Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 9 May 11 >

May 10[edit]

Cuisine of...[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. After nearly three months(!) open with two "reboots" of the discussion with revised proposals, this discussion has petered out with, probably, a lot of people not even realising the revised proposals were made. It's best, I think, at this point to put this out of its misery, and allow for these categories to be immediately renominated, perhaps with the most-recent proposal as the basis, to start a fresh discussion In Search Of: consensus. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Doing the bulk of the remaining US cities based on previous discussions, kind of summed up in theCuisine of Lancaster discussion. If there are objections to individual cities where there may be a case to keep, then we can strike it from the group and list it separately, but I don't expect this. There is one city that does have a Cuisine of... article that may need to be recategorized to stay in this tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • wait a minute I haven't seen those other convos, and the Lancaster one didn't give much explanation. When I look at these, I see dishes that are well-known and that originated in these cities. What is so wrong with that? We have a whole Category:Cuisine by nationality tree, and the American one has been broken down into cities/regions - we could easily speak of the cuisine of Northern Italy or Southern Thailand, so why can't we speak of the cuisine of the SW of the US or of NYC for that matter? I think I'm missing the key arguments against these. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The content is mostly an intersection of food and culture which does not equal cuisine. Does any restaurant belong in a cuisine of category? A question without an answer is, if a specific dish originates in a city, is that part of the cuisine of that city? Is Cracker Jack something that defines the cuisine of a city? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If cuisine is not the "intersection of food and culture", then what is it? Our own Cuisine defines it as "a characteristic style of cooking practices and traditions, often associated with a specific culture". Ibadibam (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and purge. To answer VW question, if a dish originates in a city, or is strongly associated with that city, yes that is part of the cuisine of that city. Restaurants, bars, markets - no. But dishes - food or drink? Yes. In any case, even if these are not kept, they should at least be merged! All of this should be captured somehow, either in regional groupings or at the worst in the American cuisine grouping. I would say a cracker jack is probably not cuisine - that's something else - cuisine to me implies something that you can cook/make yourself, as well as buy somewhere - I don't think people make cracker jacks do they? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment actually there is a sub-cat for restaurants, which is a perfectly reasonable category - what were you planning to do with the restaurants? This is a mal-formed and not-well-thought-out nomination. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep As director of WP:CHICAGO and a native of New Orleans, I believe these categories serve a useful purpose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cities -- especially places like NYC and Philly -- have notable, defining and historic food cultures. So many foods originate within cities, not states or countries, due to the melding of immigrant cultures -- Italian, Jewish, etc. -- that are unique to cities. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But "food culture" != "cuisine". I'd be okay with moving all of these categories to "food culture" if their contents support it. Most places of any size have something that might be termed "food culture". But "cuisine" is not the same. --Lquilter (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't seem to have an article for food culture (which is a redirect) and I don't share your view that "cuisine" is not a fine term for this well-established grouping. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what you mean by food culture? for me, a cuisine is a set of specialty dishes. i can easily identify the cuisine of central thailand (e.g. green curry, pad thai, etc), and in the same way I can easily identify the cuisine of Chicago or New Orleans (deep dish pizza, muffaletta, etc). As I said before, these cats should be purged of everything that is not a dish - restaurants should go to their own sub-category. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete some or rename to Category:Food culture of FOO, except for several exceptions: (1) New Orleans should certainly not be deleted without significant examination. Is New Orleans cuisine just an instance of Creole cuisine? Chicago, New York, Philly, & St. Louis, all have specific dishes associated with them that could fit into a "cuisine of...", but I'm not sure there are *enough* specific dishes. I do not think that Baltimore, Cincinnati, Louisville, or Omaha have enough local dishes to define a "cuisine", but maybe I'm missing something. (Cincinnati has chili dogs ... not sure what else.) --Lquilter (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all cuisine of city is not a good way to categorize things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you merge up to a state or subregion or country? You really think there is no value to classify American specialties? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is Category:American cuisine by region which probably needs a good cleaning. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at the very least, New York City, which has a widely noted and distinctive cuisine that originated there, created by Jewish, Eastern European and Italian immigrants. Some of these dishes have diffused to become general American. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Pretty sure that everyone can point to the cuisine of New Orleans being a thing of its own. I'm not sure that New York, for example, has its own actual cuisine, however; yes there are specific foodstuffs which have developed in NYC (bagels are done differently there, for one), but there is no overarching cuisine as such. That being said, it seems to me that if there is such a thing as Cuisine of Baltimore, that wouldn't (shouldn't?) be a redlink. American cuisines tend to be regional as opposed to city-specific (New Orleans being the useful counterexample); think Tex-Mex, Southern cuisine in general, Californian (which is usually considered a fusion cuisine), etc.
All that being said, I think we're going about this backwards. Pending sources, Cuisine of Baltimore, Maryland, Cuisine of Cincinnati, Ohio, Cuisine of Chicago, Illinois, Cuisine of Louisville, Kentucky, Cuisine of New Orleans, Louisiana, Cuisine of New York City, Cuisine of Omaha, Nebraska, Cuisine of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (etc) should be turned into blue links, with specific dishes/etc mentioned in the relevant articles, and everything else going into Category:American cuisine by region. I note that the examples given above (e.g. deep dish pizza for Chicago) are not so much cuisines, that is a more-or-less nebulous grouping of similar products, as they are specific dishes from specific cities.
