Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 22 May 24 >

May 23[edit]

Iranic categories[edit]

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: do not delete, and no consensus on renaming. A further nomination on renaming may be appropriate if there are any good suggestions for "Iranian (ethnolinguistic group)". – Fayenatic London 13:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The term is barely used. We don't even have a article of the term or anything. The common term is Iranian, not Iranic. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The "common term" is already applied in the following categories:
Those categories are about the people, women, music, folklore and art of the country of Iran, which includes non-Iranian peoples like the Azerbaijanis. The categories that are proposed for deletion are about the people, women, music, folklore and art of Iranian peoples, which includes peoples like the Ossetians, who are not citizens of the country of Iran. Iranian peoples and citizens of the country of Iran are two very different subjects, and cannot be merged under one and the same category. This is a case of WP:SHAREDNAME. WP:DEL-REASON#11, therefore, does not apply in this case. As a substitute for the common term Iranian, Iranic is the best option. Krakkos (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Iranic is barely used though. Even in more recent sources the term Iranian is favoured by a huge margin. We have a policy in Wikipedia that we use the common version, this is far from the case. Also what Johnbod said is completely true as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • HistoryofIran - Of course the term Iranian is favored by a huge margin for peoples speaking Iranian languages. But that term is also favored by a huge margin for the people of the country of Iran. Currently, Category:Iranian people covers people from the country of Iran, which means that the favored title is already in use by a different category. I hope you understand that we cannot have two categories with the same title, nor should we merge peoples speaking Iranian languages and people of the country of Iran into the same category, as these are two substantially different things. Policy does not encourage the deletion of categories with unconventional or inconsistent titles. It encourages that the title be renamed, if more suitable alternatives exist. As this nomination seems misplaced, i would encourage you to withdraw it and initiate a move discussion, if you know of a better title. On your userpage, it says that you categorize yourself as being "of Iranian ancestry" and "proud to be Iranian". It seems strange that you would agree with Johnbod, as he advocates deleting the category covering the ethnicity to which you claim to belong. Krakkos (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I think Krakkos might have a point here. I do not want to give away my credibility completely by stating that I am not really familiar with the subject, but there definitely exist such a term. On the other hand wikitionary has following definition for wikt:Iranic. The next reference points that the term Iranic follows the same word morphing as Germanic, Slavic and others. Apparently Professor John Perry also stated that Iranic has a right on existence according to this reference. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – per Krakkos's explanation. Comparing the frequency of the terms would be biased, because "Iranian" has the meaning of "from the country of Iran" in addition to "of the Iranian ethno-linguistic group", while "Iranic" is used exclusively to refer to the ethno-linguistic group in a way that it wouldn't be confused with the other. Naming categories based on this essential distinction would be reasonable, in my opinion.
    —Rye-96 (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Krakkos.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 12:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle. This is apparently about Iranian peoples, and since we already have Iranian peoples and Category:Iranian peoples let's please keep consistent terminology. The only thing I am not certain of is whether some of it needs to be merged or renamed rather than deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, here is an alternative proposal:
  • Marcocapelle - This is a better proposal, but it still makes the deletion of useful categories a requirement to ensure consistent terminology. Another proposal might be to simply revert these categories back to the way they were a few days ago:
Such titles would be consistent with naming conventions used within the Iranian framework and for related categories:
  • I hadn't realized these categories were renamed a few days ago. Yes I definitely support reversal. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: That's not so clear cut. The Ethnic Iranian... categories were also created by the same user which copy-paste-renamed them a few months later, so "reversal" does not really apply. Ethnic Iranian is even worse, as it seems very derogatory for other Iranians that would not fit the descriptive, and I don't even think it is commonly used in any context. Place Clichy (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was enthusiastic too quickly, also for another reason: Kyrgyz etc refers to an ethnicity, so ethnic Kyrgyz makes sense. But Iranian/Iranic refers to a collection of ethnicities, which makes ethnic Iranian quite problematic. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • These examples do not even follow common usage, in which Kyrgyz/Tajik/Turkmen is used for the ethnic group, and Kyrgyzstani/Tajikistani/Turkmenistani for what relates to the country. Place Clichy (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We need a way to distinguish between the people and cultural products of the country of Iran and the people and cultural products of the Iranian peoples, an ethnolinguistic group spead over much of Asia and Europe. Dimadick (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion. While the distinction between the country of Iran and the ethnic family is useful at the article level, we clearly don't need an umbrella category tree for topics at the language-family level. Place Clichy (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to the alternative proposal I offered earlier, a complete deletion as originally nominated is also a fair option, per Place Clichy. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion and renaming per User:Krakkos's explanation. I just found this after viewing the category. Does it even need an explanation? Most sources I come across use Iranic as the anthropological/linguistic term. And while we're discussing it here, can we remove all references to Turkic ethnicities from Iran as "Turks". Turk refers to the primary ethnicity/language group of Turkey, which is clearly not the appropriate label for the the Turkic minorities in Iran. Iranian Azeris and Iranian Turkomans are commonly refereed to as "Turks" by outsiders which frustrates me because there is a clear distinction between Turkish and Turkic yet it's not being applied here. I want to move "List of Iranian Turks" to List of Turkic peoples of Iran. I don't know exactly how to do this. Can someone please help me here? And also one more thing about the category. Iranic people should not be singular, but plural as Iranic peoples since they consist of a number of ethnicities.--Persian Lad (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional comment I don't oppose removing categories like Category:Iranic women from articles on individual Kurdish women. Those should be subcategories for category:Iranic women.--Persian Lad (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody contests that the difference between Iranian (the country) and Iranic (the language group) exists, but it is not the subject here. The subject is that these categories, e.g. Category:Iranic women are essentially non-defining characteristics. For instance, individual Kurdish women would usually be defined as Kurdish women, not Iranic women. The fact that Tajik music is also Iranic music is also clearly non-defining, nobody would call it Iranic music in the first place. Place Clichy (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2019 (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:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent[edit]

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, as there appear to be grounds for keeping both. The target category is the logical place to hold the sub-categories by tribe, and user:Dlthewave has already put them back there. I will leave it to the editors who are active in this area to recategorise articles as appropriate. NOTE: if it appears that I have misunderstood major considerations and that my close is wrong in principle, please discuss it and ping me at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Related discussion: Category:American people of Native American descent. – Fayenatic London 10:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-standard criterion by self-identification, which is prone to misinformation and factual inaccuracies. If there's a corresponding reliable source for each of them, then they should be moved to "of Native American descent". Selective merge looks like a suitable option. Brandmeistertalk 17:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned this new discussion on the old discussion. I didn't give any notice on the talk page since AFAIK it's not generally considered necessary if the cat itself is tagged. Also I forgot to mention but even before the rename, the cat text itself said it was for people who self-identify, see e.g. this minor wording change from 2016 [2] which hasn't changed until now (i.e. it was the same prior to the recent move) Nil Einne (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Please, everyone, first see the discussion at the Indigenous wikiproject. We had a long discussion and reached consensus to move this to where it is now As Nil Einne said, all we did was align the category name with the description. We did this informally at the Wikiproject because it involves issues around sourcing that require some familiarity with the field. Or, that was my rationale. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 17:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I understand correctly, this category and all of its subcategories are intended for people who are not recognized as Native Americans by WP:RS. Why do we have these categories at all? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I initially did not want these categories and lists (yes, there are lists). I wanted them all XfD'd. Then one of the long-term editors in this field reminded me that, no matter what we do, we keep getting editors adding self-identified people to the Native American and tribal categories, based on no better sourcing than a People magazine or TV Guide piece where they said, "Yeah, my great-grandmother was Cherokee." Right now we are still going through exhausting cleanup on articles over this stuff. I would vastly prefer to just cut all the people who aren't sourced to reliable, tribal sources that claim them. But this editor reminded me that, since tribes rarely make the effort to put out statements that people are false claimants (there are just too many), we wind up with a lot of people with shaky claims, and their fans saying that an otherwise RS source that they made this claim means it's "sourced that they're Native" or "sourced that they're a descendant"... often when we know it's not true. So, it gets into shaky territory, especially on BLPs. There are all kinds of edit-wars over this stuff, and most editors don't know how to evaluate the claims and sourcing. Only a bare few of us keep an eye on the veracity of the claims, and we're exhausted. I would love to have more help with this, but it hasn't been forthcoming. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'll add my voice to CorbieV's explanation above. The cat is hardly ideal but it is necessary. I think the category itself needs to be explicit, not just the description on the cat page. Many/most of the people who fall under this cat are entertainers: actors, musicians, etc. They have fans who will edit-war passionately over this. If you're not familiar with how many people claim to be Native American who have neither tribal membership or only distant/non-existent ancestors, it might be difficult to understand why this distinction needs to be made. Tribal citizenship (enrolled member of a tribe) is provable by WP:RS and WP:V most of the time. That means they are citizens of a Tribal Nation. Outside of that, there are many "self-identified" Native Americans with little-to-no hard proof of the claim. As CorbieV mentioned, there are handful of editors (at most) willing to monitor the articles and category. ETA: Stupidly forgot to sign the comment. Sorry. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh no @R'n'B: we did not want to move all these the tribal descendant categories into self-identified![3] Please revert these moves Actually, no, I've edited since then to do further cleanup, and reversion would wipe that out. Just leave them. There's at least one or two I'm leaving as self-identified until we can do the needed cleanup (Seminole, Cherokee, maybe another, if they're still full of unsourced claimants). If they know the tribe, it's more likely the claims are real; at the very least they can be checked. Jesus, some of these people are enrolled citizens! Others of these people you moved into self-identified are actual descendants who simply don't meet enrollment criteria. We've been cleaning those up, checking the sourcing and, if they're unsourced, we either deleted all claims or move them to simply "self-identified Native". See, this is all very complicated, which is why we had to have a long discussion with people who understand the intricacies here. - CorbieV☊ ☼ 02:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Crap. R'n'B just took RussBot through again and reverted my cleanup. This is out of control. Russ! - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 17:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But Native American identity isn't based in race, it's based in citizenship. Stuff like this continues this misconception. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 17:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I beg to differ Nyttend. If you have status or are enrolled and chose to identify as some other ethnicity you are still Native according to the federal government and the Nation in which you have status or enrollment. Once you're enumerated you are enumerated regardless of what you say. The only way around that is to have ones self purged from the rolls. I'm not aware of anyone who has done this successfully. I know of people who have cut up their cards but that doesn't mean anything, they are still enumerated. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - If we remove "self-identified", and can stop Russ and his damn bot, will all of you commit to removing the badly-sourced people from these cats and keeping them out when their fans keep re-adding them? Last night I removed over a dozen people who were listed as, say, Lakota, because they did an art show with that in the name. Or European models listed as descendants of a tribe because they posed in a hipster headdress. That's the type of crap we deal with on here. AND will you help us keep actual tribal citizens and leaders from being degraded by being described as only "descendants" when they are full citizens? That's the type of both perennial and recent POV push that went on, that we are still cleaning up, and that started the rename discussion. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 17:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • OpposeThe catagory isn't perfect but it is necessary as is a very detailed description. Indigeneity is not about race. There are brown, black and white presenting Native Peoples. It is about citizenship and nationhood. A person can't just say oh hey, I am Armenian and expect to be allowed into Armenia and be recognized as an Armenian citizen without a passport, only their word. There are significant legal ramifications like the Indian Arts and Crafts act regarding self-declaration. There are also descendants that are fully integrated into their communities but they cannot get enrolled because of blood quantum. They will, however, be entitled to a Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood card. If their claim is not backed up by a legitimate source then they are a self-identified descendant. Being indigenous is about culture and community, not race. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, indigenous means bloodline, in this case at least some Native American blood. For encyclopedic purposes a European American cannot claim Native American (or any other) descent merely because he/she embraces that American culture or lives in their community. This is why we don't have other self-identity categories based on purported descent. Brandmeistertalk 17:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. WP:EGRS is clear that biographical articles should only be added to ethnic categories if reliable sources clearly and consistently define the article subject's ethnicity, and all articles not complying should be purged. In this sense, Category:American people of Native American descent is sufficient as weak self-made allegations should be kept out. Note that actual tribal affiliation is quite irrelevant. However, if the field of phoney or challengeable native ascendancy claims grows into a topic in its own right (i.e. if a number of academic papers are published about it), then it may be the topic of a dedicated category, but probably not with the current name. Place Clichy (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Indigenous identity is not racial, but is a matter of community. Therefore community recognition is important. Regarding the point made by Place Clichy above, a huge number of academic papers and books have been published about "phoney or challengeable native ascendancy" (descendancy?). See: Circe Sturm, Blood Politics Race, Culture, and Identity in the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma (2002); Steve Russell, Sequoyah Rising: Problems in Post-Colonial Tribal Governance (2010); Kim TallBear, Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science (2013) for starters. Vizjim (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - We have categories for tribal members, and we have Category:American people of Native American descent for people who have Native American ancestry but are not enrolled in a tribe. I'm not sure what purpose the "self-identified" fork is meant to serve, and the label doesn't seem to be supported by reliable sources. –dlthewave ☎ 04:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlthewave:: Per my above comments, I'm pretty sure Category:American people of Native American descent is not supposed to exist as a unique category anymore. It was rename to the self-identified category from the discussion I linked, and the ApoNAd cat is supposed to just be a redirect. When the ApoNAd category existed, it did say it was for people who self-identify for several years until the rename. Nil Einne (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nil Einne: I have concerns about the use of "self identified" and "identified by sources" labels, which seem to have been invented by Wikipedia editors and are used on a number of related lists and categories. If a source describes someone as a descendant, we need to describe them as such without the use of these weasel words. I understand that tribal citizenship is determined only by the tribes themselves, but someone can make a legitimate claim of descent or ancestry without being enrolled or acknowledged by a tribe. We don't typically use these qualifiers for other ancestry-related categories with similar criteria.
