Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 31

< December 30	January 1 >

December 31[edit]

Category:Patrol vessels of Republic of China[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: speedy delete all per author request. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Patrol vessels of Republic of China to Category:Patrol vessels of the Republic of China

Nominator's rationale: I wish I knew how BrownHairedGirl did her combined nominations. I don't know any way other than sending them all up one-by-one. I'm sorry. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge' as below. Debresser (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2010 (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:Active naval ships of Republic of China[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: speedy delete all per author request. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Active naval ships of Republic of China to Category:Active naval ships of the Republic of China

Nominator's rationale: These are going to need to be merged, as well. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge' as below. Debresser (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2010 (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:Naval ships of Republic of China[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: speedy delete all per author request. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Naval ships of Republic of China to Category:Naval ships of the Republic of China

Nominator's rationale: Sorry, ArcAngel, These are all duplicates that ought to be merged. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename I understand - I'm not trying to create extra work here, just trying to improve the project. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 21:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge' as below. Debresser (talk) 07:54, 1 January 2010 (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:Active ships of Republic of China[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: speedy delete all per author request. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Active ships of Republic of China to Category:Active ships of the Republic of China

Nominator's rationale: Same problem as the last one, duplicate of Active ships of the Republic of China. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Same rationale as before. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 21:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge' as below. Debresser (talk) 07:54, 1 January 2010 (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:Ships of Republic of China[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: Speedy deleted per creator request. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Ships of Republic of China to Category:Ships of the Republic of China

Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a duplicate of Category:Ships of the Republic of China. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I support this. I am trying to fix redlinked cats that seem useful, but apparently don't yet have enough experience/knowledge to know how to merge two similar ones together. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 21:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The redlinks could have been fixed where they appeared, but, at this point, I think only an admin can fix them, hence why I'm having to spam your User Talk page. Sorry. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, don't apologize. It's showing me what I am doing wrong in my cat work. Once I understand what (and how) I am doing wrong, then it can only help me in the long run. I'm not taking offense at all. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 21:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since these appear to be very small categories that you created today, I see no problem with you changing the categories included to the correct existing ones and then requesting deletion of the ones you created as the sole editor. That way they get closed and cleaned up with the least amount of fuss. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that's where my inexperience in cats is showing - I am not clear on how to do that as of yet. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 23:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add {{db-g7}} to the category page after you have moved the categories and articles to the correct category. Use an edit comment of something like correctly spelled categroy already exists. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This whole problem is the result of typos in the use of {{cathead active ships of}} and others in that family which then created the links to a bad category. Maybe we need to more strongly recommend against this happening in templates? I suspect those most editors will not understand where those red linked categories are coming from. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominators. These ships catheads are trouble indeed. I have dealt with a few successfully myself once. Successfuly being: deletingone a category at Cfd. Debresser (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query. Why is this not being merged with Category:Ships of Taiwan? Is there some all-purpose policy about when Republic of China is used? --Sussexonian (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2010 (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:Handy Manny[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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Eponymous category for the TV show Handy Manny. Contains only 3 articles, all of which are already sufficiently interlinked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. May be recreated in the future, if more articles are added, including notably the French version. Debresser (talk) 07:50, 1 January 2010 (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:ID Cards by Country[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: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ID Cards by Country to Category:National identity cards

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I found this uncategorised category and started to populate it, because there appeared to be no more specific category for state-issued identity cards. My proposed name may not be best, because the head article Identity document is rather wider in scope, but the terminology of National identity card (disambiguation) feels like a better fit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to more clearly describe the contents of the category. Alansohn (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Good idea. Debresser (talk) 07:50, 1 January 2010 (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:Emil Orlik[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: delete. Jafeluv (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS and WP:OC#SMALL. The category's introduction says that is for "articles related to the Prague-born painter, etcher, and lithographer Emil Orlík (1870-1932)", but there do not seem to be any such articles apart from Orlík himself and the Turandot Suite, where he had been expected to design the sets and costumes, but didn't. So the Turandot Suite doesn't really belong in this category.
The article Emil Orlík includes a gallery of images of Orlik's paintings, which might benefit from a category, but I think that's a separate issue to this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually the article Turandot Suite specifically states that Orlik did end up designing the cover for the published score of the suite, and an image of the cover designed by Orlik is also included as the main illustration for the article. Also Orlik is mentioned 7 times in the article. So I suspect it may be incorrect to say the article does not belong in the category. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clarification, but I'm not sure that it's appropriate that an article on a piece should be categorised by designer of the cover of the published version. Even if it is, we still have only two articles in the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right. I'm not opposed to deletion. There is a link to the Turandot Suite article on the Emil Orlik page. (I think I created the category by mistake, but did not know how to delete it.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2010 (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:Dialects of Portuguese in Spain[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: upmerge as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Dialects of Portuguese in Spain to Category:Portuguese dialects and Category:Languages of Spain

