Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 16: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Adding merging nomination of Category:Orange Twin albums.
+
Line 14: Line 14:
==== NEW NOMINATIONS ====
==== NEW NOMINATIONS ====
<!-- Please add the newest nominations below this line -->
<!-- Please add the newest nominations below this line -->
==== Category:Deaths due to hippopotamus attacks ====
:* '''Propose deleting''' {{lc|Deaths due to hippopotamus attacks}}
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' Not a defining characteristic of the sole member. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 20:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
==== Category:Orange Twin albums ====
==== Category:Orange Twin albums ====
:* '''Propose merging''' [[:Category:Orange Twin albums]] to [[:Category:Orange Twin Records albums]]
:* '''Propose merging''' [[:Category:Orange Twin albums]] to [[:Category:Orange Twin Records albums]]

Revision as of 20:56, 16 April 2024

< April 15
April 17 >

April 16

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Deaths due to hippopotamus attacks

Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic of the sole member. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Orange Twin albums

Nominator's rationale: Orange Twin is a redirect to Orange Twin Records. These categories refer to the same record label. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Citizens of Indonesia through descent

Nominator's rationale: Per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:Citizens of Hungary through descent and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 17#Category:Citizens through descent, purge and merge to Category:People with acquired Indonesian citizenship. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Austria-Hungary by topic