You bring up a good point regarding move vs merge. Previous discussions notwithstanding, my preference would be to move the "self-identified" category back to ApoNAd. –dlthewave ☎ 22:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some examples: Aaliyah had a Native American grandmother, but she does not self-identify as Native American. Tyra Banks is 6% Native American according to a DNA test, but she does not self-identify as Native American. Dick Enberg's mother had some Native American ancestry but he does not self-identify as Native American. Scott Glenn has some Native American ancestry but he does not self-identify as Native American. Must I carry on? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The people opposing are the ones who done the *constant* purging and correction of false (intentional or innocent mistakes) claims of Indigenous ancestry for years. Yuchitown (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • Support. Dubious and unsubstantiated claims do not deserve a category, while plenty of people have verifiable Native American ancestry without meeting the requirements/being a member of a particular tribe. Zerach (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose There is a stark, clear difference between people who claim without any verification to be "Native American" because it’s trendy (here’s looking at you, Johnny) / people like myself who have family members bragging that we’re "part Choctaw!" (when the reality is we’re only 1%)... and people who actually are Native American. And you know exactly what I’m talking about. It must be differentiated. I think this category speaks for itself. Yes, it’s an anomaly. Trillfendi (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Percent or blood quantum isn't an issue here. There are enrolled tribal members (Native Americans), then there are people with provable ancestry (Native American descendants), then there are people who think/say they have Native ancestry with no proof (self-identified descendency—this category). If you are talking about Johnny Cash, he conducted his own genealogical research and freely admitted that his family stories of being of Cherokee descent were incorrect. Re: Zerach's comment, the dubious claims are notable only because they are widely published in secondary sources. Yuchitown (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
@Yuchitown: Which sources describe these ancestry claims as dubious, self-identified or unproven? How are we, as editors, making that determination? –dlthewave ☎ 16:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - if there isn't comprehensive proof regarding Native American identity, then the articles should not be classified by that subject matter anyway. We do not categorize people by what they are not or negative aspects, see WP:COP. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Do we have any other categories like this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Do you have other real life situations like this, where people who are not part of a group or do not have the heritage they claim still claim it in vast numbers? Are there other parallel situations? Yuchitown (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • Could you please list biographies in this category in which the person claims to be Native American? In a sample I could not find any, but maybe there are a few specific well-known cases. Other than for those few, the category name with "self-identify" is simply misleading. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, although it's claiming "of descent" not claiming to be "Native American." Sure, picking some out at random: Wayne Newton, Cherokee Parks, Jimi Hendrix, Martin Luther King Jr., Coretta Scott King, Lena Horn, Michael Jackson and family, James Earl Jones, Beyoncé, Rosa Parks, James Brown, LL Cool J, Oprah Winfrey (none of them are enrolled in tribes), Chuck Norris, Angelina Jolie, Kid Cudi, Rosario Dawson, Johnny Depp (has since been adopted by the Comanche Nation), Miley Cyrus, Elvis Presley, Cameron Diaz, Chuck Norris, Jennifer Tilley, and Ben Harper (some of these are in tribal-specific cats). Yuchitown (talk)Yuchitown
How do these sources show that they're claiming Native American descent with no proof? Is the lack of tribal enrollment supposed to mean that their ancestry is unverified? –dlthewave ☎ 12:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So we have different kinds of people to categorize:
  1. People who are citizens of Native American tribes (categorized by tribe).
  2. People who are genealogically descended from members of a Native American tribe, but for whatever reason do not have membership. Either they didn't want to apply for membership, or they do not qualify for membership. You can have solid genealogical evidence you are descended from a Native American and still not qualify for tribal citizenship. The qualifications vary from tribe to tribe. Indian tribes are not the same as genealogical lineage societies. Thorough genealogical research (not amateur research or legends) can prove to varying degrees whether or not someone was descended from a Native American, depending on the genealogical sources available, and in this case a specific tribe or group of tribes will be known. Also, regarding DNA: DNA testing through a site like Ancestry.com don't usually tell you what tribe you are from. Often they only give a vague result: "X% Native American," and sometimes they are wrong about ethnicity estimates, as they are still developing the technology. DNA testing can be used to identify if you are a descendant of a specific tribe, but it requires thorough research.
  3. People who have a Native American ancestor remembered in myth or legend, but no one has bothered to find out if this story is true or not, or only has weak evidence.
  4. People who have claimed to be Native American and have been exposed as frauds such as Dwight York or Iron Eyes Cody (although there may be some controversy among editors of Wikipedia as to whether or not they are really Native American, there are sources to document the questionability of their heritage claims).