Nominator's rationale: Merge to both parents per WP:OC#SMALL as a small category with no chance of expansion. As far as I can see, there is only one dialect of the Portuguese language notable for being spoken in Spain. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nominator. Si, si. Debresser (talk) 07:48, 1 January 2010 (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:Created with Illustrator[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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I see no encyclopedic purpose in categorising images by the software tools used to create them. For most types of image, a wide choice of software may be used to achieve particular effects, and if we start categorising images in this we will logically create a huge set of categories which intersect with and divide the substantive categories.
If this category is kept (and i hope it won't be), then it should be renamed to something like "Images created using Adobe Illustrator", and given appropriate parent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. While this appears on the surface to be a good idea, I don't really see the value for using the category based tracking system to accomplish this. If the decision here is to delete, then we can look at similar categories like Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard and probably a few others. I have no problem flagging articles where the creation was assisted by these programs, but that should be a temporary review until the tag is removed and possibly bot removed if not reviewed in 30 days. I'll note that according to Category:Unreviewed new articles created via the Article Wizard there are 226 articles that have been waiting for a review for over three months. I'll also note that I have had to empty Category:Articles lacking sources (Erik9bot) which was deleted at CfD. This was suppose to be a bot produced category. It now appears that even after the category was deleted, editors are adding still manually adding this in. So much for bot tracking categories. I even found one where the category was removed and then re added undoing 'vandalism'. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. If kept, needs a rename to show what is being created. Debresser (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have just found Category:Created with Adobe Illustrator, and added it to this nomination. that category is populated by the Template {{Adobe Illustrator}}, so if the category is deleted the template should be modified to remove the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both the originally nominated category and the one added after. Knowing what software was used to create a file is generally not relevant information, since files saved into standard formats can be viewed/edited using various applications, and files saved in proprietary formats will probably a) be useless on-wiki, and b) have an extension that makes it clear what the format is. --RL0919 (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2010 (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:Committee on Capital Markets Regulation[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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The Committee on Capital Markets Regulation appears to be just one of the many hundreds (or maybe thousands) of lobby groups in Washington DC. Like many other such groups it has formal-sounding name, but it's a private organisation rather than a govt or congress-sponsored body. I am in no position to judge whether this is a particularly influential example of thsi sort of organisation, but it does seem to have signed up a lot of bug names from business and academia. However, that's what most such organisations try to do, and at this stage I don't think that membership of the Committee is a defining attribute of the academics and financiers in this category. In any case, they are already listed in the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category creator notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't define these people- the list is much more appropriate than the category. Add to it, another Washington lobby group that's named like it actually has an official function. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2010 (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:Bentley College alumni[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Bentley College alumni to Category:Bentley University alumni

Nominator's rationale: Merge.I created Category:Bentley University alumni without realising that this category already existed, but since the institution is at Bentley University I think that "Bentley University alumni" is a more appropriate name for the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support and remind the developers to lower BHG's error rate ;) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They say the controls are too sensitive for fine-tuning without some degree of trial-and-error. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom to reflect the correct college name. Even if Bentley College were an older name for the institution, this would be the correct solution as we treat alumni of merged and renamed colleges etc as alumni of their successor. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2010 (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.

Multichannel Marketing[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: delete both. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete both. Two single-article categories both containing only the one article Multichannel Marketing, which is a stub. No objection to re-creating one or other of these categories at some point in the future if there are sufficient articles to populate them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked into that article, expecting to see a recent creation. Instead I see an article that's been around for nearly seven years, and is still unreferenced. Delete these categories, both of which are not needed, and let me go see fi I can reference that article at all. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2010 (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:Victims of Estonian political repression[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: delete. Kbdank71 01:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Complete WP:POV and WP:SYNTH. None of the three (BLP) articles currently listed under the category have no sources whatsoever about being a "victim of Estonian political repression" - and claiming that those people were such victims is demeaning to all actual victims of political repressions.

