Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 10 May 12 >

May 11[edit]

Category:Restricted-range endemic bird species[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/rename as nominated. – Fayenatic London 18:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an "odd duck" (pun intended) that, as the main category's header states, groups "species which have a historical breeding range of less than 50,000 square kilometers". On the surface this seems reasonable, but while this is a case of something that would be excellent as a list, as a category it's less than WP:DEFINING. Why 50,000km²? What about 60,000²? And this is also a misuse (even by the source, if it is correct) of the term "endemic"; endemism isn't defined by km² (or mi²) of range, but by locality, which makes the "...by country" subcategorisation misleading. As restricted-range endemic bird is a redirect to Endemic Bird Area (which MAY be a valid categorisation, if anyone cares to make it), there isn't even an article for this sort of thing. What's needed here is that the parent and by-continent categories here be chopped, while the by-country/region categories (which are already properly subcategorised under the relevant subcategories of Category:Endemic fauna by country and Category:Birds by country be renamed to "Endemic birds of foo" format. Any purging, adding, and/or diffusing necessary after renaming the renames I will undertake. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep with comment: I have not looked at the content or the history of the categorisation in question in detail. However, ‘restricted range’ is a term adopted and defined by BirdLife International (BLI). The 50k km area is obviously arbitrary but, if you are going classify birds by quantified conservation threat, or potential threat, you need arbitrary parameters. The ‘endemic’ part of the category relates specifically to Endemic Bird Area, again defined by BLI in a sense more narrow to usage elsewhere. So the category is based entirely on the BLI definition and should only contain birds so defined.
The question is whether we need such a category at all. I have created several articles based on another BLI defined term – Important Bird Area – and I think that ‘restricted range’ in its restricted BLI sense should be better defined, but am not sure whether we need this particular set of categories. Though, if their BLI classification is useful to keep as a category, there is no point to renaming them (unless to a restructured form such as ‘Restricted range endemic birds of Foo’, and make it a subcat of BirdLife International).
With regard to the proposed target categories, they are very different in meaning and really a separate issue. I understand why BLI usually ties its definitions to countries; political entities such as nations control (at least notionally) factors affecting bird conservation and BLI needs to work through national governments and NGOs to achieve conservation goals. However, biological endemism relates to biogeographical rather than political entities. I have no problems with ‘endemic birds of Foo’ if Foo is a biogeographical entity as well as a political one (e.g. Madagascar, Cuba or New Caledonia), but see little point if Foo is only a small part of a larger biogeographical entity (e.g. Austria, Liberia or Paraguay) or extends across more than one (e.g. Indonesia or China). If birdwatchers visiting a particular country want a list of that country’s endemic species, they can be catered for in the appropriate ‘List of the birds of…’ which has almost global coverage.
I agree that it is a bit messy at present. On the whole I suggest keeping or (better) renaming the categories as above, tying them to BLI and better defining ‘restricted range’. Maias (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is "Endemic Foos of Bar" is both a term that is widely used and recognised as defining in general useage when applied to political units, and an established category tree. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We could have parent categories of 'Endemic birds by country' and 'Endemic birds by region' Maias (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After some checking, I modify my suggestion to moving the categories in question to ‘Restricted-range birds of Foo’ and dropping the ‘endemic’. The term as defined by BLI in 1998 is ‘restricted-range bird species’. A restricted-range bird species is not the same as an endemic bird species, although there is much overlap. I have also expanded the definition in Endemic Bird Area. Maias (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except "Restricted-range birds" is only used by BLI; everyone else uses "endemic". Having a restricted range is not WP:DEFINING and is very nebulous - what is "restricted"? "Endemic" is clearly defined, sourcable, and commonly used. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, 'restricted range' is certainly defined by BLI, but it is not nebulous and it is strictly defined as well as being widely used in bird conservation generally. That is not to say that we necessarily need categories based on it. I have no objection to categories for 'Endemic species of...', though I pointed out my preference for them to focus on biogeographical entities. However, if someone wants to create categories for political entities, I am not going to oppose it, though I consider it not very useful. You seem to be conflating 'restricted-range species' with 'endemic species', when they are not the same thing. Delete the former categories, if you will; create the latter, if you will; but please do not just move articles from the former to the latter without checking their status first individually. Simply changing the name of the category is inappropriate when the contents will not slip comfortably from one to the other. Please also note, with regard to the proposed moves above that South Asia is not the same as India, West Indies is not the same as Caribbean, and West Africa is not the same as Sao Tome and Principe. Maias (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Completely understood and agree; that was in fact my intention, to double-check each and every entry post-move. As for the discussions, while all of those are true, the only contents of Category:South Asian restricted-range endemic bird species is endemic to India, Category:West Indian restricted-range endemic bird species is a subcategory of Category:Birds of the Caribbean, and the only contents of Category:West African restricted-range endemic bird species is endemic to São Tomé and Príncipe. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess I have nothing left to object to. Go for it. Cheers. Maias (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2014 (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:Athletes banned for life[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Use same term as rest of category structure SFB 18:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category creator has not opinion either way. Ego White Tray (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. Hoops gza (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Dwscomet (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as temporary category, as the category explicitly excludes rehabilitated "banned for lifers" - quite unlike the various categories on prisoners and detainees of Fooland which doesn't go away when they walk out the door. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the very nature of "for life" is not temporary. Is there enough unbanned athletes for a "no longer banned for life" category? Ego White Tray (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2014 (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:World Series champions[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Over categorization. This sort of category has been discouraged in the past for individual players. Spanneraol (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Over categorization. This is not a characteristic that makes one notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom non-defining characteristic.--TM 14:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This has the feel of a performance by performer category. Furthermore, the category name is unclear as to the sport involved. I presume this is an American sport played nowhere else. The players notability will be indiocated by their being categorised as a Foo United player. Even having such a category for winning teams is undesirable, as with a competition with many years' history, most of the teams involved in the competion will have won in one year or another. Lists do that job much better which is why we do not allow award winner categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is for Major League Baseball, the North American baseball league. Perhaps you should also nominate the recently created Category:Super Bowl champions for the National Football League as well as Category:Stanley Cup champions for the National Hockey League. There is apparently no such category for the National Basketball Association. Hoops gza (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, and then some! To me, I'd say Delete this category per nom, and the Super Bowl and Stanley Cup Champions categories that Hoops gza brought up above, because it's the same categories, except the name of the trophies, because it serves the same purpose (i.e. list players that have a Wikipedia article (like David Ortiz who won 3 WS) who have won a trophy, like the Stanley Cup, go Hawks and Rangers! Lol). I'm glad Hoops brought up those Super Bowl and Stanley Cup Champs cat (but hey, it probably won't be nominated here sadly), because it totally reminded me of (I'm gonna go off topic a little bit) earlier this year I made categories about American expatriate soccer people in other countries then someone nominated only the soccer categories while leaving the other categories, except change soccer to baseball (such as this one) alone, and another person talking about "other sports may enjoy having these categories, but we do not have them in soccerball." That's his exact words, unedited! That was I didn't know whether to punch my laptop screen or LMAO. Don't believe me, here's the proof. While (once again), the similar categories for X expatriates in Y country who play other sports never got a nomination. Hmm? I smell a rat, a rotten one at that. Dwscomet (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a reasonable type of category to have, as such an achievement represents the sportsperson reaching the peak of their field. I see little difference between this and, say, Category:Nobel laureates or Category:Olympic medalists. SFB 17:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having won a major league sports championship is highly WP:DEFINING for a club. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@The Bushranger: This is not for clubs, however, it is for individual players. Hoops gza (talk) 03:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...thanks for the correction. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:35, 16 May 2014 (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:Acoustic rock songs[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 Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Versions of these songs may have been played or recorded acousticly, but they aren't defining aspects of the songs. Nor would I call 'acoustic' a genre. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shouldn't every song that has appeared on MTV unplugged be in this category? Which just shows how this doesn't work as a category. FWIW Isn't this a duplicate of Category:Folk rock songs these days? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My first thought when I saw this nom was Eric Clapton's Layla: a noted electric guitar song with a notable acoustic version. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As being non-defining and original research. Not all of them are acoustic for a start. Hurt is mainly piano and Sirens has a lenghty electric-guitar solo, for example. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.