally agreed rules about nationality. The same is not true of clergy. I think we should exploit this ambiguity so we dont need both country and nationality categories. We clearly cannot have two categories of priests relating to the same country. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC) reply
      • With priests the overlap is likely to be massive, such that it would make sense making one a subcategory of the other and only double-categorizing migrant priests. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply
        • But it's equally true for Sportspeople. I see no logical distinction that would justify 1 rule for priests and another rule for Sportspeople. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment there are huge number of priests who were not nationals of the country where they worked. Most of these however were in some sense missionaries, so many are covered under the missionary category. However at presence there are a large number of non-national to the US Catholic priests serving in the US, and I do not think that they would be considered missionaries in most cases. The whole expatriate tree tends to be under categorized by, so it is hard to know from what we have at present what we could have in the future. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Comment While I agree that the expatriate tree is underpopulated, there is another problem here. With the exception of expatriate sportspeople we typically do not sort expatriates by their occupations. So it is not that easy to locate articles on expatriate clergy. Dimadick ( talk) 23:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply
      • There are some categories like Category:Spanish Roman Catholic bishops in North America, although I would argue they are a bit misleading as I dont think any of them were bishops when they were in Spain. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC) reply
        • Argee with Rathfelder, Category:Spanish Roman Catholic bishops in North America is actually Roman Catholic bishops in North America of Spanish decent, unlike sports nationality/citizenship is not a defining factor to being a priest or plying their trade as a priest. I disagree with Jonhpacklamber in that most priest arent missionaries they are priests assigned to vacant dioceses in other countries where a priest is needed. That movement could be Eire to Northern Ireland, or Mexico to the US, there are a lot who move within language communities regardless of the country. It's parishes and dioceses that they work in that is a factor in their notability. Gnan garra 05:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC) reply
          • I will support renaming that category too, once it becomes nominated. Bishops are very much defined by their territory (diocese), priests slightly less so. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to parent Category:Roman Catholic clergy by country. I accept that New Spain is not exactly a country, being a Spanish colony, but I do not think that should matter. It should not be the purpose of categories to be pedantically perfectly correct. Possibly the headnote for the target should be amended to explain that it includes some non-sovereign polities. It would be inappropriate to merge with a Spain category. It would also be inappropriate to amend this into expatriates by nationality, since Thomas Gage (priest) was English, not Spanish. The place of their ministry is at least as important as their national origin. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • We certainly dont need Priests by country and clergy by country - just another source of confusion. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Paintings of the Louvre

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: It currently sounds like they're depictions of the museum itself. Clarityfiend ( talk) 19:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support Clearer scope. Dimadick ( talk) 20:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. And I'd support all the sub-cats being renamed to match, if they get tagged and added to this request. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support in principle per nom - though I note that many of the categories in Category:Paintings by collection use the "of" formation. Perhaps this needs a more widespread debate. Grutness... wha? 01:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nakba

