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. – FayenaticLondon 21:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. He completely fails to grasp the difference between art and The arts and is causing all sorts of pproblems. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (possibly full upmerge). This is serving no useful purpose. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fully agree, including Johnbod's analysis. When is the community going to take the step of blocking him from category creation, I wonder. He's far too often at Cfd, fails to learn or even acknowledge mistakes, and he's a net negative for the project at this point. His categorization is devolving into word play and logic that are meaningful almost solely to him.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2016 (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.
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 as discussed. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:upmerge the eponymous article to all parent categories per WP:SMALLCAT. This category currently contains just this one article (and a subcat that shouldn't be upmerged). I would expect this topic to have some growth potential but given the current state of the category it will probably take a long while before there is enough to re-establish this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- My only question is what we should do about the Monetarists subcat, which will not fit well into the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2016 (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.
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 nominated category can be re-created and used as a parent category for the target category when there is a non-book work by Keynes with a WP article. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:rename per actual content, books is more specific than works. Also change the parent categories from "works" to "books". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I expect he wrote articles as well as books and some such articles may warrant an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion, let's rename the category for now and reinstate the works category as a parent category as soon as one Wikipedia article about a Keynes' article appears. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for now, without prejudice to re-creating the category if any articles about his non-book works are written. – FayenaticLondon 22:04, 15 May 2016 (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.
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.
Comment: Technically, a Linux-kernel-based operating system isn't necessarily also a Linux distribution. For example, Android is certainly an operating system based on the Linux kernel, but it generally isn't recognized as a Linux distribution. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Dsimic. A Linux distribution basically is a Linux-kernel based GNU-distribution. A Linux kernel-based OS, for example on embedded systems, may however use other tools on the same kernel basis. However, the category currently mostly seems to contain regular Linux/GNU distributions. Unsure at first glance, if Univention Corporate Server or Raspbian are still to be considered a "Linux distribution". --PanchoS (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dsimic:@PanchoS: Just wondering, if indeed the category currently mostly contains regular Linux/GNU distributions, shouldn't we delete the nominated category per WP:OVERLAPCAT? Marcocapelle (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: I purged the category a bit, and added the Linux-kernel-based Android, so there should be not much overlap left. As I said, "Linux distribution" is a common language term for a "Linux/GNU distribution", and an operating system that is build on top of a (modified) Linux kernel but otherwise doesn't include many of the tools that form the Linux/GNU "ecosphere" isn't a "Linux distribution". A GPL licence would also make a difference. We might want to establish clearer inclusion criteria from literature, but for now, I think we can live with it. --PanchoS (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for updating the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2016 (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.
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 for now, without prejudice to a nomination for deletion, which could be combined with a broader nomination for other categories within Category:Holiday foods. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Mardi Gras refers either to a specific day in the Carnival season, or to events within that season. This category currently contains a number of dishes, such as Fasnacht (doughnut), Berliner (doughnut) which are associated with the season in general, rather than a specific day, and may not be limited to special events. Given the close association in subject matter and narrow scope, I think a rename is more suitable than splitting the category. Ibadibam (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Before I read the articles, I expected to vote delete. But the articles are definitely defined by Carnival, and not just Mardi Gras. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator – Given that "carnival" can also mean a generic celebration, is there another term that might be more precise? Ibadibam (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (with some upmerging if necessary) as this is non-defining for Berliner (doughnut), Pancake etc. If anyone wants to create a list of foods associated with Mardi Gras then go ahead. DexDor(talk) 21:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least they need purging. For example, Potato pancake is perfectly well categorized by Category:Potato dishes and Category:Pancakes - all the other categories it's in are inappropriate attempts to create lists in category space. DexDor(talk) 21:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DexDor and precedent; foods by when eaten have been deleted before, like Breakfast foods for basically similar reasons. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, rename as nominated. If not kept, listify. Neutral about whether or not deleting. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator – if consensus is to delete this category, I would prefer to withdraw this CfD and re-nominate it for deletion as part of a multi-CfD together with Category:Holiday foods and each one of its subcategories, since I think the question of definingness applies equally to all of them. Ibadibam (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2016 (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.