Summary: Delete all of these categories, work up articles on specific city/regional cuisines as needed, and categorize those geographically. The Potato Hose ↘ 06:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because these cats help to better-organize the encyclopedia by topic. Deletion doesn't particularly benefit Wikipedia's editors and readers, because data will just become more difficult to find, rather than easier. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do meaningless categories make finding data easier? Can you show me that e.g. Omaha has a specific unique cuisine (again, a cuisine is a collection of foods, not one or two foodstuffs from a particular place)? Because as it stands, these categories largely refer to things that do not exist. The Potato Hose ↘ 17:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And exactly what is that topic? Is it foods that originated in the city? Or restaurants in the city? Or foods popularized in the city? Or foods given a unique twist in the city? Cuisine is more then a random collection of dishes. Are you really suggesting that we need need articles like Foods associated with Foo? Because that is really what much of the content is. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is cuisine - in other words, the ways of cooking food, ingredients, and especially the dishes that are specially tied to or originated in that city. I don't know why you keep harping on restaurants - they aren't in scope, I've noted several times there are restaurant categories for them. And yes, Foods associated with Omaha would be a perfectly reasonable article - these sorts of articles have already been written in many travel guides. The problem is, there is a fuzzy line - we have thai cuisine, clearly, and we also have American cuisine, and we also have Southwestern and Northeastern American cuisine, and we also have Texas cuisine - so now at what point do we stop being able to call something a cuisine? Can a US state have its own cuisine (my answer: absolutely). Can Austin or New York or Omaha have its own cuisine? In some cases, yes. I think you really need to look at sources and argue these on a case by case basis and if it doesn't work for a city it should be MERGED UP to the parent - not just summarily deleted. That's why this nom is ill conceived and flawed from the start... Let's start over one by one, and do some research on what cuisine means, and bring some sources to the table - and I wouldn't bother bringing NYC and New Orleans and Chicago, there are literally books written about the cuisines of these cities.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference between 'foods associated with' and 'cuisine of,' which you are missing here. Cuisines are constellations of related dishes; notability of a specific dish (Philly cheesesteak, Chicago deep-dish) does not a cuisine make. But you start putting a lot of those dishes together (Maine lobster rolls + crab cakes from Maryland + Boston clam chowder = East Coast cuisine, e.g.) and that's where you get cuisines. The lines demarcating the boundaries of various cuisines might be fuzzy, but the definition of a cuisine isn't very fuzzy at all.
As for looking at sources... that's what should be done to build the Cuisine of Foo articles, with those articles being categorized as appropriate into whatever the American Regional cuisine cat is called right now (and probably something like Category:Cuisine of American Cities). We can't prove a negative, so when it comes to sourcing the very existence of these cuisines, the onus is on you (as the person who wants to keep them) to provide sources that Cuisine of Foo City is a) a thing that actually exists, and b) is notable enough to warrant its own article.
Moving on from there, it seems to me that what you want is for food items to be categorized according to the cuisine(s) to which they belong. Is that correct? You also want them associated with cities where they are notable. Is that correct? If I am correct in understanding you, the problem is that you're assuming because there is a geographic origin, therefore there is also a cuisine associated with that origin. To fix that problem, we rename the categories: Category:Cuisine of Omaha, Nebraska becomes Category:Foods associated with Omaha, Nebraska. Everyone gets what they want (geographic origin in your case, careful categorization in mine), and all cats remain nice and logical. What do you think? (I've summarized this under a new heading at bottom) The Potato Hose ↘ 19:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So would it be fair to say, with the possible exception of NY and NO, you would support upmerging to the regional categories in lieu of an outright delete? Restaurants are an issue since many of these were directly listed in the category. These have been left in just the city restaurant category since that is a sub category. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In any case we always have to merge, if not to regional, then up to Category:American cuisine. But I think this particular discussion should be closed as no-consensus, and individual cases made for each of the cities to merge up, and if so, to where. It's too hard to manage as a group nom since there are so many debates that can be had about each one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I understand the approach of hitting a weak link and working its way up the chain, using smaller cities as test cases provides almost no value for corresponding categories for cities such as Chicago and New York City, where there is a strong set of articles directly related to these cities. These are defining characteristics for these articles and a strong aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got to ask you the same question then: have you got sources showing that 'Cuisine of Omaha' is actually A Thing? If not, we shouldn't be making up categories that have no relation to the real world merely to satisfy our over-organisation fetish. The Potato Hose ↘ 18:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking cuisine in a more flexible light here. I do think that it is the best way to categorize specialties from an area. If you want to rename as "Specialities from Omaha" or something similar that's fine, but it's really just a matter of degree. If we can have cuisine of the southwest, then why can't we have cuisine of a city? we certainly have cuisine of other cities in the world, like Bangkok for example...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF for one. I have just, for example, moved Cuisine of Toronto to Cuisine in Toronto, which makes much more sense; this allows for an overview of prominent culinary movements in a given city (e.g. NYC would be heavily represented by Jewish and Italian food), can note specialties, etc. Again, there's no such thing as the cuisine of Omaha, while there very much is a cuisine of the American Southwest. The Potato Hose ↘ 18:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete surely nothing is unique that it found only in a single US city, nor is anything likely to be unobtainable in any large US city. I would guess that Hamburgers, Tacos, Pizzas, Bagels, Kielbasa, French fries, Brussels sprouts, Swiss chocolate, and Chow Main are common to menus and palates of all these cities and just nobody thought (subjectively) to categorize them there. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New Proposal