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

Nominator's rationale The category should be renamed to match the main article, List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For sure "Native American tribes" is clearer than "tribes in the United States". However "unrecognized" is clearer than "self-identify" because tribes that are recognized also self-identify as such but that is obviously not in scope here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle They aren't tribes though. They are organizations. To incorrectly call them "tribes" implies that they are indeed tribes but are merely waiting to be recognized. That's a POV. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposed -
    Dear Wikipedia Editors,
    I am writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed amendment that seeks to rename the category “Unrecognized tribes in the United States” to “Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes.” This change not only misrepresents our tribe but also undermines the historical and cultural recognition we have long held.
    The Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe of Wampanoag Nation has a well-documented history in Plymouth, Bourne, Massachusetts dating back thousands of years. We still have care and custody of our sacred places, burial grounds and our 1838 Meetinghouse, one of 3 built for the Tribe after the arrival of the colonizers. Our continuous presence and stewardship of these lands are recognized by historical records,deeds and treaties and so on. Additionally, our status is acknowledged by the two MA federal tribes, the Commission on Indian Affairs, Plymouth, Bourne and the Commonwealth which affirms our legitimacy beyond mere self-identification.
    The proposed renaming of the category on Wikipedia is not only inaccurate of many but also insulting. It disregards the deep cultural and ancestral ties we have to our land—ties that are integral to our identity and existence. Labeling us as an organization that self-identifies as a Native American tribe fails to recognize these ties and the acknowledgment we have received from authoritative entities.
    Mislabeling our tribe and any other legitimate Tribes in this manner can lead to the spread of hate, misinformation and further marginalization. It is crucial that platforms like Wikipedia, which serve as a global source of information, ensure the accuracy and integrity of the content they host.
    Tribes without legislative recognition often face significant administrative hurdles to gain federal recognition, and being labeled as "self-identified" can add to these challenges by casting doubt on our legitimacy.
    We face persistent disparagement on platforms like Wiki All the while we are still walking the path to recognition.
    The lack of recognition does not protect tribes from discrimination or persecution, and the term "self-identified" can perpetuate these issues by invalidating their identity.
    The term "self-identified" can be problematic for tribes like the Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe, especially in states like Massachusetts that lack a legislative recognition process, for several reasons: diminished sovereignty, historical erasure, legal implications, administrative challenges, discrimination and persecution.
    It's important for platforms like Wikipedia to use terminology that accurately reflects the status and history of tribes, especially those with longstanding recognition by other tribes and federal entities, rather than terms that can lead to misinterpretation and misrepresentation of their identity and rights. The Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe's situation exemplifies the need for careful consideration of how tribes are categorized and described in public and legal contexts.
    We urge you to consider the implications of this change and to seek a category name that respects and reflects the recognized status of tribes like the Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe. We are open to dialogue and collaboration to find a solution that honors the truth of our history and existence. Goldendragonfly77 (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per WP:C2D. NLeeuw (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I think that this rename has major negative connotations that are unwarrented. Category:Unrecognized tribes does the same thing without the connotation. Mason (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What negative connotations? "Unrecognized tribes" doesn't work because these organizations are not actually tribes. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mason and Marcocapelle. While I understand the idea behind the "self-id" part, I think it should be on a case-by-case basis, rather than a blanket statement on all unrecognized groups. Self-ID also carries highly negative connotations, as Mason stated, and I don't think that warrants being a blanket statement. "Unrecognized" is also by far the most common term in literature, afaik, however I don't have any data to back that up. PersusjCP (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is self-id a negative? It is simply describing that we don't have a citation to support their claims. I disagree with the statement that recognized tribes self-identify. The process to gain recognition is rigorous and recognized tribes, at least those federally recognized, have to document their continuous direct connection with the original tribes that were here prior to and during colonial contact. With no direct proof connecting them they are therefore self-identifying. They may very well share a heritage and be descendants but they cannot verify by showing a direct connection. That is only a negative because people on Wikipedia and even some of those who self-identify are trying to push that perspective to distort reality. At no point are we saying they are "pretendians". That would require reliable sources stating it through investigation. Self-identify does not equal "pretendian". --ARoseWolf 13:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying someone "identifies" as something vs "being" something very much does have a negative connotation. It implies it is only in their head. There is even a famous transphobic joke (I identify as an attack helicopter/whatever) about how one's self-ID is meaningless. PersusjCP (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We cannot declare every one of these groups to be tribes; that's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Is there a term you see as more neutral than "identifies"? I don't mind if "self" is removed. Re: transphobia, a Native American tribe is a collective political identity, while a person's gender and sex is an individual identity; the two concepts are completely different from each other. Yuchitown (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
    It's wordy, but I would think along the lines of "claims descent/to be the successor from historical tribe/the aboriginal ___ people" or something like that. Maybe "Organizations that claim descent from Native American tribes." Since "descent"or being the "successor" is generally the more politically accurate idea to what modern day tribes are to historical entities. PersusjCP (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So sorry, but I believe that would be original research since not all the groups claim descent from Native American tribes, like the Una Nation of Mixed-Bloods from Eugene, Oregon, who see themselves as a completely new entity (that is somehow still Native American). Just as a reminder, the corresponding article is List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes, so this proposal isn't charting new territory but trying to bring the category inline with the article. Yuchitown (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah that's a good point, I forgot about them... Okay, I support the current/future wording of "Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes," unless someone else can think of a more neutral, all-applicable wording. Maybe alternatively: get rid of the "self" in "self-identify," but I don't know if that makes it more neutral. Or like, "Orgainzations not recognized as Native American tribes," although that's kind of broad. Unfortunately I think because it is such a contentious topic that it is hard to be truly "neutral" in this. PersusjCP (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see how "self-identifying" could be regarded as problematic, as if they could be somehow "delusional" (although I must say this is the first time I've heard it having any negative connotation).