I am almost obligated to say that both creator of the category, Offliner, and I were involved in a recent ArbCom case. Neither of us is covered by any remedies or enforcements. I am sure the case will be brought up in a discussion.

Sander Säde 08:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a category for people who have been victims of political repression in Estonia. It is in line with other similar categories. Mark Sirők, Dmitri Linter and Johan Bäckman have each been detained because of their political views and activities. There are probably more people that can be added later. Bäckman was arrested and expelled from Estonia because he accused the government of apartheid policies against the country's Russian-speaking minority. The Estonian secret police, Kaitsepolitsei specifically mentioned this as the reason for Bäckman's expulsion. This is interesting because according to International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, this fulfills the definition of a crime of apartheid. Section F, Article II: Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid. Offliner (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the comments below and after thinking this over, I now think that this category should not be added to the three articles mentioned (because the sources do not support inclusion explicitly enough), and since this means the category would become empty, I am switching my opinion to delete. Offliner (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please come up with a single source where it is claimed that Mark Sirők, Dmitri Linter and Johan Bäckman have been detained for their political views and not for stirring up trouble - i.e. Sirõk and Linter were arrested for organizing an demonstration (and paying to the people to participate), which became a looting and rioting. The court acquitted them of the charge, as they were not responsible for the demonstration's becoming a riot - and peaceful demonstrations obviously are not forbidden, even if the participants are paid. Sounds like they were repressed for their views alright...

As for Bäckman, I don't see such source - or reason - in his article, where is it? And he wasn't arrested like you claim - he was briefly detained, as he didn't have any travel documents (WP article doesn't mention that, I wonder why?) and then expelled. As far as I recall, the reason for not allowing him to Estonia were repeated invitations to use violence to overthrow Estonian government. Poor Bäckman, called for violence and all he got was couple of hours of sitting in a room until he was identified and sent back for Finland. If only all victims of political repressions were treated like that...

In conclusion, there are no sources claiming that those three were victims of political repressions, unless you include Bäckman's personal blog again. Accusations like these are very serious, inserting such categories unsourced is not acceptable. Such accusations would require highest quality sources, i.e. not blogs or newspaper articles, but articles in scientific journals, resolutions of court cases and such.