—indopug (talk) 07:34, 19 May 2014 (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:Command & Conquer video games[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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a redundant level of categorisation. "Command & Conquer" is a video game series, simply put: having Category:Command & Conquer as a parent to Category:Command & Conquer video games is overcategorisation. The Bushranger One ping only 04:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The main category is a perfectly suitable venue for all these articles. SFB 18:31, 15 May 2014 (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:Executed Nazis by location[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: keep. – Fayenatic London 13:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Knowing full well that this changes the scope of the categories, doesn't it make much more sense to categorize those executed by the governing body that executed them, and not by the location where they were executed? All other execution-related categories on Wikipedia entail who carried out the execution rather than where it took place. Hoops gza (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Prescisely who carried out an execution is less significnat than where it took place. Those executed in Germany were not executed by any military (acting on its own). In the case of the British zone, the execution may have been by British Military Government, but that was an emination of the British Government. In UK "the military" means the army. I doubt that the army itself executed many people. Indeed we have recently had a discussion over people executed by Mr Pierrepoint, the British hangman: was he not a civilian? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the "by whom" tends to break down for many of these folks were executed after an international trial. Oddly, there's no Category:Nazis executed in Germany, where many of the big names were hanged. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some Nazis were executed in the Soviet bloc, such as in East Germany. It would seem quite misleading to have a Category:Nazis executed in Germany. - Hoops gza (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's a matter of agency. A country doesn't kill a person...an individual, group or organization can kill or order the death of another person. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 19 May 2014 (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:People of Semitic 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: no consensus on Category:Semitic peoples, delete the sub-cats. – Fayenatic London 20:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:EGRS#Ethnicity_and_race we don't do race-based categories which is how these are currently being used. Semitic is not an identified ethnic grouping, rather it is an ethno-linguistic term that is also used here with racial connotations. It's better to group ethnic groups by country or region of origin as this is neutral vs terms like 'Semitic' which are ultimately making a racial claim. Indeed, Semitic musicians is an example given of a race-based category that should not exist.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep nothing here to do with 'race' as the term is/was used to distinguish the white race and black race, and other such artifacts. Hmains (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hmains: in what way is this not a racial grouping? You do know that Semite has been claimed to be a race by a great many people. If this is not a racial grouping, what kind of grouping is it? Are we linking people based on a shared language group? I don't think we do this elsewhere, especially not such a broad grouping. Shall we create indo-European categories or Teutonic or Latin-peoples? As far as I can tell this is a race-based category - Semitic is not an ethnic group or even a meta-grouping of ethnic groups, it is ultimately a race-based classification.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A starting point to understand what race means now and in the past is Race (human classification). Nothing in that article supports anything like what you are saying. Hmains (talk) 02:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the point of linking that article is. I know what it says. you could perhaps google 'Semitic race' and see the great number of arguments made perhaps 100 years ago about what the Semitic race is and what it is composed of, and how Semitic race is still discussed today. However per EGRS we don't do race-based categories, which this one is.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also point you again to EGRS which literally gives an example of 'Semitic' as a classification we should not use.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. first of all, "EGRS" is an editing guideline which anyone can edit, and not Wikipedia core policy. As such it is subject to discussion and interpretation. I am tired of attempts to censor content for ideological reasons not via discussion of content but via bureaucratic application of guidelines. It's dishonest. There is no clean-cut division between race and ethnicity, and pretending that there is in a Wikipedia guideline isn't going to change that fact. It's a complex topic to be sure, open for informed and referenced exposition in article space, not via deletion debates or guideline manipulation. A casual search for "Semitic peoples" on google books (46k hits) shows that the term is perfectly straightforward and in common use in normal ethnographic literature. The fact that a category is being misused, or used ineptly, is no grounds for deletion. I share Obi-Wan Kenobi's concern that a category "Semitic musicians" is idiotic. "people of Semitic descent" etc. should not have direct sub-categories like "Semitic musicians", of course. It should have categories like "people of Arab descent" etc., i.e. grouping categories dedicated to the individual groups within the "Semitic" category. If you submit stuff like "Semitic musicians" for deletion, you can certainly count on my support. --dab (𒁳) 14:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yes, but 'white people' and 'black people' and many other racial categorizations are also used widely in the literature, but we don't accept such categorizations. When speaking of languages Semitic is a reasonable language group descriptor but when speaking of peoples it becomes an essentially race-based categorization, and yes there is a difference between race and ethnicity, since 'Semitic' is not an ethnic group in any sense of the word. If you don't accept 'Semitic musicians' you should not accept these groupings either, they are problematic for the same reason. Please tell me, what does 'of Semitic descent' mean exactly? This is not guideline manupulation, and if you want to ignore a guideline you must explain why and how it benefits the