    But so can "unrecognised", right? Doesn't this imply that that these people are in fact tribes, but the U.S. government is just being 'stubborn, uncooperative and discriminatory' in 'refusing' to recognise them as such? The word "unrecognised" arguably carries a subtle WP:POV in it in favour of recognition, and arguably an implied criticism against the government that has so far not extended it to the applicants. NLeeuw (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. All we can substantiate is that these organizations have collectively have identified as being Native American tribes. We cannot go further and do not have that authority; an outside authority having nothing to do with Wikipedia would have to make that distinction. Saying they identify does not mean none of the groups have Native American ancestry or that none of the groups are respected as successors of historical political tribes. But to collectively say all these groups are "tribes" is WP:OR and beyond our capacity or what we can support through published sources. Yuchitown (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • That does not solve the problem that recognized tribes also identify as being Native American tribes. The question is what distinguishes the two groups and the answer is that one group is recognized and the other group not. Not recognized is the key descriptor here. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned above the article is already named List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. There are already List of federally recognized tribes in the contiguous United States, List of Alaska Native tribal entities, and State-recognized tribes in the United States, which are cross linked in the introduction of List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. Several federally recognized tribes are also state-recognized, but the general pattern is to go from broadest category into more specific classifications. Yuchitown (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes but this does not address the objection. The objection is not about recognized, it is about unrecognized. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What about "Organizations not recognized as Native American tribes" as I said in another thread here? The only problem is pretty much this applies to anything except federally-and-state recognized tribes, but maybe it is clear enough with context. PersusjCP (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That would include almost every organization on the planet. I’m not being facetious. “Identifying as Native American tribes” is a necessary component. Yuchitown (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've watched this discussion for a few days and tried to understand or see all the perspectives. I disagree with the negative connotation many are trying to place on self-identification and I think that term should defined somewhere on Wikipedia much like other terms have. The fact that it can be negative or potentially be negative shouldn't be considered because anything can be negative depending on who is defining it. What we should be looking at is the literal meaning of self-identification. These entities are the ultimate source of their identification. I know, some will say, The most notable ones did get recognized by reliable sources or government resolutions. But ultimately the source of their legitimacy when you dig into it is the subject entity itself. If they had proof of their connection to the original people they would have gotten federal recognition. So we are left with an entity that identifies itself as Native American. This may be true and it may not be true, it's still self-identification at its foundation. I support the change in title on that basis. Calling them "unrecognized tribes" places a legitimacy on these groups that cannot be verified. It is wholly non-neutral for Wikipedia to be the one conferring legitimacy. Many don't even call themselves tribes. --ARoseWolf 12:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just following up, "self-identified" is as broad and neutral as possible because a vast range of entities are in this category, including many with verified American Indian ancestry such as the Verona Band of Alameda County, Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, and the Yuchi (who are almost all enrolled in the Muscogee (Creek) Nation). Yuchitown (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per what Mason and Marcocapelle said, which is that self-ID can have a highly negative connotation and "unrecognized" is the common term in literature. I've already encountered the issue of self-ID violating BLP in an article. If the category was changed as proposed, it's likely we'd have many more BLP issues in individual articles about people. This may seem like a minor word change, but there are strong negative connotations to saying someone who is Native "self identifies," because the inference is that they are Native in name only or falsely claiming to be Native. A change like this will impact countless articles covered by BLP because articles about Native people typically link to their tribe's article. --SouthernNights (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no consensus in any discussion you can point to that says "self-identification" is considered a BLP violation. If I remove anything that I believe "can" be considered negative from every BLP on Wikipedia how long do you think it would take before I was community banned? Yet that's what you did based on your own personal opinion, not consensus. That is the worst obvious and most ridiculous example of POV pushing I have ever seen and quite frankly what I consider very much a misuse of the admin tools. It calls into question your neutrality, not on a personal level because we are all biased to some degree, but your willingness to use the tools you were granted to support your bias despite other good faith editors objecting. --ARoseWolf 13:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP guidelines state that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced — whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable — must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." In the case of the article I'm referring to, the recent edits that her tribe supposedly self-identifies absolutely qualified as such which is why I removed them. And I'm hardly the only one who sees it this way -- several editors raised concerns in this very category discussion about such descriptions being seen as negative. For more perspectives on this topic, check out this 2021 research paper published in the American Sociological Association journal (pdf download). Finally, your personal attacks here cross a definite line and violate Wikipedia policy. I strongly advise you do not continue with such attacks. SouthernNights (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Her self-identification as Lipan Apache is not unsourced. We know that her non-profit organization has neither state nor federal recognition. That is a fact, not an opinion. Their identity as a Native group comes purely from their own self-identification, not from government recognition. You referring to "her tribe" is itself a POV and also factually untrue, because it isn't actually a tribe. It's a non-profit organization. There's nothing supposed about it. That's what it is. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If my statements were attacks then so were yours when you attacked good faith editors by declaring us POV pushers. What does that make you pushing your personal point of view? --ARoseWolf 12:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are a number of reasons why this conversation about Native American identity should not be renamed self-identify. Here are the top four in my mind:

