Nominator's rationale The groups that are being identified by this category have not been in India longer than other parts of its population, as is normally the case when the term "indigenous" is used. These people are culturally marginal, which is why they are Scheduled in the constitution, but to claim they are someone "indigenous" and the main culture of India is thus "forign" just makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The category links to Tribes of India, which redirects to Adivasi. That article describes "a heterogeneous set of ethnic and tribal groups claimed to be the aboriginal population of India", which seems to contradict JPL's assertion above about the use of the word "indigenous". I know little about this myself, but would be very uncomfortable with this nomination proceeding unless there is significant input from WP:INDIA, where I presume there is some expertise on the topic. Has WP:INDIA been notified of this discussion? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The key is the statement "claimed". This is built around interpretations and debates about things that happened several milenia ago, and we are best off not taking sides on it. We should define this category in a way that is beyond dispute, not one that invokes debates about the truly obscure past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The India project has been notified. This current name involves a very problematic assertion of who is "indegenous" that I do not think we can define in a neutral way considering the completity of India's history and the length of time some peoples who are being defined as "non-indigenous" have lived in India.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At some level this is like creating Category:Indigenous peoples of Britian and including the Welsh and Scottish but not the English. That might have almost worked 100 years ago, but with modern work in population genetics it becomes a more difficult prospect with a genetic connection shown between modern populations in England and remains of pre-Saxon invasion people. It also seems a bit like creating Category:Indigenous peoples of South Africa and excluding the Zulu and other Bantu people because "they arrrived in South Africa just before the white people", which maybe is sort of truee if 500+ years counts as "just before", and we count the first landing of European navigators for the arrival of white people in South Africa.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The adivasi are generally considered to be indigenous and that's all that should matter to us. I'd like to see evidence that the indigenous nature of these tribes is a mainstream dispute before we even consider this change. --regentspark (comment) 14:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed and this is the problem that I'm pondering. I think that the category may be widely misused but that is not necessarily the same as saying it is invalid. - Sitush (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it, 'Scheduled Tribe' is an official designation that likely comes with political implications while "Indigenous people' is a scholarly designation that is relatively neutral. I read your note in the discussion you link to above and don't see that as an issue because the existence of indigenous people in India is fairly well recognized, particularly in Eastern and Central India and in the Andamans. Unfortunately, JohnpackLambert's (the OP of this CfD) references to 'Hindi people' in that same link leads me to believe he/she is unfamiliar with this subject. --regentspark (comment) 16:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It probably would dramatically narrow the scope, and detrimentally so. As said above, Scheduled Tribe is a statutory classification and "tribe" doesn't have a formal definition in India, not even in the constitution that underpins the reservation system. There are many communities whom I would call indigenous but who are not Scheduled Tribes, examples being among the groups that RegentsPark has mentioned. "Social groups of ..." gets round all of the definition problems - indigenous and tribes - but I'm not sure how it fits in with our wider categorisation schema. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not going to comment on the necessity/validity of this category -- I'm not familiar with our "indigenous" etc kind of categorization and the criteria, but a rename to the proposed category is not the solution here. There's a significant overlap between the two, but they are not the same. The current name reflects (or is supposed to) scholarly consensus while the proposed name reflects a governmental labeling that can and (sometimes does) change -- there have been five modifications in the past fifty years, three of which have occurred in the past decade, and there's also some geographical inadequacies to deal with there -- some tribes can be classified differently in different states etc (e.g. Toda people are considered ST all over TN, but govt of India/constitution doesn't consider them so if they belong to Kanyakumari district) -- so net effect, if we are looking at "indigenous" as a marker, then it shouldn't be confused with the "Scheduled". While the category of Scheduled Tribes would be valid on its own, I don't think renaming this would be the right way to achieve it, if needed create that and populate it separate from this -- and either delete or keep this one (I'm not entirely sure which way to go here, it looks like the category is a mess of articles that don't belong in there). —SpacemanSpiff17:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - "Scheduled tribes" is very differently used from indigenous people within India. Not all indigenous people may be designated as scheduled tribes. ST (scheduled tribe) is an official status granted by Govt of India — Ramit(talk)18:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Something needs to be done regarding the indigenous category and its subcats but moving to the