User talk:Dodo64

Hello. I was the one who nominated the UMIST category for deletion. The nomination for deletion was linked to on the category page since the 19th June. A week is the normal time that nominations for deletion run, although I was surprised that the result came out as delete rather than a relisting, considering there were no other opinions than mine voiced.

As it stands, there are very few pages about UMIST-related places (or misc. other things) on Wikipedia that do not also fall under the new University of Manchester (or now under its history). Category:People associated with the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology still exists for alumni and staff of UMIST, and is a sub-sub-category of Category:University of Manchester. I can't think of any other use for Category:University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology than those two uses; can you? Note that the exact same applies to Category:Victoria University of Manchester, which I nominated for deletion at the same time.

Please note that if a non-redundant use for the category can be found, then I have no problems with its reinstatement. Otherwise, I feel that it should be/stay deleted. Mike Peel 20:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike. Thanks very much for your swift and courteous response to my posting. I was discombobulated partly because I thought the "People associated with..." sub-category had been deleted - I couldn't find it despite some clicking around. Thanks for pointing out that it does still exist, (as a sub-sub-category) and that my efforts of a couple of weeks ago therefore haven't been obliterated!

I understand your argument regarding redundancy etc. Actually I do have two suggested non-redundant uses for the deleted category - one minor and one more serious. The first is that the category acted as a link between the main UMIST article and the "People Associated.." sub-sub-category. If you've been reading an article, the usual place to look for related articles is in the categories section at the bottom, and having the UMIST category appear there led readers neatly not only to the small number of 'UMIST places' article but also to the alumni and staff sub-categories. However, I assume that this task could also be fulfilled by putting some sort of "See also..."-type link at the foot of the UMIST article to take readers straight to the "People associated..." category page?

My second suggested non-redundant use is as follows: I've been hoping to write a series of shortish articles about the major buildings on the UMIST campus. (The only one to have an article at present is Sackville St/Main Building.) This thought was triggered by the discovery that various architects have been heatedly discussing the merits of the various ex-UMIST buildings on the Skyscrapercity.com discussion forum. Take a butcher's: [1] Note particularly the comment: "Demolishing the Maths tower on Oxford Road was a serious act of vandalism - but the former UMIST site is a far more important architectural environment - an entire 60s urban campus in a consistent language of high quality concrete. The entire complex should be retained and re-used." If I create articles on the Renold Building, MSS, Barnes Wallis and the rest, then certainly they would individually belong in the Uni of Manchester cat (at least until the university sells them, as it plans to do this year with MSS and others)- but the whole point of writing them would be to organise them in a way which made sense of them as a group - and that could only be the UMIST cat. For this reason alone, I think it would be worth reinstating the UMIST category. Would that meet with your approval? Dodo64 (aka Rick Lewis) 26 June, wee small hours.

To your first point: I personally tend to look for links within the article, rather than using the category system, so I would end up finding People associated with the University of Manchester but probably not looking in the categories. As such, I'd recommend creating a People associated with UMIST article and putting it into the navigational box. As you say, a see also link would also do the job.

To your second: I really don't want to get into the future of the UMIST campus - I used to live in Wright Robinson, and I've walked through the UMIST hundreds of times, and quite like it apart from the decay due to lack of maintenance that it's showing, so discussing demolishing it is depressing. With the article set: I like the idea, however nowadays, it would probably be more politically correct to create a Category:Buildings in the University of Manchester North Campus and use that instead of a UMIST category, especially if the buildings are still in use. Mike Peel 09:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike - I'm glad we agree about the desirability of a category for ex-UMIST buildings and things. Seems like we only really disagree over the exact name of that category. In answer to your point, it might be more 'politically correct' to call it the North Campus if we were writing in a Univ of Manchester publication, but Wikipedia being an independent encyclopedia, this consideration doesn't apply. In any case, as I understand it the term 'North Campus' has no official standing even within the Univ of Manchester. Unofficially it is used, of course, but then unofficially the term 'UMIST Campus' is also still used, so that doesn't settle anything. Also, as has been said elsewhere, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a mere directory of current university institutions, and this means that articles and categories should take into account the whole history of the subject-matter, not just current status. As the MSS building (for instance) was built for UMIST and for 40 years was part of UMIST on a campus unambiguously called the "UMIST Campus", this should outweigh in WIkipedia terms the fact that it is currently (and apparently rather briefly, judging by this month's announcement) a part of the University of Manchester. For all these reasons I think the category should be called Category:University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, ie that the category just deleted should be revived.

Would you mind awfully if I start a Deletion Review? This isn't because I doubt the ability of the two of us to hammer the problems out; it is just that previous proposals regarding the UMIST and University of Manchester articles and categories have attracted lots of well-informed input from all points of view on the University of Manchester and UMIST talk pages. If the deletion is reversed and the category deletion proposal is relisted with a notice on the UMIST article page (that being the main page within the category as per Wikipedia guidelines), then all those folk would have a chance to pitch in with their views, which only seems fair. Dodo64 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Mike Peel 19:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike. I've done it. I see that the only ground for a Deletion Review is if there was an error in the process of the earlier deletion decision. Therefore I've pointed out that there was no notice of the proposed deletion on the main article in the category (ie the UMIST article) but Wikipedia guidelines give that as a 'suggested' rather than a 'mandatory' so I don't know if this will be accepted. In any case, please don't take it as a criticism! I hope the relisting is allowed as I'd really like to see this discussed further. Dodo64 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the deletion review [2] Dodo64 15:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've relisted the category for deletion; please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 6#Category:University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. I have also left comments on the talk pages of the University of Manchester, Victoria University of Manchester, and University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology articles. Hopefully we'll get more people commenting this time, and will be able to come to a consensus on what to do with the category. Thanks. Mike Peel 18:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Mike! I appreciate it. Dodo64 23:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]