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: We do not normally have categories for "uncategorized" articles in specific topics. This has been confirmed by several CFDs (example). Note: Some of these categories contain statements like "This page is emptied and refilled on a regular basis", but I see no evidence that this is the case - for example the only article currently in any of these categories has been there since January (and the only article in the uncategorized Italy category had been there for years). These categories occupy an unusual position in the category structure as they contain articles (not talk pages), but are (usually) parented by a wikiproject category. I can see how some editors might see a possible attraction in separating "articles that probably should be in a subcategory, but I can't work out which one it should be right now" from "articles which are unlikely to ever fit in a subcategory", but in practice it would be very difficult to draw that distinction and having categories like this is just an unnecessary complication in the category structure. Another argument against these categories is that if (for example) Uncategorised films is a suitable category then why not Uncategorised horror films, Uncategorised American horror films, ... ? For info: The France category appears to have been created for a temporary purpose (see here). DexDor(talk) 21:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment they can be used as cleanup cats, marked as hidden categories, and placed under the wikiprojects' categories; however all the contents would need to also be catgorized into the appropriate location in the normal category tree (so essentially, add the categories proposed to all the articles affected). -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. The uncategorized categories are useful to remind editors to categorize the pages. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2015 (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:merge. If some of the merged contents better belong in Category:Sport variants, they can be moved there. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category groups together various sports (cycle racing, martial arts, shooting, windsurfing...) that do not really form a group of similar sports. Note: most/all of the contents are already in other subcats of Category:Sports (e.g. in Category:Sports by type) so before/after any upmerge this should be checked. DexDor(talk) 20:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notification posted at WikiProject Sports. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Hello, I think that the category serves a specific purpose: to show the variants of each sport. In Spanish we have a similar category, which I linked on Wikidata. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom There are many different sports but "discipline" is not different from "type" or "variant" in this topic. Dimadick (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2015 (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:Regional dishes of the United States[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.
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous to the "Cuisine of X" categories that name specific regions. Ibadibam (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ibadibam! My rationale for this category was navigational. There is no other way to find regional dishes from a variety of regions except for looking at each area one after another. valereee (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is defining about the fact that a dish is "from a region"? Are not all dishes from some region? I can see wanting to navigate between dishes of a particular region, but what is the purpose of providing a category to group together unrelated dishes? I would propose creating something like List of American foods by region as a more appropriate option. Ibadibam (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ibadibam, a regional dish is one that is found in certain regions very commonly, but in other regions is uncommon. There are any number of such dishes. Lists are useful, but categories are also useful. That's why we have both. WP:CLN tells us that both are appropriate ways of providing navigational aids and that they shouldn't be seen as in conflict with each other. Some editors prefer one over the other, but to have both is fine. valereee (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a rule that lists and categories aren't automatically deleted just because something in the other form already exists, it's true — but we don't have a rule that every category always has to have a directly corresponding list or vice versa. Rather, there are situations where it is appropriate for us to have both, situations where it's appropriate to have a list but not a category, situations where it's appropriate to have a category but not a list, and situations where it's not appropriate for us to have either. Categories and lists do not have identical policies on when they're appropriate or inappropriate — for some topics they overlap and permit both, but there are other topics for which one of the two is precluded as not fitting the relevant policies. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Cuisine of the United States, which does not appear to exist at present. If a dish is regional to Louisiana and Missippi, but not elsewhere, it should be in categories for both those two states. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does exist, but at Category:American cuisine rather than "Cuisine of the United States". The possibility does exist that it should be renamed to your proposed format instead, but "American cuisine" and "Cuisine of the United States" are not two distinct things which should both exist as separate categories — and all of its sibling categories in Category:Cuisine by nationality are named in the current format rather than your proposed one, so any renaming would have to be a mass batch on all of those rather than being isolated to this one alone. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My issue with folding this into American cuisine or Cuisine of the United States is that it doesn't help with navigation. Either of these two categorizations would include MANY dishes which aren't regional so again there's no way for someone to find regional dishes without going from subsection to subsection, reading through each of them carefully to see which inclusions are regional and which ones are merely American. For instance, apple pie is a dish of American cuisine, but it's not a regional dish. Burgoo is a regional dish. Both could be included in the category American cuisine, but to find regional dishes from the category American cuisine, I'd have to go into each subcategory. And Burgoo could also be included in the category Southern cuisine, but again it's not just Southern -- it's really a regional dish of a certain area, so to find truly regional dishes I'd have to go into the subcategory Kentucky cuisine, and then I'd have to go check the other state cuisine categories and see if it's there or not. So for someone doing research on regional dishes, having them all lumped together into the overall category of American cuisine or cuisine of the United States doesn't help. valereee (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And why is the fact that any given dish is regional a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that dish in and of itself? The specific region that it's regional to is absolutely a defining characteristic, no question — but the adjective "regional" in and of itself, applied to a category that's defined and scoped at the national level ("of the United States"), is not. So how would this category be justified as existing separately from the specific subcategories that already exist for the specific regional cuisines? Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Bearcat! My thinking was that if reliable sources consistently categorize a dish as 'regional,' then 'regional' is a defining characteristic. Am I understanding what you're asking? valereee (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The word "regional" as a descriptor in and of itself, completely independent of any acknowledgement of the specific region that it's regional to? Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the point of the category. To allow for a collection of regional specialties from throughout the US in a single place, for navigational purposes. There are already categories for the various regions separately; the problem with simply using all of those is that many of the dishes listed in them aren't PURELY from that region. That is, there are multiple dishes in the category Southern cuisine that are also common in other regions. So what I was looking to produce was a category that included only dishes that were truly regional dishes (very common in one place, historically rare outside that place) to make it easier for people to find information on dishes that were truly regional. valereee (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And my point is that the mere fact that a dish is regional is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the dish. The specific region that it's regional to is a defining characteristic, but the mere fact of being a regional dish, in and of itself, is not. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, why is the fact it's a regional dish not a defining characteristic? valereee (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take two hypothetical dishes: one is regional to California, and the other is regional to New England. Categories for "California cuisine" and "New England cuisine" would result in each dish being grouped with other dishes that are found in California or New England, thus being "defining" because it groups them with other things that they have something important in common with (i.e. being from California or New England). But "regional dishes of the United States" would group them together even though they have nothing relevant or important in common with each other, which is why it's not defining. Bearcat (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But they do have something in common with each other. They're both regional dishes, and someone who was interested in finding out about regional dishes would find it easier to find both if they were listed, along with other regional dishes, in a shared category. valereee (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
People looking for information about regional dishes would be looking for dishes regional to a specific region, and thus would be using the categories that already exist for the various regions. Nobody would ever actually be looking for a contextless category of all dishes that merely happen to be regional, without regard to whether they were regional to the same region or not. "All regional dishes of the United States, regardless of what part of the United States they're regional to" just isn't a thing that anybody is looking for. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat Not necessarily. I am interested in regional dishes. When I read about one, I often think something along the lines of, "I wonder what else is out there that I've never heard of." When I first tried Frogmore Stew, I didn't think, "What other Gullah dishes are there?" or "What other S Carolina dishes" or "what other Southern dishes." I thought, "Wow. I bet there are dozens of regional dishes I've never had and could try making at home; how can I find them?" I doubt I'm the only person in the world whose brain works this way. Don't assume that because you would want to find 'southern dishes' or 'midwestern dishes' that other people all think like you do. For me and others like me, a category that would make these things easy to find would be helpful. valereee (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the discussion, the whole tree of Category:American cuisine by region seems to contain regional dishes only and it would probably be a bad idea to lump everything from this tree together in one big category. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle, the point of the category was for navigational purposes, to make it easy to find regional dishes without having to sort through literally dozens of subcategories. valereee (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But if we would lump everything together, it would become a category with hundreds of regional dishes while losing the connection with the particular region, that wouldn't help anything. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle, it would certainly help people like me, who are looking for them, to find them easily without having to navigate to multiple pages. As it currently is, I have to first find the list of all regional cuisines -- is Alaska its own cuisine? Or is it part of the cuisine of the Pacific Northwest? And, wait, there's a Rocky Mountain cuisine? Who knew? So, okay, now I have my exhaustive list of all the cuisines, and I open all those pages on my desktop so I can find all the different regional dishes. But, wait, didn't I see dish X on Southern Cuisine, and here it is also on Midwestern cuisine. Is dish X a regional dish, or is it simply a dish that is eaten many places? Damn, now I have to go check all the other cuisines to see if the dish appears there, too. I sure wish there were a way I could easily find regional dishes, some way of categorizing them so that someone could say, yes, this is a regional dish, or no, this dish isn't truly regional. :) valereee (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: This is not really what categorization is about. I would then alternatively suggest you start a list article about regional cuisines in which you create a table with all the dishes. As columns of the table you'd have (1) the name of the dish, (2) the region and (3-?) any other characteristics of the dishes that might be relevant. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: I think there is rationale for both lists and categories. Some people prefer to use one, some people prefer to use the other. I like categories because they're easier to add articles to and they alphabetize themselves. I like lists because I can add a missing article. But they're both useful and they both make Wikipedia easier to navigate. At the heart of it, isn't that what categorization is about? Navigation, I mean? I've never created a category before (no surprise to anyone here, right?) but my understanding of them is that they're to help readers find what they're looking for more easily. I'm feeling puzzled. valereee (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correct but need to add something: categories are meant to find the most related articles the most easily. In this case with a dish from a certain region, you should be finding dishes from the same region the easiest, because they are the most related. Lists on the other hand do not have that particular purpose, they can be used for many different purposes. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: So then are you saying that there need to be categories for 'Dishes of X Cuisine" for each cuisine, and then somehow group those categories into a parent category, and then that parent category would just contain the subcategories? valereee (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not a compromise I love, but I guess it's an improvement over what there is now as a solution to this problem. If that's the best-practices use of categories, I'm okay with it. So I need to turn this category into the parent category and fill it with subcategories? And I probably need to add this category to a parent of its own? I'm sure I can figure it out. valereee (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ibadibam, the current category is actually even less useful than the proposed compromise by Marcocapelle. I'm looking for dishes that are regional. Is no one else here an avid cook?! :D valereee (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Break I'm out early tomorrow camping with extremely limited access, back Aug 9. valereee (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2015 (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:Universiade competitors for Barbados[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.
Nominator's rationale: The act of competing for Barbados at the Universiade is not defining aspect for an athlete. This competition is not a top level of any sport, in that only students may take part. Participation in this competition is not sufficiently defining of a person that they warrant direct navigation to their countryfolk who have also appeared at the event. Appearances are almost always a small part of a professional athlete's career and being selected for the Universiade is neither a story of note, nor an overall career objective for any sportsperson.
I believe the tree under Category:Competitors at multi-sport events by country should be used for open-class global or continental Games only. To have two categories (year of appearance and country) for each and every competition that an athlete has taken part in is excessive. One could say the current arrangement without expanding it further is already excessive, for example see Michael Frater. SFB 18:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Appearances at specific competitions are darn close to performer by performance. These are better handled in the articles on the sport at the event (or the country's team at the event) than cluttering biographies with excessive cruft categories for everything the athlete has done, when we've decided not to clutter actors bios with every series, movie, etc., he/she has participated in. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2015 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Rather unneeded category that contributes very little to the person it is suppose to be about. Articles in the category could be linked to the main article in other ways. Fails WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OCEPON. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2015 (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.
Years in the District of Columbia before it was coterminus with Washington[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:no consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note It is not clear to me that the District of Columbia existed enough as a distinct place from 1791-1801 for this categorization. We may just want to merge this into Category:1796 establishments in Maryland, etc.
