Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 31: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:07, 2 January 2010

< December 30	January 1 >

December 31

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]

Category:Patrol vessels of Republic of China

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]

Category:Active naval ships of Republic of China

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]

Category:Naval ships of Republic of China

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]

Category:Active ships of Republic of China

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

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

Category:Handy Manny - Template:Lc1

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]

Category:ID Cards by Country

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]

Category:Emil Orlik

Category:Emil Orlik - Template:Lc1

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]

Category:Dialects of Portuguese in Spain

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]

Category:Created with Illustrator

Category:Created with Illustrator - Template:Lc1

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]

added later: Category:Created with Adobe Illustrator - Template:Lc1 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 1 January 2010 (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]

Category:Committee on Capital Markets Regulation

Category:Committee on Capital Markets Regulation - Template:Lc1

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]

Category:Bentley College alumni

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]

Multichannel Marketing

Category:Multichannel marketing - Template:Lc1

Category:Cross channel marketing - Template:Lc1

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]

Category:Victims of Estonian political repression

Category:Victims of Estonian political repression - Template:Lc1

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]

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, 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]

Category:Americans of Taiwanese descent

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 decent 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]

Category:Gin Wigmore images

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]

Category:Gian Lorenzo Bernini

Category:Gian Lorenzo Bernini - Template:Lc1

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]

Colleges, schools, and departments by university

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]

Category:Salad Bowl

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]

Category:Composers from APM Music

Category:Composers from APM Music - Template:Lc1

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]

Category:Military history of Asia

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]

~~:Category:Military history of Asia - Template:Lc1~~

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

Category:Biblical figures portrayed in Jesus Christ Superstar - Template:Lc1

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]

Category:Arts disambiguation pages

Category:Arts disambiguation pages - Template:Lc1

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]

Category:Performing arts disambiguation pages

Category:Performing arts disambiguation pages - Template:Lc1

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]

@@ Line 128: / Line 128: @@
 :::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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_17#Category:Allied_occupation_of_Europe][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_31#Category:Allied_occupation_of_Europe]. 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. [[User:Offliner|Offliner]] ([[User talk:Offliner|talk]]) 17:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 ::::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. --[[User:Sander_S%C3%A4de|<span style="font-family:Courier; color:#777;text-shadow: 0.2em 0.1em 0.1em grey;">Sander&nbsp;Säde</span>]] 18:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
+:::::Which part of our [[Wikipedia:Cfd|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. [[User:Offliner|Offliner]] ([[User talk:Offliner|talk]]) 18:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 ==== Category:Americans of Taiwanese descent ====