< May 26 May 28 >

May 27

Category:Pastry chefs by nationality

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) 01:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Just one subcategory (with just two articles) does not warrant a parent category The Banner talk 20:28, 27 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:Dutch pastry chefs

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 to Category:Pastry chefs and Category:Dutch chefs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with only two articles in in, of which one on AfD. Content can be moved to category Pastry chefs The Banner talk 20:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally merge to Category:Dutch chefs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 3 June 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:People from Peebles, Ohio

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Overly small category. There's only one entry right now; the parent Adams County category has no Peebles people; and Peebles is a small community with just a thousand residents, so it's not likely to have other notable people (whether already notable or up-and-coming) to put into this category. Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 27 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:DragonFly BSD

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:09, 27 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:Election agencies of the United Kingdom

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: restructure, creating Category:Boundary commissions in the United Kingdom and removing Electoral Commission (United Kingdom) which should have "see also" links instead. There is a consensus to make a change but no agreement on that change, so the closing admin has to be inventive; and given the point that "Boundary Commissions have nothing to do with any actual elections", I do not anticipate challenge to this outcome. – Fayenatic London 19:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Election agencies of the United Kingdom to Category:Election commissions in the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy

The main article is at Election commission and the names of the articles use commission eg. Boundary Commission and Electoral Commission. Not nominating the Canada category as there seems be specific concerns which would be better addressed in a separate nomination. Tim! (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is? A very dubious assertion. It's a vague word that can mean lots of things. Johnbod (talk) 19:31, 25 June 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:Modern surface-to-air missiles of the United Kingdom

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:Modern missiles of the United Kingdom, Category:Surface-to-air missiles of the United Kingdom and Category:Modern surface-to-air missiles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:modern surface-to-air missiles of the United Kingdom to Category:Post–Cold War surface-to-air missiles of the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: This category is being used for Post–Cold War SAMs (there's a sibling category for Cold War SAMs of the UK), but elsewhere "modern" is defined very differently (e.g. Category:Modern weapons is for "Weapons of the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries") so in cases like this it's best to avoid the m-word. There's only one article in the category and that's for a SAM that entered service in 1997 so it fits the new cat name. This change would also make this category more consistent with categories like Category:Military vehicles of the post–Cold War period, although there isn't (yet) a "Military equipment of the post–Cold War period" category. Note: There are other categories that use the word "modern" inconsistently, but that's not a good reason not to fix this one. Note: Previous CFDs to reduce the use of "modern" in military equipment categories include this. DexDor (talk) 05:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a blue-link so it would be an upmerge rather than a rename and wouldn't the upmerge need to be to all 3 parent cats ? It should only be in one national category - see the text at Category:Weapons by country. DexDor (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to all parents. However some of the parents are also "modern" categories that may also need merging. The sibling is missiles against ships. Since airborn missilles are largely a post-WWII phenomenon. I see no need for a split between modern and ancient(?). Peterkingiron (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron, you have now !voted twice with different proposals in the two comments. Are you nullifying your previous comment? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was intneding to support the upmerge. Apologies for not deleting my previous vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I figured—just wanted to be sure. Thx. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:26, 30 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:Plant common names in New Zealand

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. I looked at a few and this facet of the article title is not defining for the plant. It is better to delete and try again, maybe. I have a suspicion that the best solution here would be to listify the entire tree where you can show the common name, the Latin names, the source of the common name and whatever else is deemed to be important. I will note that Category:Plant common names already has several list articles so this solution is already in place, albeit in small pieces. Also this discussion can not be closed without considering the similar discussion mentioned. I see nothing here that says the close of the other discussion was wrong. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Articles shouldn't be categorized by the form of their title. This has some similarity with another recent CFD. DexDor (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak rename and purge 24 of the 29 member articles are titled by Maori names (and several of the others of English etymology are not common names unique to New Zealand). Maybe rename the category something like Category:Maori common names for plants and remove names derived from English? I'm sure there are some English-derived plant common names unique to New Zealand, but I'm not sure that breaking common names down by country is very useful. All the articles (Maori or English) could be listed at Category:Plant common names. Plantdrew (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dab pages (e.g. Toru, Horopito and Kawakawa) should not be in this or any other category that is not specifically for dab pages. If an article like Bush lawyer (plant) really is about a name rather than about a plant then why does it have a botany infobox ? DexDor (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Bush lawyer (plant) isn't about a common name (though a good candidate for a move to scientific name, which would preclude it from a common name category). And the DABs, as I understand DAB policy, don't actually handle common names according to DAB policy at all, although there are a lot of DABs that inappropriately still cover common names shared by several plants. As I understand DAB policy, Toru should have a link to Toru (plant), redirecting to the article at Toronia toru. And the DAB Kawakawa could have a link to Kawakawa (plant), which would be a SIA listing both Kawakawa (fern) and Kawakawa (tree). As I understand DAB policy, multiple plants with the same common name should all be in a SIA (linked from a DAB if other things share that same name). Plants with a common name ambiguous with other things, but unique to plants, should be listed in DAB by the common name with a parenthetical (plant). Most present DAB articles covering meanings that include a plant common name are a long way from the preferred DAB standard. Plantdrew (talk) 06:44, 3 June 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:De la Pole family

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 to delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is not about a single family, but at least two. I had a great deal of difficulty in removing genealogical rubbish that made a Hull merchant a descendant of the Princes of Powys (the equivalent of WP:OR). De la Pole means of the Pole (or pool). For the family descended from the Princes of Powys, this refers to Welshpool; for the Hull merchants, an insignificant place near there. These family categories are a potential menace: they are bringing people together by shared surname, which is a variety of overcategorisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, there is only one article in this cat - Owen de la Pole - that relates to the Welsh family and not to the Hull family. Deletion of the cat seems like a sledgehammer solution. Jsmith1000 (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Owen had one sons who just might be notable, but probably not. We have dozens if not hundreds of "Foo family" categories, and most of those names also have unrelated notable people. But a rename is certainly possible. I've also added to Owen's article saying he's not related to this lot. Johnbod (talk) 19:51, 1 June 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.
More