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 alternative proposal? Yes, it is the deletion anyways. The issue is the French colonial empire according to its article ended in 1980 while this entity ended in 1995. --
Ricky81682 (
talk)
18:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge/redirect to "French colonial empire" categories. The change of name and the gradual attainment of independence by members no doubt means that that term became obsolete, but that can be dealt with in a headnote.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Agree that the one article here should remain in French colonial empire categories, I've taken care of that so actually it's merged already now. The only question left is keep or delete.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. Too broad—why would be want to categorize establishments/disestablishments by such a grouping? Things will be categorized for occuring in France, or in one of the other specific colonies/countries, not in the community as a whole. Right now the categories are only categorizing the establishment/disestablishment of itself.
Good Ol’factory(talk)06:31, 11 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:Notable IBM Research computer scientists
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.
Nominator's rationale: The word "notable" is redundant; biographies of non-notable people should not be created. To be honest I'm not sure about the rest of the name either: we categorise by nationality and occupation, but do we also categorise by employer and occupation? Other things that make this category unusual are: (i) it's placed inside itself, and has no true parent - but would ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Computer scientists be too far up the tree though? (ii) it has a references section - surely membership of a category should be self-evident?
Redrose64 (
talk)
20:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)reply
If we are going to start categorising professions by employer, maybe we need
Category:Computer scientists by employer. But I wonder, are we going to see many other categories like this? One might do the same thing for, say, Microsoft Research, Bell Labs, Xerox PARC, which are other places with many notable employees over the years. And, people's employers change over time, so I take it the category is notable people who ever worked there, not notable people who work there right now. Or do we just say, "Profession by employer" is something we don't do, and delete this?
SJK (
talk)
20:11, 30 January 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.
Various categories relating to colonial Chilean architecture and fortifications
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.
I am reorganizing a series of categories relating to colonial architecture in and fortifications in Chile. In this context I am proposing the following changes:
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:Drugs in Mauritius
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 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:The Young Turks (talk show)
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 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:Roman Catholic heads of government
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 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:Dworcowa street in Bydgoszcz
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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:OC#EPONYMOUS category for a street, serving only to contain its eponym and a single building located on it. The building can quite correctly be listed in the article on
Dworcowa Street in Bydgoszcz, but categories for every individual street that has a Wikipedia article is a recipe for category bloat. Delete.
Bearcat (
talk)
02:39, 27 January 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:Gdanska street in Bydgoszcz
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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:OC#EPONYMOUS category for a street, serving to categorize almost every individual building on that street that has a Wikipedia article — but also containing a couple of things which are actually other streets that merely happen to intersect it. The buildings could properly be listed in the article on
Gdańska Street, Bydgoszcz, but having an eponymous category for every individual street that happens to have an article and some things on it that have articles is a recipe for extreme category bloat. Delete.
Bearcat (
talk)
02:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Wikipedia uses the internet as a medium, but isn't focussed on Internet-affine global citizens or such. It is also for the people living in or visiting
Bydgoszcz and taking a walk through Gdanska street with the Wikipedia app open on their smartphone. This is a nice example of an almost fully covered street. One day we will have more of these, and yes, we will then also have more authors to help enforcing our quality standards. --
PanchoS (
talk)
23:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Hmmm, maybe I'm limiting what readers can get from Wikipedia. I think travel/walking tours would be better facilitated with a list article where the order and pictures of the buildings can be included though.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
11:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Fully agree that this case is surprising. On the other hand there may be more cities that don't have a main street category yet but could have one. And we can't oppose this to happen for Bygdoszcz just because it isn't famous enough, can we?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)reply
It's not that
Gdańska Street, Bydgoszcz is unknown (although I wasn't familiar with it), my concern is that the article describes a standard high/main/market street that would obviously have some of the notable businesses and institutions of the city but they are not defined by the address and the grouping is not distinct from the rest of town. If this was an
auto row, ethnic enclave, theatre district, or some other grouping that made it a neighborhood distinct from the rest of Bydoszcz, I would be all for it.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
23:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm still in doubt whether the street is trivial to the buildings alongside it. For example in this case the article says: The southern part is the real "spinal column" of Bydgoszcz downtown and the most architecturally representative (...) Gdańska Street has got many buildings listed on the Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship Heritage list.Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment -- At present this has a large population. I do not know the place, but would question whether some of the articles on individual tenements may not need merging or even deleting. The fact that the street in the nom above this is a sub-cat looks odd. Can we find a robust definition of Bydgoszcz city centre? If so, perhaps both could be merged to it. However, as long as the category is so well populated, we ought to retain something.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I would agree with you here. Most of these articles have, I believe, been created by an enthusiastic native of the city whose aim seems to be to create an article on every vaguely interesting building in the place. Admirable as a local history project, but not necessarily on an international encyclopaedia. Many are not even listed as heritage buildings by the Polish government (which already lists many more buildings than, say, Britain, France or the USA). Some have been proposed for deletion in the past, without coming to any form of consensus. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
09:37, 19 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 alternative proposal? Yes, it is the deletion anyways. The issue is the French colonial empire according to its article ended in 1980 while this entity ended in 1995. --
Ricky81682 (
talk)
18:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge/redirect to "French colonial empire" categories. The change of name and the gradual attainment of independence by members no doubt means that that term became obsolete, but that can be dealt with in a headnote.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Agree that the one article here should remain in French colonial empire categories, I've taken care of that so actually it's merged already now. The only question left is keep or delete.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. Too broad—why would be want to categorize establishments/disestablishments by such a grouping? Things will be categorized for occuring in France, or in one of the other specific colonies/countries, not in the community as a whole. Right now the categories are only categorizing the establishment/disestablishment of itself.