After reading the above and working to understand where Obi-Wan is coming from, I think this proposal should actually make everyone happy, and result in better organization as a bonus so yay there.

  1. The categories start getting heavily populated
  2. There are sources available describing Cuisine of Foo City as a Thing.
And then categorize the articles under the appropriate regional and ideological cuisines.

As an example we'd have Bagel categorized as [[:Category:Foods associated with culture of Montreal]] (A subcat under French-Canadian the appropriate cuisine(s)),[[:Category:Foods associated with culture of New York City]] (Subcat under Cuisine of the Northeastern United States) Category:Jewish cuisine (etc).

Amended at 05:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC) per commentary below The Potato Hose ↘ 05:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does this seem to address all the issues raised above? The Potato Hose ↘ 19:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just a note that Montreal bagels, Montreal smoked meat and such are not remotely "French-Canadian." They're consumed by us all, here, but these are among several notable foods in the Montreal category were created by Romanian Jewish emigrants. I really do think we should leave well enough alone, but then I've already registered my !vote above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think the hamster that keeps the motor going in my head took a break when I was typing that. The Potato Hose ↘ 05:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have typically not done Category:People associated with FOO; see WP:OC#ASSOCIATED. I think to be honest that Category:FOO cuisine and Category:Food culture of FOO are better models. But the bar is going to be higher. "FOO cuisine" is going to be things like muffaletta & gumbo in New Orleans; but probably not much of anything for Denver. "Food culture of FOO" is probably a good bet, because it could include local restaurants, farmer markets, CSAs, cuisine (if any), special local dishes or variants thereof that aren't sufficient in quantity or kind to constitute a cuisine but are nevertheless notable enough for their own article; etc. I could support paring down the Category:FOO cuisine categories to just the ones with real cuisine, or converting all to Category:Food culture of FOO. --Lquilter (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Food culture of X" sounds pretty reasonable, actually. The phrase seems natural and accurate. Ibadibam (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much better than my wording, agreed. I have amended the proposal above The Potato Hose ↘ 05:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break[edit]

