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]

• Propose deleting Category:Article Creation and Improvement Drive candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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 It may have been superseded by Category:Today's article for improvement nominations.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]

• Delete Admin categories need to server a current purpose. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi. User who created the category here. I don't particularly care either way whether this category is deleted. If it is deleted, however, I'd like to point out that the the template which is populating the category ought to be deleted as well. In fact, CfD policy suggests it ought to have been nominated first—«It is our general policy to delete categories that do not have articles in them.» Cheers. --Iamunknown 23:28, 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.

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]

• Propose deleting Category:Spotlighted (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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.

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

• Category:Vice-Chancellors to Category:University and college vice-chancellors
• Category:Vice-Chancellors by country‎ to Category:University and college vice-chancellors by country

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.

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]

• Propose renaming Category:Chancellors by country to Category:University and college chancellors by country

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]

• Support (same logic as I gave for Category:Vice-Chancellors) SJK (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Much clearer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. For clarity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename since chancellor by itself is ambiguous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• REname but to Category:Univerity chancellors by country. In UK this is a largely titular or honorific post. I do not think any colleges would have a chancellor. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 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.

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]

• Speedy Per WP:C2D, facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name, and Android (robot). RevelationDirect (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 17 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.

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]

• Propose renaming Category:Functionaries of the Stalinist regime in Poland to Category:Something which at least tries to be NPOV

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]

• Comment. The relevant article portion for this time frame appears to be History_of_Poland_(1945–89)#Stalinist era (1948–56). The Stalinist regime in Poland essentially was from the war to 1952 (or possibly 1956), not 1989. In 1952 the new constitution named the state the Polish People's Republic and a period of de-Stalinization ensued, and by 1956 the Stalinist era was over. "Stalinist" does seem to be appropriately used here—more so than in many other contexts where the word is tossed around—since it refers here to the time frame when the country was heavily influenced by and in many cases directly controlled by the Soviet Union, which was led by Stalin at the time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply @Good Ol’factory: there is certainly a very good argument to be made for the notion that the "Stalinist" label is well-founded. But we don't have a Category:Functionaries of the New Deal Era in the USA, or Category:Functionaries of the Thatcherite era in the UK, or Category:Functionaries of the Zionist regime in Israel. A sound and well-sourced historical argument could be made for each of those three, but we rightly don't use the category system to apply such political judgemental labels.
    In this case there is the simple, neutral alternative of a date-range, which GO helpfully corrects me on: it's 1948–56, not 1939–89. The date range is even more precise, and it avoids any political judgement or pejorative labelling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
    • I would be happy for it to just be merged with Category:Polish communists, as discussed below. I wasn't opposing a change, just generally making an observation that "Stalinist" here probably wasn't as POV as it usually is when it is used.Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment most members that were in this category are also in one or both of the child categories so I purged them from the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Polish communists seems like the best target. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove in Some Fashion Marcocapelle's suggestion to move it to Category:Polish communists is the best suggestion so far but I'm open to other proposals. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• REname to Category:Officials of Ministry of Public Security (Poland) and purge. The two subcats do not belong. One of the people was killed by the Gestapo in 1944 another was a writer who moved to USSR. I very much doubt that the death of Stalin made much difference to the behaviour of the secret police, so that a time-limited category is inappropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 18 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]

• Works for me. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine with me also. But I think we need a "the" in there: Category:Officials of the Ministry of Public Security (Poland). Or the "the" issue/debate can be avoided altogether by using the format Category:Ministry of Public Security (Poland) officials. (Since I think the Polish language has no equivalent of "the", I can see how the issue could be debated.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:59, 25 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.