Good Ol’factory(talk)06:31, 11 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:Notable IBM Research computer scientists
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.
Nominator's rationale: The word "notable" is redundant; biographies of non-notable people should not be created. To be honest I'm not sure about the rest of the name either: we categorise by nationality and occupation, but do we also categorise by employer and occupation? Other things that make this category unusual are: (i) it's placed inside itself, and has no true parent - but would ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Computer scientists be too far up the tree though? (ii) it has a references section - surely membership of a category should be self-evident?
Redrose64 (
talk)
20:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)reply
If we are going to start categorising professions by employer, maybe we need
Category:Computer scientists by employer. But I wonder, are we going to see many other categories like this? One might do the same thing for, say, Microsoft Research, Bell Labs, Xerox PARC, which are other places with many notable employees over the years. And, people's employers change over time, so I take it the category is notable people who ever worked there, not notable people who work there right now. Or do we just say, "Profession by employer" is something we don't do, and delete this?
SJK (
talk)
20:11, 30 January 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.
Various categories relating to colonial Chilean architecture and fortifications
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.
I am reorganizing a series of categories relating to colonial architecture in and fortifications in Chile. In this context I am proposing the following changes:
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:Drugs in Mauritius
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 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:The Young Turks (talk show)
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 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:Roman Catholic heads of government
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 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:Dworcowa street in Bydgoszcz
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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:OC#EPONYMOUS category for a street, serving only to contain its eponym and a single building located on it. The building can quite correctly be listed in the article on
Dworcowa Street in Bydgoszcz, but categories for every individual street that has a Wikipedia article is a recipe for category bloat. Delete.
Bearcat (
talk)
02:39, 27 January 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:Gdanska street in Bydgoszcz
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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:OC#EPONYMOUS category for a street, serving to categorize almost every individual building on that street that has a Wikipedia article — but also containing a couple of things which are actually other streets that merely happen to intersect it. The buildings could properly be listed in the article on
Gdańska Street, Bydgoszcz, but having an eponymous category for every individual street that happens to have an article and some things on it that have articles is a recipe for extreme category bloat. Delete.
Bearcat (
talk)
02:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Wikipedia uses the internet as a medium, but isn't focussed on Internet-affine global citizens or such. It is also for the people living in or visiting
Bydgoszcz and taking a walk through Gdanska street with the Wikipedia app open on their smartphone. This is a nice example of an almost fully covered street. One day we will have more of these, and yes, we will then also have more authors to help enforcing our quality standards. --
PanchoS (
talk)
23:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Hmmm, maybe I'm limiting what readers can get from Wikipedia. I think travel/walking tours would be better facilitated with a list article where the order and pictures of the buildings can be included though.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
11:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Fully agree that this case is surprising. On the other hand there may be more cities that don't have a main street category yet but could have one. And we can't oppose this to happen for Bygdoszcz just because it isn't famous enough, can we?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)reply
It's not that
Gdańska Street, Bydgoszcz is unknown (although I wasn't familiar with it), my concern is that the article describes a standard high/main/market street that would obviously have some of the notable businesses and institutions of the city but they are not defined by the address and the grouping is not distinct from the rest of town. If this was an
auto row, ethnic enclave, theatre district, or some other grouping that made it a neighborhood distinct from the rest of Bydoszcz, I would be all for it.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
23:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm still in doubt whether the street is trivial to the buildings alongside it. For example in this case the article says: The southern part is the real "spinal column" of Bydgoszcz downtown and the most architecturally representative (...) Gdańska Street has got many buildings listed on the Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship Heritage list.Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment -- At present this has a large population. I do not know the place, but would question whether some of the articles on individual tenements may not need merging or even deleting. The fact that the street in the nom above this is a sub-cat looks odd. Can we find a robust definition of Bydgoszcz city centre? If so, perhaps both could be merged to it. However, as long as the category is so well populated, we ought to retain something.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I would agree with you here. Most of these articles have, I believe, been created by an enthusiastic native of the city whose aim seems to be to create an article on every vaguely interesting building in the place. Admirable as a local history project, but not necessarily on an international encyclopaedia. Many are not even listed as heritage buildings by the Polish government (which already lists many more buildings than, say, Britain, France or the USA). Some have been proposed for deletion in the past, without coming to any form of consensus. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
09:37, 19 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.