This category is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
Came to ask the same thing. Valereee (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer and Valereee: Sincerely, I didn't think it was necessary to be "race-specific," and I believe that by doing so, I somewhat increased the category's perceived neutrality. I apologize if I'm mistaken; I assumed it wouldn't be a big concern. I'll work hard to undo as many of the edits as I can if they're rejected. Next time, before making such replacements, I'll seek community approval. DancingDollar(let's talk) 17:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @Dancing Dollar, thanks for responding. To me, this is a useful category for readers and researchers. Valereee (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dancing Dollar, sure! Suppose a high school English student decides to write a research paper on the depictions of Black people in art. The category is helpful for them finding all articles (and multiple images) for that. Valereee (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This category is the topic of many published books and exhibit catalogs: [1][2][3][4][5][6] etc. It is highly encyclopedic and should not have been attacked in this way. All such changes should be reverted. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no valid reason for this. A mass de-categorisation of this nature would require some discussion, to say the least. Please feel free to revert all of these changes. @Dancing Dollar:: if you sincerely believe this category should not exist, the proper way to go about it is to nominate it for deletion. Just removing articles unexpectedly (especially in a potentially controversial area such as race) is likely to be seen as disruptive by many editors. Cnbrb (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re "Please feel free to revert all of these changes": I feel more strongly. If I had a mass-revert tool already installed, I would have already used it. If Dancing Dollar does not very quickly start reverting all of these changes, a block may be in order. This is the kind of editing that can lead to a storm of bad publicity for the entire Wikipedia project. It needs to be nipped in the bud, fast and hard. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did have a look at AWB but couldn't figure out how to mass-revert the 200-odd recategorisations, and don't want to cock it up and cause even more trouble. I'm assuming WP:GOODFAITH here and inviting the user to self-revert. If you are more confident with AWB, feel free to assist. Cnbrb (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: it looks like the user is now self-reverting in response to the discussion. No major damage done, lessons learned, we can all move on. Cnbrb (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said elsewhere: Just for future reference, if you don't like a category for some reason, put it up at WP:CFD for deletion, merging, renaming or just discussion. Don't just empty it out of process. Dancing Dollar, to be polite, it seems your judgement on such matters may not always align with that of the community, so this is all the more important with you. Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
