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]

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

Nominator's rationale: This category tree only contains an eponymous article. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's underpopulated in reality. This is the nation of France and what its colonies/protectorates/whatever they called them were from 1958–1995. It's basically the same idea as and follows Category:French Union which has the exactly same structure but for 1946-1958 (Marcocapelle could add those too). It looks like we need to rename and move around the categories for Category:20th century in the French colonial empire, Category:20th-century establishments in the French colonial empire and Category:20th-century disestablishments in the French colonial empire to me although I lost on the French colonial empire article which states that the colonial empire ended in 1980 per this RFC. I think this needs to be done as an RFC on how to categories these. Alternative proposal: The result could be to delete the French Community/Union categories and to put the articles on their own into the French colonial empire structure on their own but keep all of now under further discussed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not against that by all means, but all establishments in specific former French colonies should be in Category:Establishments in the French colonial empire already (as subcategories per colony), leaving only very generic articles like French Community alone, so it seems like that there's not so much to discuss. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]

• I've added Category:20th-century disestablishments in the French colonial empire to the article, avoiding a discussion about 1980 versus 1995. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment is this topic actually the primary topic? This thing didn't exist long, and we have a prominent Belgian topic with the same name -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 08:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• How do you mean? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 28 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]

• O yes the article is notable beyond any doubt. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:21, 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]

• 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]
• Delete The French community is too loose a group to so categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 16 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Notable IBM Research computer scientists to Category:IBM Research computer scientists

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]

• Support. I think Category:Computer scientists is indeed too far up the tree. How about adding it to Category:IBM employees? SJK (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I could go with that - I didn't find it because it's not a subcat (at any level) of Category:Computer scientists --Redrose64 (talk) 11:34, 30 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]

• Support nom and suggested restructure. NN computer scientists will not have articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:47, 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.

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]

• Support all three per nom, assuming the third one implies merging to Category:Fortifications in Chile rather than deleting. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Marcocapelle, your assumption is correct. Also, if you are interested in the topic you can check out the article Coastal fortifications of colonial Chile. Dentren | ^Talk 16:28, 5 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: keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Drugs in Mauritius (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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]

• Keep per WP:SMALLCAT. Part of large sub-categorization scheme, Category:Drugs by country. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm in full agreement with Armbrust. Pichpich (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Valid part of an established category tree. Dimadick (talk) 20:55, 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.

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]

• Propose renaming Category:The Young Turks (talk show) to Category:The Young Turks

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]

• Comment No objection to the proposed name, but most of these people don't seem to be defined by the show. I'm wondering if this is WP:PERFCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Fayenatic london. This seems a too subtle difference regarding (the Ottoman) Young Turks are main topic, and with the talk show being widely unknown to English-speaking readers. --PanchoS (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Still Oppose as ambiguous, see Young Turks (disambiguation). Categories need to be more unambiguous than articles, unless perhaps there is a very strongly primary meaning, per many precedents. – Fayenatic London 18:54, 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.

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]

• Propose Deleting Category:Roman Catholic heads of government

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]

• Support, we do have Category:Roman Catholics but that's primarily for clerical and likewise occupations, while head of government is not an occupation in that range. Though I can imagine we can have a Category:Heads of government promoting Catholicism to contain e.g. Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and Philip II of Spain. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aren't they part of Category:Roman Catholic monarchs? Dimadick (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, you're quite right. Striking my earlier comment in this nomination, saving it for in case Category:Roman Catholic monarchs becomes nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:18, 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.

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]

• Propose deleting Category:Dworcowa street in Bydgoszcz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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]

• Delete This WP:SMALLCAT just isn't aiding navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• See comments on nom below: possibly merge with Gdanska Street. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I wouldn't favour merging this to Category:Gdanska street in Bydgoszcz, as I mentioned in the discussion below I'd rather only have buildings and structures in street categories rather than a hotchpotch of different things. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:21, 1 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: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]

• Propose deleting Category:Gdanska street in Bydgoszcz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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]

• Suggestion, can't we allow Category:Buildings and structures in main street, city, thus keeping Category:Buildings and structures in city more tidy? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice idea, but this would have to be a subcategory that doesn't render the parent a WP:SMALLCAT, and I currently don't see this to happen. Aprat from that we have Category:Christopher Street, Category:Grand Street (New York City), Category:Sepulveda Boulevard and Category:Barrack Street, Perth, to name a few. Those streets may be more famous and the cities larger, but Bydgoszcz is surprisingly large, Gdańska Street is one of the main streets in downtown Bydgoszcz, and either way this seems a matter of coverage rather than by encyclopedic value. --PanchoS (talk) 08:23, 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]

• That's a fair comment. But then using this criterion I wonder how Gdańska Street, Bydgoszcz compares to e.g. Sepulveda Boulevard. Should the latter as a category be deleted/merged as well or is it different? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, that category is identical to this one and we should treat Poland and California the same. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 2 February 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]
• Rename to Category:Buildings and structures on Gdanska street, Bydgoszcz, after some earlier hesitation I really think this is the best solution. Purge the few articles from this category that aren't buildings and remove all other articles from the parent category Category:Buildings and structures in Bydgoszcz. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Buildings and structures on Gdańska Street, Bydgoszcz as above (although Street should obviously be capitalised as a proper name and Gdańska should be spelt correctly). Although note that Gdańska Street is a peculiar mix of Polish and English, as Ulica Gdańska actually translates as Gdańsk Street, so more preferable would actually be Category:Buildings and structures on Gdańsk Street, Bydgoszcz or, since I'm not sure there's any evidence it's ever commonly translated into English, Category:Buildings and structures on Ulica Gdańska, Bydgoszcz. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 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.