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Category:1948 Palestinian exodus and Category:Films about the 1948 Palestinian exodus were inappropriately emptied during this discussion, so I have moved some appropriate articles into them. If both categories exist, I think it is uncontroversial that Category:1948 Palestinian exodus would be a subcategory of Category:Nakba. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates the Category:1948 Palestinian exodus category, all pages there should be here and vice versa. Nakba (catastrophe) itself is the Arabic language term for the 1947–1949 Palestine war, is not an English work, and is a strongly POV word that treats the creation of Israel as a catastrophe. Geshem Bracha ( talk) 12:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete We have one category and that enough we don't need additional cat that clearly is POV violation -- Shrike ( talk) 13:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Nominator is getting ahead of her/himself, we should wait for result of the speedy deletion process at Nakba. Should that succeed then we can look at this. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Why? The fate of a single article is usually not enough to determine whether a category should exist or not. Dimadick ( talk) 20:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Hi Dimadick, the nominator's justification for the deletion is replete with incorrect statements, which are the same ones they have made at the article talk page, and this can be shown through discussion. Working through these same points in multiple locations is unhelpful. For the record I will address them here:
  • Duplicates the Category:1948 Palestinian exodus category... is the Arabic language term for the 1947–1949 Palestine war => so which one is it, the war or the exodus? How can it duplicate both?
  • Nakba (catastrophe) itself is the Arabic language term for the 1947–1949 Palestine war => Provably false based on a huge number of sources which explain what the Nakba is. From reading comments at Talk:Nakba, the nominator appears to have been misled by sources which say that Arabic writings often refer to the war as Al Nakba, from which the nominator has incorrectly implied an inverse relationship.
  • is not an English word => Provably false given its use in a huge number of English sources including dictionaries and encyclopedias
  • that treats the creation of Israel as a catastrophe => this misrepresentative form of words is often used to taint Palestinian commemoration of their tragedy. A slightly more accurate formulation would be "... that treats the implications for the Palestinian people from the events surrounding the creation of Israel as a catastrophe"
Onceinawhile ( talk) 21:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • The speedy delete is now not going ahead tho that may not be the end of it. But with a main article called Nakba and many references in many articles to the Nakba, then this nomination surely cannot stand. Selfstudier ( talk) 23:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the sources at Nakba, with detailed quotations in the footnotes, explain that the Nakba is about the consequences of the various events of 1948 and thereafter on the Palestinian people. It is a specific subtopic of 1947–1949_Palestine_war#Demographic_consequences, and one with a huge number of high quality sources specifically devoted to it.
Separately, this nomination appears to be a form of WP:FORUMSHOPPING, as the nominator has also nominated the main article Nakba for deletion. We should have one central discussion to avoid confusion. Onceinawhile ( talk) 21:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Yes, exactly. This discussion here concluded that Nakba is not the same thing as 48 exodus. Nakba was a redirect there since 2005, incorrectly as it turns out. A new argument is being made(initially via the just concluded speedy delete discussion with possibly more to come) that Nakba and 1947–1949 Palestine war instead are the same thing and we will have to wait and see where that ends up. Selfstudier ( talk) 09:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
I think we are perhaps speaking at cross purposes. When the fuss is concluded it will become clear which is the parent and which the children so currently Nakba is parent and then Nakba components being 48 exodus, 47-9 war and so on. I am just saying this is the subject of ongoing discussion. Selfstudier ( talk) 09:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Every single item in the "Nakba" category, an Arabic language POV term, will be in existing 1948 war categories. It is over categorized and a transparent attempt to push an Arabic word. It would be the same if we pushed Category:Liberation of Jewish people everywhere.-- Geshem Bracha ( talk) 11:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
You can pursue those arguments at the relevant talk pages instead of making provocative edits like this one Selfstudier ( talk) 11:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The only thing provocative here is pushing this Arabic language term that is hyper-partisan.-- Geshem Bracha ( talk) 11:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
There is an article Nakba. Google it to see why, it is a common name and then some, in English language sources. The BBC even use the term in titles. The term itself is neither provocative nor non-NPOV. Ngram Selfstudier ( talk) 12:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • When the fuss is concluded it will become clear which is the parent and which the children - that is not the issue at stake. Regardless which is the parent and which is the child, if the content of the categories is nearly identical they should be merged. Of course we can still keep a redirect. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
If you want this decided right away, then the category that remains should be Nakba. That is currently what I would call the parent. The opposers cannot even decide whether 48 exodus or 47-49 Palestine war is their preferred parent and in fact neither of them is. Selfstudier ( talk) 17:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
I don’t know how the conversation has devolved into this, but we seem to have lost the wood for the trees.
It takes time to build up the appropriate contents for a category. It has been clearly established that Nakba and the Exodus are not the same thing. The Exodus is a part of the Nakba, but the latter is a wider concept. There are already multiple articles in Category:Nakba which do not fit into the exodus category, and more will be added.