--Sander Säde 10:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Following this logic, Johan Bäckman should be also considered under Category:Victims of Finnish political repression. Generally, I do not understand these Russian-Estonian information wars. Peltimikko (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The dispute above illustrates rather well why I think that most of these categories are too subjective to be viable. Some states are crude enough to charge people with some form of thought crime, but in many cases like this the charges and arrests are mired in a dispute as to whether the state is prosecuting some form of ordinary criminality or using such charges as a cloak for political repression, or indeed criminalising the activities of political dissent. These shades of grey are highly POV, so it doesn't surprise me in the slightest to see a POV argument such as the one above, and the only reason I don't immediately say "strong delete as hopelessly vague and subjective" is that there are plenty of other examples of equally hopelessly vague and subjective "political repression" categories. That a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but many other such categories have been retained at CFD, so I dunno what to recommend here. I have no problem at all with an article on "political repression in foo", where the different POVs and nuances can be discussed and referenced, but since categories require a binary choice between inclusion or exclusion, they are a flawed tool for this sort of topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of the overall parent Category:Victims of political repression by country. Alansohn (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. Just be carefull to source all inclusions. Note also ;Category:Articles with unsourced categories and its templates. Debresser (talk) 07:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As there have been three days and no sources whatsoever have been added to the articles (Mark Sirők, Dmitri Linter, Johan Bäckman), I am going to be bold and just remove the category from them. We can keep the empty category, although it is unlikely to have articles, as Estonia is in top ten of most freedom indices. But you can never know... --Sander Säde 14:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category could be kept, but currently it's essentially empty. Two of the people who were included in the category were accused of organizing mass rioting and looting, but were not found guilty. The third, Bäckman, is known for his anti-Estonian views, disseminating Russian propaganda and general hostility towards the Estonian government, so why should the government tolerate him? Speaking of 'political repressions' is clearly an overkill, the three people mentioned could be included in the category only if some reliable sources stating that they were politically persecuted could be found. There might be a few people who have some potential to be included in the category - like Jaan Tõnisson, who in mid-1930s was removed from the post of editor-in-chief of Postimees because he was a political opponent of president Päts. But again, it would need to be properly sourced as 'political persecution' is a pretty harsh term. K731 (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about pre-WWII political repressions, there might be some who fit to the category, such as members of the proto-fascist Vaps Movement. --Sander Säde 16:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is inapproarite for Sander Säde to empty the category while it is being discussed. The now-banned User:Digwuren previously used this as a tactic in CfDs to argue for deletion. [1][2]. However I agree with Sander Säde that sources which more explicity support inclusion would not hurt. Also agree that members of the Vaps Movement should be included to the category as well. Offliner (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not empty the category - I removed only the articles where categorization was not supported by any sources. That it meant the category became empty is a different matter - and as you can see above, I explained before removing the categories from the articles. As all three articles were BLP's, it is vital to have very solid sources before using such charged categories. --Sander Säde 18:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of our CfD policy did you not understand? Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision. Since you were a member of the WP:EEML, you should be especially careful not to cause any more disruption. Offliner (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but WP:BLP overrides any other policy unless specifically mentioned - and it has a separate section about categorization. Removing a politically charged and unsourced category from an article doesn't hurt anyone. Seeing your biography under derogatory category can result in court action against Wikipedia, not to mention other negative media portrayal. --Sander Säde 18:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the BLP violation, since each of these persons was arrested because of their political views and criticism of the Estonian gov, as is clearly demonstrated in the articles. Take any concerns you have to the BLP board - there probably aren't many who will agree with you. Your actions here are nothing but pure disruption, and should probably be reported to WP:AE soon if this continues. Offliner (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, you still haven't grasped that Bäckman has not been arrested at all. And as for your "clearly demonstrated", I cannot see such thing in the articles. Two of the guys were arrested and tried in court for suspicion of organizing riots. Is organizing riots legal where you live? In any case, like it has been said repeatedly, they were acquitted of the charges. And Bäckman tried to enter without identification documents to the country whose government he had been inviting to overthrow using violence... and he was detained for couple of hours and sent back to Finland. Now, let's say you repeatedly and publicly call for overthrowing US government or bombing Obama - would you be surprised if you are not allowed to visit USA? How exactly was Bäckman "victimized"? --Sander Säde 18:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pr WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and violation of WP:NPOV. Either those 3 people are victims of anything is open to interpretations. The Kremlin may say they are victims, whom else does? By keeping this category and those people in there wikipedia is going to endorse a pro Kremlin and Russian nationalist POV.--Termer (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is only disruptive POV-pushing. Närking (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the removal of articles from categories. Per WP:BLPCAT, I will always support the removal of BLP articles from categories which are not supported by references. However, doing so whilst a CFD discussion is underway has a major impact on the discussion, so any such removal should be clearly notified at the CFD, listing the articles removed and explaining the reason. Editors discussing the fate of a category need to know why it has suddenly been emptied, because without that information they cannot reach a meaningful decision. Unless the decategorised articles are listed at the discussion, the removal appears sneaky, even when the removal has been done in good faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notified here before removing the categories and articles are linked in the discussion. I will amend my original notification with the articles to clarify it. --Sander Säde 11:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of these "victims of political repressions" categories are POV and should be deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this purported political oppression in Estonia is enough to warrant its own category. Triplestop x3 02:48, 6 January 2010 (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:Americans of Taiwanese descent[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: Reverse merge. There is a clear consensus to merge and no compelling reasons to keep both were offered. As to the direction. It was pointed out that the American categories seem to be an exception for naming. So I decided to look at Category:People of Taiwanese descent a parent for both of the targets above. There it is clear that the format is Category:Foos of Taiwanese descent. I'll note the comments by Hmains for why we have this difference, but I'll also note that that objection was not significantly raised in this discussion, so maybe consensus is changing. While Category:American people by ethnic or national origin shows most using the later form, there is a mix there. One final comment, Category:Americans of Taiwanese descent has a large number of entries while Category:Taiwanese Americans is barely used. So that indicates what editors are actually using. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Americans of Taiwanese descent to Category:Taiwanese Americans