A category with the title "American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent" sounds like it would fit individuals from #3 and #4, perhaps even #2, depending on the available evidence. That is my observation. Are there other categories that cover these types of people? Tea and crumpets (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
People who have legitimate descent can name the tribe/nation they descend from, and the specific ancestors, so are already in a category. We already have the categories for legitimate descendants. We worked very hard to clean it all up. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • People either descend or they don't (in the latter case they should be purged), but in this context there is no use in distinguishing legitemate versus illigitemate descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it work? No it does not. The nominated category was supposed to contain people from group #4 (per discussion further above) but in fact it largely contains people from group #2. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no problem with the Native American categories, and they have not been brought up for discussion. The challenges are with the categories for people of Native American descent and the people who claim Native American descent. Since people with no experience working with Native material have joined this discussion, just to be clear: the Native American/Native American descent categories fit perfectly with established protocol of Foo Nationality vs. National of Foo descent categories (e.g. Category:German people vs. Category:American people of German descent) in that German people have German citizenship, while Americans of German descent do not have German citizenship, only German ethnic heritage. The people in Native American categories are tribal citizens. The people in "of descent" categories are not members of the tribes in question and if they can't even name a tribe, they are definitely not members of tribes (people with legitimate descent know their tribal ethnic group). The difference between being Native Americans and other ethnic groups is that there is such a widespread, documented phenomenon of people who have no reliable proof of Native American ancestry still claiming it. So for this category, we cannot document actual ancestry (#2) but we can positively document that a claim to the ancestry has been made (#4). Yuchitown (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • Strong Support As a citizen of a tribe I deeply understand the arguments of some of the editors. This category in itself is about heritage and as one editor has already said to say that an individual self identifies is a weasel word in itself. It brings suspicion on that individual essentially calling them a liar. Now to address the issue some users seem to keep making vague statements about: Yes white people in Hollywood have lied about have native blood (again this category is about heritage). The only person that literally fits the name of this category is Iron Eyes Cody and you could throw Cher in there but her article is actually accurate cause she's Armenian.
  1. is there a legal definition of Native American yes but this is mainly to dictate who gets funds, scholarships, tribal sovereignty is absolutely involved, etc. however this category isn't about citizenship
  2. Either your a descendent or not period. To say self-identify is honestly subliminal to say they are "supposedly" of Native blood
  3. I've looked through the discussions today and the complaint that someone can't name the tribe they descend from therefore they're a liar is a weak argument period. If you're native and at least know some of our history you know not everyone stuck together, some were adopted/stolen as children, or elders didn't pass down genealogical information. Some are the descendants of slaves that still carry the bloodline and they'll never be able to figure out which tribe they come from to culturally reconnect they can reconnect in the general culture but not specifically nor will they ever be able to become a citizen of a tribe. Those are not individuals that self-identify. Yet they are legitimate descent irregardless that they lack knowledge.
  4. Not everyone that is a descendant is going to be recognized by the community nor be able to be a citizen. There seems to be a double standard here in which some individuals are in categories that seem to only be for citizens or people that are "communally involved/recognized" but they're in those categories b/c a citation says their parents were of this tribe or they are only said to be "this" However, there is no citation that they are a citizen of a tribe/s so they should go into the category American people of Native American descent. I also believe this is b/c they look "Native enough"
  5. We're the only race that people ask for proof and yes the only race people do lie about having, but at the same time how can we put people that are legitimate brothers and sisters by blood (b/c this category is about heritage) in the same category as people we may personal deem suspect.
  6. Plus it is up to the parent/s to enroll their children into a nation and that doesn't always happen. You do have some irresponsible individuals.
  7. Like Marcocapelle said the majority of these people should be in the category American people of Native American descent. They are a descendant and to be honest some may be more culturally connected than those that are citizens of a tribe. I have to say it is the most annoying thing when other natives call someone's heritage in question b/c they lack genealogical information when many don't even know which clan they come from and know squat about their own culture. We are the only race that has this problem and yes white ppl (sorry to other editors that are white) largely created this problem by lying, $5 Dollar Indian and all that trash.
Again I support this b/c as a proud citizen that has a long history of resistance against the U.S. I won't support throwing our brothers and sisters into the same category as lying white ppl (sorry to be blunt) b/c they're uncertain about the tribe or b/c the tribe hasn't claimed them which is a ridiculous high standard. Also yes in general being Native American isn't about race in regards to citizenship but this category is about heritage. Aho (And no I'm not Lakota for those of u that recognize that).Seminolegirl94 (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This category is not about heritage. This category is about people who claim a heritage. I am an enrolled Native tribal member as well; that status neither imbues you or I with authority in Wikipedia. Yuchitown (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • Comment - I've already !voted but a couple thoughts since then: I think it is ludicrous that categories where the subject has proven Native American ancestry but are not registered with tribes (such as Dan Henderson, whose great-grandmother was proven to belong to the Walla Walla tribe) are included in this category, their identity is proven and there fore including "self identify" seems like casting skepticism into their ancestry. Also not all articles in this category identify with being Native American, many may have an Indian ancestor but do not necessarily identify as Native American, bringing issues to the "self-identify" part of the title. Also what about members who have been expelled from tribes or reservations, are they now just "self-identifying" too? Overall I think that this category and the mentality of many of its supporters may fall into the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS way of thinking. The problem is that Wikipedia is a places for factual based and neutral tone, not the place to come up with list of individuals whose ancestry you doubt. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yuchi this category American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent isn't about heritage okay, but American people of Native American descent is however the majority of the people that belong in that category that are not listed in that category they have been placed in American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent. The only person that can literally go into American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent is Iron Eyes Cody and Cher if her article wasn't cleaned up. The rest have Native American ancestry recent and not recent whether you or other editors have personal doubt. If there is no merge than every page that was moved into American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent with the exception of Iron Eyes Cody should be moved back to American people of Native American descent. Again I've seen a few articles were it's cited that an individual's parents were from a tribe, but there is no citation that the individual is a citizen of that nation however they are treated like they are a citizen that was/is active in the community. Unlike people who were placed in American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent who have a parent that was native but have no citation that they are a citizen.Seminolegirl94 (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the categories are merged then Iron Eyes Cody should be excluded from the category American people of Native American descent because that category is about heritage. That seems to be the major problem here is that majority of the articles moved into American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent DO NOT belong in the category. Unless we move all the articles except Iron Eyes Cody back into American people of Native American descent and allow American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent to remain only leaving Iron Eyes Cody in that category. Either way this needs to be fixed.Seminolegirl94 (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it appears that "American people of Native American descent" was changed to "self-identified" without any evidence that the new label applied to all of the entries. There may be a few exceptions, for example the only source for Adelaide Hall's ancestry seems to be a statement that she made, however in any other situation we would either consider this sufficient proof (assuming that it was vetted by the publisher) or not include them in the category at all. –dlthewave ☎ 20:02, 21 July 2019 (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:Pro-choice organizations[edit]

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. MER-C 09:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As explained in the terminology section of the abortion-rights movements article, "pro-choice" is an imprecise, POV slogan that we should be avoiding except in quotes and proper names. Same goes for "pro-life". I would presume if this were moved it would apply to the subcategories, too, but I'm leaving them off for now in case there's a reason to discuss separately that I'm not thinking of. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - moreover pro-choice redirects to abortion rights movements. Oculi (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it redirects to Abortion-rights movements. Place Clichy (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency. – Fayenatic London 17:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to avoid weasel words. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support To properly depict which legal choice they propagate. By the way, the main article is quite a mess. Entire sections are devoted to abortion-related laws, not to the organizations which support or oppose them. Dimadick (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A well-attended May 2018 move discussion has established a clear consensus in favour of using "anti-abortion..." and "abortion-rights..." across the table. This comes after this August 2016 CfD which led to a clear decision in the same direction but with a caveat for American categories, which can be considered lifted by the May 2018 article move. Pretty much all "pro-life" categories have been changes to "anti-abortion", it is only logic that "pro-choice"/"abortion-rights" follow suit. Place Clichy (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2019 (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.

Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals[edit]

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. MER-C 09:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per consensus to rename other categories of "child sex abuse cases" to "child sexual abuse scandals" at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 18#Category:Child sexual abuse in religious groups.
Note 1: I have used "Catholic Church" following Catholic Church abuse cases, Catholic Church sexual abuse cases (renamed in 2014, see Talk:Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases/Archive_15#Requested_move) and the majority of current categories. Alternatives include "Catholic", "Roman Catholic", "Roman Catholic Church" or "in Catholicism", although the latter would be clumsy when combined with "in [location]".
Note 2: the word "child" was added into the parent category names at the March CFD. However, I have not proposed to add this, to avoid unnecessarily long category names. It is not present in some of the article names, where the content may also cover abuse of adults.
This nomination supersedes an earlier nomination of the Australian category alone at CFD May 2, and of three categories on the Speedy page; in both cases, there was support for a wider nomination. @Steel1943, Danski454, Armbrust, Black Falcon, PPEMES, Marcocapelle, Oculi, and Laurel Lodged: Pinging participants in previous discussions. – Fayenatic London 13:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Support ALT on all: "Catholic Church sexual abuse in X". While it is certainly relevant to cover the ensuing scandals, the main scope are the deplorable very cases, which should in my opinion be in focus as seen also in the title. The scandals are due and relevant, but they are not what's most alarming in this content. Something we should not divert from for a number of reasons, one of them being slippery slope towards two different articles. PPEMES (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the cited consensus of March 2019. Scandal is somewhat wider than 'case'. Oculi (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per previous discussions Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For consistency reasons. Note however, that the main article sexual abuse also covers the abuse of people with developmental disabilities, people with dementia, elders in nursing homes, and sexual harassment and coercion within schools and workplaces. Should the categories also cover cases where Catholic church employees were abused by their co-workers? For example, Catholic priest Joseph Maskell is known to have sexually abused the religious sister Catherine Cesnik, and is considered a main suspect in her murder. Dimadick (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Are you 100% sure that all of these cases are scandals, or if you're not, are you intentionally seeking to exclude articles about cases that didn't result in scandals? On principle I'm okay with the change, but in practice I can't support it unless I know that nothing's going to get dropped by mistake. I'm particularly concerned about incidents during the Saeculum obscurum; it's quite likely that there were cases of sexual abuse, and given the culture and politics of the period, some or all probably did not result in public scandal. Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentI don't think we have articles on incidents of this period. At least we didn't when I last checked, a year or so ago. Of the Popes from this period:
      • Pope Sergius III (term 904-911). Alleged lover of the noblewoman Marozia, and alleged father of Pope John XI. No known abuse scandals, though he was accused of murdering his predecessors Pope Leo V and Antipope Christopher.