This conversation is proving complicated only because the deletion request has come so soon after a good faith attempt to tidy up the articles relating to the Palestinian Nakba. A few more weeks and it will all be so obvious that this discussion would never have been needed.
Onceinawhile ( talk) 20:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Is there some technical point I am just not seeing? The tree has to have nakba at the top because 48 exodus and 47-49 Palestine war are elements of that. If you delete Nakba, then where does Nakba/Nakba day etc get categorized. I don't see why renaming 1948 Palestinian exodus is necessary, it is a valid subcat of Nakba. All those villages could additionally be classed as Nakba for a different aspect of Nakba than depopulation eg dispossession. Or is it that one must be deleted in which case, delete 48 exodus. Selfstudier ( talk) 21:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Putting Nakba in 48 exodus is exactly backwards. To remedy the position in such a way as to reflect the underlying article reality, we should recategorize (as Nakba) all the several hundred villages? There are 344 of them currently sitting in a category 'Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War' itself a sub cat of 48 exodus. Is a formal request needed for that? What would it be called, a CFD merge? In any case the overlap is only going to last as long as is needed to recategorize and Nakba category should not be deleted (even with a redirect) just because of what would seem to be a technicality. Selfstudier ( talk) 09:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Does the "tree" have anything to do with this? This tree shows Nakba as part of/included in(?) 1948 Arab–Israeli War‎ which doesn't seem right either but it is more than possible I am misunderstanding how these things work. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and also that cats should not be named proactively. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Onceinawhile. -- NSH001 ( talk) 06:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Onceinawhile. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 18:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, this is an overlapping category with other categories on the 1948 war and its consequences. It is also a biased term, but the real problem is that it disrupts the existing categories for 1948. Free1Soul ( talk) 15:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Overlapping and POV category.-- Darwinek ( talk) 01:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Nom says duplicates 48 exodus but there are currently 37 pages in Nakba cat and 18 in 48 exodus. There is no POV issue as the article Nakba exists. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Marcocapelle: there are dozens of reliable sources explaining just how central the Nakba is in the Culture of Palestine. See for example: Hania A.M. Nashef (30 October 2018). Palestinian Culture and the Nakba: Bearing Witness. Taylor & Francis. ISBN  978-1-351-38749-1.
I am sorry if this seems a little direct, but a lot of people who have commented here do not appear to really understand what the Nakba represents.
Onceinawhile ( talk) 21:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply
That can be remedied and in any case is not a sufficient reason for deleting the Nakba category. Your original position as I recall was overlap between 48 exodus and nakba. Selfstudier ( talk) 21:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict)@ Marcocapelle: I was hoping you would acknowledge some of the evidence which has been brought. The state of that particular article tells us nothing more than we have work to do. What matters is what the sources say. Onceinawhile ( talk) 21:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Let me phrase it differently, it should be a minor element of Culture of Palestine, because this is a broad overview article about a different topic. If the influence of the 1948 events on Palestinian culture is a notable topic in its own right, by all means create a separate article about it. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge WP:OVERLAPCAT, no one has presented a convincing reason why any article in Nakba can't be recategorized into Palestine war and/or Palestinian exodus categories or neither (it is not a defining feature of Culture of Palestine). ( t · c) buidhe 06:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC) reply
What overlap? The defining characteristics of the articles Nakba (dispossession and displacement, 47 till today), Palestine war (civil war 47/48 and Arab Israeli war 48/49) and exodus articles (refugees since 47 - note that there are multiple exodus articles 48, 1948 Lydda Ramle, 49-56, 67). Now we can discuss an appropriate tree and naming of cats in it for contents of the cats with the same name as these articles, sure, but you don't start off doing that by deleting one of the existing cats apparently just because you don't like it. Looking at the existing trees, as I said above, if there is a cat that is surplus to requirements, then that would be the 48 exodus cat. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The editor is wrong in stating that the Nakba is not a defining feature of the Culture of Palestine. As the Taylor & Francis book I linked to above says in its blurb: “The Nakba not only resulted in the loss of the homeland, but also caused the dispersal and ruin of entire Palestinian communities. Even though the term Nakba refers to a singular historic event, the consequence of 1948 has symptomatically become part of Palestinian identity, and the element that demarcates who the Palestinian is. Palestinian exile and loss have evolved into cultural symbols that at once help define the person and allow the person to remember the loss.”
There are many other sources which say the same thing.
Onceinawhile ( talk) 10:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The cat 1948 Palestine exodus is currently empty apart from an empty subcat (tagged for deletion) so it will disappear in due course. All this discussion mainly arises from past usage of that cat as a place for Nakba material, there being no Nakba cat, a situation now remedied. Exodus articles and material relating to Palestinian refugees is now in cats Nakba/History of the Palestinian refugees. So I think this is done with for now. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kentucky beauty pageants

