Wiki143:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 5

April 5

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to category:Flora of Singapore. --Kbdank71 16:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Native flora of Singapore and Category:Plants of Singapore

Voting results:

"Merge to category:Flora of Singapore" (3): Instantnood, Kbdank71, Guettarda

"Keep Category:Native flora of Singapore / Delete Category:Plants of Singapore " (1): Lochaber

Consensus is to merge to category:Flora of Singapore.

Both categories have only 1 article each, which is the same article (Vanda Miss Joaquim). Either one can be deleted, or both be deleted and up-merged to category:Flora of Singapore. — Instantnood 21:03, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Update: Two stub articles, namely Bird's Nest Fern and Pigeon Orchid has just been created by Huaiwei (who also created the two categories), and are categorised to both category:Native flora of Singapore and category:Plants of Singapore. — Instantnood 21:35, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both, move articles to category:Flora of Singapore. -Kbdank71 13:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. There is a difference between what qualifies as "native" and what is not. I created that category to emphasize this distinction, and at present not every article in second category appears in the former.--Huaiwei 16:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Right. I notice you are populating the categories. Would you mind telling what actually has been changed? — Instantnood 16:57, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe I do reserve the right to populate a category called up for deletion just because it is empty. There is nothing unethical about it, and new votes should reflect its current situation. As for changes, I do not understand your question?--Huaiwei 17:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's perfectly alright to populate the categories and there is nothing unethical. But would you mind keeping this section up-to-date so that votes will be cast reflecting its current situation? — Instantnood 18:59, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • I didnt know I am required to do so?--Huaiwei 19:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It is not a requirement, but it helps readers to vote according to current situation. — Instantnood 19:27, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Category:Native flora of Singapore / Delete Category:Plants of Singapore (doesn't flora mean plant?). Though it might be useful to have something at the beginning of the subcat explaining what qualifies as "native". -- Lochaber 16:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Category:Flora of Singapore. At some time in the future, if there are enough articles, split into Category:Native flora or Singapore and Category:Naturalised flora of Singapore, with Flora of Singapore as parent category. Guettarda 18:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to category:Malaysian cuisine. --Kbdank71 16:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Singaporean cuisine

Voting results:

"Merge to category:Malaysian cuisine" (1): Instantnood

Consensus is to merge to category:Malaysian cuisine.

All articles are also categorised under category:Malaysian cuisine. The two categories should either be merged, or the Singaporean one be expanded to demonstrate the differences, if there's any. — Instantnood 20:45, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

• I see that you have taken to "revengeful" antics after the spate of Hong Kong-related category appearances in this page. Nonetheless, you will need to be more convincing than the above, because some of these cuisine pages does include details on the variations present in each country.--Huaiwei 20:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The two categories are currently almost identical, except Asam fish and Cuisine of Malaysia. — Instantnood 21:03, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • You might wish to try looking within articles.--Huaiwei 21:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Out of the 14 articles, Bak kut teh, Char kway teow, Hainanese chicken rice, Nasi lemak, Otak-otak, Popiah, Rojak, Roti canai, do not address the Malaysian-Singaporean differences. Hainanese chicken rice addresses the differences among different places within Malaysia. Hokkien mee said there's one variation for Penang and Singapore, and another variation for Kuala Lumpur. Ketupat and Sambal do not mention Singapore at all.
      • 5 of those are also Indonesian cuisine. — Instantnood 21:29, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
        • I do wonder how familiar are you to that category. I once created Roti prata before, the Singaporean name of Roti canai, and the two were merged with the contents meshed together. I am surprised you fail to even detect this. Secondly, you ask for a "merger" of the two categories. May I know what form will the merged category be? Category:Malaysian and Singaporean cuisine? Or are you suggesting the Cuisine in Singapore can be called Malaysian Cuisine?--Huaiwei 08:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Singaporean and Malaysian dishes share a certain degree of similiarity, thanks to the geographical proximity and similar climate. Even though they are now two sovereign States, exchange and traffic of people have never been interrupted. There is a poll below on category:Food and drink by country, that addresses the same issue. — Instantnood 10:08, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
        • And the same applies to just about any category in Category:Cuisine, so why pick on this category alone? Again I ask...even if there is a degree of similarity in cuisine between the two countries, may I know what you would call cuisine in Singapore then? Northern Peninsular Malaysia has dishes quite similar to those in Southern Thailand. Shall we amalagamte the two cultures too? Why do you bother having "Cantonese Cuisine", when it can also be called "Chinese cuisine" like the other 5 major cuisines of China?--Huaiwei 10:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I did a similar comparison among categories of Danish, Norwegian and Swedish cuisines, and they do not share the same articles in the way the Malaysian and Singaporean counterparts do. I guess we'd better let other users to decide on what should be done with category:Singaporean cuisine. (By the way, there are Eight Great Traditions of Chinese cuisines, not five.) — Instantnood 11:23, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
        • COMMENT Shouldn't Indonesian Cuisine, Malaysian Cuisine, Singaporean Cuisine, cuisine of Brunei, Sumatran cuisine, Bornea cuisine, Javan cuisine all go under Category:Malayan Cuisine ? 132.205.45.148 18:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Category:Non Italian popes and Category:Non-Italian Popes --Kbdank71 17:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non-Italian popes