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

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

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

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

Could you share where on Wikipedia this conversation took place? “It goes against a vast and longstanding consensus on the concept of indigenous identity”: I’ve never seen such a conversation on Wikipedia. Yuchitown (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't see any BLP violation or anything objectively negative about the term self-identify. I do see a big NPOV problem with the current category name as it uses the word "tribes" suggesting in Wikivoice that these are actual tribes in the context of indigenous American tribes. Doug Weller talk 11:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that is my biggest concern even more than the self-identity argument that seems to have developed. Some of these are organizations that have filed for 501C3 status with the same government they decry as holding them back from recognition. While some are heritage groups trying to bring awareness to Native American topics. Others may have legitimate claims. Still others are pretendian organizations seeking financial gain on the backs of Native Americans. The one thing that is common between them all is they cannot provide evidence which link them to the sovereign nations they claim to be part of with any continuity. Had they been able to do so they would have gained the political recognition from the US government to be able to speak for the respective nation they associate with. Without a doubt Wikipedia should not legitimize them in Wiki-voice as Native American/American Indian tribes, recognized or unrecognized, self-identified or otherwise and even if reliable sources that are not owned by legitimately recognized nations identify them as such. --ARoseWolf 17:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The proposed renaming would result in very awkward-sounding categories that thousands of readers and article subjects could find to be inaccurate, biased, or even offensive.
"Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes" is not wording that is typically used in academic literature.
Federal recognition is a controversial topic that should be discussed in the article text itself. It should not be forced into category names.
Category names should be based on serious non-biased anthropological and sociological research, and should not be based on decisions made by bureaucratic governments that may not always be fair.
I primarily focus on ethnic groups in the Middle East and Balkans, and categorizing thousands of individuals and entire clans as "self-identified" would be extremely offensive. For example, what if Serbia, Iran, or others do not officially recognize certain ethnic groups that Western anthropologists would certainly recognize as genuine ethnic or ethnoreligious groups? For example, if we were to label Yazidis or Alevis as self-identified minorities, that would be completely unencyclopedic, POV, and totally unsuitable for Wikipedia.
There are also many unrecognized ethnic groups in China, since the Chinese (PRC) government officially recognizes only 56 ethnic groups. Should we also categorize every single individual from those unrecognized minorities as "self-identified minorities"? Certainly not, as that would be very awkward, controversial, and out of line with what Wikipedia categories should really be all about.
Another good reason to oppose this renaming is the WP:CONCISE guideline. We shouldn't make category names overly long and complicated.
The same should apply to Native Americans, First Nations, and other indigenous peoples in North America.
I would also suggest taking a look at this book which discusses this issue in detail: Forgotten Tribes: Unrecognized Indians and the Federal Acknowledgment Process.
Equiyamnaya (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NDNID was written by members of the Indigenous peoples of North America Wikiproject. It was thoughtfully constructed and thoroughly discussed to aid non-Native editors on Wikipedia gain an understanding of what being Native American is. Native American identity is not a matter of race or ethnicity. There is not a unified "Native American" ethnic identity. So the ethnic groups mentioned would not be an accurate comparison. This should not be a one-size-fits-all approach. --ARoseWolf 13:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To label all of the entities in the category tribes is definitely original research. The article was renamed to accurately and honestly include groups such as the Kaweah Indian Nation, Ani-Stohini/Unami, and Vinyard Indian Settlement as well as the Mississippi Choctaw Indian Federation, Brothertown Indians, and Verona Band of Alameda County (i.e. those with no demonstrated connection to historic Native American communities to those with well-documented connections). I've cited Miller's book, but it was also written in 2006; many of these groups have formed since then. This lengthy discussion will probably result in "No Consensus"; however, all of the editors who actively contribute to and improve Native American topics on Wikipedia have voted to "Support" the renaming. Yuchitown (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Indian massacres

Nominator's rationale: merge/redirect, it looks like the scope of the two categories coincides. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge given that main article is List of Indian massacres in North America. I don't think that title is very helpful though, as the scope is both of and by "Indians". But that should be discussed at its talk page, not here. NLeeuw (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there have been massacres in India... so the category name is ambiguous. This category name should be salted, so that India cannot use this category name either. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that "Indian" is ambiguous, so I'd rather stick to merge as nominated rather than reverse merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcocapelle (talk • contribs) 06:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Intersex transgender people

