Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 8 February 10 >

February 9[edit]

Category:Article Creation and Improvement Drive candidates[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) 03:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category has been marked as inactive since 2008. It may have been superseded by Category:Today's article for improvement nominations. Pages like Talk:Austria do not need to be in a category like this. DexDor (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2016 (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:Spotlighted[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. MER-C 11:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That an article was edited by members of Wikipedia:Spotlight (before it went defunct in 2010) is not something that needs to be categorized. If not deleted then the category should be renamed to something more meaningful. If a project (like this) wants to keep a list of pages they've edited then a list would be better as in the long term it's not likely to be an important characteristic of an article. DexDor (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-defining, much like being edited by GOCE; and even if this were to exist, it should not be called "Spotlighted" since this isn't content categorization, this is project categorization. I don't see why Spotlight or GOCE should ever categorize articles they've edited. They can store such in a list page in projectspace, or whatlinkshere from their banner -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support agree with reasoning of nom. SJK (talk) 09:57, 10 February 2016 (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:Vice-Chancellors[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. W.r.t. the question of whether any colleges have vice-chancellors: yes, many U.S. colleges have vice-chancellors. (A simple google search is evidence of that. It's always a good idea to do a google search before commenting just in case it easily answers your questions or refutes the points you were going to make.) If users want to propose merging these categories to a general university administrator category, that could be done in a new nomination: there was no consensus for it here, but it wasn't really the focus of the discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Vice-Chancellor is a rather generic office title, not restricted to universities and colleges (see for example Vice-Chancellor of Germany). Here, it is however used as such. Also per consistency with Category:University and college chancellors.
Note that Category:Vice-Chancellors by university should be sufficiently clear. I'm open for good proposals, though. --PanchoS (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Would be clearer. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – term "chancellor" has too many distinct meanings (despite the etymological connection of them all) – Chancellors of the Exchequer and Lord Chancellors in the UK, Chancellors of Germany, university chancellors – that any category include this term has to include some disambiguator to indicate which sense is meant. The same logic applies to Vice-Chancellor of course, and other related terms (e.g. Deputy Chancellor, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, etc.). SJK (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Much clearer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Academic administrators. I see no reason to have a sub-topic for an unclear, ambiguous term that varies by locale. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 19:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. In most countries in which the term "vice-chancellor" is used in a higher education context, it means the CEO of a university (or other institution of higher education). (By contrast, the "Chancellor" is generally equivalent to the chairman of the board of directors, which is senior to the CEO but unlike the CEO not directly involved in the day-to-day running of the institution.) Merging that with category "academic administrators" is like merging "CEOs" into "executives". One is a subcat of the other, but the role of chief executive is significant and notable enough it should be kept as a separate category. SJK (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – much clearer. This is a large subcat (strangely disorganised) if one delves into it. Oculi (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. For clarity (although do any colleges have VCs? In Britain it's just universities, so possibly should just be Category:University vice-chancellors). As stated, a VC is more than just an academic administrator. That just refers to anyone who works in university administration. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Academic administrators category. It is better to have inprecise than overly specific categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but the target should be Category:University vice-chancellors, unless some one can provide evidence that colleges have vice-chancellors. I oppose "administrators". The role is certainly administrative, but it is commonly held by a professor, who having led a university department has been promoted to dean of a faculty or school and then vice-chancellor, the academic head of the university. I suspect that the head of a college will nor ally be a "Principal". Bringing the two together should be left for the next level up, which might be "academic heads of universities and colleges", a container only category. In UK, the right to use the name "university" is restricted. Any one can set up a college, possibly even a university college. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2016 (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:Chancellors 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. W.r.t. Peterkingiron's final point, many U.S. colleges have chancellors. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Chancellor is a rather generic office title, not restricted to universities and colleges (see for example Chancellor of Germany). Here, it is however used as such. Also per parent Category:University and college chancellors.
Note that Category:Chancellors by university should be sufficiently clear. I'm open for good proposals, though. --PanchoS (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2016 (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:Android fiction[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. MER-C 11:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:Android fiction to Category:Android (robot) fiction
Category:Android comics to Category:Android (robot) comics
Category:Android films to Category:Android (robot) films
Rationalle: due to the ambiguation of the word Android - see, for example, that Android is a disambiguation page; the parent category is called Android (robot); and the recent CfD discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:38, 9 February 2016 (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:Functionaries of the Stalinist regime in Poland[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:Ministry of Public Security (Poland) officials and purge. – Fayenatic London 22:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This name is blatantly POV. "Stalinist" is a pejorative term which should be avoided, either by simply stating the period under consideration (1939-89), or by using the more neutral term "communist".
AFAIK, the term "functionary" is never used in category names used for officials in countries outside the Soviet bloc, and should be replaced with a more neutral word such as "officials".
Note previous discussion in 2009 which chose the current title. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative rename to Category:Officials of Ministry of Public Security (Poland), overruling my previous vote, as this is a much more focused hence better proposal. I've removed the two articles from the category already because they don't even belong in the category as it currently is named. If the discussion is closed in favour of the alternative rename, the two subcategories need still to be removed from the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both these minor adjustments are perfectly okay with me. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this is too problematic a category to be savable. Just let people start over from less POV-pushing bases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_9&oldid=1074816452"