Nominator's rationale: There may be some distinction between the two of these, but they have the same main article, and I do not see any other "Xian-American" and "Americans of X descent" categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep We have a lot more of these double categories, and they are in distinct category trees. And the simple reason is because they are not the same thing. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If a merger is to take place it should be a reverse merge. A lot of work was done on sorting out these dual nationality categories some time back, but possibly excluding American ones as too difficult. The problem is that a Taiwanese American could also be a Taiwanese of American descent. No view on the merits of merger. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge. Preferable to use naming that is more understandable to all Mayumashu (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as-is. Not the same. There being only one article (right now) isn't an issue; even if the article confused the two, that would simply be an argument for improving the article. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 07:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom. Both have the same main article, and the same important same parent categories. There is no separate category tree here. The naming convention found in the chief parent Category:American people by ethnic or national origin is that of Category:Taiwanese Americans, the POV pushing of trying to make American articles conform to the articles of other countries, notwithstanding before and not withstanding now. Not one editor has expained the difference supposedly provided by the two categories. Hmains (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as these categories are part of differing structures capturing different characteristics. Alansohn (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What different structures? What characteristics? Hmains (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge. Jeez, this is overcategorization to have both. Choose one or the other format for the U.S. ethnicities and use it. The reason that there is confusion is that every nationality uses the "FOOian people of GOOian descent" except the U.S., which uses "FOOian Americans". This can be confusing to users. It would be nice if everyone would just use the former, but since there is a strong movement to keep the U.S. somehow distinct in this, merge per nom. To have both and claim that they are different is just slicing the demography too thinly and too subjectively. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being of FOOian descent is not the same as being born there (or even carrying a double nationality). Debresser (talk) 07:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but no such distinction is made in fooian American categories which state in their purpose that they contain both groups and do contain both groups. This relects the facts on how the terms are used in the US. Hmains (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly right. Sure, it's possible to come up with a difference between the two, but these categories have never tried to distinguish between the situations, and I don't think attempting to do so is a good idea—not for this ethnicity, and not for all of them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there must be some way of using category redirects to avoid the need for two very similar category trees? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I suppose we could do this only if we can convince everyone that the categories refer to essentially the same thing. Assume we had both types of categories for all national ethnicities—imagine trying to find a source for determining if someone is a "Taiwanese American" or an "American of Taiwanese descent"! Hm, is this person a "German American" or an "American of German descent"? The question is laughable. Sources wouldn't really draw a distinction between the two, it would just depend on what style the writer prefers. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I stand by my vote above) -- All other nationalities were renamed to the form "Booian of Fooian descent", as the result of a lot of work by one editor, over several months a couple of nyears ago. He did not do this for American ones, probably becasue the task was too onerous. However the Americans should be renamed according to the same convention. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He tried, but unlike in the other discussions there was no consensus to change from the "FOOian Americans" . Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, in whatever direction attracts the most support amongst those who have a preference. Whatever the merits of either title, the two are too similar to exist side-by-side. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I couldn't really care less which way, but merge them. Having both is redundant; whatever distinctions there are between the two terms aren't well enough defined in the sources to distinguish the two. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom and to match its sibling categories in Category:American people by ethnic or national origin. I am still waiting for someone to tell me what is different category tree structure that keeps being bandied about. Where are they? And the 'fooian American' categories, articles, etc were not renamed to 'Americans of fooian descent' due to it being a lot of work; they were not renamed due to all the objections from WP editors that such a rename would fly in the face of widespead, if not universal, usage in the United States of 'fooian American' for both new immigrants and their descendents. Hmains (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2010 (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:Gin Wigmore images[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: Rename to Category:Gin Wigmore album covers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Gin Wigmore images to Category:Gin Wigmore album covers