Nominator's rationale: Redundant, as all intersex people are LGBT. Editor has been warned about their alternative definition of LGBTQI+ User_talk:Bohemian_Baltimore#Category:Pansexual women#Aromanticism_and_Asexuality_are_the_A_of_LGBTQIA+_and_Intersex_is_the_I_and_is_inherently_an_LGBTQIA+_identity Mason (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like the other comments, I support this merger. These categories were erroneously created and this needs to be corrected. Historyday01 (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As proposed (disclosure, I was the user that warned them about their misinformed interpretation of LGBTQIA+ at User_talk:Bohemian_Baltimore#Aromanticism_and_Asexuality_are_the_A_of_LGBTQIA+_and_Intersex_is_the_I_and_is_inherently_an_LGBTQIA+_identity). Raladic (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but manually merge because articles may already be in a subcategory of a merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with exception of "Intersex transgender men" and "Intersex transgender women," as those can be useful categories and don't have the same issue as the other proposed categories for deletion.ForsythiaJo (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge the last three (LGBT intersex categories), keep the rest per ForsythiaJo. All intersex people are categorized as LGBT, but are all intersex men gay men or transgender men? The rationale doesn't apply to these categories. --MikutoH talk! 23:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Question for the keeps, I don't think the 3x intersection is supportable in terms of category size or under EGRS. Can somebody point to some literature that supports these intersections? Mason (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I strongly oppose the erasure of asexual and intersex people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender and the subsequent eradication of any categories that mention LGBT intersex and asexual people. Being both LGBT and intersex or LGBT and asexual is a relevant and defining intersection of two oppressed groups, a minority within a minority. Likewise, there are many intersex people who identify as cis/hetero or straight and many asexuals who identify as cis/heteroromantic or straight. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not erasure of people who are asexual and LGBTQIA. It is literally in the acronym already. Mason (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smasongarrison Yes, it is erasure. And "LGBT" is the standard acronym used for articles and categories for Wikipedia. Not all asexual people are gay, lesbian, bi, or transgender. Gay asexual men exist. Lesbian asexual women exist. Biromantic asexuals exist. Transgender asexuals exist. Just as there are asexuals who identify as straight and/or hetero. There needs to be a way to describe and acknowledge the reality of asexuals who are LGB and/or T. A marginalized group within a marginalized group. As a compromise, I'd be fine with merging the LGBT categories but keeping the L, G, B, and T subcategories. Those are undoubtedly valid. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Volodimerovichi family

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Rurikids. "Volodimerovichi" is rarely used in comparison to "Rurikids", also does not follow the title of the main article. Mellk (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This category is fine as it is. It is part of larger tree of princely clans and branches of Kievan Rus'. During several renamings and recategorisations last year, it was agreed to be cautious with categorising anyone as a "Rurikid", as the historicity of Rurik (as well as Sineus and Truvor) is disputed as a possibly a founding myth (similar to Remus and Romulus etc.), and there is no concept of a "Rurikid dynasty" in historical sources until the 16th century. However, Volodimer' (Vladimir, Volodymyr, Uladzemir) is a well-known historical figure, and his family / descendants are commonly known as "Volodimerovichi" in English-language reliable sources. Just like, for example, Category:Sviatoslavichi family and Category:Olgovichi family. It is preferable if there is a main article with the same name for these families, but so far, there are only redirects to the founder of each princely branch, e.g. Olgovichi redirects to Oleg I of Chernigov, Sviatoslavichi to Sviatoslav II of Kiev, and Volodimerovichi to Vladimir the Great. It's also much better for navigation not to lump all these people into one big category, but by commonly recognised princely branches. NLeeuw (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW if the main article title is important, shouldn't this be WP:C2D to Category:Family life and children of Vladimir I? (I wouldn't be in favour of that, but that would make better sense according to the rationale). NLeeuw (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • As there is no article Volodimerovichi yet, it would be helpful to add a source in the header of the category page indicating that this is a common name among historians indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sounds like a good idea. NLeeuw (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no such branches at this stage, this comes later and we already have cats for those as they are widely accepted Rurikid branches. The term "Volodimerovichi" is used by a couple of historians instead of "Rurikids". Whether Rurik existed or not is irrelevant because the term "Rurikid" is widely used by later historians (similarly to the term "Kievan Rus" even though the state was not called as such then), hence this is POV to use an uncommon term that has not been widely accepted (yet). Mellk (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm now I'm beginning to doubt. Christian Raffensperger seems to use it for all members of princely clans of Kievan Rus' in general, as a replacement "Riurikovichi", rather than just Volodimer' and his descendants. One wonders about the predecessors of Volodimer' (Yaropolk, Sviatoslav, Igor, Oleg and the alleged Riurik), who could hardly retro-actively be called "Volodimerovichi". I'll think about it some more, I'll get back to this issue. NLeeuw (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have checked the literature more thoroughly, and I think it might have been a mistake to name this category in this way. Since the early 2010s, scholars including Raffensperger, Ostrowski, Halperin and others have been using "Volodimerovichi" as an alternative to "R(i)urikovichi" or "R(i)urikids" altogether, and not as a specific branch within the larger clan structure of Kievan Rus', like the later -ovichi families. Theoretically, "Volodimerovichi" could still be used that way (and sometimes it is), but this is not widespread in historiography yet.
    I do think it's useful to keep it as a separate category, but it's better to change the name according to our conventions. As both nom and I have suggested, it is useful to follow the main article title wherever possible. However, the current main article title is Family life and children of Vladimir I. The last part probably should be Vladimir the Great instead of Vladimir I, given the Vladimir the Great biography title. (I myself prefer Volodimer I of Kiev, which is common amongst modern scholars, but not (yet) the WP:COMMONNAME in all English-language literature). The first part is also unusual; there is no other enwiki article title with Family life and children of X. The common formula is Family of X. So per WP:TITLECON, it should be Family of Vladimir the Great.
    Therefore, I would like to propose the following:
    Defer decision in this CfR, and initiate Requested Move of Family life and children of Vladimir I to Family of Vladimir the Great. If the RM is approved, then
    Rename to Category:Family of Vladimir the Great. Does that seem like a good solution? NLeeuw (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case I would prefer merge as nominated. We could hypothetically create a "family of" for every grand prince but it would just overlap with Category:Rurikids. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Marcocapelle Family life and children of Vladimir I is the only "Family of" main article of a (grand) prince of Kiev. So I'm not worried about having to create a "family of" category for every grand prince as long as there is no "family of" main article for every grand prince. Moreover, it arguably merits a category on account of his many wives and children, and subsequent princely branches directly and exclusively descended from him. That is quite uncommon in Kievan Rus' history. NLeeuw (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have initiated the RM at Talk:Family life and children of Vladimir I#Requested move 10 April 2024. I'll ping the relevant users. NLeeuw (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So far everyone seems to be supporting the RM. We'll see what happens. NLeeuw (talk) 06:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Infrastructure