It's an interesting proposal; however I feel like we are hewing a bit too closely to a rather rigid definition of "cuisine" which in common use is much more flexible. For example, I can today go to a new orleans-style restaurant, or a chicago-style pizza restaurant, or a new york deli - and expect to find a whole suite of dishes closely associated with that city - that to me is a cuisine. The problem with the "food culture" approach is it inherently makes a judgement that some regions/cities/etc merit a "cuisine" tag, while others only get "food culture" - and this is a field which is rather dynamic - I don't see any reason for example that all nation-states would deserve a "cuisine" tag by the same arguments - there are many countries where the dishes they eat are quite similar to the dishes eaten in neighboring countries (e.g. Category:Gabonese cuisine. I remember going to Belize once, and they had two national dishes: beans and rice, and rice and beans. Literally - and they're not the same. Some places have incredibly rich, well developed cuisines with thousands of dishes (China, Thailand, India, Italy, France, Japan, etc). Others only have a few. But if you remove a grain of sand one at a time from heap of sand, at what point does it cease to be a heap? The same applies for cuisine - how many dishes make up a cuisine? Must there be a restaurant you can go to? There are many countries in the world that do not have restaurants serving their specialties, anywhere in the country - and no cookbooks nor articles either! - in some cases it's only cooked in the home. So, in fairness, we give a pass to all current nation states. I'm not arguing against this. As to our cities, if there are sufficient articles about local food-stuffs/specialities/delicacies/recipies that are strongly associated with that city by reliable sources, the "cuisine" cat should remain, within the cuisines by location tree. In cases where we don't yet have enough articles to define a cuisine, then just merge it up to cuisine of the region/state (whatever container it's in) and also place the articles in "culture" of that city - leaving open the possibility for a "cuisine" sub-cat to emerge later. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I don't think you really understand what 'cuisine' means. See cuisine: "a characteristic style of preparing food, often associated with a place of origin." One dish is not a characteristic style. The Potato Hose ↘ 12:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
with respect, I never claimed such a thing. One grain of sand does not make a heap either. 1000 dishes is a cuisine, and according to our tree, a country with only one notable dish gets a cuisine cat too. I'm not making the same argument for cities - we need more than one - but less than 1000. So how few dishes does a city need before it has a cuisine? It's a judgement call - for example there is clearly a cuisine of Beijing that is different than the cuisine of china at large. The same applies for some of our cities - sfo, NYC, st. Louis, Chicago, New Orleans, etc. I'm not arguing for keeping all cuisine cats but im also not arguing for deleting all - we have to take each one on its merits - if there aren't enough dishes to make a distinctive style, then merge up to regional cuisine and culture of the city. What I don't agree with is 'food culture' as some sort of lesser grouping for lesser cities - it's not needed and seems a bit POV (for example, perhaps there are 50 dishes which are really typical of Omaha, but we just haven't written the articles yet - so rather than downgrading Omaha, we keep the food in culture and if we ever get enough, a cuisine cat could be created.)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you're just not going to budge at all, eh? I've tried to find a compromise that addresses everyone's concerns, but apparently it's not good enough for you, so I'm not really sure why I bothered trying when you're uninterested in anything but your view. The Potato Hose ↘ 13:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
please AGF, and I certainly appreciate your efforts to find a compromise - I just happen to disagree with that particular compromise... As stated above I am not opposed to merging some of these categories. Lets take a very specific example: New Orleans. Would you agree there is a cuisine of New Orleans? If so, would you keep the cuisine cat or put it in a food-culture cat? Is your proposal that no cities can have cuisine cats at all? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I have very clearly stated above, when and where there is sufficient sourcing to define a Cuisine of Foo article, then write one. Foods mentioned in such can quite easily be recatted to Category:Cuisine of Foo. Until then, Category:Food culture of Foo makes sense, because there is no such thing as a Cuisine of Omaha except perhaps some very very very minor variations of Midwestern cuisine. (In fact, that article clearly illustrates the nomenclature problem that you are not understanding; read the article. There is no such thing as an Omaha-specific cuisine; it's just a list of foods served in Omaha. The origins of the Reuben are highly disputed, and again, a single originating dish does not a cuisine make. The existence of a specific kind of barbecue is simply a variation on barbecue as a cuisine.)
As I have also very very clearly stated above, obviously there is a specific Cuisine of New Orleans (wtf why is that a redlink?) which is distinct from (and a blend of) Cajun cuisine and Creole cuisine.
Bottom line: with few exceptions, American cities simply do not have specific cuisines associated with them. They may have foodstuffs associated with them (thus, Category:Food culture of wherever) and those foodstuffs should be categorized accurately. If and when there is sourcing to define Cuisine of Podunk, then write that article. You are very much stuck on a definition of cuisine which is not applicable to the real world. The Potato Hose ↘ 14:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not defending Omaha! And yes, in general if a head article could *not* be written, there is not much case for having a cat. I actually think we generally agree - the one thing I don't agree with is the need to create "food culture" categories as a sort of "lesser-cuisine-category". If we don't have enough to make a cuisine, merge up to regional parent + culture of city - that is sufficient. That's the only part where I think we disagree. Also please stop saying I don't know what cuisine means - I do know what it means - I'm an inveterate foodie, amateur chef, and street-food-aficionado. And in spite of you agreeing that New Orleans has a cuisine, you voted above to delete the category. So, I think we agree - some cities (American or otherwise) can have "cuisine" categories. The question is, which ones? This is why I opposed this nomination, on procedural grounds - such group noms are usually only useful when they are all similar - whereas here, I think we should clearly keep some, and am ok with merging others (but not deleting, as suggested by the nomination).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am an actual professional chef, so mayyyyyyyyyyyybe you should take that into account. Also, I said explicitly that where Cuisine of X articles exist, they should be categorized geographically (and have said, also, that foods related to such articles should be Category:Cuisine of X. The question as to 'which ones' I have already answer several times so I really really do not know why you keep asking it. As for "If we don't have enough to make a cuisine, merge up to regional parent + culture of city - that is sufficient," that is not sufficient, because there are many many examples of food associated with a specific city (e.g. deep dish pizza) where such city does not have a defined cuisine of its own.  The Potato Hose ↘ 14:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - actually I just noticed Cuisine of Omaha does exist - does this mean it does get to keep the cat? Or will you PROD that article? As to your other point, what would happen if in the future, we got enough dishes coverage to create the cuisine cat for a given city - would we then *move* all of the food culture stuff over to cuisine, and then delete the food culture category? You point out deep-dish as an example - but I would for example argue to keep the Category:Cuisine of Chicago, Illinois - I count at least 8 dishes closely identified with Chicago, and I'm sure there are many more - there's a whole book just on street food in Chicago [1]. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming very frustrating, since it's becoming increasingly clear that you're not actually reading what I write. I pointed out Cuisine of Omaha here. (And yes, I plan on dealing with that article in due course.) "would we then *move* all of the food culture stuff over to cuisine, and then delete the food culture category?" yes. I also answered that here.  The Potato Hose ↘ 15:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to be crystal clear - you hadn't stated above that the "food culture" cat would hence be deleted (I suspected that was your proposal, but I wasn't sure). Unfortunately, that solidifies my opposition to the proposal - I just think it would be bizarre to do this switcheroo, where a city might get "upgraded" from "food culture" to "cuisine", and the old food culture cats would be iced. OTOH, if food culture cats would continue to remain, with a tight definition (with cuisine as a sub-cat when necessary, and restaurants as a sibling), and then we create the "food culture" category as needed for every city (not just the "lesser" cities) - and even region, or state, or international cities like Beijing could have this cat as necessary, and then in some cases we would have a cuisine sub-cat, then we may have something workable that I would buy in to. Does that make sense? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So as long as we do something which is completely illogical and bears no resemblance to how things work in the real world, you'll buy in to it? Fine, do whatever you like. I tried finding a compromise, but you're only interested in getting your way.  The Potato Hose ↘ 17:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've pasted here another definition of cuisine, which may be closer to how I've been using the word, from "Food cultures of the World Encyclopedia" [2]

