Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 08:10, 29 May 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< January 26 January 28 >

January 27

[edit]

Category:French Community

[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. @Marcocapelle: as nominator, please ensure that headnotes are in place on relevant categories. – Fayenatic London 12:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category tree only contains an eponymous article. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
French Community versus French Community of Belgium. While irrelevant to the category issue, I'd say it is as it is technically the legal framework for the nation and its (former) colonies. It's just sparse. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:37, 29 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]
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

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 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]
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

[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/merge as nominated and discussed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:

  1. Move Category:Spanish colonial fortifications in Chile to Category:Colonial fortifications in Chile because "Spanish" is redundant as there are no other colonial fortifications in Chilean territory. This change would bring the category closer to the key page Colonial Chile (which does not include "Spanish" in the title).
  2. Move Category:Spanish Colonial architecture in Chile to Category:Colonial architecture in Chile due to the same reasons as above (plus the fact the it is wrongly capitalized).
  3. Delete Category:Forts in Chile as it is being emptied and replaced by Category:Fortifications in Chile and its subcategories. Category:Fortifications in Chile is a better category since it is wider and makes room for other fortifications such as palisades, walls and bunkers (e.g. those near Concepción or those in Navarino Island). Dentren | Talk 19:40, 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:Drugs in Mauritius

[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: keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category has only two articles in it, and I find it unlikely that more will be added soon. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:30, 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:The Young Turks (talk show)

[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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is The Young Turks. No other article on Young Turks (disambiguation) has "the" in the title. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:43, 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:Roman Catholic heads of government

[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) 01:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't usually categorize people according to religion, and it doesn't seem relevant here. What makes a Catholic leader more notable than a Muslim, Protestant, or Atheist leader? Also not all but a couple of this category's articles are from either Catholic or Christian majority nations, so being a Catholic head of state clearly isn't notable. Per WP:NARROWCAT and WP:NONDEFINING (see Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality). Inter&anthro (talk) 04:05, 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:Dworcowa street in Bydgoszcz

[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) 01:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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

[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:Buildings and structures on Gdańska Street, Bydgoszcz. (As a cross-reference, see also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 17#Category:Buildings and structures in Western Australia by road & all subcategories, which ended with no consensus.) – Fayenatic London 12:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  • Delete there can be examples, like with Category:Las Vegas Strip, where the street is really a business district or neighborhood and that location can be defining. But, grouping buildings by mailing address seems unhelpful to aid navigation from a internet perspective. (Obviously it aids navigation if you're doing a walking tour.) This is similar to grouping towns by postal codes, which we deleted per WP:TRIVIALCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:15, 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]
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_January_27&oldid=1090392193"