Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 27

< June 26	June 28 >

June 27

Category:Buildings and structures in Kinshasa

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The result of the discussion was: keep, nomination withdrawn. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not notable - only links to one category page (Category:Diplomatic missions in Kinshasa, that only has one stub in it (Embassy of Russia in Kinshasa. All have been created by User:Russavia. Would politely request creator cease and desist from such overcategorisation. Kransky (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of Category:Buildings and structures by city. I'd be surprised if there are no other buildings/structures of note in Kinshasa. (Palaces, parliament etc, football stadia ... Ali v Forman fight). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep there would be plenty of notable buildings in Kinshasa, seeing as it is the capital city of the DRC, so there would be parliament buildings, presidential residences, and yes, diplomatic missions. Furthermore, it should be kept in order to fight systematic bias here on WP. --Россавиа ^Диалог 01:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment. The solution to categories with few articles is Template:Popcat, not CfD. --Россавиа ^Диалог 01:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep of course Part of a category structure. Hmains (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice there were such related categories. Happy to let category live. End of debate. Kransky (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2008 (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:Userlinks3

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. Wizardman 19:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is an odd category. Its only member is a redirect, and the redirect leads to...this category. Essentially, the existence of the category prevents the redirect from being an R1 speedy, and the existence of the redirect prevents the category from being a C1 speedy. The template redirect (the only category member) is only transcluded in one spot. Not useful, if deleted the redirect should be deleted as R1. VegaDark (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. Looks like a pretty safe delete to me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a delete, maybe along with the chages that use it? Adam McCormick (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2008 (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:Athlete-politicians and sub cats

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: no consensus. Kbdank71 16:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: The purpose of this cat page is to list people who have been notable both as sportspeople and politicians. The word 'athlete(s)' needs to be 'sportspeople'. I would support a deletion, as I wonder how necessary having an umbrella of the pattern 'Occupation 1 who were occupation 2' / 'Occupation 1 - Occupation 2' can be, although I think that this is interesting trivial and deserves to be 'listified' Mayumashu (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just went back and took another look at what I wrote in the previous CFD for Category:American athlete-politicians -- and I still like what I said, so I'm going to repeat it verbatim:

Keep - I don't know whether this category would make sense anywhere else on the planet, but here in the US this is certainly a noteworthy sociological phenomenon, much like actor-politicians. The concerns expressed over rampant creation of random "Xxx-politician" categories strikes me as hyperbole and reductio ad absurdum. We will only have categories that are warranted by their socio-political notability, any others should be deleted.

To which I would add that I suspect that Canada is probably similar enough to the US to have a comparably noteworthy sociological phenomenon in this regard -- so Category:Canadian athlete-politicians may also be warranted. I don't know enough about either Romania or Luxembourg to express an opinion. Cgingold (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We generally try to avoid categories which are phrased in the past tense as "Category:Foo", unless otherwise noted, already implicitly means "Category:Those which are, or have ever been, Foo".

For example, it would be normal to categorize Bill Bradley as an American athlete/sportsperson (specifically "American basketball player") and as an American politician, even though he is currently retired from both sports and politics.

Now, something like "American politicians who were sportspeople", by adding an explicit past tense for the subject's sports career, could create an implicit present tense for the subject's political career, which would be misleading in the case of Bill Bradley, and would undermine the general semantic assumption regarding "Category:Foo" further above (and before anybody cites it as a counter-example, yes I do realize there are exceptions to this paradigm, e.g. Living people" does not mean "anybody who was not still-born" but this is a greater can of worms I won't get into).

For these particular categories I would prefer the hyphenated status quo to the half-past-tense alternative. If this is too confusing, just delete them unless a better option is presented. I have no objection to changing "athletes" to "sportspeople" is fine if it can be done without past-tensing it. — CharlotteWebb 16:09, 5 July 2008 (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:Rain and snow mixed

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: speedy close, wrong forum, no categories involved. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Rain and snow mixed to Category:Ice Pellets

Nominator's rationale: This article is bout the same weather phenomena Scapler (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a very different phenomenon. It consists of mixed rain and snow, not small ice balls like ice pellets (see link to AMS Glossary). Anyway, I didn't create any category.--Carnby (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be an actual, existing Category here. If this is about an article, you're in the wrong place. Cgingold (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2008 (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:Ethnic food

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: merge Category:Ethnic food to Category:American cuisine. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody nominated Category:Ethnic food for renaming to Category:United States ethnic food. Personally, I think this category should just be deleted or redirected to Category:Cuisine or Category:Cuisine by nationality; we already have a whole hierarchy for ethnic/cultural foods and food traditions there. Dr.frog (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:American cuisine per nom - redundant. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 08:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as -- roundhouse0 The present content (two articles) falls within Category:American cuisine. However, if a redirect is retained after merger it should be to Category:Cuisine by nationality. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Although nationality has ambiguous meaning [[Category:Indigenous Cuisine]] would be more appropriate title for regional ethnic food culture.Pdeitiker (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Category:Native American cuisine is what was intended here. :-P Articles about American regional ethnic foods are currently grouped under Category:American cuisine or its subcategories. I don't see any evidence that the person who created Category:Ethnic food was aiming for a sweeping restructuring of how we group foods by cultural tradition; more likely it was just a mistake by someone who didn't realize we had Category:Cuisine for that purpose already. Dr.frog (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2008 (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.