The other major question in designing this encyclopedia was how to define what exactly constitutes a food culture. This term should be distinguished from cuisine which refers only to the cooking, servicing and appreciation of food. Naturally we include this within each entry and in doing so have taken the broadest possible definition of the term cuisine. That is, if a people cooks and recognizes a common set of recipes and discusses them with a common vocabulary, then it should be deemed a cuisine. Thus there is no place on earth without a cuisine. A nation, continent, region, and even a small group may share a common cuisine.

Others may not share the same broad view of what cuisine means, but we should also consider WP:RS - please consider that I may not be just making sh*t up. I don't think we should hence go and create a cuisine cat for every village, but can we at least accept that there are multiple, contested definitions of the word cuisine and that it is used in broad ways or in narrow ways? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the key words above: "a common set of recipes."  The Potato Hose ↘ 15:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Revised proposal[edit]

Based on discussions with Potato Hose, and understanding better what the proposed approach above is, I have a modified compromise to propose:

  1. Create Category:Food culture of X for all cities, as well as any regions if it would apply. This category would contain Category:Restaurants of X, Category:Cuisine of X, and any other relevant articles.
  2. In cases where there is enough information to merit an article Cuisine of X, then the corresponding category could remain (even if the head article isn't yet written.) Thus, things like Category:Cuisine of New Orleans, Louisiana, Category:Cuisine of Chicago, Illinois, etc would remain, but would now be children of Category:Food culture of New Orleans - food culture would include culinary festivals, local markets, local/specialty ingredients, as well as cultural significance of food, food-related ceremonies, food-related traditions like Category:Japanese_tea_ceremony. As another example, Category:Food culture of Seattle would include Category:Coffee in Seattle, Pike_Place_Fish_Market, Seattle-style_hot_dog, Seattle_roll, etc.
  3. If in the future, a significant number of dishes were developed in Seattle, cookbooks written, and food-writers start to talk about Seattle's nouvelle cuisine, then the Category:Cuisine of Seattle cat could be created and all of the food/dishes moved there - but the Food culture parent category would remain.
  4. In cases where a top-level cuisine article could *not* be written, then the corresponding articles in Category:cuisine of X would be merged to the parent, and the cuisine sub-cat deleted for now.
  5. We would have to sort out which sorts of things belong in cuisine and which ones belong in food culture (e.g where to put breweries, wine, etc)

This is close to what was being proposed above, but different. There would not be two categories of cities or places, e.g. those which get a "food culture" cat and those which get a "cuisine" cat - instead, all cities (and places as well) would get a "food culture" cat, b/c food culture is broader than cuisine, and certainly exists in every city). In some cities, where WP:RS identify a specific cuisine of that city they would also have a cuisine cat. Again, an entry from the Food cultures encyclopedia may help outline the potential scope of a food culture category: [3]

This encyclopedia however covers much more [[than cuisine]. It explores the social context of consumption, the shared values and symbolic meaning that inform food choices, and the rituals and daily routine - indeed everything that constitutes a food culture. Thus we include religion, health, mealtimes, and special occasions, as well as the way certain foods confer status or have meanings beyond simple sensory gratification.

I think this solution will satisfy those who don't want to see something like Category:Cuisine of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, while also expanding our potential for coverage of food-related topics that go beyond cuisine, and leaving the door open for cities to develop cuisines in the future without losing their food culture cat (as I think the initial proposal was suggesting).

Per the specifics of the above, this would mean to keep *all* except:

The other ones would be sub-catted underneath, e.g. Category:Food culture of New York City, etc.

