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.
Nominator's rationale: Salem is a small town of under 1,000 people and with just two entries, one of which is the town article itself. It is too small for its own town category page. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per size of category. The size of the town is irrelevant - a town with 100 notable people would deserve its own category even if no one else lived there. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 03:07, 27 June 2017 (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:Royalty and nobility with disabilities[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. – FayenaticLondon 07:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the category tree there are quite a few occupation x blindness and occupation x deafness sibling categories. One might argue that disabilities like blindness and deafness are a big hinder in every occupation, hence all intersections should be allowed. Or if not, the question becomes where we draw the line, which intersections do we allow and which not? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; barring the last couple of centuries, such disabilities have been highly significant; they've often influenced international politics, since it's comparatively easy to take advantage of your rival if the king is blind or deaf. This category should exclude former monarchs who were blinded or de-eared during the process of deposition (e.g. Zedekiah or Michael V Kalaphates), because what happens post-deposition isn't particularly relevant to this specific issue. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2017 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Rename and restructure to become a sub-cat of Category:Crystals. The article Crystal equates "crystal" and "crystalline solid", but says that most metals & ceramics are polycrystalline solids. A small amount of recategorising will be required. – FayenaticLondon 18:15, 26 June 2017 (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. – FayenaticLondon 07:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current title appears to be a typo. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Butenolides might be a better title. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: "Furone" is a valid synonym, not a typo, but "furanone" is more common and is consistent with naming of related articles such as 2-Furanone. ChemNerd (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, I apologize for not speaking with you on categorisation, I agree renaming this category to the more suitable name furanone which match also the coming main article. 00:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)حسن علي البط
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:delete both. – FayenaticLondon 07:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category redirect. The final dot in title makes category unusable and useless, IMO. If someone wants, they can create a similar category redirect but without any additional unnecessary punctuation marks in title. XXN, 11:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete together with its target Category:Slavic Wikipedians which does not contain any Wikipedians. I've tagged the target category as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2017 (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:delete. – FayenaticLondon 11:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Turning down an award – not a specific award, but just any award in general – is not a defining personal characteristic. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, based on the category being very vague indeed. Not all awards are defining. Sionk (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I declined something at the county fair in my first year in 4-H, mostly due to a misunderstanding. If I became notable and someone wrote an article about me, this incident wouldn't be worth mentioning in my article, and categorising me this way would be even less useful than mentioning the incident. I agree that it would be useful to have a category for people who turned down a really major award, as long as the award had been declined by enough people to warrant having that category. Do we have any decliner-by-award categories? If there are several, this could perhaps be converted into a metacategory. Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2017 (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:Naval history of the Dutch Republic[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. – FayenaticLondon 15:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:merge or reverse merge, since the Dutch Republic does no longer exist, the scope of the two categories coincides. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- preferably as nom (not reverse). We have had a lot of unnecessary Dutch Republic categories created, which need pruning away. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2017 (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:Environmental and ecological economics[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 per precedents – only exists to match a JEL code. – FayenaticLondon 16:04, 21 July 2017 (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. bd2412T 00:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Rename per Fayenatic london's suggestion. Better grammar. Dimadick (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Our story is set in the Rhine, In it." A-nyway, Rename per Fayenatic. I have discovered an overall problem, though: the current category structure also includes films set on islands in the various oceans. Do we need to create (e.g.) Category:Films set at sea in the Atlantic Ocean as a subcat? Mangoe (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it appears that most films that are actually at sea are not in this hierarchy at all, but are in Category:Films set on ships. I'm beginning to think the category should just be deleted outright. Mangoe (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a category for Atlantis, and from, what I can see the appropriate films are already in it. Mangoe (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Let's then at least upmerge the category to its parents (rather than straight delete), in order to keep the content within the respective trees. Then related categories may be nominated together in a later stage. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per F. London, unless we want something specifically for underwater movies, e.g. a film version of Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea or something by Jacques Cousteau. Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to Category:Films set on ships, merging anything not in the latter category to the appropriate island/whatever category. "IN sea" is not standard usage; "at sea" means on a vessel. If you are on an island, you aren't at sea, and that's what the "by ocean" categories tend to gather up. Possibly things set on boats need to be categorized by where the boat is as well. Mangoe (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"At sea" need not mean just a vessel; The Castaways on Gilligan's Island is set on the shores of an uncharted desert isle, the whole premise being based on the fact that they're at sea, and it would fit quite well into a category of this sort. Also consider a naval aviation film that's entirely or almost entirely in the air (it's undeniably at sea, and the ships are only a tiny portion of the action), or Jaws (film), which is definitely an ocean movie, and it doesn't appear to be set on a ship. Nyttend (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Ashore" is essentially the opposite of "at sea". Having read our synopsis of of the movie you give as an example, it's set ashore (on the island) and in the air, but not at sea; indeed, boats seem hardly to be involved. Mangoe (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2017 (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. bd2412T 00:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Grammatically incorrect and somewhat (though not totally) redundant to Category:Works set on oceans (which should itself be renamed Works by body of water or something. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if needed, bad grammar isn't a reason for deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Fayenatic london's suggestion. Dimadick (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Handle like the Category:Films set in sea discussion; I can't imagine why we'd want to do something to one without doing the same thing to the other. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2017 (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.