Wiki, and why an exception should be made for Semites to our general guidance around such groupings. I think it's a detriment because it suggests there is some hereditary connection between these people who are now spread across the world - and more importantly 'Semitic' excludes groups which are or have lived in the levant but who aren't considered racially or linguistically Semitic. It's useful as an article where subtleties can be captured but it's a terrible idea as a category since inclusion is binary and there is no clear objective criterion for what constitutes a 'Semitic' person - since race-based and ethnolinguistic answers are quite different to the same question. We don't with few exceptions group ethnicities or peoples by language groups that they are considered to speak, and if this isn't a language grouping the only other criteria I can think of is a race-based distinction. Even more problematic is the way the category is currently used, which is filled with sets of nationalities - in what way are white European-descent Americans who emigrated to israel 'semites'? No matter what definition you use, all citizens of nation X will never fit into 'semites'Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Semitic peoples -- This is a lingistic classification for ethnic groups speaking languages of that linguistic group. The sibling categories should be Indo-European, Finno-Ugaric, etc. Delete the rest, as this is not a usual way of categorising these peoples. "Semite" has often been used in Europe as a synonym for Jewish, so that Arabs may not welcome its use for them. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, the problem is there are many peoples who speak languages of the Semitic language group but we don't group people in general by the language they speak - instead they are grouped by nationality and ethnicity, and a given nationality ethnicity may speak many different languages - since we don't have language-based people categories in general I don't see why we'd start language-family based category trees. Additionally you will quickly find that Semitic people is not considered to include all people who speak languages of the Semitic family, and Jews in particular even if they speak no Hebrew are still considered by some to be Semites. If you look at List_of_language_families for one semitic doesn't seem to be one of the major families, but secondly expanding this scheme of people-by-language grouping in order to be accurate would require first grouping people by the primary language they speak, and thus would require the re- categorization of hundreds of thousands of biographies, and we'd have to decide which of many different and competing language family classifications to use.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all The more I read the more I'm confused as to what exactly a semite is. We should be basing categories, as much as possible, on words with a clear meaning, and with the exception of language, Semite does not have one. Ego White Tray (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read Semitic people for the clear, WP, referenced meaning. Hmains (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • read White people for the clear, WP, referenced meaning of white, and read Black people for the same thing for blacks. The fact that we have articles for quasi-racial groupings does not mean we can have categories accordingly. What I read in Wikipedia is a Semite is any of an ancient peoples from SW Asia speaking a semitic language, or their descendants - however the 2nd most spoken Semitic language in the world in Amharic , and Ethiopians are notably absent from the category of Semites (but they are considered 'black' by Wikipedia?) - additionally, if this is indeed a language family grouping, underneath I would expect to see 'Hebrew speaking people' and 'arabic speaking people' and 'Amharic speaking people' - but we don't have such categories, and I don't think they should be created. Anyone defending this category and saying it's not race-based needs to define what the category IS based on, and if it's based on language it's a losing battle since we don't classify people by the language they speak so I find it hard to understand how we could super-classify them by the family of language they presumably speak. It would be an absolute nightmare to try to set up such a system in any case as we'd have to determine the native/mother tongue of every person and then put them in a whole new people-by-language-spoken tree.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am sympathetic to those who want to keep these categories and I don't think all Semitic categories should be deleted based on the idea that they are a race-based categories. It is an ethno-linguistic grouping that is also used by historians (like Nordic or Germanic). But I think in the case of individuals, it is imprecise. Why not just indicate the particular ethnicity of the people in this category instead of lumping them in with a regional identity? It ends up being a container category because no one belongs to this group but rather to subcategories of this group. Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
exactly the problem, its not an ethnicity. The current contents include Arabs (an ethno-linguistic group), Israelis and Jordanians (nationalities), and Jews (an ethno-religious grouping). Its a complete hodge-podge. If those who support claim it is a linguistic grouping, then just try to remove Jews since many dont speak hebrew natively...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)
  • Delete as a violation of WP:CATEGRS. While semitic is a term with interelated theological, linguistic, racial, and cultural meanings, the usage here is racial. Even if we ignore the complex controversies over racial categories, they do not make good categories because the boundary conditions become impossible to define. The main itself touches on the semi-arbitary nature of the distinction here. This is a grouping based on outmoded 19th century ideas. --Andrewaskew (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete certainly Category:People of Semitic descent. I see nothing intrinsically troublesome in Category:Semitic peoples, since it is widely attested in the literature. The inermediate Category:Semitic diaspora is neither here nor there - too many CATs spoil the brothelhood of man.

