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.
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category for a single subcategory of albums per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every band that exists does not automatically get one of these just to parent its own eponym and an albums subcategory; these are created only when they're navigationally necessary due to having a lot of spinoff content that needs band-related categorization beyond the standard category schemes that every band already has — e.g. Category:The Beatles, where in addition to albums and songs and band members, we also have articles about movies and tribute albums and books and concert tours and dedicated satellite radio channels and Pete Bests and George Martins and Yoko Onos and Apple Recordses, and other stuff that needs Beatles categorization but wouldn't fit any of the conventional subcategories. But in the case of Parkway Drive, there's no supplementary content here. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2018 (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.
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.
Oppose per Oculi. The nom is plain wrong, as a few moments' research shows that there is not complete overlap, nor anything like it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- If we need a change at all, it is splitting the target, which is a veritable hotchpotch. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2018 (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.
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 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.
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, i.e. do not rename. Note that the cat had not been tagged. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The text description for the category states that "This is a category of historical Cherokee people and contemporary Cherokee people enrolled in one of the three federally recognized Cherokee tribes: the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. For people who may not be enrolled in any of the Cherokee tribes but identify as being of Cherokee descent, see People of Cherokee descent." However, this is now inaccurate, as the "people of Cherokee descent" is now a sub-category of Cherokee people. (Anyone unfamiliar with Tribal sovereignty and citizenship issues is encouraged to read up on the topic to understand why there is a very meaningful distinction, and why the inclusion of undocumented people who claim Cherokee ancestors is an issue (Try here [1]. I would therefore propose splitting the category People of Cherokee descent and its sub-categories out into a new category called Self-identified Cherokee people, and renaming the Cherokee people category as Cherokee citizens to ensure that the issue of tribal recognition is always taken into account. Vizjim (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American people of Cherokee descent needs a lot of cleanup because for most of the articles in this category Cherokee descent is not defining (often not even mentioned in the article at all). But I'm not sure why that would require renaming the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the answer is to remove the incorrect subcat Category:People of Cherokee descent (which has been removed and returned several times). Someone of 'fooian descent' is not 'fooian', and neither are they a 'fooian citizen'. Oculi (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is about ethnicity, not citizenship. The main article is Cherokee: "The Cherokee Nation has more than 300,000 tribal members, making it the largest of the 567 federally recognized tribes in the United States. In addition, numerous groups claim Cherokee lineage, and some of these are state-recognized. A total of 819,000-plus people claim having Cherokee ancestry on the US census, which includes persons who are not enrolled members of any tribe." (Note that the Cherokee language is part of the wider language family Iroquoian languages.) Dimadick (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have thought your source shows exactly why it's about citizenship (recognition) rather than ethnicity (self-defined).Vizjim (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cherokee "citizenship" isn't recognized by International Law - or as far as I am aware by any US jurisdiction - the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Thus, all Cherokees born or naturalized in the US are citizens of the US and of a state (not tribe). I also question the validity of membership in this category for any folks after the Cherokee were given US citizenship: I can accept that people by tribe (whilst pre-contact or until absorption into another entity) should exist because it refers primarily to the polity in which they lived. After full absorption, it seems to be a purely ethnic category with no continued validity - especially when people whose inclusion is merely self-identification or membership listed by an organization whose rules are not the same as our lamentable "descent" categories (where self-identification, notwithstanding WP:RS, and the one-drop rule seem to live on). If membership in the rolls of the Cherokee is notable for something other than being a member in the rolls of the Cherokee, I'd like to see some reliable sources showing the fact. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer, if I can put it gently, indicates that you do not know very much about tribal citizenship, nor the relationship between states and federally or state recognized tribal nations. I did link to the relevant article above. Also you could try this to see specific legal differences between tribal citizens and non-citizens under US law. [2]. I'd suggest withdrawing your response until you are better informed on the subject. Vizjim (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out by someone who claims to be a lawyer, I don't, that some members of Indian tribes who stayed on reservations and didn't pay taxes didn't become citizens until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 - still anyone not already dead by then wouldn't be a "Cherokee citizen" by any stretch. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNot necessarily true. The United States still maintains the Bureau of Indian Affairs and has given federal recognition to "567 Native American tribes". The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 apparently recognized a number of tribal governments, partial tribal sovereignty, and tribal courts. Members are considered "citizens of their tribal nations" while also maintaining United States citizenship. That they have rights and obligations to two distinct authorities has caused a number of legal issues over the years. Dimadick (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at that - it seems only to apply to people of a designated tribe in their designated reservation; that a "citizen" of one (of at least three) Cherokee tribes recognized by the US government has some rights whilst off the reservation is not so clear. For example, a Mexican citizen arrested in the US has a right to contact the consulate; a Cherokee citizen? A Mexican citizen may use his or her Mexican citizenship document (a passport) to enter and leave the US; will a Cherokee passport suffice? There is a huge problem with equating citizenship in a tribe with that of a country. Perhaps it's more akin to "citizenship" in California, which is non-defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It seems that the proposal is in regards to Category:People of Cherokee descent, rather than Category:Cherokee people, so absolutely no need to change Category:Cherokee people. As pointed out above, People of Fooian descent are people that are not citizens of Foo in all the other categories, but people who claim Fooian ethnicity without that citizenship. In response to Carlossuarez46's statement, as "domestic dependent nations" defined by Worcester vs. Georgia, the three Cherokee tribes are considered both a part of the United States while maintaining their own sovereignty based on having land claims and governance that predate the formation of the United States, which is also upheld by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. No other groups claiming to be a "Cherokee tribe" (there are 400+ and counting) have this status. If anyone wants to propose moving the subcat, do that (I see that Category:People of German descent is not a subcat of Category:German people. Ahalenia (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Ahalenia[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.
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 (WP:NAC). DexDor(talk) 06:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge articles, purge subcategories per WP:SMALLCAT, the parent category is not a large established country tree nor is there a need for it. The subcategories don't need to be merged since they already are in Category:Insurance companies by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. ripping holes in one layer of the category tree doesn't help navigation, and itcreates maintenance headaches. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BrownHairedGirl. And some of these countries are not small. We can hope for more articles to appear. Rathfelder (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. I also see no logic in upmerging some to one category, some to another, and simply deleting yet more. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 31 March 2018 (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.
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 (No prejudice against recreation in the future if this ever actually does turn into an ongoing franchise) (WP:NAC). DexDor(talk) 06:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT Only the film and one article about a character from the film. No sequels so additions to the category are unlikely. MarnetteD|Talk 04:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While that is better than the "practices" cat only one of the two items is a film. The other is a character. MarnetteD|Talk 13:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteTrick 'r Treat is a horror film from 2007, not an entire franchise. While director Michael Dougherty has repeatedly claimed interest in a sequel, he is currently pre-occupied with another Godzilla film and no sequel is currently at works. "In October 2017, Dougherty stated “My hope is that once Godzilla has been put to rest that I can dive back into it,” said the filmmaker. “I would love to finish writing it in post-production and then I’d love to make it my next project. But we’ll see.” "Dimadick (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither the film nor the character is a "Halloween practice", so merging there would be inappropriate; the film is already in Category:Films about Halloween but the character wouldn't belong there, so merging there would be inappropriate; and there isn't enough content here to require an eponymous category to exist at all. No prejudice against recreation in the future if this ever actually does turn into an ongoing franchise, but every one-off film does not automatically get one of these just to parent itself and one character article that isn't even really properly sourced enough to be considered independently notable in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2018 (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.