      • Pope Anastasius III (term 911-913). Allegedly one of Pope Sergius III's illegitimate children. A puppet ruler for Theophylact I, Count of Tusculum and senatrix Theodora.
      • Pope Lando (term 913-914). Another puppet ruler for Theophylact I, Count of Tusculum and senatrix Theodora, who were controling the papal finances, the Roman militia, and the Roman Senate.
      • Pope John X (term 914-928). A kinsman of senatrix Theodora, and allegedly her lover. Appointed to the position by the Roman nobility, without ever being elected. Following Theophylact I's death in 925, John started trying to become the de facto ruler of the Papal States instead of another puppet ruler. His kinswoman Marozia (Theodora's daughter) had him deposed, and he died in prison in 929. Otherwise John X is known for his support of the Rule of Saint Benedict, for the Cluny Abbey, and for his attempts to reform Christian monasticism.
      • Pope Leo VI (term 928-929). Appointed by senatrix Marozia and her husband Guy, Margrave of Tuscany. Mainly known for trying to raise an army against the Saracens who were threatening Rome for most of the 10th century.
      • Pope Stephen VII (term 929-931). Appointed by Marozia alone. A strict disciplinarian, "noted for the severity with which he treated clergy who strayed in their morals". He reportedly broke with Papal tradition by being cleanshaven, instead of bearded during his term.
      • Pope John XI (term 931-935). Son of Marozia and alleged son of Pope Sergius III. Also alleged half-brother to Pope Anastasius III. He was appointed Pope by his mother Marozia, and served as another of her puppet rulers. In 932, Marozia was overthrown and John XI became a puppet ruler for the new ruler of Rome, his half-brother Alberic II of Spoleto. John XI is known for his support for the Cluny Abbey.
      • Pope Leo VII (term 936-939). Appointed by Alberic II of Spoleto, despite being a mere monk. Leo VII is known for authorizing persecution of the Jews, but not endorsing the forced baptism of Jews.
      • Pope Stephen VIII (term 939-942). Another puppet of Alberic II, but Stephen reportedly tried to assassinate Alberic. He was reportedly tortured to death for his crime.
      • Pope Marinus II (term 942-946). Appointed by Alberic II. Supported the monasteries in their conflicts with the local bishops.
      • Pope Agapetus II (term 946-955). Appointed by Alberic II. Agapetus started an initiative aimed at further Christianizing Denmark.
      • Pope John XII (955-964). Son of Alberic II, grandson of Marozia, and great-grandson of Theodora. Reputedly John's birth was the result of a controversial sexual relationship between Alberic and his stepsister Alda. He was appointed Pope by the nobility, a year following the death of his father. He was between 17 and 25-years-old at the time of his appointment, one of the youngest Popes. Personaly led the Papal Army in a campaign against the Lombard duchies, but met with humiliating defeat. Offered poitical support and the imperial crown to Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor, in exchange for Otto's patronage and protection against the enemies of the Pope. He later conspired against Otto, and the emperor deposed him. John's enemies accused him of maintaining several mistresses: the "widow of Rainier", Stephania (one of his father's concubines), the "widow Anna", and one of his own nieces. Dimadick (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, thank you for the detailed accounting. Since you've done your homework, I can support this proposal. Nyttend (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2019 (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:French rule in the Ionian Islands[edit]

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, deleting the original rather than making it a parent or disambiguation page.