Nominator's rationale: To more accurately describe the category's content. — ξ ^xplicit 07:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creater's opinion:I agree, I just (sort of) copied the model of Beyoncé Knowles. Adabow (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that Beyoncé Knowles category needs some clean up... will get on it now. — ξ ^xplicit 08:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per nominator and creator's agreement. Debresser (talk) 07:40, 1 January 2010 (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:Gian Lorenzo Bernini[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:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 11. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unless populated, only creates an extra level of categorization before Category:Works by Gian Lorenzo Bernini is reached. Either populate with non-works articles or delete. I'm not sure what it could be populated with, otherwise I would do it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The category works by Bernini just exist.User:Lucifero4
Weak keep per my argument in a previous discussion, that "I can not disagree with Good Ol’factory's argument, but it does make sense to keep a category for the author and another one for his works. Just for proper categorising." Debresser (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why though? What does the eponymous category contribute? Not every author or artist has an eponymous category—only where they are "necessary"—so why is deleting an unnecessary one a problem? It's not like it will create a hole in the category tree, because there are thousands of artists and authors who don't have them. ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this, but upmerge Category:Works by Gian Lorenzo Bernini, which is the level of categorisation that is unnecessary. I suppose that needs a fresh nomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll have to explain that one a bit more. There is a well-developed tree for "works by..." by author and artist, but no well-developed tree for eponymous categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:34, 4 January 2010 (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.

Colleges, schools, and departments by university[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:

Relisted at CfD 18/1/2010. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Colleges and schools by university to Category:Colleges, schools, and departments by university

Suggest merging most of Category:University and college departments to Category:Colleges, schools, and departments by university

Nominator's rationale: Merge I created the former category without realizing there was a category for the latter. I think the new category combining the two should be under the new name Category:Colleges, schools, and departments by university. (More general categories should be left in "University and college departments" though.) Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 03:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Sorry! I think this is mostly good, but not quite right. I have just been looking through these categories, and I find at least four types of academic entity in these categories: 1) Colleges, 2) Schools or faculties, 2a) Departments, 3) Laboratories, 3a) Research Institutes and Centres. I think a lot more consideration is needed of how to organise these. Here's my preliminary suggestions:

Colleges should be categorised separately to the rest, because colleges usually have non-academic functions (such as accommodation) in addition to their academic facilities
Schools, fcaulties and departments should be grouped together. Different universities take different approaches to structures, but in general the approach I am most familiar with is that a "department" is the lowest-level grouping of academics (e.g. "history", "medieval history", "archaeology" etc), whereas a "school" or "faculty" is a grouping of departments (my former university used to have departments of modern history, medieval history, and archaeology within a "school of history", which in turn was part of a "faculty of humanities" comprising history, social sciences etc). However, some universities seem to favour larger departments, which are more akin to the "schools" or faculties of other universities, and may only have a two-level structure. In other cases, most subjects may have a department while a few have a specialist school (possibly in a special building, maybe with special funding). Because of all these differences in structural design, it seems to me to be a bad idea to separate them
Research institutes and centres are specialist units within a university, or in some sort of semi-detached relationship to it. Few of them have any role in teaching undergraduates, but their status varies from research complete separation from the undergrad teaching to hybrid structures involving some staff also engaged elsewhere in undergrad teaching. I don't know structures in science so well, but it seems to me that laboratories are usually a similar entity to research institutes or centres in the humanities.

