Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 6

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, List of people described as Stalinists already exists --Kbdank71 15:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Category based on a term which is widely considered as a political pejorative. The category is extremly difficult to demarcate in a NPOV way. Is it to be used for Stalin's contemporaries or those who (in difference to the general line of the international communist movement) reaffirmed Stalin's legacy after 1956? If used in its most ample definition (i.e. any person active in a communist party during the 1930s), the category becomes more or less redundant to :Category:Communists. Soman 20:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Listify and Append to article Stalinism, which defines the intent and extent of the term. Listification avoids overcategorization, a problem at Wikipedia. 12.73.198.82 01:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: No, listification doesn't solve the issue, since the main article Stalinism does not provide any clear definition. Rather the article discussed the different ways the term is currently used. --Soman 09:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for the reasons cited by Soman. Most common understanding of what it means, I feel, would be supporters of the world communist movement, in contradistinction to Trotskyists. The term is clearly pejorative and to a large extent inaccurate in this use. Palmiro | Talk 14:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What is needed is an intro. — Instantnood 15:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC) (If the result is to delete, it should be listified. — Instantnood 18:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC))
• Comment: Good luck trying to produce a NPOV intro. The term 'Stalinist' is bound to cause confusion as a category as a) its mainly used as a pejorative, b) 'Stalinism' isn't (which is explained in the main article) a clearly defined ideological tendency, c) all communists and communist parties were (in the broad definition) stalinist up to 1956 after which the great majority denounced Stalin. So, who's a Stalinist? All people and groups that at some point followed the political doctrines formulated by stalin (thus the category becomes redundant to :Category:Communists) or should it be those who upheld Stalin's line ever after the majority of the communist movement denounced him? In the latter case, the category would be better named 'Anti-revionists' as it could cover the broader spectra of Maoists, Hoxnaites, etc. --Soman 19:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Interesting rational; the term is pejorative so let's just pretend it doesn't exist. nobs 22:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Most of all it should be deleted as there is no clear definition of the term 'Stalinist', but yes of course pejoratives are not well suited for categorization. I know the :Category:Fascists has similar problems. The difference in the case of Fascists is that there actually was an original group of people who claimed themselves to be fascists, whereas the term 'Stalinist' was never claimed by so-called Stalinists during the times of Stalin. --Soman 06:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Relevent & definitive. nobs 19:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and list. Inclusion is complicated (many were executed by Stalin; did they remains Stalinists?) and marred by potential accusations of POV; a list appended to Stalinism would help alleviate both those problems by citing some clear exemplars and explaining their inclusion. siafu 22:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No clear definition. Has been used as a pejorative, even today Chip Berlet. -Willmcw 19:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. Martin 23:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Should be self-explanatory rely, it only have one subcat and the target category has the more "standard" name. --Sherool 15:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. siafu 22:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Honbicot 23:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. Martin 23:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggest merge into parent category as subcategory is underpopulated (2 articles) and exhibits overcategorization. As a York alumnus, to me it seems inappropriate for one college to have its own separate subcategory. Both existing subcategory members logically belong in the parent category. AJP 10:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. siafu 22:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. Martin 12:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge with :Category:Wikipedia image help. -- Beland 09:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as non-sense. «»Who?¿?^meta 03:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Non sensical category added by anon AOL IP who is creating blank articles and placing them in the cat. — ceejayoz ^talk 24px 03:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 15:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Those categories are very close and articles are often in several (or should be). Unless somebody can clearly explain the difference between them (and verify that all articles are where they should be) I'd strongly suggest a merger. Also, they should all be subcategories of :Category:Library and information science. I am not sure which of those three names should remain as mergeto, and how to use {{tl|cfm}} in this case, so I hope somebody more experienced with cfd can putt the appopriate merge templates in the right places. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