Nominator's rationale: merge, strongly overlapping scope. (Of course if there is consensus about this, then all subcategories need to be nominated as well.) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think this is a really good idea. (However, if the decision ends with Keep, think we'd need to have a really really clear definition in the category description to support maintenance. ) Mason (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think this category should remain as is. :) KīlaueaGlows (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose. Some of the subcategories of Category:Infrastructure would be seemingly out of place in Category:Buildings and structures. For instance Energy infrastructure‎, Category:Infrastructure of the Holocaust, Category:History of infrastructure, Category:Infrastructure investment and Category:IT infrastructure wouldn't make sense as subcategories of .Category:Buildings and structures. Pichpich (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, then for the top category it is too early to be merged. The subcategories by date and location are set categories, and items of infrastructure are always buildings or structures, so this objection does not apply to these subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I've been looking at some categories about canals and they are appropriately categorized under "infrastructure" rather than "buildings and structures". I think with their addition and that of other similar categories. "structure" would become so broad (anything that is built?) as to become almost meaningless. There might be some overlap here but I think that the solution might be to change "buildings and structures" to just "buildings" and leave "infrastructure" be. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at more categories, it looks like some "infrastructure" categories are placed under the parent categories of "buildings and structures" which I think is more appropriate than merging the two. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nominator's rationale: sibling are all called Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Macau, even though those were also during the time of Portuguese Macau (1557–1999) . Category:19th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Macau‎ Category:20th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Macau Mason (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't they all be bishops of Macau? Per List of bishops of Macau. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmm, I've been thinking of them like a country of work category, like that's where the bishop is serving, as opposed to the dioses. If we changed it to "of" Macau, would that mean that all the bishops would also have to be in the parent category? Category:XXXX-century Roman Catholic bishops in China (or Asia)? My goal is to make all the categories consistent, and possibly avoid having a perpetual edit war over the parent country category.[1] Mason (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long story short, there are bishops appointed to dioceses elsewhere who served and were based in Macau (e.g. as administrators of the diocese, which covered an area large enough to be subdivided into hundreds of dioceses in the following centuries). These are bishops in Macau but not Bishops of Macau. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse rename. That was the Portuguese period, and there was a time when it was a província ultramarina. 219.77.182.250 (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What does that even mean? Mason (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is obvious that it was Portuguese, that does not have to be added to the category name per se. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then name the categories accordingly. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I am just saying that it is not necessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not necessary per se; but, as I read it, not something that cannot and shouldn't be done. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rename the 17th to 20th-century categories accordingly and make them along with the 16th-century category under the tree of Category:Portuguese Macau. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, these are all the same IP and a well-known one at that WP:LTA/HKGW Mason (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. Corresponding lists already exist. PepperBeast (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep: It looks like the nominator has no understanding of the importance of Sahitya Akademi Awards in India. While List article may exist, it is important to have this category for the recipients. The award is presented every year to writers of the most outstanding books of literary merit published in any of the 22 languages separately. Nobel prize list articles also exists, as well as categories for recipients of each categories of Nobel prizes.
    -- Tinu Cherian - 11:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Recipients of Indian civil awards and decorations

