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:Upmerge. I don't believe there is a meaningful difference between the two. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom unless someone offers some good explanation of why there is some crucial and clear distinction between the two. Has the category creator been notified? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't upmerge. First, it is a distinct subcategory and not identical to Category:Urban studies and planning. Second, upmerging will not solve the problem of having too many unordered entries in that category. Elekhh (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2009 (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:KEEP (though one could argue that as an expatriate myself, I'm biased). I'll leave it to others to fix the appropriate templates that will necessarily populate this only temporarily empty category, as Debresser observes below. postdlf (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious now that you have explained it, but it was not obvious when you nominated it.
Sorry to be blunt, but I'll take the WP:SPADE approach: deletion discussions are not a guessing or mind-reading game. If you couldn't be bothered to write a few words explaining clearly that you think that the new category is superfluous, and what you propose should be done with it, then why do you think that other editors should bother to try to second-guess your intentions --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominated category is both misnamed and empty. Alansohn (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I though of the argument of XLerate myself, so I agree with the pervious two editors that this category should be kept. Debresser (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2009 (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:Halophytes and salt-tolerant plants[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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. A newbie just wrote at Category talk:Halophytes and salt-tolerant plants, "'Halophytes and salt-tolerant plants' is redundant. I have started Category:Halophytes. These articles need to be recategorized." This I agree with, despite the category page text attempting to draw a distinction. Hesperian 03:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to reasons above. Thanks Hesperian! Ecologygirl (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2009 (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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: List-type categories are conventionally plural. Cybercobra(talk) 00:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can you convince me that this is not OCAT or too small of a category and that it should be kept? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to pluralize. Alansohn (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 'This are databases system based on Google BigTable paper' is a strange description. Occuli (talk) 06:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OCAT#SMALL, unless (per Vegaswikian's request) there is some evidence that there could be more articles on notable topics to expand this category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Now that it's populated (good work, Hmains!), I see no grounds for deletion, and the category name should take the plural form because there is more than one article in this list-type category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. Populated by reading the article which provides the implementions, ready to categorize Hmains (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2009 (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.