:Keep all three. From a library science point of view, these topics are not the same at all. A bibliography is a list that identifies which sources were used to prepare a work. The relevant issues are identifying source materials so that other people can find them in a library. A reference is any work used to look up specialized information. References includes encyclopedias, atlases, catalogs, almanacs, etc. The relevant issue here is that the source called a reference must have an organized collection of specialized information. A style guide includes any information useful for writing, including grammar books, usage dictionaries, and the like. In summary, a bibliography is concerned with identifying the source of particular information used; a reference is a collection of useful information; and a style guide is an assist for writers. The categories are all very different animals, and of the three I'm not sure I'd include any of them only within library science, though they could be listed there as well as elsewhere. -- EncycloPetey 15:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

:Keep all three in agreement with User:EncycloPetey. Courtland 23:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I could understand it if type was like 'photo', 'drawing', 'painting', but currently it seems lik a random lottery is responsible for assigning images to each of those categories. Even if I am simply wrong, I'd ask for somebody to clearly explain here and on those category pages what are they for and the relation between those two. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Favour merge, or clarification of difference between the two and recategorisation of images as appropriate. -- DMS 09:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. Martin 11:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

One last move for now; reasons as described below. The Tom 02:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

:Favour move. Bearcat 10:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Move for consistency. Please consider the same for :Category:Canadian Wikipedians, below. --Trovatore 19:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. Martin 11:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• and also :Category:Canadian Governors General to :Category:Governors General of Canada

Two main reasons for this move, the first being (repeat-after-me) the convention in use over in :Category:Political office-holders. Second being the fact that the majority of them weren't Canadian by nationality, they were British; the offices are associated with the country of Canada in the territorial sense, the office-holders, however, needn't have been "Canadians" The Tom 01:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

:Favour the proposed moves, per convention. My only note is that the categories were created long before a clear convention was established for categories of this type, so the parenthetical repeat-after-me comes across as more of a sarcastic dig than is really warranted. Bearcat 10:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

:*Apologies for giving that impression. It was actually a sarcastic dig at myself for being so repetitive. The Tom 20:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Move for consistency --Trovatore 19:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• move for consisancy but why isnt the convention Viceroys of Canada when its Governor generals of? BL kiss the lizard 02:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

:*Because in the context of political office-holders, "of" connotes they exercise power of the entire jurisdiction after the "of". Thus, the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario is a Viceroy, and is found within the political apparatus of the state called Canada, but he does not exercise viceroy-type powers over the entirety of the state called Canada. The Tom 20:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. Martin 11:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Move per naming conventions in use in :Category:Legislators (and its ultimate parent, :Category:Political office-holders). The Tom 01:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

:Favour move. Bearcat 10:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Move for consistency. --Trovatore 19:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Martin 09:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Straightforward merge: the latter category is more precise (the former could include non-federal office-holders) and in keeping with naming conventions in use throughout subcats of :Category:Political office-holders. The Tom 01:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

:Favour move. Bearcat 10:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Move for consistency --Trovatore 19:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Our article at Cabinet of Canada states that All members of the Ministry are also currently members of Cabinet, but this is not always the case. I suggest instead renaming :Category:Ministry of Canada, a term which seems accurate, see The Ministry. Hiding talk 10:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

:*As the author of both that line of text and the article The Ministry, I appreciate the fact its actually shaping ongoing discussion. In this case the category's contents do match "Cabinet of Canada." The Ministry/Cabinet distinction is interesting as a quirk of constitutional law, but in terms of usage outside a postgraduate classroom, I don't think it intrudes here. If the secretaries of state from the Chretien ministry were in this category, or if we had a fun wonky situation like they have in New Zealand at present with the whole government/opposition/collective-responsibility paradigm messily exploding, there might be a case for such an argument The Tom 20:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

::*I still find that the point that All members of the Ministry are also currently members of Cabinet, but this is not always the case. is not addressed. In the United Kingdom the cabinet is not made up of every minister. It appears this could be the case in Canada, and therefore this categorisation would be imprecise, whilst currently correct, if you get my point. Hiding talk 16:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose per Hiding. Keep the two categories and interlink them. — Instantnood 15:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Martin 09:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Empty. Joan sense nick 00:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Empty pending cfd. siafu 23:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Martin 09:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Empty and irrelevant. Joan sense nick 00:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete empty (pending CfD on single entrant), though not really "irrelevant". siafu 23:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.