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic London 20:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: for consistency with Category:Beauty pageants in Delaware, Category:Beauty pageants in the United States, etc. BenKuykendall ( talk) 07:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • No objections from me, as the long-ago creator of the category. Orlady ( talk) 20:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nawal El Kuwaitia albums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category of redirects to the main article where the only mention of the albums is as part of a list in the discography section. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 06:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Aborigines in Australia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Indigenous Australians in Western Australia, Category:Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory, Category:Indigenous Australians in New South Wales, Category:Indigenous Australians in the Australian Capital Territory, Category:Indigenous Australians in Tasmania, Category:Indigenous Australians in South Australia, Category:Indigenous Australians in Queensland. It would have been helpful to have some replies about whether a category structure was needed for Aboriginal Australians aside from Torres Strait Islanders; as this was not demanded, it has not been implemented. Category:Indigenous peoples of Queensland therefore becomes unnecessary, so I will merge and redirect it under WP:G6. I will also propose speedy renaming of the Victorian outlier after its out-of-process move. This close is no bar to further discussions; I hope that getting the offensive word out of the way now will clear the way for clearer thought and debate if needed. "Aboriginal society" might work well, to make it clearer that these are not intended for individual biographies, but nobody expressed support for that apart from the person who proposed it. – Fayenatic London 10:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Aborigines is an offensive term in Australia. Aboriginal is the correct noun Gnan garra 05:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Added other categories of states and territories using the same term, for consistency. JarrahTree 20:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment: "Aboriginal" is an adjective; typically category names are nouns, so probably it should be "Aboriginal peoples..." or (to match the main article) "Aboriginal culture..." (singular per Wikipedia:Categorization#General_conventions). Mitch Ames ( talk) 07:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
response regardless of its use as both ..ine is offensive and has been for over 50 years, its been discontinued as such for the last 40 years, the only people who use it now do so with the intent of causing offense. Gnan garra 05:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC) reply
comment - see [1] and [2] for clarification of the reason for offense. JarrahTree 19:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC) reply
do the lot - /info/en/?search=Category:Indigenous_Australians_by_state_or_territory - you have five more states to do as well, or it is unnecessarily WP:UNDUE in emphasis JarrahTree 12:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC) - added other states and territories using the term. JarrahTree 20:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC) reply
add any you want I just saw this one, the term offensive if being used elsewhere on Australian categories then that needs to be addresses as well. Gnan garra 17:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Queensland is more complicated with Torres Strait Islanders, the question is is this an exclusively Aboriginal with an Associated Torres Strait structure or is it meant to be one? Gnan garra 17:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply

*Rename - Indigenous peoples of xxx - It makes sense for a country wide upgrade/update to remove the redundant offensive word usage - and for a replacement by a word o phrase that doesnt increase unnecessary parsing and splittig understanding of nouns or adjectives in any way. Despite being involved in incorporating all state categories that can be found to one term, I would support Peterkingiron's suggestion as a means of a simple resolution - to match the parent. I do hope it is supported further. JarrahTree 11:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC) reply

withdrawing from further conversation due to solidarity with proponents/nominator frustration with the current discussion. JarrahTree 12:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Category:Indigenous peoples of Queensland has two subcategories Category:Aborigines in Queensland which should be changed and one for Torres Strait Islanders therefore the tree is specifically to Aboriginal subject Gnan garra 12:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment - following up on my previous suggestion that the new name should be "Aboriginal peoples..." or similar, not "Aboriginals ...":
Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • In principle support. Just for the record, I support the general proposal to rename "Aborigines in ..." to something else, but I'm not sure exactly what to. Per my previous comments, "Aboriginals in ..." is wrong, because "Aboriginal" is an adjective, and we require a noun-phrase. "Aboriginal peoples ..." would probably be better, but requires more than a simple rename, because it already exists. Possibly we need something more general than "Aboriginal peoples" anyway, to allow for the existing sub-cats of "peoples" (being nations, eg Category:Noongar etc), as well as other sibling cats to "peoples" - if that's what we want. Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC) reply
response play word games all you like, firstly know that Aboriginal is noun, the category is more than just people, its cover culture, religion, language, place, history. While you all play nonsense arguing over words the term ....ine is violating WP:BLP, WP:Neutral, its bias and is causing harm but its also worse than that because we've spent the best part of a month knowing its offensive when theres a simple immediate fix. After that fix you play word games with our internal structural idiosyncrasy and foibles. Gnan garra 23:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC) reply
"Aboriginal" can be both an adjective and a noun, but my understanding is that the adjectival form is preferred. E.g.:
According to [3]:

The term Aboriginal ... when referring to ... 'Aboriginal' ... it's important to include 'people' at the end. Without referring to ‘people’, the terms could be considered adjectives, and not humanised.

'Aboriginal' is an adjective sometimes used as a noun.

According to [4]

‘Aboriginal’ (adjective, capitalised) is a term extensively used and widely accepted ...