Nominator's rationale From its surveying in 1791 and the creation of the District of Columbia by congressional act in 1801, it was an area measuring 10 miles on each side, that had 3 cities. Georgetown, Alexandria (now Alexandria, Virginia and Washington, although Washington was not even created at all until after 1791. Until 1846 this was the borders, in which year the area on the south/west side of the Potomac was given back to Virginia. In 1854 an additional area of Uniontown, the core of what is today Anacostia, was incorporated. In 1871 Georgetown, Uniontown and Washington County were disovled, and the entire district became coterminus with the city of Washington. However prior to 1871 Washington, D.C. is not all of D.C. Since other sub-categories of establishments in the US are by state or territory, and there is no precedent for establishment by year categories for a city, unless it is actually a higher-level polititical sub-unit, we should rename these categories. From 1871 on since the District of Columbia and Washington are one and the same, we can leave the category names as is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I'd keep the 1791-1801 cats. It might be useful to have an additional category for Washington, Georgetown, Alexandria, Uniontown prior to the merge/retrocession -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, although the old categories should be kept in place as {{categoryredirect}}s due to the high potential for reader confusion and erroneous redlink-categorization if they don't exist in some form. Bearcat (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and I would also support renaming all years. We don't use these categories for cities, so the district is more appropriate. Although they are coterminous now, Washington was historically a city, so it's better to use the district for all years. kennethaw88 • talk 01:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oppose common name. maybe you should change it to "washington city". if your going to do it, leave a redirect, because otherwise no one will find these categories. Duckduckstop (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even bother to study the fact that prior to 1871 not all of the District of Columbia was within the city boundaries of Washington?John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i would ask you the same question. when we go to the historical record, we find that people referred to the place as "Washington City" for example [1], [2], [3], or [4]. apparantly, "District of Columbia" was a political designation or job title [5]; here's an open letter addressed "Washington" [6]; also the Library of Congress does it as [United States > District of Columbia > Washington] & Washington (D.C.) for this object [7] maybe we should do both, so that everyone else but you can find it? Duckduckstop (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Washington City was not coterminus with the District of Columbia before 1871. The fact that there are references to Washington City do not make them the correct references here. Alexandria was not part of Washington City while it was in the District of Columbia. Georgetown was not part of Washington City in 1870. The fact that Washington City existed does not make it the correct way to refer to the whole place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
that is a mighty fine latinate thesis you have; have any sources? the article District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 says: "that portion of said District included within the present limits of the city of Washington shall continue to be known as the city of Washington" what is the use of rearranging the categories to make a point, that apparently is original to you? Duckduckstop (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why not just keep the current names and use it for things relating to the city of Washington? This way the category scheme will be consistently named throughout. Are the categories even being used at all for things that happened in DC but not in Washington? I doubt it and not that I can see, so this is a solution in search of a problem, as far as I can see. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with your proposal is that it would leave things happening in Georgetown before 1870 with no place to go.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Such as? Is this a theoretical problem or a real one? See User:Fayenatic london's comment below—I agree that even if there was an article that fit into this narrow situation (and there are currently none, as far as I can see), maintaining the scheme would be an "acceptable anachronism" in this case and would probably cause the least amount of confusion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The proposal in the nomination also presents a problem: it would inlude any establishments in what is now Arlington County, Virginia (then, Alexandria County) between 1790 and 1846, which are now outside DC. It does not strike me as useful to include them in the Washington DC hierarchy. The nominator says the nomination is to cover establishments in Georgetown before 1870, but he has not given any examples of notable ones, and the article Georgetown (Washington, D.C.) does not mention any. It says that Stephen Bloomer Balch founded a church there, but that does not have an article. Even if it did, IMHO it would be an acceptable anachronism to categorise it as a 1780 establishment in Washington DC; categorisation can allow for a little imprecision. – FayenaticLondon 22:19, 4 September 2015 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. There is no clear definiton for "megabus stop" so it's entirely POV what bus interchanges get included in this category. LibStar (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (possibly listify). That (presumably, as of 2015) Megabus stops at a particular town, airport etc is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of that town etc. DexDor(talk) 21:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listify this is the same as Category: American Airlines airports in Europe, because "Megabus" is an intercity motorcoach line, thus equivalent to an airline. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly listify, per DexDor. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no objection to listifying). Megabus is a coach brand. Sometime ago, we eliminated most articles on particular bus services, partly becasue they require maintenance, which we are not paid to do. Bus (and coach services) alter at frequent intervals. Some of these are bus stations, but coaches commonly pick up at hotels - or say they are doiung so, but actually stopp mdonw the road from them. Peterkingiron (talk)
Delete If Megabus built depots, than they would be defined by the company.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per established consensus against categorizing transportation hubs by every individual provider that happens to serve them. No objection to a list. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not defining to the entities covered in these articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is very much non-defining, since these were not created as Megabus stops. kennethaw88 • talk 01:18, 14 August 2015 (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.
