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: Rename category to follow suit with recent main article move per Talk:Rom the Space Knight proposal, which was unopposed. -- 2pou (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2020 (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.
Race is a social construct of no scientific significance and is used entirely to segregate people based on the color of their skin (see Wikipedia:Race and ethnicity). Additionally, none of the articles in these categories are sourced adequately to justify their inclusion in them. For example, Lemar, a singer from UK is labelled as a Black British singer on Wikipedia when no sources have ever called him that, which is because sources rarely talk about or identify people's races as it's not of any importance. With that said, the inclusion of Lemar in the category Black British singers is a form of original research and is decided by the editor placing that category in that article, which is assuming the person's race. Furthermore, there is no Category:Black American people, Category:Black Nigerian people, Category:Black Mexican people or Category:Black Japanese people, for instance. My recommended action is to delete all the categories then incorporate their articles into the existing generic British people categories (or create new for those without existing categories). Peopho (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Ethnicity is important on Wikipedia as there are many thousands of ethnicity-related categories. You say there's no Category:Black American people - that's because there is Category:African-American people. Look at how many subcategories under subcategories under Category:American people of African descent. Same goes for Category:African-American people. Category:Black British people is no different - it is a very useful parent category containing a large number of subcategories and pages. Black British is an ethnic group in the UK (see Category:Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom) and there is an article for Black British people so there's nothing wrong categorizing Black British people into their occupation categories. Furthermore, there are many pages under the important Category:Black British history. ~ Hiddenstranger (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Black British is an acknowledged academic term, the equivalent of African-American etc. For individuals within these categories, this is a discussion for their talk pages. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am reading through quite a few articles in Category:Black British singers and it seems like hardly any of these people identify as of Black British ethnicity. Presumably we have a WP:BLP and WP:NONDEF issue here. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there are there are many thousands of ethnicity-related categories, some of which are pretty dubious, is a very weak argument for keeping these. Blackness is arguably not an ethnicity. It's a skin colour. Are there clear criteria for deciding to whom the term applies? Is this a term which the subjects would be happy with, or would they prefer to be described in some other way? Rathfelder (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categories about races should be kept but ethnicities and political terms should be deleted. That is not the case here. Mohanabhil (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting to note that you think these categories are about race instead of ethnicity. But in fact we do not categorize by race. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In essence, an ethnic group is a named social category of people based on perceptions of shared social experience or one's ancestors' experiences. Members of the ethnic group see themselves as sharing cultural traditions and history that distinguish them from other groups. Ethnic group identity has a strong psychological or emotional component that divides the people of the world into opposing categories of “us” and “them.” In contrast to social stratification, which divides and unifies people along a series of horizontal axes based on socioeconomic factors, ethnic identities divide and unify people along a series of vertical axes. Thus, ethnic groups, at least theoretically, cut across socioeconomic class differences, drawing members from all strata of the population.
The key concept here is the sharing aspect. So the question is whether Black British share anything at all, apart from their non-pale skin colour, so whether they are truly comparable to African-American ethnicity. African-Americans self-identify as such, and they have shared cultural organisations. That hardly seems to be the case for Black British. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.sadacca.co.uk/about-us/ is at best about African-Carribean ethnicity if that exists (more likely it is about two ethnicities, African and Carribean), and apparently it doesn't include people of Indian descent who are supposed to belong to Black British. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Black British Music is about music genres in the UK that were mostly 'founded' by the African-American ethnicity in the US. It does not suggest that this is shared culture of British people of African, Caribbean and Indian descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
http://bedsa.org/ is about ethnic diversity and does not mention Black British as being a single ethnicity. Going into perhaps too much detail, "black" is not capitalized and not followed by "British" while "communities" is written in plural. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No-one is claiming that Black British (or African-American) is a single ethnicity. African is certainly not an ethnicity and neither is West Indian. Oculi (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough but then we should categorize people by what their ethnicity actually is, if any. Or otherwise using descent by country categories is sufficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless race categories to divide people. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If people wish to be identified by labels of this sort that is fine by me. I think some musicians do. But I am not happy if labels are going to be applied which the subjects would reject, and I cant see how that could be avoided unless the label came with membership of some sort of organization, in which case it would be more sensible to use the organisation as the basis of the category. Rathfelder (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Black British" is an accepted ethnic description for African and Caribbean British people. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This comment and many other comments above do not address the WP:BLP and WP:NONDEF issues that have been signaled before. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As reliable sources regularly use "Black British" or refer to individual British people as being black, then as an encyclopedia, we should be okay with categorising people as such. Edwardx (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While that may happen incidentally, it is not a sufficient basis for a category. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. Most articles in these categories do not even mention this characteristic so it is certainly not something that sources commonly and consistently use. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Race or ethnic group does not need to have a scientific basis in order to be a defining characteristic. There is a clear community of Black British people which is formed by racial social structures within Britain. That community clearly expands into sub-cultures of religion, writing, sport, music and entertainment. On that basis, all these categories are defining and relevant (though I'm not aware if there are distinct Black British forms of photography and radio presenting, so potentially worth discussing the merit of those two). SFB 17:14, 22 March 2020 (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 from Okemos, Michigan, by occupation[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. – FayenaticLondon 15:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge. Big cities that have a lot of "[Occupation] from [City]" subcategories can have one of these to manage clutter in the main category — but small towns that only have "Sportspeople from [City]" don't need them. Bearcat (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2020 (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 from Temecula, California, by occupation[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. – FayenaticLondon 15:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge. Big cities that have a lot of "[Occupation] from [City]" subcategories can have one of these to manage clutter in the main category — but small towns that only have "Sportspeople from [City]" don't need them. Bearcat (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2020 (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 from Jonesboro, Arkansas, by occupation[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. – FayenaticLondon 14:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge. Big cities that have a lot of "[Occupation] from [City]" subcategories can have one of these to manage clutter in the main category — but small towns that only have "Sportspeople from [City]" don't need them. Bearcat (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2020 (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 from Oroville, California by occupation[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 for now. – FayenaticLondon 14:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge. Big cities that have a lot of "[Occupation] from [City]" subcategories can have one of these to manage clutter in the main category — but small towns that only have "Sportspeople from [City]" don't need them. Bearcat (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose contains two sub-categories now. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Categories containing two sub-categories are regularly deleted. Five is the minimum for keeping per general consensus.--TM 13:41, 15 March 2020 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Anachronism: the Captaincy General of Chile declared itself independent in 1818, becoming the Republic of Chile. The categories in the pre-independence era are an uncomfortable mix of old name and (mostly) new name, which this nomination will resolve.
I considered adding an option B to consolidate all the categories under "Chile", but I think that the distinction of name is worth preserving because the difference is not just a change of name. For most of its history, the Captaincy General of Chile had a much larger territory than contemporary Chile, including most of what is now Argentina.
Note that these categories are (or should be) populated by a series of category header templates, which will need to be amended. I will be happy to asssist the closing admin in implementing this if they ask. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per nom. Oculi (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2020 (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. MER-C 16:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We already have Category:Education by country (notice capitalization difference), which is a fully-diffused{{container category}}. Every article is thus in a "Education in [country]" subcat. So this is redundant to the lower-case version and also generally inappropriate to have in both subat and a diffused parent-cat. Further, some of the entries are not even countries. DMacks (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - redundant. Oculi (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No need for both, and the correctly capitalise one should be kept. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 3 March 2020 (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.
I withdraw my nomination - After further review, this should be covered by WP:C2D, and it has been added here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Current requests. --2pou (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)