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAWARD PepperBeast (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The above awards aren't worth an exception from WP:OCAWARD, they are not comparable to a Nobel prize. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We're not starting this again, are we? Most of these are clearly notable and defining. They include the Bharat Ratna, the highest civilian honour that can be awarded by India, and the Kaisar-i-Hind Medal, an extremely prestigious award given in British India. If they're not defining, then what on earth is? WP:OCAWARD certainly does not say that awards have to be comparable to a Nobel Prize; neither does it say that only international awards should be categorised, which is what such a suggestion implies. The deletion rationale is entirely spurious and ridiculously brief. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find it very hard to believe that a category based on India's highest civilian honour is not appropriate as defining. If that is the argument then the entire category tree at Category:Order of the British Empire, which contains about a hundred subcategories and many thousands of articles should be added to this nomination. As should the substantial category tree at Category:Recipients of United States civil awards and decorations. By singling out one country this nomination makes no sense. AusLondonder (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Temples (LDS Church) in Latin America

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT: all pages are already in child Category:Temples (LDS Church) in South America or its subcategories, or in sibling Category:Temples (LDS Church) in North America or its subcategories. Thus it has little navigational value and just adds category clutter to the articles. NLeeuw (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transport and the Mercosur

Nominator's rationale: Category:Transport and the Mercosur has 1 P, 0 C. Upmerge to grandparent Category:Mercosur for now without prejudice. Dual merge won't be necessary, I put the only article (Vehicle registration plates of the Mercosur) in sibling Category:Road transport in South America already. The upmerging will empty Category:Economy of the Mercosur, which was already a redundant layer; it should also be upmerged for now without prejudice (merging instead of deletion for logging purposes). NLeeuw (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish nobility

Nominator's rationale: arbirtrary and irrelevant intersection by ethnicity. I found this category added to Yehudi Menuhin on my watchlist and I'm about to revert it because, while it's true that he was Jewish and that he was a Life peer, the intersection of these facts (especially the latter one) in a category seems more than a little bizarre and "non-defining", because he was by far best known as a violinist. There are probably many other examples just like this one. Graham87 (talk) 09:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is a well-populated category. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Graham87 has a good point that lists allow for context that categories don't. But I am not in favour of listification either, as the net here has evidently been cast far too wide. E.g. someone like James Goldsmith (picked at random) has nothing to do with "nobility". NLeeuw (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian military personnel from Kelowna

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by location. While a few Canadian cities do have "Military personnel from City" categories (but not "Canadian military personnel from City"), there's no comprehensive scheme in place of doing this across the board for all cities — they otherwise exist only for the major megacities with populations of half a million or more, whose base "People from City" categories were overpopulated into the hundreds or thousands and needed diffusion for size control, and not for every city across the board. But with just 67 articles in Category:Canadian military personnel from British Columbia and just six in Category:People from Kelowna, neither of the parent categories are large enough to need this for diffusability. There's no particularly unique relationship between military service and being from Kelowna per se, so this isn't needed for just three people if other Canadian cities in Kelowna's weight class (Lethbridge, Regina, Saskatoon, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Gatineau, Sherbrooke, Moncton, etc.) don't have the same. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree Kelowna is the third largest locality in BC. Uncontroversial categories exist for the two largest localities (Vancouver and Victoria). It already has three entries which is often considered the criterion for a category, and is likely to gain more in the future as more biographies are created. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the standard minimum size for a category is normally five, not three, and even then size alone doesn't automatically trump other considerations. A category that is failing or violating other rules isn't exempted from those other rules just because you can get its size to five per se.
Secondly, "(Canadian) military personnel" categories don't exist for either Vancouver or Victoria at all yet, so I don't know what you even think you're talking about with that argument.
Thirdly, it's not "ordinal size rank within province" that determines whether such a category is warranted in this tree, but "is the base people-from category large enough to need diffusion or not" — which with just six people in it now and only nine even if these get upmerged to it (well, actually eight, because one of these three people is already in a different occupational subcategory as it is), Kelowna's is not. At present, these categories exist only for big cities where an undifferentiated "People from" category without occupational subcategories would be populated past the 500-article or 1,000-article marks, which is not where Kelowna is sitting, and they do not automatically exist as a matter of course for every small or medium city that had one, two or three military people come from there.
The smallest other city with a sibling category is both (a) four times Kelowna's size, and (b) about 80 years older than Kelowna, both adding up to the fact it has several hundred more articles in its "People from" tree than Kelowna does, and thus needs to be diffused more than Kelowna's does. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of ambassadors to Northern Cyprus

