Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals/archives/2019/March

Indigenous peoples category

I propose we establish an indigenous peoples category. I'd be pleased to add articles to it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, has it not? Where was the discussion on that? --Pi zero (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't remember. 'S why I started a new one. I don't think there was a decision made that day. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

There wasn't a resolution. I think there were some points raised. Not to be wasted; we'll have to go track it down, in copious spare time. --Pi zero (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Found it: [1] November archive. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

That looks like it all right. Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals/archives/2017/November#Indigenous peoples tag. --Pi zero (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

As noted there, who does and doesn't qualify becomes a neutrality problem. Categories for particular cases do not seem to me to be such a problem, hence my suggestion that the thing itself, if created at all, be internal. --Pi zero (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Creating cats isn't something I've done before. What's "internal" in this context? It sounds like you'd be all right with "Native Americans" and "First Nations" and "Aboriginees" but not one category "Indigenous Peoples" that included all of them plus the Sami.

As I see, the "political" bit was in response to my suggestion to use the U.N.'s list, but that's not our only option. Oxford Dictionaries defines "indigenous" as "Originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native." But @Amgine: points out everyone migrated somewhere at some point. If the U.N. and Unesco and World Bank (WB has a list, apparently) are out, we could check academic sources. The University of Lappland's Arctic Centre has a definition too: [2] There are probably more. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality is not only about politics; there are other kinds of non-neutrality. And regardless of whether it's called "neutrality" or not, new categories need to be easy to manage. As an article category, "indigenous peoples" would not be easy to manage. I may have been hasty in breezily claiming the individual cats would not be a problem; certainly they'd need some careful thought; but I don't think the parent category would be workable at all, for articles.

An internal category is used to group categories together, but articles do not belong to it. Such as Category:Scientists. See {{internal cat}}, and pages transcluding it. --Pi zero (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)