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 keep. -- Kbdank71 19:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Official Residences of Australia

Voting results:

"Official residences in Australia" (2): Courtland, ScottDavis

"Official residences of Australia" (2): Clarkk, Cyberjunkie

"Australian official residences" (3): Cyberjunkie, Clarkk, James F

No consensus. Default is to keep.

casing error, should be renamed to category:Official residences of Australia. clarkk 11:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Either they are very big residences (big enough for 25 000 000 people) or that should be Category:Official residences in Australia, surely! Grutness| ^hello? 11:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

that is even better. clarkk 11:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support move => Category:Official residences in Australia as a matter of clean-up. Courtland 05:37, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
• Rename: Yes, incorrect capitalisation that should be corrected - I claim fault. Though I would support Official residences of Australia over Official residences in Australia, because the latter may imply any official residence, like, say, an Embassy. Unless, of course, the category is to become as broad as that.-- Cyberjunkie 06:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Perhaps even Category:Australian official residences could be considered as an alternative. This would allow for state official residences to be listed as well, while excluding foreign residences. It is also the equivilant of Canadian official residences.-- Cyberjunkie 07:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  support this option, consistency with other countries categories is good. clarkk 10:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Comment - it is generally best of avoid Fooian Bar, and better to use Bar of/in Foo. Burgundavia 09:58, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Rename to Category:Official residences in Australia. If "...in..." could include (say) the US Embassy in Canberra, then "...of..." and Category:Australian official residences could both include the Australian embassy in Washington. If people start including buildings not intended, then make a subcategory for them. -- ScottDavis 14:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Australian official residences. James F. (talk) 21:34, 10 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. -- Kbdank71 13:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Hong Kong surnames

Voting results:

"Delete" (6): Huaiwei, Kbdank71, SchmuckyTheCat, Susvolans, Umofomia, Radiant

"Keep" (1): Instantnood

Consensus is to delete.