‘Aboriginal’ (noun, capitalised) is less preferred today. ...

As far as I can see, "Aboriginal/Aboriginals" as a noun unambiguously denotes a person/persons – e.g. "an Aboriginal did this", "the Aboriginals did that" – which is why we ought not use it as the category name, because it necessarily restricts the category to persons, not culture, language etc.
I suggest that "Aboriginal society ..." would be better, because it makes sense to sub-categorize that into "culture", "peoples", "people" etc.
Mitch Ames ( talk) 11:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
(2) Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia currently covers Torres Strait Islanders as well as Aboriginal peoples, and there is currently no hierarchy exclusively for Aboriginal peoples. Are you suggesting that one is needed, either for all of Australia, or even just for Queensland? Otherwise, why not upmerge Category:Aborigines in Queensland‎ to Category:Indigenous peoples of Queensland, and rename the others to match?
(3) "Indigenous Australian" is used for a lot of the hierarchy in Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia. Would it be too repetitive to use that phrase in states that already include "Australia" in their name?
(4) Using "Aboriginal society" might imply that the categories belong in Category:Indigenous Australian society, which is a sibling of Category:Indigenous Australians by state or territory‎. However, Category:Indigenous Australian society is currently a small category, and could perhaps be upmerged, as its purpose is not distinct from Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia. Therefore that does not appear to be a problem. Are there any other objections to using "Aboriginal society"? – Fayenatic London 22:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support all per nomination. I can't believe it took this long for someone to notice that these categories exist under this name. Sean Stephens ( talk) 03:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • comment please just change it to something, anything this is the pathetic reluctance near 2 months of gasbagging and achieving nothing, racism is racism 14 days is the norm for cfd's these should be done faster, not still be open 50 days later. Gnan garra 04:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - A few thoughts: Category:Aborigines in Western Australia states that the main article is at Aboriginal cultures of Western Australia, though looking at the category contents, I think that's a bit of a stretch - people, schools, communities, and a government department are the subcats. Besides that, "aboriginal" is an adjective, so it would need a noun to modify (so using "aboroginals" would be inappropriate). And as User:Fayenatic london noted above, the adjective "Indigenous" appears to be the primary usage throughout the various parts of these category trees. As for Torres Strait Islanders, per that page: "...Ethnically distinct from the Aboriginal people of the rest of Australia, they are often grouped with them as Indigenous Australians..." - jc37 11:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose nominated targets. Rename and/or Merge these as appropriate into the already existing (sub-)cats which use the adjective "Indigenous", such as Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia. Deprecate all usage of "aborigine" from category naming conventions, per the discussion above. - jc37 11:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Rename as nominated. I am not convinced that Aboriginal can only be used as an adjective, so I do not agree with grammar objections. Admittedly there is an issue in Queensland where we also have non-Aboriginal Indigenous people but that has never been the scope of Category:Aborigines in Queensland. Changing the scope of that category should be discussed in a fresh discussion, it is too complicated to fix that now. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC) reply
I am not convinced that Aboriginal can only be used as an adjective — True, but per my earlier comment, "Aboriginal/Aboriginals" as a noun unambiguously denotes a person/persons, but the current categories include culture, language etc, not just persons. Mitch Ames ( talk) 05:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep In Australia this term is used as an ethnic description for a specific people. We should keep as is. The notion to replace it with "indigenous" ignored the very specific meaning the term has. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • @ Johnpacklambert: the nomination is not to replace it with "indigenous", that was an alternative suggested during the discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • @ Johnpacklambert: In Australia this term is as offensive as the term Nigger is in Michigan in the good ol' united states of america. Now please excuse me while I go and throw up for referring to such a vile term even to explain just how ignorant your comment is. Gnan garra 11:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Some people have proposed replacing the term with indigenous. Your comparison is flawed and inaccurate because you invoke a term that was never used in general discourse. Your failure to properly capitalize words alos makes it hard to take your comment seriously. The possible related term would be Negro, but of course that would not be nearly as offensive. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 11:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • [Aborigine] is as offensive as the term Nigger... —. Interesting. As an Australian, I've seen numerous references to the bowdlerized " N-word", but I've never seen any reference to the "A-word", nor any other similar attempt to avoid offending my sensibilities. Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply
"Aborigine" does not appear in List of ethnic slurs - does anyone think that it should? Mitch Ames ( talk) 14:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Strong oppose to Keep - the term that is being proposed to change has become known as offensive, and similar to the usage of the phrase of yellow peril for describing chinese - aborigine - is no longer considered appropriate, respectful, or relevant - ethnic description for a specific people - I do not see the 1904 era yellow peril term being for current chinese people or groups in wikipedia. Similarly the term being proposed to change is not in use in current materials - understanding that is something that other editors are surprised to see the term unchallenged for so long. User:Gnangarra's proposal is soundly reasoned totally valid and something that should have been acted upon some time ago. The parsing of grammar of possible nuances of word usage in replacement terminology is a total red herring and unnecessary delay in the movement from the offensive term. JarrahTree 10:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to use Aboriginal Australians in all cases to match the article name. This is similar to how we have categories like Category:Native American people from Pennsylvania. The currently in use term is Aboriginal Australians and using it in all category names would be most advised. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 11:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support rename per Indigenous Terminology (UNSW), Why do media organisations like News Corp, Reuters and The New York Times still use words like 'Aborigines'? (SBS/NITV) and Indigenous Australians: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (AIATSIS) Bidgee ( talk) 12:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply
    I think those are interesting links and that their guidance should help guide this discussion. - jc37 16:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support rename. I was actually stunned to find out tonight this is a category structure - here in Australia, while it's hard to explain "the vibe" of it, it is singularly offensive to refer to someone by this noun today and is a reminder of a time when they had no rights, were banned from 'white' settlements, and had their children taken off them by authorities. Changing the "-e" to "-al" reflects verifiable modern usage by both indigenous people and groups in Australia, and modern government departments who do not have assimilation as their goal. "Aboriginal peoples" would be a strange category to find an individual *person* in - they would refer to themselves as their nation (eg a Noongar, a Murri etc), an Aboriginal or an Aboriginal Australian. Orderinchaos 13:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply
    While I still think it's better to incorporate this tree into the already-existing Indigenous peoples tree of categories, if it helps consensus, I'm not opposed to a rename using Aboriginal Australian. So for example, renaming to Category:Aboriginal Australians in Western Australia. Though if this is done, there still would be the complexities like the Torres Strait Islanders, but I suppose those could be worked out, I guess? - jc37 15:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply
I said above it's hard to explain "the vibe" - The second link Bidgee (above) referred to contains the following quote which captures it well: "The word Aborigine is now accepted as an outdated term that carries racist and derogatory stereotypes due to its past colonial connotations, much like the word "homosexual", and is no longer socially acceptable." Orderinchaos 13:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support I'm unfamiliar with this, but I trust the OP that this is a valuable change. Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply
After further reading, [6] I'm unconvinced that "Aboriginal" is any better (it's an adjective). We should use "Aboriginal people" here instead, as Mitch Ames has suggested. Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment We should definitely move, as a matter of urgency. Long-term, I'd favour "First Nations ..."/"First Nations people ...". That is the term that the Common Ground website linked above expresses a preference for, it's common in the mainstream media, and it is also well in line with many existing categories whose names start with "First Nations ..." -- Andreas JN 466 19:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the endless to and fro as to the possible variants of replacement terminology is making this CFD close to unfathomable, please could some uninvolved admin or relevant watcher of this item close it before it develops into further discussion that ignores the offence that it encapsulates. JarrahTree 05:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support. It's been shown to be offensive. That should be the end of the discussion, but instead we have editors objecting on the basis of...what exactly? That it's their preferred term because they learned it as a kid in an entirely different country? This is everything that's wrong with our homogenous editor base and their thick-headed gatekeeping. Gamaliel ( talk) 02:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC) reply
    That same page that shows "Aborigine" to be offensive ( https://teaching.unsw.edu.au/indigenous-terminology) also lists "Aboriginal" (along with "Aborigines") as being "Less appropriate". It's not clear to me from that reference whether the plural "Aboriginals" (the original proposed new name) is more or less appropriate than the singular. That same reference says "Aboriginal people/s" is more appropriate, suggesting that using "Aboriginal" as an adjective is OK (except that "The Aboriginal people" is less appropriate). https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/indigenous-australians-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-people uses "Aboriginal" as an adjective, as does https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/australias-first-peoples, so presumably it is OK to use "Aboriginal" as an adjective - ie followed by a noun ("peoples", "society" etc). I remind those editors who don't care about grammar that Wikipedia:Categorization#General conventions says "Standard article naming conventions apply" and WP:NOUN says "Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred ...", for article and thus category titles. Mitch Ames ( talk) 04:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC) reply
    All good reasons to not use "Aboriginal", and to use "indigenous" (which even the school does in that link - teaching.unsw.edu.au/indigenous-terminology.) And also has the added benefit of including Torres Strait Islanders, as well. - jc37 05:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment - this cfd might as well be abandoned if the sort of commentary between my last comment and this one continues - the cfd was seen as need for a change - not an endless exposition and rendition of links grammar and rules. JarrahTree 11:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support change. Probably in order of "First Nations people..." > "Aboriginal people..." > "Indigenous people" >> current naming. Ordering roughly per ref and ref. Would be worth considering checking other categories for similar issues and to consider whether harmonisation is possible. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 12:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Category:Recipients of the Special Operations Command Medal