note differing capitalisation

• Category:Non Italian popes
• Category:Non-Italian Popes
• Category:Non-Italian popes

The first two are empty and duplicated by the third. I would suggest deleting the first two and the third from Category:Non-Italian popes to Category:Popes by nationality. All the popes could then be sorted this way, in addition to sorting by, say, the century in which they served. --BaronLarf 13:06, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as suggested. -Kbdank71 14:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Why would we need a bunch of categories with a mere one or two entries? Category:Italian popes and Category:Non-Italian popes should suffice. Throw out Category:French popes and Category:Spanish popes and Category:German popes and don't create Category:Dutch popes and Category:English popes and Category:Polish popes and whatever else we'd need for nationalities, in addition to the proposed supercategory Category:Popes by nationality, just to cover about 10 people total. Gene Nygaard 14:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment works for me. There could then be a list article created to further show where each non-Italian came from. --BaronLarf 15:06, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the obvious, the empty duplicates Category:Non Italian popes and Category:Non-Italian Popes. Gene Nygaard 14:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Delete first two and move last as per BaronLarf. Goood clean up and avoids small categories. --A D Monroe III 14:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all I'd rather see categories that sort by positive characteristic—what someone is rather than what someone is not, so I'd favor having all pope categories by nationality rather than dividing into simply Italian and non-Italian. Yes, John Paul II would be the only occupant of "Polish Popes", but that may not always be the case, and I think underpopulated categories should only be avoided if they serve no function in a broader categorizing system and have no chance of ever expanding. Postdlf 14:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I forgot Category:Jewish popes for Cephas, "the Rock", aka "The Big Fisherman". Sure, a million years from now there might be more than a dozen non-Italian popes, maybe even one or two in the next 50 years; but do we really need to allow for that? Creating 9 or 10 categories (including the necessary supercategories) to cover a dozen people isn't very helpful as a finding aid. Gene Nygaard 15:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all. Basically agree with Postdlf, except popes who are the only members of their nationality should just be under Category:Popes. It doesn't make sense to structure the category structure such that Italian popes are considered the "default" , even if historically they are overwhelmingly more common. Considering that there are 16 French popes its hard to argue against that category, but I would also allow those of smaller size as long as they have more than one member. Actually, I am current working on an article on another "Jewish pope", the legendary figure from Jewish folklore of the Middle Ages, and someone could probably write an article about Pope Peter II, apparently a figure who some people believe will be the last pope, not to mention Jean-Marie Lustiger if he's elected, but it really would be over-the-top to have a category for "Jewish popes". Incidentally we probably need a Category:Legendary popes for Pope Joan and the article I am currently working on.--Pharos 07:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the first and the second ones, as per BaronLarf. — Instantnood 16:46, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the third Above:too emotional to handle debate. Subcategories are historically correct.Leonard.007 21:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the duplicates and keep all Category:French popes etc. that have more than one or two entries per Pharos's suggestion. Perhaps also create List of Popes by nationality or something in Category:Popes to emphasize the various nationalities represented historically. --Laura Scudder | Talk 04:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.