In my experience descent categories are made up and used for polemical purposes, aside from the dubious or useless quality of such generic labelling, which ignores the fact that history is a brothel of human groups, that, when they're not screwing each other, are usually screwing each other literally.

I have great problems with these categories because unilinear descent is alien to my understanding of historical populations. Claims, names, tribal legends, and oral narratives sweep aside complexity to choose a generic self-descriptor that erases ostensible anomalies to what is desired as one’s ultimate origin Generally any categories that can be thought up is fine, as long as in its application it does not assert identitarian claims that are denied by the evidence. Some of dozens of anomalies created by this kind of catgeory. (a) Hungarians have the CAT Ugric peoples though genetically they are almost wholly European, close to the Serbs and far from the Finns.

the Awan of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and elsewhere claim descent from Arabs, though they may be also converted Rajput descendants, or both, or neither. In either case, there is, in such populations substantial mixing that does not give one confidence about mechanical identification by descent. The same goes for

Pathans. One reported tradition had them decending from Saul, i.e. Jewish. See also Theory of Pashtun descent from Israelites other traditions insist on them being Arabs tracing back toQais Abdur Rashid, though their tribes speak Eastern Iranian varieties of an Indo-European languages.

Arab Indonesians claim Hadhrami descent, but they are also descended from Indonesians. It is just that in the identitarian code, one claim trounces the other historical fact (as often is the case)

Many of the noble lineagues of Badakhshan claim they descend from Alexander the Great (i.e. I.E:) but tribally they also assert an Arab provenance, though speaking an I.E group of languages.

Sayyids number in the millions from Pakistan all over sout-east Asia, and yet ‘A study of Y chromosomes of self-identified Syeds from the Indian subcontinent by Elise M. S. Belle, Saima Shah, Tudor Parfitt and Mark G. Thomas showed that "self-identified Syeds had no less genetic diversity than those non-Syeds from the same regions, suggesting that there is no biological basis to the belief that self-identified Syeds in this part of the world share a recent common ancestry.’

What do you do with Swahili people, who speak a Bantu language but have had significant genetic input from Persian and Arab traders, to the point that the former created Shirazi settlements as far down as Tanzania? And for the latter, Ibn Battuta recorded that royal families in Tanzania were of Yemenite descent? (Craig Lockard Societies, Networks, and Transitions: Volume I: A Global History to 1500, Houghton Mifflin 2008 p.336 writes:

‘Arab settlers had come in such numbers that they could not be absorbed into the dominant Bantu culture. Instead intermarriage and a fusion of cultures occurred’

Ultimately my objections is that CATS like these lead themselves to indiscriminate use by POV pushers, are conflictual, and assume that most of history, which is unrecorded, can be known by theory.Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, this registers as a Delete vote, Nishidani? I agree with you on the intermixing of ethnicities and cultures over centuries (millennium), especially considering the impact of migration. But the fact is in biographies on Wikipedia, we typically include categories of gender, ethnicity and nationality. We just need to be sure that ethnic categorizations make sense and are consistent. Liz Read! Talk! 19:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At best delete the second and third. One should always pause if User:dab weighs in, esp. in this area. There is nothing wrong with the CAT for Semitic peoples. The others are factitious or supererogatory. My vote therefore is a compromise. Keep (1) delete (2) and (3).
  • Delete impermissible classification based on (claimed, perceived) race/ethnicity. We could have Category:People of North Germanic descent to group descendents of Swedes, Danes, Icelanders, and Norwegians (and anyone who may have some genetic material from this area, no doubt many Irish, Scots, English, French), and all their descendants throughout the world. But, alas, what value does it serve? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The usage here is clearly racial in a way that violates the rules against categoriazing based on race.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2014 (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/2014_May_11&oldid=1138399670"