Category talk:Indigenous people

People or peoples?

Shouldn't this category and its subcats be named at Commons Indigenous peoples? :/ Orrlingtalk 21:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Some of subcategories should be in plural, some ones in singular, according to their meaning and context. --ŠJů (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

So are you objecting the rename of this category from "Indigenous people" to "Indigenous peoples" ? Do you know the meaning of the term "indigenous people"? Orrlingtalk 01:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

"Indigenous people" would mean individuals; "Indigenous peoples" would mean tribes or nations. - Jmabel ! talk 16:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Result of discussion? Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Wish I knew. Everyone obviously understands that we should hold first a plural-form category, i.e Indigenous people*s*, and whereabouts comes the exception so we meet it with either relevant sub-form. This digging into futile grammar above instead of encouraging the reparation seems too odd, I don't quite understand the apparently forced hassle upon an obvious, casual renaming requirement. Orrlingtalk 20:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see now what has you confused. "People", in its most common use is a plural. It's the plural of "person". The word "persons" does exist, but it's used only in very limited contexts (e.g. "by a person or persons unknown"). Indeed, the most common use of "persons" is not as a plural of "person" in its common sense but of "person" in the sense of "body" (e.g. "harm to his goods or person" pluralized as "harm to their goods or persons").

However, "people" can also be a collective singular, similar in meaning to "nation" or "ethnic group." That meaning of "people" can be pluralized as "peoples."

Either possible category name -- "Indigenous people" or "Indigenous peoples" -- would be read by a native English speaker as a plural. The respective singulars are "Indigenous person" and "Indigenous people" (in the less common use of "people" as a collective singular). - Jmabel ! talk 05:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL, I know all that. And I wasn't confused by any lingual issue here :) - was only confused by the disencouragement by some editors on moving this cat to "peoples", which is desired since this cat is primarily about native nations, not foremost about individuals. (therefore I want to omit the "People" parent from it, which is too odd there). Please see the content of the cat so you see like me that so many entries are "peoples", which suggests their parent should be same, i.e speaking to "ethnic groups" and not "persons". Orrlingtalk 18:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Your remarks above did not make it clear that you knew that. Perhaps we have need for both an "Indigenous peoples" category (for things relating to nations/tribes) and an "Indigenous people" category (for photos specifically of people in these nations/tribes? Either way, it's hard to get excited about this sort of small discrepancy. - Jmabel ! talk 19:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course such both categories would be solving it all! :] But as you might be able to see, I was aiming in the above request at first settling this one category whose current content, and nothing other than it, made it as incoherent as incoherence can be defined. I'm most familiar with categories taking auspices to media of individual people as discerned from these people's people, see Category:Zulu people that I've created and many others; these are legitimate as long as treated as different from the notion of "People" as an ethno/tribal term, like "Jews", "Arabs" or "Scots". If I'm clear, I guess it's OK that a Category:Indigenous peoples will be created to host most of this one cat's residents, leaving the latter with only person-speaking items. Orrlingtalk 20:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone opposing the creation of Category:Indigenous peoples, while this will draw about a half or more of the content currently under Category:Indigenous people? Orrlingtalk 03:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)