Nominator's rationale: Category created just to hold one list. This would be fine if there were multiple lists to file here, but is not necessary for just one -- but given that Northern Cyprus is a disputed territory which is diplomatically recognized only by Turkey, it's impossible to file multiple lists here. The list is already in Category:Ambassadors of Turkey to Northern Cyprus, which is all that's needed in context -- but this category isn't necessary if it will only ever contain one list. Bearcat (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public high schools in Chicago suburbs

Nominator's rationale: Recreation at a new name of a category previously deleted last year per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 25#Category:Public high schools in suburbs of Chicago. Again, the same issue remains as last time: we categorize schools by the places that they're in, but we do not categorize schools by the places that the places they're in happen to be near. Bearcat (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT-related music

Nominator's rationale: An odd entry in Category:LGBT arts, because of the "-related" adjective not shared by any parent category (but shared by some subcategories that may need to be renamed as well). Sister categories at that level (in LGBT arts) are just LGBT dance, LGBT literature, LGBT arts organizations, LGBT theatre, and LGBT art‎. No "-related" anywhere there. Another option would be to rename everything to the form of 'X about Y", although I am not sure if "about LGBT" sounds best (ex. "Music about LGBT"?). For now, removing "-related" from that tree might be easiest in terms of standardization. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I guess it is called "-related" because it also contains LGBT musicians and LGBT musical groups subcategories with artists who do not all create LGBT content. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would note that the category is named the way it is because CFD previously renamed it from the proposed new name to the existing one on the grounds that the music itself doesn't have its own innate sexual orientation, but is merely contextually related to the sexual orientations of people. I would further note things like Category:LGBT-related films, Category:LGBT-related television shows and Category:LGBT-related books, which are also categorized as "LGBT-related", and not just as "LGBT", for the same reason. It's a complicated question, for sure, but the reason it's named this way is because of a prior CFD discussion on it, so it's not nearly as clearcut as the nominator makes it out to be. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs against capitalism

Nominator's rationale: Generally, our songs by topic categories are 'about' not 'against'. Ex. Category:Songs about poverty. This is also subcat to Category:Songs about consumerism, not Category:Songs against consumerism... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to delete, it is quite a stretch to say that these songs are about capitalism. I found several that are just critical of modern society in general, some others about the labour movement. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps could be saved after pruning, if anyone can indeed show a song about capitalism. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs against racism and xenophobia

Nominator's rationale: Generally our songs by topic categories are 'about' not 'against'. Ex. Category:Songs about poverty. See also Category:Songs about social issues. I suggest renaming this; the other category that may need similar treatment would be Category:Songs against capitalism (subcat to Category:Songs about consumerism, not Category:Songs against consumerism...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)

Nominator's rationale: No need for disambiguation. User:Namiba 00:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:.io video games

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining trait. This simply indicates that the game in question has it's web hostname in the .io TLD. It is akin to having a category for ".com video games", ".org video games", etc. There is no connection between these games from a developer, publisher, or otherwise manner. -- ferret (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will note the TfD was closed as delete, FWIW.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature & education

Convert Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature & education to article List of Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature and education
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. Should probably be listified. PepperBeast (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Lists already exist, starting with List of Padma Shri award recipients (1954–1959). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this awards are defining characteristic of recipients and they are frequently labelled as Padma Awardee in references. Another reason is lists of Padma awardees are not by their fields but by year. Each list contains all awardee of all field in a year. So field-wise categories help to find awardees in perticular field too like above literature and education.-Nizil (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_16&oldid=1219286847"