If the articles for Cuisine of Omaha and Cuisine of Philadelphia are deleted or rescoped/renamed appropriately, then those cats could be deleted as well and merged up to food culture - but as long as we have appropriately sourced articles, I don't see why we can't have matching categories. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, here. I wouldn't say that barbecue is a cuisine. It's a method of preparation, sure, but it's not associated with a place or a particular tradition. A regional style of barbecue, on the other hand, is absolutely part of a cuisine, because it constitutes part of a characteristic style. I'm trouble by the assertion that a dish associated with a place is not part of that place's cuisine. A dish is a method of preparing food, which is a core part of what constitutes a cuisine.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue that a dish associated with a place or culture is absolutely part of a cuisine, and can be discussed in a "Cuisine of X" article. What we need to talk about is categories, and whether a dish's cultural associations can be defining for that dish. It's true that some dishes are strongly associated with a place but aren't defined by that association. But others are, and deserve that categorization. For example, Stromboli and Cheesesteak are both from Philadelphia and are part of its cuisine, but only cheesesteak is clearly defined by that association. The problem is, we run into fuzzy lines as to whether membership in a cuisine is defining or not, which starts to run up against WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. We also will face a lot of categories that are too small, and so run up against WP:SMALLCAT. There may also be a problem per WP:OC#ASSOCIATED. And WP:DEFINING suggests that, if a characteristic is prone to overcategorization in any of these ways, it's not a defining characteristic and shouldn't constitute a category. So we may do better to rethink "Cuisine of X" categories as an infobox or list. Ibadibam (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point - the compromise above was proposed because some people don't want to see Category:Cuisine of X for certain American cities, claiming that such a cuisine does not really exist. Its a reasonable argument, in that I haven't seen many cookbooks on the Cuisine of Lancaster, PA. But other cities do have cuisines. Per the proposal above, any dish closely associated with a particular place could be put in the Category:Cuisine of X if the cat exists, otherwise it would go to Category:Food culture of X which is more of a container category and thus not really subject of WP:DEFINING in the same way as other cats are (it's just a specific subset of culture). In any case, we wouldn't have to create Category:Food culture of X for *every* city- only those where we have sufficient articles to merit a category in the first place. We shouldn't get too caught up in fuzzy lines here - this whole thing is guaranteed to be fuzzy, it will just have to be worked out on an article-by-article basis (e.g. is a bagel part of NY cuisine? we don't need to debate it here in any case)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, you do whatever you want. You opposed this nomination on ideological/process grounds, and keep shifting the goalposts. You have thus far been unable to demonstrate that you're reading what I write--you have demonstrated the exact opposite--so I see no point at all in discussing anything further with you. When and if you start demonstrating otherwise, I'll think about commenting.  The Potato Hose ↘ 18:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To my opinion, a category about a local cuisine needs to satisfy two conditions: 1) it should contain a main article about the local cuisine it is referring to, and , 2) it should contain at least five relevant links beside the main article. (Along the lines of navigation templates, that need five relevant links.) The Banner talk 21:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but please Listify. The issue isn't whether such referenced information should exist on Wikipedia, but rather whether it should be conveyed through the category system. In this case, a list page, which could reference the information, and summarise the reasons for inclusions of each entry (neither of which are possible in categories) is the better way to go. - jc37 03:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - my proposal above is not to replace one by the other, but rather to create Food culture as a parent of cuisine. In some cases, you will only have food culture, as there is not enough to make up a cuisine - so Category:Food culture of Seattle with no Category:Cuisine of Seattle, whereas you would have Category:Food culture of Rome with a sub-cat Category:Roman cuisine.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bing returns almost precisely 100 times as many hits on cuisine as on food culture. An encyclopedia reflects usage. — Robert Greer (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2013 (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:Freopedia stubs[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: I totally do not understand the expressed rationales for or against renaming this, but it's clear that there is no consensus to do so.
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Revisiting the previous discussion. This is not intended as a WP:STUBSORT category, so should not be named like one. Willing to accept alternate proposals, but the category name should not end in "stubs". Dawynn (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose stub articles are stub articles they arent WP:OWNED by WP:STUBSORT, stub rating is exactly the same as C B A class articles. defined as The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short; but, if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category.. Also Wikipedia:Assessment#Assessing_articles states that anyone can assess an article except for GA & FA where there is a process in place. Gnangarra 06:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one has asked for WP:STUBSORT to "own" the articles. This is not at all about who can classify the articles or what makes an article a specific classification. This is not even about whether a category should exist for this specific set of articles. This discussion entails only the naming of this category. Please keep to the topic of the discussion. Dawynn (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • thats what the proposal says the category must be renamed because the name "stubs" is owned by stubsort project. Gnangarra 16:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per an argument for usage of the project (Freopedia) name first, then, what the qualifying terms might be - if there is angst related to a specific policy or guideline about the last word being 'stub' - why not Freopedia project stub articles? sats 08:59, 16 May 2013 (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:Bien de Interés Cultural buildings in the Province of Cádiz[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 action; the nominated category is a redirected category, so the contents are auto-merged to the target category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: redirect Loginnigol (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What is the nominator's desired action here? The category is already a category redirect, which is entirely appropriate. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:02, 18 May 2013 (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:Jewish communal organizations[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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename per Community organization. While a few of the category contents are related to communal Jewish organization, I believe the adjective "communal" may be misleading in this case, and the author may not have been aware of there is an ambiguity in the use of this term, and that readers are more likely to relate it to the noun "commune," rather than "community". Indeed, I see Merriam-Webster lists it first as an adjective for 'commune'. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2013 (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:Black feminists[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: rename, but this close is without prejudice to the re-creation of Category:Black feminists if it is defined and populated to mean people within the field of "Black feminism" as opposed to a skin colour category.