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:OCAWARD and WP:PERFCAT)
The United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) gives out the Special Operations Command Medal mostly to allied special forces soldiers involved with US joint operations, although US soldiers occasionally receive it as well. I don't think it is an official US military medal and, with both foreign and domestic recipients, the articles tend to mention the award in passing with other honours. There is not a main article but the category contents are already listified right here in the SOCOM article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of King Abdulaziz Medal

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT WP:OVERLAPCAT for the subcategory and the spirit of WP:C1, an empty category, for the parent
We don't have a main article on the King Abdulaziz Medal so the parent category is empty. The recipient subcategory has 4 articles for foreign leaders, all of whom earned the Order of King Abdulaziz from Saudi Arabia. I'm like 90% sure this is just an alternate translation of the same award but there are many things named after King Abdulaziz so it's possible there is a different non-defining award. (We can discuss the defining-ness of the target category in a future CFD nomination.) - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi @ RevelationDirect: Unfortunately, there is confusion about awards and decorations of Saudi Arabia caused by the wrong/old information here in the English Wikipedia, and the main article got translated to other projects, including Arabic Wikipedia. We fixed this on arwiki (including categories) and Wikidata, and I created this category and others hoping it will one day be copied to other projects and corrected. The awards and decorations of Saudi Arabia have been clarified in this template in arwiki.
Awards and decorations of Saudi Arabia details
Apologize for discussing this here in this request. I do not contribute much to the English Wikipedia, but if required I would be happy to go forward to fix this if you directed me to the correct way to deal with it. Regards.. -- FShbib ( talk) 03:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Thank you for the clarification that it is a separate award. My misperception was based on all 4 of the foreign leader in this cat incorrectly linking to the Order of King Abdulaziz article so the article space could use some help here as well. The lack of a main article for this award probably lead to that. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 09:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, regardless of the extra information about the award, the category is an obvious case of WP:OCAWARD containing four foreign heads of state. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Updated Nom Given that this is a separate award (see above), I've updated the nomination to "Delete" for the recipient category since it turns out this is just one more diplomatic souvenir that is not remotely defining for, say, Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump. I copied all the category contents right here so no work is lost if anyone wants to start a main article. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 09:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Zip-line

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: split to Category:Zip lines, Category:Zip-lining and Category:Adventure parks. – Fayenatic London 21:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The main article was renamed from Zip-line to Zip line in 2019. Per C2D, the category should probably be renamed to Category:Zip line. However, the singular noun form reads awkwardly here, as most members are about individual zip-line attractions. This could be resolved by renaming the category to the gerund form, i.e. Category:Zip-lining, which could cover all aspects, and/or splitting the individual locations to the plural form Category:Zip lines or an adjective form that makes the tourism aspect clear, e.g. Category:Zip-line attractions (the latter is helpful since many of the members are places where zip-lining is one of many offered activities). Paul_012 ( talk) 11:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Rename/Clean-up (leaning toward UpMerge/Delete) - When I look at the article, there seem to be 3 main types (with some possible overlap): usage at an Adventure playground; usage for safari or Ecotourism; or usage for Extreme sports. However, this cat has locations which may have a zip line attraction, actual zip line attractions, and a south park episode with ziplining in the title (which would probably be better placed as a "see also" in the main article). And looking at the parent cats, we seem to be overlapping attractions, sports, and transportation. If kept/renamed, I think "ziplining" would be inappropriate due to some of the parent cats, and so in that case rename to Category:Zip line attractions (no dash, to match article name) and prune/cleanup. - jc37 22:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC). reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_4&oldid=1073192778"