Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 2 December 4 >

December 3[edit]

Category:Musical groups templates[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: speedy rename. All subcategories can be speedily renamed without nomination, as they only contain navboxes.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These look like navigational boxes. Removed the "S" to match others in Category:Arts and culture navigational boxes. 86.40.103.86 (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2012 (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 of the Kingdom of Hawaii[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: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2012 (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:Films about mice[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: rename to Category:Films featuring anthropomorphic mice. delldot ∇. 09:00, 2 January 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:Place names of Norwegian origin in the United States[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) 04:24, 18 December 2012 (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:Japanese comics[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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is already a category for Japanese comics, en:Category:Manga. The article is at Manga and Japanese comics redirects there.Cattus talk 19:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a redirect to Category:Manga then? --86.40.103.86 (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what of non-Japanese manga? As the term "manga" has garnered wider use, there are titles released that are non-Japanese but labelled as "manga" in the English marketplace. This also leads to the non-manga categorization of some Japanese comics within the English marketplace... -- 70.24.245.16 (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is covered elsewhere. Whether that other category is properly named can be debated seperately.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an unnecessary split, esp. based on the lead of Manga. The Manga outside Japan article is about translation/distribution of Japanese manga, and actual 'non-Japanese manga' as IP brought up already has its own categories such as Category:Manhua and Category:Original English-language manga. --Qetuth (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no bias against recreation later. Presently Category:Manga is the only member, and there is no obvious distinction. However, some future editor may be able to source information on Japanese non-Manga comics, or enough on non-Japanese manga, such that we need a distinction then. --Andrewaskew (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2012 (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:Venezuelans in the United States[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: diffuse manually to multiple targets. There are currently only 13 members so this will not take me long. – Fayenatic London 13:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as a first step and possibly diffuse into the subcategories category:Venezuelan expatriates in the United States‎ and category:Venezuelan expatriates in the United States‎ category:Venezuelan emigrants to the United States‎. This is the standard way in which we handle articles on people with dual citizenship or people with a specific ethnic or national origin. Pichpich (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2012 (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:Books authored by me[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) 01:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete the nonsensical name guarantees that this will never have any meaningful use. The sole entry in the category is a user page which is spammish. Pichpich (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete categories have to have names that mean the same thing to all readers, therefore they should not include pronouns in their names. What next Category:Buildings burned by me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—"spammish"? It's pure spam. Following the principle of WP:BEANS, should it be salted to prevent it ever reappearing? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the author also has Category:About Me on his user page... so that might be created at some point -- 70.24.245.16 (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt 'books authored', and salt 'about me' while we are at it. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt -- This is a misuse of category space and since evidently about a self-authored work, contrary to WP good practice. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2012 (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:Erick Slootsky South Florida[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) 01:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete user categories created for a single user. It's clear that these categories will never have any use in facilitating collaboration. Pichpich (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Delete These categories don't facilitate navigation in any way. Alansohn (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since they do not have proper user cat names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Should be in userspace not mainspace. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all This is a gross misuse of category space to publicise a personal website. Such action may be appropriate in social media, but certainly not in WP. This all leads to a user page for User:Asterick333, which in turn leads to two personal webpages. The user page is also categorised with the categories for a university and a law school. He does not cliam to be a faculty member, so that I take it he is an alumnus, but I do not think we allow users to have alumni categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2012 (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:Deaths by location[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: split to new sub-cat Category:Deaths by country. The sub-cats for deaths at certain types of location can stay in Category:Deaths by location. I have also made a proposal at WikiProject Death suggesting that country sub-categories of Category:Death by country need a new corresponding category e.g. Category:Deaths in Canada. – Fayenatic London 22:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This container category seems to hold at least two different classes of subcats. One group, epistomized by Category:Disease-related deaths by country‎, eventually breaks down to categories of people who died of a particular cause in a particular country; the other group consists of interesting situations of death, e.g. Category:Deaths onstage‎. There is at least one case, Category:Deaths in police custody by country‎, which is an intersection of the two classes. I'm not sure how to break this up, but "location" here needs to be disambiguated at least. Mangoe (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "setting" would get confused with fictional things -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Setting" implies that the death there was in some way planned. It has too much a fictional connection. The by setting categories are used to place fictional things by location. It is used for novles and TV shows and movies, the latter two often filmed in places very different then where they are set.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a synonym for death by location ? (it doesn't work for location type) -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt anyone would consider "site" to be the equivalent of "country", though. It's a far more specific term. "Country" is, however, a "type of location". Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to second the notion that if "site" is meant to be location-type it will not work. I do not think site will be seen as anything than another word for place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2012 (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:Tri Nations (rugby union)[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 and redirect. – Fayenatic London 14:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is the former name of The Rugby Championship and therefore a duplicate category. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the former name of the The Rugby Championship, but the predecessor of said competition. That being said, we should follow the precedent of the Category:Six Nations Championship. So merge and redirect. --Bob247 (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2012 (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:Fan-owned English football clubs[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: rename to Category:Fan-owned English League football clubs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split. Fits the football category naming style of "Football clubs in Foo" and also accounts for there being clubs in both England and Wales in the list (despite the caveat covering this in the category lead). Although the Welsh teams play in the English system, this does not make the "English football clubs". Note that Cardiff City, for example, is not listed in Category:Football clubs in England, despite playing in the Football Championship. Del♉sion23 (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ( or rename to Category:Fan-owned English League football clubs ). Splitting will result in a v small Welsh category. The description of the category makes it clear what it is representing. Ephebi (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as Ephebi -- Football is largely organised on an England and Wales basis. Fan-owned clubs are a small minority, except at the lowest levels, so that a split between England and Wales is probably inappropriate. Their status as clubs in Wales can be reflected by the Welsh cubs also being categorised as Category:Football clubs in Wales. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2012 (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:Book series templates[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: speedy rename. For nominations that just change "templates" to "navigational boxes" and where the contents are all navboxes, WP:CFDS can be used.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These seem to be navigational boxes. 86.40.103.86 (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2012 (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:Indian film writers[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) 01:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Speedy merge This is clearly a duplicate and the parent category is Category:Screenwriters by nationality. Pichpich (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2012 (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.