A superfluous category, considering that Category:Chinese family names are shared by any ethnic Chinese preserving his Chinese name in just about any country or territory.-- Huaiwei 11:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • • Note that the ongoing discussion between Instantnood and SchmuckyTheCat, part of which is visible below, is currently listed on Requests for Arbitration. Radiant _* 12:01, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: This poll on surnames is not related. It is nominated after the RFAr. — Insta ntnood 12:14, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The way surnames in Hong Kong are romanised are different. Articles in this categories have separate listing of notable people. Rankings of these surnames, if available, will be added later. — Insta ntnood 11:23, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The romanisation of these surnames are not confined to Hong Kong. Each of the entries listed has countless Chinese all over the World sharing that surname's spelling and has nothing to do with Hong Kong. In addition, the same romanisation can actually mean different surnames in different dialect groups, which some of these articles fail to address.-- Huaiwei 12:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Add necessary content and categories to these articles if necessary. If you're not happy with the current name we can rename all such categories as "category:Chinese surnames romanised/transcribed according to [language name]". — Insta ntnood 12:26, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • That is not neccesary either. Category:Hong Kong surnames is the first category trying to classify surnames based on a geographic locality. In Category:Surnames, however, all other surnames are classified according to language, groups of languages, religion, or specific and unique naming systems (as opposed to surnames) confined in geographic locality like in India, or by language such as in Germany. We do not need "Category:country name surnames" for every country on Earth, let alone a sub-territory of a country, or else a common surname like "Chen" is going to have countless subcategories by country just because there is one "Chen" who migrated there yesterday, for example?-- Huaiwei 12:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Interestingly list of most common surnames is currently sorted according to countries. I agree surnames should be categorised according to language and transcription system, and I thought about that when I created the category. The surnames I have categorised are all Chinese surnames transcripted from Cantonese and according to Hong Kong conventions. — Insta ntnood 13:10, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • I asked for a deletion of a category, and the example you quoted was an article. An article like this will not result in countless subcategories in surname pages, which a category will. In this case, it is not neccesary to classify surnames according to transcription systems, because as I said, these systems are not unique to Hong Kong. You added lines like "XXX is a Hong Kong surname" in disambig pages at the same time that you add the above category. This is highly erroneous, because none of them are specific to Hong Kong either.-- Huaiwei 13:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • To repeat, all of these surnames are Han surnames transcripted based on Cantonese and Hong Kong conventions. I have never rule out they are at the same time surnames elsewhere, transcripted based on other romanisation method and other spoken variants. Add content and categories to these articles if you think it is necessary. — Insta ntnood 14:03, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • If all of them are Han surnames, why cant they stay in Category:Chinese family names? When you say "transcripted based on Cantonese conventions", is this specific to any country or territory? Is Cantonese a language spoken only in Hong Kong? You asked me to "add content and categories"...what kind of categories? More surnames classified by countries? Is it ever neccesary to mention where these surnames are used, when it is probably far better and less contentious to simply indicate how each dialect group may anglicise these surnames, which btw is well described at List of common Chinese surnames?-- Huaiwei 14:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't you think it is necessary to categorise non-Pinyin- and non-Mandarin-based surnames separately? As far as I know it's not only the case in Hong Kong but also in Singapore, such as Teo, Ong, Goh, etc., and perhaps Kho in Malaysia. — Insta ntnood 14:28, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • Why should it be neccesary? Anglicised surnames which were not based on Mandarin should actually be made to redirect back to the Mandarin pronunciation, because they all refer to the same term. In cases such as Ng, which corresponds to different terms in Mandarin when used in different dialect groups, a disemg page should be created instead. In this setup, would any subcategory be neccesary?-- Huaiwei 14:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • What do you think about the current Ng article, despite the categories? — Insta ntnood 18:09, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not quite sure why we even have a category for names (or articles, for that matter). - Kbdank71 13:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • These are not the only articles on surnames. — Insta ntnood 13:25, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete! I thought like Kbdank71 did, but saw categories for other names so I left it. Huaiwei's suggestion though, is great. The Cantonese romanization should be listed on the relevant, already existing, surnames - which I note many already have two or three alternate romanizations. Essentially, Instantnood is creating DUPLICATE articles to populate his category. The relevant surname is presumably expressed in the same Chinese characters (or with minor variation, like Smith/Smythe) everywhere. So why create seperate articles based on different english spelling? Instantnood is also being racist, is he going to include all the Smith's and Mathesons who have lived in HK for two centuries? No, because they are adequately covered elsewhere, as are his new articles. We don't (or shouldn't) make geographical distinctions for names. SchmuckyTheCat 15:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: More than half of the articles were existing ones. Han surnames in Hong Kong do not correspond one-to-one to Pinyin counterparts, and redirects wouldn't work. — Insta ntnood 15:37, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Examples please. I have yet to hear of any Chinese surname only found in Hong Kong.-- Huaiwei 17:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Wait. Do you actually understand what I was saying in the above comment? — Insta ntnood 18:09, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Geographical rather than ethnic classification for names makes no sense. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 15:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree. But it is geography that leads to the differences in transcription. — Insta ntnood 15:37, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • It is not so much of geography, but more of politics in this case. Singapore's adoption of the pinyin romanisation system does not make it geographically closer to the PRC, for example.-- Huaiwei 17:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Han surnames in Singapore are not entirely transcripted based on Pinyin. — Insta ntnood 18:09, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see why these surnames can't just fall under the Category:Chinese family names. The only difference is the transcription system that is being used. The surnames when you get down to it are the same, whether it is Wu, Woo, or Ng. We probably will need a separate discussion on how we would like to organize these names though (perhaps at Talk:Chinese surname?). -- Umofomia 18:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Or perhaps Wikipedia talk:China-related topics notice board (plus hyperlinks from Wikipedia talk:Hong Kong wikipedians' notice board and Wikipedia talk:Taiwan-related topics notice board)? — Insta ntnood 18:38, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • A discussion in one location, either at Talk:Chinese surname or Category:Chinese family names will do. These pages are more specific to the topic in question, and I am quite wary of this love for having multiple discussions taking place concurrently in multiple discussion groups. Direct all of them to one discussion please.-- Huaiwei 12:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Request: In this discussion several logical and reasonable problems are suggested, and they have to be dealt with. The surnames are the same Han characters (despite traditional/simplified) no matter how they are transcribed, and the articles can perhaps be merged, with redirects and disambiguations. Should the poll be paused until how the surnames should be presented is settled? — Insta ntnood 18:38, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • NO It just becomes another parallel universe for you to plug stuff into as long as it exists. SchmuckyTheCat 19:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't you think it is necessary for it to be settled? — Insta ntnood 05:38, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • Given that, so far, everyone except you wants to get rid of the category, I think that settles it perfectly well. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I am now requesting to work for a solution on how Chinese surnames should be dealt with on Wikipedia, given the existence of many spoken variants, and romanisation methods based on different variants. — Insta ntnood 12:49, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • (response to Instantnood's comment at 05:38, Apr 5, 2005) I do not see why this vote has to be suspended. The category in question is being debated on, and it is clear few can see its usability, a result which can actually aid the formulation of how Chinese surnames should be subsequently treated and/or categorised.-- Huaiwei 12:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Would you mind further elaborate how the result here can "actually aid the formulation of how Chinese surnames should be treated"? — Insta ntnood 12:49, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Huaiwei. Radiant _* 12:01, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The discussion has now started at Talk:Chinese surname#Chinese surnames on Wikipedia. — Insta ntnood 15:03, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