Nominator's rationale: We don't categorize by race, but looking at the contents of this category, that's what seems to be happening (I note for example that it is not, today, parented by Category:American feminists, and there are Nigerians, British, Kenyans, and other nationalities represented).
However, the bulk of the membership are African-Americans, so I think this should be purged of non-African-American names and renamed and re-scoped.
Black feminism is a notable strain of thought in feminism and there may even be scope for a category on same, but while Black feminism tries to look at the specific issues of women of color and their experiences, we shouldn't as a result classify biographies based on shared skin color, which is what this one seems to be.
I considered whether the category is less a racial category and more a category about a shared philosophy (i.e. like Category:Womanists, which should be kept, as a sub-branch of Feminism) - but ultimately I think the two are too closely intertwined - there are African-american women (and men, like Frederick Douglass) in this category who were already long gone when the concept of Black feminism was first elaborated.
I think a rename is the best solution here. A different list of "Prominent black feminist thinkers" could be created, of course - but as a general purpose philosophy+skin color, this one doesn't work. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom. This seems to be an ethnic category which has little to do with the 1970s movement. Dimadick (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it seems to me to be more of a racial category, since it mixes Nigerians, Kenyans, Brits, and Americans of color - I don't think being African, or of African descent is a "ethnicity" per se.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and purge of the non-Americans. We categorize by ethnicity, and Balck British, Nigerians, Igbo, Kenyas, Fante and Fulani are not the same ethnicity as African-Americans.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete race category not needed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a race category; it's a philosophy category relating to "Black feminism". "African American feminism" Unfortunately we would need to disambiguate the category name. Something along the lines of "Theorists of Black feminism" would be accurate to the category members. --Lquilter (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well... maybe - we don't know what the intent was in creating this category. It *ended* up being a race category, as all sorts of women of color were added in a haphazard way, and not necessarily demonstrating through their bios that they are adherents of "black" feminism. My proposal is a rescoping, but it puts this in line with other standard cats where we have an ethnic sub-category. I think on the other hand a list of "Scholars of black feminist thought" could be created, but I'm not sure it would work as a cat.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2013 (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:Rappers from Long Island[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: Upmerge to Category:Rappers from New York. - jc37 03:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Several "X from Long Island" categories were deleted because we don't categorize by what island a performer is from. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "X from Long Island" does not denote an island but a cultural region distinct from that of New York City. In the realm of hip hop music,  in particular, this kind of subdivision is necessary to distinguish the roots of different styles that form the foundation of  the art form in New York. Not including a Rappers from Long Island category would be the same as not distinguishing between boroughs of New York City when describing a genre in which the artist even define themselves by their region of origin. You would never dare remove a Rappers from the Bronx or Rappers from Queens category.   To be clear, Rappers from Long Island does not even denote Long Island as a land mass but as a region of Eastern long island known colloquially by New Yorkers as Long Island specifically due to the cultural differences from the boroughs of New York City. Brooklyn and Queens are part of Western long island but are colloquially excluded for the same reason. Swimm12984 (talk) 5:31, 15 May 2013 (EST)
  • Upmerge to Category:Rappers from New York City or Category:Rappers from New York, as appropriate. You realize there is no Category:Rappers from the Bronx, don't you? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is however a "Rappers from New York City category", is there not? Long Island is not a part of New York City. It is a distinct region and cannot be categorized within the "Rappers from New York City" category. If we are to be fair, then an upmerge would apply to any other region as well, including "Rappers from New York City". 29 articles is not enough to warrant a category all its own? This categorization is far from useless. It does, after all, contain articles about plenty of notable public figures from a region. Swimm12984 (talk) 3:04, 19 May 2013 (EST)
Actually part of Long Island is in NYC, and part of it is not. The problem is that there are all sorts of possible regional schemes that could all be overlaid on top of one another. For better or worse, we mostly stick with geopolitical divisions for biographical articles -- i.e., boroughs, cities/counties, states/provinces, countries/territories, etc. --Lquilter (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to New York category. There is no agreed upon definition of Long Island, because for every person who would include Brooklyn and Queens, there will be another who insists we are wrong to include those two places in the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2013 (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:Places affected by Hurricane Katrina[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: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 15:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having been affected by a hurricance is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of an article about a place that existed before the hurricane (e.g. Baton Rouge). This category does not form part of a "Places affected by ..." category tree. DexDor (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete classic example of something that is not defining. I shudder to think of what might come next if we let such a tree sprout. Category:Places that got snow on tuesday? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It would be useful if we actually had sub-articles on the effects of the Hurricane on specific locations. I don't see the use of a category where the articles barely cover the disaster. Dimadick (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the purpose of categories is to help readers navigate to aricles. Categories are created when there are a number of articles on a particular subject and there is no other good way for the reader to find all thse articles together in one place. This category serves that purpose; there is no abstract rule to override this. Hmains (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's fundamental to WP categorization that it's for categorizing by defining characteristics. A category should not be for any article that has "some mention" of a subject. If non-defining categories such as "affected by" were allowed then some articles (e.g. those about cities) could be in hundreds of categories which would make categorization less useful. DexDor (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a defining trait. We do not want to categorize places by every storm that has effected them, every major earthwuake, etc. Also, what does "affected" mean here? There were places that got lots of people who were displaced by the hurricane moving there, should they also be included?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining with huge potential for clutter. How many hurricanes has a place like Homestead, Florida been affected by, for instance? Given how many hurricanes make landfall, tornadoes touch down, etc., this could not hope to do anything but grow into a giant, unmaintainable mess. Resolute 15:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unworkable to categorize places by what various events they were caught up in. Just imagine Category:Places affected by the American Civil War or such. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This is completely insane. Coastal locations on the Gulf and on the Atlantic seaboard are each "affected" by many hurricanes, if not dozens; conversely the list of places affected by Hurricane Sandy would include, at a minimum, all of New Jersey, NYC, Long Island, points inland..... Hurricane Agnes "affected" most of the east coast. Hurricane articles can contain selected lists of notably damaged locations, and already include maps, but categorizing locations this way is indiscriminate. Mangoe (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2013 (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:Robin Hood locations[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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being mentioned in Robin Hood legend is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of an article about a real place (e.g. London). The Tales of Robin Hood article should be upmerged to Category:Robin Hood. DexDor (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. not defining. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While I doubt its a defining category for London, locations such as Kirklees Priory (supposed location of Robin's death and burial), and Sherwood Forest owe their reputation to the legend. It seem quite defining to me. Dimadick (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Kirklees Priory article just mentions RH in a brief weasaly worded ("connected with", "claims to be") paragraph at the end of the article. As for Sherwood Forest, it may be famous because of RH, but we don't generally categorize things like forests by what they're (currently) famous for (e.g. what books, films etc they've appeared in) or what events (fictional or real) may have taken place in them. DexDor (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So it is defining then. See below for "we don't ...." Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, SF is currently best known for its connection with RH, but that doesn't mean RH is a defining characteristic of SF - e.g. Sandy Hook is currently best known because of a crime, but we don't categorize that place under crime. DexDor (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We don't should not categorize real places by fictional associations. Analogous to "performer by performance" or worse, "X associated with Y". --Lquilter (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being mentioned in a fictional work is not notable for a real place. I shudder to think what would happen if we let this stand and put London in more such categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my above and the comments above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Places associated with Robin Hood and trim Clearly is defining for Sherwood Forest, Nottingham & others, as the tourist boards would tell you. Cut London (he doesn't even go there in most versions), & maybe others, but most seem fine. I've removed London, & am dubious about Lincoln, though all their main trains seem RH branded. As far as I'm concerned, he wore "Lincoln green" but that's it. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2nd para of the Nottingham article mentions RH, but it also mentions bicycles and tobacco - would you place Nottingham in "Places associated with bicycles" or "Places associated with tobacco" categories ? There's currently only 2 WP categories that begin "Places associated with..." or "Places connected with..." (and one of those is currently at CFD). The Stratford-upon-Avon article isn't in a "Places associated with Shakespeare" category. DexDor (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which do you think is the stronger association in the public mind, in the UK never mid internationally? Shakespeare is only firmly associated with two places - if he had a clearer biography a category might well be justified. We have plenty of places/real people categories (start with religious figures - Category:Monasteries where Gautama Buddha stayed etc), though their names do not follow a standard form. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my question would be, why make a category for something that would have a small number of articles? That would be like "Elizabeth Taylor's husbands" -- overcategorization by creating categories for small sets of things that are not going to get bigger. It seems like the idea would be to *tag* things "Robin Hood", and then subdivide ... but Wikipedia's "category" system is, alas, not a "tagging" system. The better approach would be to (a) note in the relevant articles that they're associated with Robin Hood, and (b) link that content to, (c) an article or list or section of an article that is about "places associated with Robin Hood". ... It's certainly useful & interesting information; it's just not a good fit for the MediaWiki "category" software. --Lquilter (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod - RH probably is "the stronger association in the public mind", but if a "places associated with" category tree was allowed to grow how would you stop Nottingham being categorised for its association with bicycles, tobacco etc ? The monastries example isn't quite so bad - for one thing its inclusion criteria is clearer, but it'd still be better handled by a list than by a category. DexDor (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_10&oldid=1138398364"