Scheduled Tribes category is inappropriate for the reasons I and others have outlined above. - Sitush (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no consensus what "indigenous" means in India. Is it pre-Aryan invasion? Pre-Moghul invasion? Or just people who the Europeans found there when they arrived? Since we cannot define it, we cannot categorize it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That works for the Wisconsin issue. I am less sure it works for anything west of the Mississippi since while they were claimed by Michigan Territory the people actually living there were not functionally under the government of Michigan Territory but were in various Sioux and other native polities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the things in this category were clearly established in 1824. Merging to a more general time category would remove the current contents as children of Category:1824 establishments in the United States. The establishments by place by year tree is still not very developed. In fact lots and lots of articles in wikipedia that explicitly give a year of establishment have not yet been categorized at all, so it is unwise to judge the usefulness of the establishment by place categories by their current contents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vegaswikian has a particular dislike of decade categories and has sought to delete lots of them, but with only limited success. I take a very different view of decade categories. If properly organised, they don't add an extra layer to navigation, just an extra route, so the downside is entirely avoidable. On the upside, they have two important functions: 1) grouping topics which span several years, and for which single-year categorisation would cause unnecessary clutter; 2) grouping topics for which precise years are unknown; 3) grouping topics in periods where our coverage is so sparse that categorisation-by-year would produce a lot of small categories, but where centuries are too broad a grouping. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they were only used for 1, 2 or 3 (but by century often works as well or better), then maybe they are of value. But all too often they are or become just an extra level with 10 categories and no articles. Be aware that in the past I have cleaned up articles which claimed to not have a know year, but a known decade and research shows that there was a year in various sources, and in about 20% (as I recall) of the cases, it was not the decade used here. So while I agree with you exception cases in principal, I still can't support them, especially for category trees that are for items in a single year like establishments. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale: These two categories, as currently cast, are not named or used in standard practice with other similar Wikipedia categories, and don't really match their names' meanings anyway -- as the people who are said to have Ningbo as "hometown" actually are usually not people who had spent any significant parts of their lives in Ningbo; rather, they have ancestry stemming from Ningbo. "People of Ningbo descent" is more descriptive and consistent with other categories of a similar nature. Once renamed, it should really become a subcategory of Category:Ningbo directly, while Category:People from Ningbo can be a more proper category for people who were born there. --Nlu (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and merge. I have to admit I would have assumed these were the same, since I assume a "home town" is where someone was born (or maybe even where they were raised, but not born). Also we have never agreed to create categories specifically for birth that exclude people who lived large parts of their life in a place but happened to have been born in some other place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename it is the writers or books, not the awards, that are unpublished. the current name sounds like awards that do not actually tell people who is winning them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge. I'm not sure that these triple intersections barrelled categories (twin+identical+occupation) are a useful subcategorization. Categorizing twins by occupation is a bit of a strench, in my opinion, but then breaking it down into identical twins by occupation? I can't see how being an identical twin in these professions is any more significant than simply being a twin. As they stand, these are probably woefully underpopulated compared to what they could be. (I have not nominated Category:Identical twin actors, since that combination actually has some relevance—twins are often used interchangeably for the same acting role, especially for child roles.) Good Ol’factory(talk)03:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. These are not triple intersections. "Identical twins" is a subset of twins, rather than the intersection of twins with another category. However, I agree that there is no reason to subcategorise identical twins by occupation, so I support the upmerger. (I don't so far see any reason for categorising any twins by occupation unless their twin-ness had a direct bearing on that occupation, such for twins who worked together as entertainers. But that's a matter for a later discussion). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a twin (or identical twin) is trivial (in the same sense as being married, childless, divorced, etc. - none of which are categorized in WP due to their perceived immateriality). But alas, this small camel's nose in the tent of birth order categorization persists. Why not have first born categories; lots of studies about eldest children. And the long suffering middle child, certainly that deserves categorization on sibling status and birth order. Only children?? Only surviving children? Babies of the family. There are so many categories to create and so little time. Or we can nip it in the bud here by deleting the lot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
