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: A category with only one member and no serious prospect of acquiring more members is pointless. DanielRigal (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one entry categories of this type are not useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 5 September 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. ℯxplicit 01:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No reason for "districts" to be capitalized. This would bring the category into conformity with the district articles and would also be consistent with other U.S. legislative districts such as Category:United States congressional districts. —GoldRingChip 11:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per proposal. Present title doesn't comply with MOS. Surely this should be done as a speedy? CravinChillies 19:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The nomination could better have been posted as a speedy nomination on this page. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 30 August 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:Battles and military actions involving Hampshire[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. ℯxplicit 01:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- The present name suggest that "Hampshire" was a protagonist, rather than being the venue for battles. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Both of the above editors are spot on. CravinChillies 19:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The "involving" military categories are usually reserved for states, not their subdivisions. Dimadick (talk) 08:57, 31 August 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:keep. ℯxplicit 01:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How is it any more non-defining than other chemistry categories that have been extensively used for many years such as Category:Diamines, Category:Diketones, Category:Dicarboxylic acids, etc.? Getting rid of Category:Diols doesn't make sense without completely revamping the longstanding way chemical compounds are classified by the functional groups they contain. (There may indeed be a better way, but that's a discussion for elsewhere, such as WT:CHEMS.) -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A diol is "a chemical compound containing two hydroxyl groups" and that is a defining characteristic. CravinChillies 19:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep Perhaps the nominator would like to explain their opinion further, but these chemicals-by-structure categories epitomize what we mean by "defining". Mangoe (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not quite sure how to explain what I mean and I think I went about this the wrong way. Part of what I was thinking is that there are compounds in the category for which the fact that they have two hydroxy groups instead of some other non-zero number of hydroxy groups isn't a particularly important aspect of them. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 22:26, 4 September 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. ℯxplicit 01:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categories contain many entries which fail WP:CATV. Tech doesn't seem to meet WP:DEFCAT. A list would better call attention to the films that used it in a notable manner. DonIago (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine either way on that one. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my response to Delete for the cats (though still in support of the option to create lists if they are viable to exist). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as being non-defining to the films. No one is thinking "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes - oh yeah, that film done in Dolby Atmos!" Compare with a similar category (albeit about how the films were shot) that was deleted previously. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 08:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both because the facilities are by no means defining of any film using them. I doubt if many articles even mention the use of Dolby Atmos or Auro 11.1. A mention in a relevant article is as far as this should ever go. Lists would be pointless too. Although this would be an extreme case, should there be a category (or a list) of "talkies"? Production techniques are non-defining of any film. CravinChillies 19:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both and if the tech issue is not deemed worth converting to list, I'm fine with no list as well. HoverfishTalk 20:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per above arguments. Fails WP:CATDEF and would be better suited to a list format. Betty Logan (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Betty Logan:, are you voting for a true delete then, or would you prefer listification (and doubtless subsequent clean-up) of the existing material? Thanks for clarifying! DonIago (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am voting to delete the categories. Either they meet the criteria for retention or they do not (and I think they do not), and their deletion is not contingent on a list being created. It looks like there would be quite a bit of work involved in creating a list (which may or may not meet WP:LISTN) so I don't think the outcome here should obligate the nominator or the deleter to that kind of undertaking. Betty Logan (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both I just can't see these as a "defining characteristic" of the films. While people will pay extra to see a film in 3D or IMAX I don't even see adverts for theaters showing the films in either of these techs. If someone does want to put in the time to create list articles it might be a good idea to start a thread at the filmproject to see whether the info might have WP:INDISCRIMINATE issues. I went through both cats and found that they were unsourced in the bulk of the articles where they had been placed so those have been removed. MarnetteD|Talk 21:29, 1 September 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:no consensus. ℯxplicit 01:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - actually there IS, in effect, just not with the cat as you word it. Look at some other years.Eustachiusz (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it further, US and British novels have "{[Year] British [American] novels" as sub-cats of "19th-century British (American) novels". Although this hasn't been done with Russian novels by year it could easily be.Eustachiusz (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Of the 11 novels in 1859 that we have cats for 5 are Russian. It seems like a reasonable idea to sort that into a sub cat. UK and the US only have 2 or 3 for that year.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to all parents. Category:1859 novels has about 10 members and does not benefit from splitting. Oculi (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a new category and the idea is good with growth potential, which includes expansion of the idea to other countries besides England, Russia and USA. At present, 1859 is the only one for Russia in the 19th century but it is the first brick in the wall. I see no good reason for deletion and I think this is a poorly considered nomination. To say "We don't have any scheme of x" is illogical. There was a time when there were no categories at all. How does any category scheme begin? 1859, Russian and novel are all defining characteristics of the five books in the category. CravinChillies 19:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge or rename to decade level. There are currently just over a hundred articles about 19th-century Russian books, that is on average 1 per year. No objection against (re)creating year categories when we have some 500 Russian books for this century. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We do have a scheme of novels being subcategorized by nationality-and-year — it already exists quite comprehensively for the US and the UK, comprehensively from 1950 on and patchworky before that in Canada, and comprehensively for just the 21st century so far in Australia. The fact that the scheme doesn't have a Category:Novels by year and countryparent yet doesn't mean that such categories don't exist; it just means the fleshing out of the tree hasn't been finished yet. But unless there's a consensus to get rid of Category:1859 American novels and Category:1859 British novels, as well as the entire body of sibling categories that already exist for other years and/or other countries, there's no good reason to single this one out as uniquely inappropriate — I'd be perfectly willing to hear and consider arguments to the effect that we don't need the scheme at all and should upmerge all such categories back to the appropriate parents, but not just this one to the exclusion of all the others. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather upmerge the 19th-century British and American categories as well, to either decade or century level, because the year categories are very sparsely populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then they should be handled as a batch, rather than treating this one as if it were some isolated case. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 5 entries is enough to justify a category, even if we assume that it is unlikely to expand. I have no clue if there are other notable novels published in Russia in 1859.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 5 September 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.