Closer's note: I may not close a discussion in which I am WP:INVOLVED. However, I started this section explicitly as a procedural nomination on behalf of User:Cplakidas (Constantine) since his initial nomination was stalled on the Speedy page. My subsequent participation was solely to seek clarification on the views of other participants. I therefore hold myself "uninvolved", having interacted with this topic area purely in an administrative role. Also, having left a good long time during which no-one else has closed this, I therefore consider that it is permissible and reasonable for me to close it now. – Fayenatic London 19:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination, opposed on Speedy page as ineligible. The nomination would remove ambiguity with Category:French rule in the Ionian Islands (1807–1814). – Fayenatic London 09:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of Speedy discussion
  • Marcocapelle, I fully intend to write the article French rule in the Ionian Islands (1807–1814) very soon, and the existence of two distinct periods of French rule is pretty clear, so the disambiguation for the extant article is necessary. I should have disambiguated right away when I created both article and that category, but didn't, for some reason. I am now merely seeking to rectify my previous oversight. It really shouldn't be that difficult. I feel caught up in a bizarre bureaucratic process over a non-issue. Constantine ✍ 19:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per Wikipedia:Categorization#General conventions#2: "Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article". Krakkos (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Why do we need separate categories for these two periods? Between them, the two categories have thirteen articles, one subcategory with three articles, and one redirect. We could retain this category at this name and merge Category:French rule in the Ionian Islands (1807–1814) into it. Alternately, if merger be a bad idea, we ought to retain this category as a form of disambiguation (see Category:Disambiguation categories) rather than deleting it; just create the 1797-1799 category, move this category's contents there, and replace this category's current text with {{Category disambiguation}}. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The two periods are different and have little in common. Place Clichy (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely. The first and second periods of French rule are vastly different in character: in the first there was a revolutionary, republican regime, in the second an oligarchic-imperial one. Even the personalities involved, apart from Napoleon, were different. There are simply no real continuities between the two, other than France's interest in holding this territory for strategic reasons. Constantine ✍ 15:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A disambiguation page is pointless when the first 20+ characters of the name of the disambiguation page are identical to its both targets. However, now I'm thinking this over again, a parent category with just two subcategories is very inefficient from a navigational point of view, so neither a dab page nor a parent category are a superb solution. Ultimately Nyttend's original proposal to merge the both categories makes the most sense to me, while the proposal of Place Clichy and Cpalkidas to have two separate siblings (without a parent category or disambiguation page) is a second best option. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: Actually I am in favour of "two separate siblings" as Marcocapelle puts it, and as Constantine nominated it. A parent category, or a dab page, seems less practical to me. A merger contradicts history, and, even worse, comes in the way of Constantine's current efforts to structure articles on the topic. Place Clichy (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure what the purpose and usefulness of a disambiguation category would be. As for the proposal to merge the two categories, it is utterly incomprehensible to me how this could seriously be considered as a good solution, particularly when the only two people in this discussion with any knowledge of the subject insist it is not. This discussion has already dragged on for far too long for such a (one would think) clear-cut case. Can we please, please wrap it up? Constantine ✍ 14:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
XFD backlog
V Feb Mar Apr May Total
CfD 0 0 12 29 41
TfD 0 0 0 2 2
MfD 0 0 0 2 2
FfD 0 0 0 0 0
RfD 0 0 8 20 28
AfD 0 0 0 1 1
  • I have notified additional WikiProjects, which may attract further participation. Unfortunately there is currently a backlog here at CfD, and this one is some way down the queue. – Fayenatic London 20:05, 23 June 2019 (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:Montreal bus routes[edit]

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. MER-C 18:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Almost no notable bus routes, category is populated unanimously with redirect articles. As bus routes are generally non-notable this category is unlikely to ever be useful. Ajf773 (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, all redirects link back to the same article List of Société de transport de Montréal bus routes, which makes the category entirely pointless. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need a category to hold a bunch of redirects which all point back to the same category's head article. Categorization of redirects is optional, unlike articles — it can be done in some cases, but is not invariably required, and this is the kind of situation where it isn't useful. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2019 (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:Mathematician politicians[edit]

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: listify. MER-C 16:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An unremarkable intersection of categories Rathfelder (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify at least, as this intersection has been subject to research and comment; e.g. a very quick search turned up Forbes, Springer academic article re Italy, National Review. – Fayenatic London 18:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there are more politicians who are doctors, but we dont have a category for that. Rathfelder (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Politicians will bring a particular expertise to politics according to their previous profession, so that this is not trivial. I may be in a minority, but I consider that such categories should be allowed. I think we have in the past deleted actor-politicians, a case where previous profession would be less important. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't really envisage how mathematical expertise is relevant in politics. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, possibly listify. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There is a longstanding consensus that we do not want a comprehensive scheme of "prior-occupation/politician" intersections for every job that people might have held before getting into politics — and while there are a couple of standalone cases (e.g. actors, sportspeople) where consensus has deemed that particular intersection to be more defining than the norm, those are special exceptions and not a license to build out a comprehensive set for every possible combination of prior occupation with politician. (And, in fact, I don't actually agree that actors or sportspeople or astronauts should actually warrant such categories either, but consensus has established that some people think they're special cases and I'm not overly inclined to stick my neck out on rechallenging that.) No prejudice against a list if desired, but I don't have a strong opinion on the listify vs. delete issue. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2019 (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:Literature of England[edit]

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: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 12:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It seems like these two categories could be merged. Although I'm sure there are editors who will respond who can tell me the difference between Category:English literature and Category:Literature of England. From a laywoman's perspective, it looks like these two categories could be combined. If not, I'm sure you will let me know. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Following Fayenatic london suggestion, I withdraw this proposal with the possibility that it is refiled. Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- I cannot believe the nom looed at the subject category before nominating it. The nom category is mostly about literature that is not in English. There is probably a case for a separate Category:English literature and Category:English-language literature, the latter including American, Australian, Indian, etc and the former specifically that of England, but this nom would not achieve that. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If I remember rightly, Das Kapital was written in England, so it's part of the literature of England, even though it's obviously not English literature. Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2019 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_23&oldid=1169470199"