Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 26 May 28 >

May 27[edit]

Category:Pastry chefs by nationality[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) 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[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: 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]
  • Delete (upmerge) - as above. Neutralitytalk 13:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Pastry chefs. I really do not think we should split by nationality with less than 50 articles in the parent, since there are more than 50 nationalities and so the result will be needlessly small categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:50, 28 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[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: 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[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. 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]
  • Keep Enough content. —Ruud 12:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if it was clear that it made sense to categorize the person under this heading, which I do not think it is, we would only have three articles. In general we should have at least 5 to keep a category. Now if there are more articles that can be put here, I might recondisder, but for now I do not think we need it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would seem to be a completely arbitrary cut-off and fails to take into account the specifics of this individual category. The articles in this category clearly belong together and it is thus useful to keep them together in a category, while at the same time none of the parent categories would form an appropriate target for an upmerge. —Ruud 20:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:SMALLCAT.--Lenticel (talk) 17:53, 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.

Category:Election agencies of the United Kingdom[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: 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]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy
  • Election agencies
    Comment Should it be either "electoral commission" or "elections agency" as the main category name, and not "election commission" ? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly oppose "Commission" in Canada is a specific kind of entity; and elections commission would be a body struck by an office of elections (e.g. Elections BC or Elections Canada) to redetermine and redistribute electoral districts, or some other matter of that kind (electoral reform perhaps, but debates about that have so far as I know have taken place in BC where a Constituent Assembly was used, not a Commission). I just sampled several of the articles in the category, some use "organization" and some say "agency" but that may only be wiki-speak. An "agency" of a government is also a special kind of government operation, it may not apply to Offices of the Chief of the Electoral Officer, which is what all these "Elections FOO" titles really are, that's just their DBA/brand name. "Electoral offices" won't do either as it has potentially other meanings. "Commissions" won't do at all, it may in the UK, it won't in Canada.Skookum1 (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]

  • Rename but to Category:Electoral commissions in the United Kingdom: correct adjective. This does not mean that the parent will need to be renamed. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is only one "Electoral Commission" though - I can see the logic in that name but it would be rather confusing for the other bodies in that category? ninety:one 13:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In the United Kingdom, the word "commission" is used to mean "committee", rather than "agency". It is ironic that four of the pages in this category include the word "commission" in their names, but three of those are Boundary Commissions, which are not election agencies. After recommending boundaries (which may or may not be accepted by parliament), Boundary Commissions have nothing to do with any actual elections at all. Moonraker (talk) 18:24, 25 June 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]
  • Rename to something else "Agencies" is a bad word, and "commissions" little better. Something vague like "bodies" would be best to cover these very different, er, bodies.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[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: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]
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]
  • Rename to Category:Surface-to-air missiles of the United Kingdom. I do not believe UK has had a sufficient number of them at any era to warrant a split by period. Certainly, in recent times, the number of brands of a given type of weapon is small. There is an active arms trade, so that they are exported to many countries. If we allow national categories, some weapons will get dozens of categories, but they will essentially be performance (Use by armed forces of foo) by performer (weapon) categories, something we do not encourage. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:58, 1 May 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[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. 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]
  • Delete The articles are on plants, not names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete imagine the hundreds of categories on every living thing (and extinct things too). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Plant common names. i.e. skip the intermediate category Category:Plant common names by country, which was created at the same time. This would leave that intermediate category empty and it could then be speedied.

    Splitting Category:Plant common names by country is not the way to reduce its size. The huge number of categories that would result on something like Daisy, demonstrate the problem. With respect to the suggestion of a Maori category: having a Maori common name in New Zealand is not defining of the plant. The fact that we use Maori names in New Zealand is no more surprising (or interesting) than using Quechua names in the Andes. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment regarding nomination and John Pack Lambert's vote. The members of the category are articles about names, not about plants. All of them are either set indices listing several plants which share a common name, DABs covering one or more plants and other things which share the same name, or redirects to an article about a plant under another title. The articles presently in this category are categorized by their content (describing how a common name is applied), not just by the form of their title. Admittedly, this isn't immediately apparent, and there is some risk that the category future additions to the category could includes articles being categorized by the form of their title. I've also being thinking that the intersection of country and common names may be worthwhile in some cases (though I'm not sure it's the case here). The UK has a list of approved common names, and it would be useful to categorize articles about the names (i.e., only those which are SIAs, DABs or redirects) approved for plants in the UK.Plantdrew (talk) 22:04, 2 June 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[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 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]
  • Oppose If an article is placed in the wrong category, it is time to clean up the category. Not to delete it and leave all relevant articles untraceable. Dimadick (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This arbitrary grouping of unconnected families that happen to have the same name is miscategorization, and needs to stop.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 27 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]
  • Weak keep but clarify - surely better to have two clearly differentiated cats, if the two families are distinct? But I tend to agree with the general point that any family cat based on a surname is likely to attract all articles sharing that surname regardless, and that the idea isn't a particularly effective one. Jsmith1000 (talk) 09:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (from nom). The two families are distinct (except in certain invented genealogy). There is no verifiable evidence that they are related, and strong indications that they were not. Some years ago, I investigated this carefully. The last element of the name is an archaic spelling of pool (=pond). The Hull family seem to take their surname from a pool in a village in east Yorkshire. For the princely family of Powys it is Welshpool. There is no connection. We do not allow categorisation by shared surname. That is dealt with on dab-pages, such as "Foo (surname)". Peterkingiron (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Yes, you said that in your nomination. If two notable familes of De la Poles can be properly distinguished then have two distinct cats. Jsmith1000 (talk) 11:14, 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]
  • Keep Wouldn't the removal of Owen de la Pole from the category solve the problem? Couldn't a scope definition preclude his future inclusion? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Arbitrary grouping of unrelated persons. Neutralitytalk 13:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up. As far as I can tell, only Owen de la Pole is from the Welsh family, and obviously he should not be there. A note on the category page is easily enough to sort this out, and warn people of the possibility of confusion. A rename clarifying the matter doesn't seem necessary. I don't believe this is generally a problem in family categories, but where it is category notes should be enough to stop it. There is absolutely no justification for deleting the Earls-Dukes of Suffolk de la Poles just because someone else has the same name, and has been mistakenly placed here, which is what the nom amounts to. Predictably silly comments from Neutrality and Johnpacklambert. I have removed Owen from the category, so now there is no problem. His article had been around since 2007, but was only added to this category five weeks ago, the same day this nom was started! The nom's reference to "at least two" families seems just scaremongering, as everyone else is part of the Suffolk family as far as I can see. Storm in a teacup, even more than is usual here. Next time someone adds the wrog article to a category, just remove it, explaining why! Johnbod (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • However there are clearly notable de la Pole's who are not part of this particular family. Maybe we should rename it so incorrect inclusion does not happen again.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 1 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_27&oldid=1074811575"