Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 19



Category:Indian subcontinent Wikipedians

 * 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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: Single-user category added by a userbox stating This user is proud to be from the Indian subcontinent !. This is not helpful to categorize, and the sole user is already in more specific location categories so a merge is not necessary. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting indian subcontinent wikipedians


 * Delete redundant with -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to South Asian. This offers a number of slightly different flags.  We might devise a new version of this for the one user in the present category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The sole member is already in Category:Indian Wikipedians, which is a subcat of Category:South Asian Wikipedians. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 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:Classical mystics
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 6%23Category:Classical mystics

Category:Black British criminals

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: This strikes me as odd. Notably, there is no corresponding Category:White British criminals (or any other racial classification of British criminals), nor do there appear to be categories for criminals by race for other countries. BD2412 T 16:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting black british criminals


 * Delete per WP:OCEGRS, trivial intersection between ethnicity and occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Being a criminal is not generally an occupation. Rathfelder (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is still a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Probably racist, because Black people have long been stereotypically associated with crime on both sides of the pond. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 07:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So it isnt a trivial intersection? Rathfelder (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Presumably all these should go too then, considering there aren't equivalent "white" categories for any of them? How is it racist to categorise criminals by ethnicity but not racist to categorise people in other "occupations" by ethnicity? And for those who say that being a criminal isn't strictly an occupation, neither is being LGBT or an activist! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not buying it. There are numerous other omitted possible intersections - Category:Jewish British activists‎ exists, but there is no Category:Jewish British criminals, despite it being trivially easy to find subjects who would fit in such a category. There appears to be no other country for which any ethnicity is distinguished in this way. For example, Category:Italian criminals, Category:Jamaican criminals, and Category:Thai criminals all relate to subject nationality, not ethnicity. This is a unique case of singling out an ethnicity within a nationality for disparate negative treatment. BD2412  T 17:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What you basically seem to be saying is that it's fine to categorise people by ethnicity as long as the categorisation is not a negative one. That seems to be highly POV. Personally I'd be quite happy to get rid of all these intersection categories by ethnicity and something else (except nationality), but if not (and I can't see it happening) then we should not sanitise per WP:CENSOR. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that we shouldn't be picking out one ethnic group, and only one, and categorizing them in a way that we don't categorize any others. I expect that the reason we do not do this is because there is a difference between being LGBT or an activist, and being "a criminal" which makes the latter a more trivial association for such categorization. BD2412  T 17:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The only difference I can see is that one is negative whereas the other two are not. As I said, Wikipedia is not censored. Facts are facts. If we categorise one "occupation" by ethnicity, then there is no reason not to do it for any other as long as the general categorisation exists. As I have also said, I don't personally really like any of the ethnic occupation categories, but that's beside the point. As to only one ethnic group being "picked out". Yes, as yet that's true, but there's no reason it couldn't be created. I would note that there is also no Category:Jewish British people in health professions‎‎, whereas there is a Category:Black British people in health professions‎‎. The same with Category:Jewish British artists‎ and Category:Black British artists‎. Should we therefore delete those too? Or are they not negative enough? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a Category:Jewish physicians, and a Category:Jewish artists, neither further broken down by country. However, so far as I can find, there is no other category in Wikipedia that racializes criminality. BD2412  T 17:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 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:Defunct drinking establishments in New York (state)

 * 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 as WP:SOFTDELETE, i.e. these may be re-created when there is sufficient content to make them useful. The target is now Category:Defunct drinking establishments in the United States. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layers with only one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Defunct drinking establishments in New York (state) to Category:Defunct drinking establishments
 * Propose merging Category:Defunct drinking establishments in New York City to Category:Defunct drinking establishments


 * Merge per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep; but possibly rename to Category:Former drinking establishments in New York City etc as "former" is wider than “defunct”. Needed as a parent for Defunct drinking establishments in Manhattan (to rename also?) which should be indirectly parented on a category for former buildings and structures in New York City, and also for defunct or former drinking establishments in the United States (which would also a be a parent for Category:Defunct drinking establishments in Oregon. This would also cover former bars and former taverns in the United States, and there will surely be some in states other than New York or Oregon! Hugo999 (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There will surely be some defunct drinking establishments other than in New York and Oregon, but it is less likely that there articles about them since this requires local expertise on a very narrow topic. For example the Oregon articles have largely been written by a single editor. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes but there will be enough to populate Category:Defunct drinking establishments in the United States now created (any in California?). And Category:Defunct drinking establishments in New York City is needed to link to defunct buildings and strictures in New York City. Hugo999 (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Defunct drinking establishments in the United States, and reparent the Oregon category underneath this -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As Hugo999 has newly created this US-based parent category, the undersized categories can be merged into it -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * (as nom) ok, agree with that too. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete both and reparent Manhattan directly under United States, until that category is much better populated. By the way, the LGBT category is also limited to New York and Oregon.   Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 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:Types of fire

 * 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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Types of fire to Category:Fires by type

Nominator's rationale: I have tried to work out if there may be a subtle difference between "types of fire" and "fires by type", but I'm not seeing the practical difference in the nature of the categorised articles. If these are kept unmerged, they will need clear statements of scope. Fences &amp;  Windows  21:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the intention was for Category:Types of fire to contain only articles, and Category:Fires by type to contain only subcategories. But that distinction has become muddled and should either be reinstated cleanly or merged, with no opinion which. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Resort per Pppery, divide the articles for specific kinds of fire (and not fire events) into "types of fire", and articles on fire events into "fires by type" and respective subcategories. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. I really see no convincing advantage to have two seperated categories. --Just N. (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment, I have reorganised the content of the two categories a bit, per some of the above comments. The question is if merging is still desirable. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Marcocapelle, thank you. I've added a description to each category of the intended scope. Then I think we can close this now w/o a merge. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 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:Mint 400 Records
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 but no consensus about Category:Mint 400 Records album covers which may be renominated in a fresh discussion (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: All of these categories don't have a mainspace article and the current draft for Mint 400 Records has been rejected several times for failing notability. There is no need for this category and its subcategories to exist. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting:
 * category
 * category
 * category
 * category
 * category
 * category
 * category
 * category
 * Keep Seems to be a useful category tree despite having no article. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 23:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep  - there is no requirement for articles to exist. Given the size of it is surprising that the label is not notable. Oculi (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, just because the record label is not notable for an article is not a reason to delete. There are multiple notable records for the label and categorizing albums by label is standard practice and is useful.-- Mvqr (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete only Category:Mint 400 Records album covers as there is no established scheme for album covers by record label. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 19:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep all except Category:Mint 400 Records album covers as they are valid groups of articles except for the album covers one, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.