Authors[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: rename. (The one that was originally nominated for deletion was deleted in a subsequent discussion here that was closed before this discussion was closed.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't use "Authors" much in category names. Per Category:Writers, "writers" is preferred.-Mike Selinker (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to include suggestions below and others, also adding a couple of stylistic changes. The templates category only contains navboxes. The dialects category seems way too narrow for a category, but if kept it should be renamed as shown.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find this confusing, as when we disambiguate names, at least from my experience, we add (author) rather than (writer). The same applies to leads in biographies, where I think we normally use author rather than writer. So why should categories be named differently? Perhaps this should be the other way round. Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Too vague. They're different things. An author could create anything. Writers write (and not necessarily always creatively). These refer to writers. And I believe leads in biographies usually use writer. Or least this is often the case. Note that George Orwell is second on The Times list of "The 50 greatest British writers since 1945". Same with the other 49. Nadine Gordimer is a writer. Halldór Laxness was "a twentieth-century Icelandic writer". Martin Amis and Colm Tóibín have been "Professor of Creative Writing at the Centre for New Writing at the University of Manchester". Günter Grass is "widely regarded as Germany's most famous living writer". Orhan Pamuk is Turkey's "best-selling writer". That's a fairly international selection of writers. --86.40.103.86 (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Suggest application of the same to the following:
  • Rename per nom. We have chosen to use writer in category names. We use disambiguators of people that don't neccessarily show up in category names. For example, we have lots of articles that are named x person (actress), but we may soon be back to deleting Category:Canadian actresses and such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. Agree that one can author things other than just works of writing. Mayumashu (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+ Category:Nebula Award winning authors to Category:Nebula Award winning writers. --86.40.100.39 (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+ Category:Sidewise Award winning authors to Category:Sidewise Award winning writers. --86.40.100.39 (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added above. However, these should be just Category:Nebula Award winners and Category:Sidewise Award winners, since there are no awards of these types for non-writers. Similarly, the Prometheus, Endeavour, and Micro Awards (but not the Hugo or WFA, where other creatives can win).--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another one would be Category:Literary awards honoring authors to Category:Literary awards honoring writers. --86.40.103.209 (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • My concern was that the sole deletion was being lost amongst the morass of renamings. If you are withdrawing the nomination for deletion (with the option of renominating it immediately) then you must remove the CFD template from the Category page. HairyWombat 17:27, 21 December 2012 (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:Browser-based games[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: rename to Category:Browser games. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the Browser game article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2012 (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:Technical terms[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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This nomination was closed as no consensus, but that's likely because it was too wide ranging for some editors to process. So let's look at the simplest one. These two categories cover the same ground. This underpopulated category should be merged into a similarly underpopulated category to make a reasonably populated category.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This continues to be a problem because all the previous discussions have failed to resolve the underlying difficulty. Some editors dispute the contents of these categories and believe they should be virtually emptied. My original thinking in (re)creating a second category was that there could then be a category for "terms" (which is the vast majority of the entries, which some would have deleted) and a category for articles discussing terminology (pretty much zero articles in this case, but the kind of entry some editors believe should be kept). Until we can get a community consensus on whether the categories should contain one or the other, or both kinds of entries it is pointless to discuss merges or splits. One needs to know what one is aiming for before one can start restructuring. SpinningSpark 15:34, 3 December 2012 (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:QR National locomotives[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: redirect to Category:Aurizon locomotives. A reminder not to empty/rename categories without going through CFD, blah, blah, blah. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Empty category following renaming of company. Dbromage [Talk] 09:49, 3 December 2012 (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:Vietnamese television[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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: align to "television in foo" styling followed by category relatives near and far (e.g., Category:Television in China; Category:Television stations in Wisconsin). 96.232.126.27 (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
nomination for Category:Hong Kong television is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 28#Category:Hong Kong television--96.232.126.27 (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2012 (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:President of the Russia templates[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 into Category:Russia and Soviet Union political leader navigational boxes‎.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. It contains two entries and the political leader category is not really full enough to divide at this time. 86.40.100.33 (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2012 (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:Deaths at Walter Reed Hospital[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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not defining. We don't have a scheme for categorizing people by what hospital they died in. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete As far as I can tell, the three members are simply servicemen who got old and just happened to be in this particular hospital when they died. The connection to Walter Reed is hardly notable and might very well be coincidence. Mangoe (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete—let's not go down this path. People die in hospitals every day and the death neither defines them nor the facility. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete location of death is certainly less notable than location of birth, and we do not do birth by hospital cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2012 (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:Interstate 89[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've looked at this discussion and the 5 below it; they're all very similar. delldot ∇. 04:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. Only one page. Dough4872 00:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category originator's rationale: Keep: I am in process of adding pages to the category. Don't be so hasty to nominate these categories. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The main article isn't even categorized. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not convinced categorization by interstate is a probdly needed system. With two of the articles being redirects into the eponymous article I really think we do not need this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Category:Interstate Highway System. A crucial component of the overall tree. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is there really any reason for each highway to have its own category before there are any articles to put in them, other than the one article about the highway itself? I could see doing this after there was a separate article about each rest area and exit, for example, but is that every going to happen? Apteva (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The objective appears to be to provide a list of other interstate highways with which it intersects. I do not see the value of such a category system. Equally, the places on the highway might be added to the category, but again this is of little value. An article on the highway will do the job much better. I cannot quite put my finger on why this should be illegitimate: it is not quite as bad as a performance by performer category, but it approaches that. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Part of the WP:SMALLCAT exemption as part of an extablished category tree. Whether or not the tree is needed may be questionable, but it needs to be discussed as a group, not cherry-picked. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:40, 22 December 2012 (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:Interstate 82[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. delldot ∇. 04:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. Only two pages. Dough4872 00:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category originator's rationale: Keep: I am in process of adding pages to the category. Don't be so hasty to nominate these categories. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2012 (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:Interstate 17[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. delldot ∇. 04:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. Only two pages. Dough4872 00:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category originator's rationale: Keep: I am in process of finding pages to add to the category. Don't be so hasty to nominate these categories. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2012 (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:Interstate 16[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. delldot ∇. 04:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. Only one page that is not a redirect. Dough4872 00:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category originator's rationale: Keep: I am in process of finding pages to add to the category. Don't be so hasty to nominate these categories. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2012 (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:Interstate 12[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. delldot ∇. 04:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. Only one page. Dough4872 00:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category originator's rationale: Keep: I am in process of finding pages to add to the category. Don't be so hasty to nominate these categories. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Oppose. Category:Interstate Highway System. A crucial component of the overall tree. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete there is no point in having this as a one article category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Part of the WP:SMALLCAT exemption as part of an extablished category tree. Whether or not the tree is needed may be questionable, but it needs to be discussed as a group, not cherry-picked. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:41, 22 December 2012 (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:Interstate 11[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 and merge Interstate 11 to Category:Proposed Interstate Highways. delldot ∇. 05:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. Only two pages that are not redirects. Dough4872 00:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category originator's rationale: Keep: I am in process of finding pages to add to the category. Don't be so hasty to nominate these categories. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Given that this a proposed new interstate, the route is somewhat speculative. So are the contents WP:CRYSTAL at this point? While I agree that the basic route is pretty clear, it is likely too early to associate the existing roads with the proposed highway at this time outside of the article. I would be leaning towards an upmerge of only the main article as proposed by Presidentman. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the mentionede freeway does not even exist at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Part of the WP:SMALLCAT exemption as part of an extablished category tree. Whether or not the tree is needed may be questionable, but it needs to be discussed as a group, not cherry-picked. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:41, 22 December 2012 (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:Interstate 678[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. Courcelles 07:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. Only two pages that are not redirects. Dough4872 00:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category originator's rationale: Merge: As the originator of the category, I am agreeing with Presidentman (on this one). Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Presidentman. There are only three items that would belong in a category for I-678 - the highway itself, the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge, and possibly the Bruckner Interchange at its north end. Anything else would only be tangentially related to the route. Since three items does not make a category, there's no need for this one. – TMF (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2012 (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:Interstate 676[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. Courcelles 07:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. Only two pages that are not redirects. Dough4872 00:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category originator's rationale: Merge: As the originator of the category, I am agreeing with Presidentman (on this one). Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2012 (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/2012_December_3&oldid=1146685420"