• As it stands at the moment, it's a 5-1 vote for Delete. The discussion on the page listed just above also stopped on April 6. By standard voting policy, this would now mean deletion but all the discussion on both sides has raised several issues that seem to remain unresolved (I do not know enough about Chinese surnames to determine otherwise). At this point, I recommend that this category be nominated on VFD to try to get wider community input on the issue. RedWolf 22:21, Apr 17, 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 rename to "Cuisine by culture". -- Kbdank71 16:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Food and drink by country

Voting results:

"Cuisine by culture" (3): VivaEmilyDavies, Pharos, Courtland

"Food and drink by culture" (1): Instantnood

"Food and drink by country" (1): Kbdank71

Consensus is to rename to "Cuisine by culture".

Renaming request. There was a cross of Category:Food and drink by country and Category:Cuisine. I started recategorizing, then realised that a better one would be Category:Cuisine by ethnicity or region, because cultural things not always match state boundaries. Examples: category:Slavic cuisine, category:Basque cuisine, category:European cuisine and some others that fit poorly into the "by country" schema. I had the same problem with category:dance and found that Category:Dance by ethnicity or region was a good choice. Any better ideas? Mikkalai 03:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support Category:Cuisine by ethnicity or region, consistent with your dance example. -- VivaEmilyDavies 17:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) Now agree with Pharos. Keep and move. VivaEmilyDavies 17:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• What about simply Category:Cuisine by culture?-- Pharos 09:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Move. I like the Category:Cuisine by culture because food traditions follow the people where they go and though the regional origins might still be clear, the actuality is becoming more disconnected with place as time goes on. That doesn't mean that "Meditteranean cuisine" would be excluded, but that "Meditteranean" would not have a geographic but a cultural meaning. Maybe that's a finer line of distinction than is practical, but I hope I've made the gist of what I'm saying clear enough. Courtland 14:13, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Keep and move (to "Food and drink by culture"), as per Courtland. The same could perhaps be done for other categories sharing some similarity, such as Scandinavian/Nordic. I prefer "Food and drink by culture" to "Cuisines by culture". — Insta ntnood 19:13, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• "By culture" is a very good idea. Mikkalai 18:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (the way it is, or at least keep one "by country"). There isn't anything that says an article can only be in one category. If a food belongs to different countries, it can go in that many categories. (Incidentally, what does "keep and move" mean? I think of "keep" as keep it the way it is, but "move" as move it to another category. In other words, I think of "keep and move" as voting "yes and no".) - Kbdank71 19:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Keep and move = Don't delete but move. :-D — Insta ntnood 19:30, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • You are missing the points of the discussion above. Cuisine is part of culture, not of politics. If you are going to place Basque cuisine into Spanish cuisine, you will offend many. On the other hand, restricting Jewish foods into Israel will look ridiculous. But then where? Into Poland? Into medieval Europe? Into Nazareth? Into US of A? Mikkalai 20:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Well said :) - although actually I guess Basque cuisine probably logically ought to be a distinct subcategory of Spanish cuisine (in the sense that it is one of the cultural cuisines present within Spain - and similarly it should probably be put under French cuisine too, if memory serves that is where a third of Basques live!). The point is that it shouldn't be restricted to being a subcategory of Spanish and French cuisine, it should also count as a culture in its own right and therefore appear directly as a subcategory of "cuisine by culture", "European cuisine" etc. I think this is actually one of those cases where an exception is acceptable to the "don't make Cat:X a subcategory of both Cat:Y and the parent of Cat:Y" rule. "Jewish food" is a clearer example, it should certainly be in "cuisine by culture" itself. Making it also a subcategory of the cuisines of countries with particularly large Jewish communities would probably be overkill due to the number of such countries and the difficulty in deciding a cut-off point. VivaEmilyDavies 23:57, 8 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.