Anyway, that's just my first thoughts ... but I really think that this needs a lot of input from WikiProject Universities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Universities has now been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is a difficult one because different universities use terms such as "school" and "college" differently for different kinds of constituents. Speedy close and work on the contents individually. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2010 (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:Salad Bowl[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: RENAME to Category:Salad Bowl (game). postdlf (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Salad Bowl to Category:Salad Bowl (game)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. With only two articles, I'm not sure this is worth having, but if it does exist, it should be renamed for reasons of clarity to match the main article Salad Bowl (game). The potential confusion is with Salad bowl (cultural idea) (and I suppose salad bowls on your dinner table). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, then Rename per nominator to match the main article. However, I don't see much point in keeping a two-article category, so Delete without prejudice to re-creation if and when articles are written on the other 4 games. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as too small. Even the main article is a stub. Rename if kept. Debresser (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Keep - it may be small now but other articles may be listed as for other similar bowls, such as the stadium or other items.LanternLight (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is hardly a defining characteristic of a stadium that amongst the hundreds (or thousands?) of games played there over the years, it hosted one or more games of a short-lived and long-forgotten series. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe so in some instances, maybe not in others - regardless of what you think of that one possible example, the category may well grow.LanternLight (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And it may well not. Let's delete it and if you find anything else to put in it, you can let us know and it could be re-created. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be trivial to create articles on the other four games that were played- the 1950 Salad Bowl article was just at did you know last week, so it may even be an active project. I'm going to say keep it and rename, as part of the system seemingly used at Category:Defunct college football bowls, where when articles exist on individual playings are sub-catted, and those that only have overall articles are lumped together... but I don't really mind either way. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2010 (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:Composers from APM Music[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: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Composers categorized by a particular music licensing company that has made use of their compositions — I don't see how this can be seen as anything but "performer by performance" OCAT. Especially given that the company in question doesn't even have its own article (which is not to say that this would become keepable if it did.) Bearcat (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since we don't even have an article on APM Music, making this doubly useless. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2010 (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:Military history of Asia[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: speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. non-admin closure Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Asia as a combining 'cover-all' for military history is anomalous - Asia has many divisions - no one nation necessarily has had military contact with others in the same oversized category - it requires breaking down into subsets - southeast, southwest - to be a viable and practical category Satu Suro 02:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrwan by nom - it would appear MILHIST are going through some re-organisation which may or may not sort out their rubbish Satu Suro 03:28, 31 December 2009 (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:Biblical figures portrayed in Jesus Christ Superstar[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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Is being portrayed in a musical really a defining characteristic for Jesus, Saint Peter, and the like? Categories for every fictional appearance of figures such as these could get very, very long. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ABSOLUTE KEEP!!!! who would ever have heard of that Jesus bloke is it wasn't for Andrew Lloyd Webber???????? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you crazy, crazy brunette. I needed a good laugh tonight! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. These character were of course central to Jesus Christ Superstar, but however strongly anyone likes the musical, it is not central to the world's knowledge of Jesus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as incusion in a musical is not a defining characteristic of the individuals so featured. Alansohn (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too trivial to even listify. Debresser (talk) 07:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too late. Most of it is already a list anyway. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This is rather like a performance by performer category (which we would listify): not quite the same since it is about person portrayed, not actor portraying, but the issue is very similar. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess we could just put it that JC is not best known for being a pop-rock superstar. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tempted to keep, the musical is not just any musical, but is probably too trivial, the listing is already present at Jesus_Christ_Superstar#Principal_roles, and mention of Jesus_Christ_Superstar is appropriate in "Fictional portrayals" sections. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A musical catagory shouldn't be specific to one play/show. For example, there isn't a catagory for Hairspray... --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 16:18, 7 January 2010 (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:Arts disambiguation pages[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: delete as empty category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: -- Delete. Disambiguation pages do not need, and generally cannot be categorised. All dab pages are categorised in Category:Disambiguation pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and Speedy delete as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, similar to below. Seems suitable for maintenance purposes. The category is not empty. Why was the creator not notified, I would like to hear his rationale. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2010 (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:Performing arts disambiguation pages[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: delete as empty category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: -- Delete. Disambiguation pages do not need, and generally cannot be categorised. All dab pages are categorised in Category:Disambiguation pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and Speedy delete as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categorizing disambiguation pages sounds about as easy as herding cats of the four legged variety. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Seems suitable for maintenance purposes. I cannot see what the problem is. The category is not empty. Why was the creator not notified, I would like to hear his rationale. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Plenty of wikiprojects track disambiguation pages by applying their project banner to the talk page, which is fine. However mainspace categories are supposed to be for the benefit of readers, and this one is useless to readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - More confused than anything. "mainspace categories are supposed to be for the benefit of readers"? Is this a mainspace category? ~~I don't see it linked from mainspace?~~ Ah, it's linked from the dab pages in subcategories. Would it be OK if the categorisation were of & on the talk page of the disambiguation pages?
    The use of templates on talk pages for maintenance seems to me like using wiki-link categorisation without using categories, and the fact that some people do it doesn't seem like a good reason that a category shouldn't be used to track. This seems to be a perverse effort to make people categorise without explicitly using categories? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it's just that there is already a very effective mechanism for creating and monitoring maintenance categories, using wikiproject banners. Why create a parallel system? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't know. I'm trying to guess the intent of the creator. I see now that the creator was notified, but he deleted the notification. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2010 (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.