< December 2	December 4 >

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]

• Propose renaming Category:Musical groups templates to Category:Musical group navigational boxes

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.

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]

• Rename Category:People of the Kingdom of Hawaii to Category:Kingdom of Hawaii people
• Nominator's rationale In general when we cannot have an adjectival form of a category name in the people by nationality tree, we use the direct noun form. Thus we have Category:Dominican Republic people. We cannot call this category Category:Hawaiian people because it will then be assumed to include people from present Hawaii. The Kingdom of Hawaii is clearly needed. However Kingdom of Hawaii people is a better form. The test is best seen if we look at what happens if one of the subcats is for historians. Clealry we could not call that Category:Historians of the Kingdom of Hawaii because Historians of is for people who specialize in the history of a place, not a nationality category. So we should rename this category to work. Not all the subcats would need to be renamed, because some subcats are actually better in the x of y form. There we probably do not need to add in the "Kingdom of" dismabiguator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. This would be the standard form. Many of the subcategories also need renaming. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistencey. Mayumashu (talk) 21:30, 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.

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]

• Delete Category:Films about mice
• Nominator's rationale none of the contents are about mice. They are mainly animated films that have anthropomorphic mice as their main characters. None of them really say anything about mice.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Films featuring anthropomorphic mice. No worse than the other Category:Films about animals really. --86.40.103.86 (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per IP. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per IP or something similar. I'm not sure if 'anthropomorphic' is the best way to go though. The whole tree really needs to be split in some way that distinguishes say African Cats from The Lion King. --Qetuth (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another "about" category and proposed to be a "featuring" category. Is the mere presence of an anthropomorphic mouse defining? where is the notability of this? Can a real article Anthropomorphic mice in film be written without it being a coathanger of subjectivity. Not. What's next? Category:Films featuring penises, for every film with some male nudity, which subject no doubt has lots of (ahem) literature on the subject... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per 86146.90.110.75 (talk) 07:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Films featuring rodents. I think "anthropomorphic" is unnecessarily limiting as a criterion, and we can include both mice and rats. That way, we can include Ratatouille (film) and Willard (2003 film), for example. Alternately, this category may serve better as a list so we can require references as a threshold for inclusion, such as for List of films featuring home invasions or List of films featuring surveillance. Editors may also be interested in this related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring anthromorphic insects. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have to say listifying is a much better solution than renaming.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 1 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.

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]

• Delete Category:Place names of Norwegian origin in the United States and Category:Place names of Swedish origin in the United States
• Nominator's rationale this is characterization by share name, not by shared characteristic. The origin of the name does not tell us anything about the place. In fact it is not even always addressed in the articles at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Multiple precedents in Category:Names of places in the United States. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Articles about places (and anything else for that matter) shouldn't be categorized on etymology, especially if it's not mentioned in the article. Might work as a list. DexDor (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The articles are entirely about places, not place names, so the category name is inaccurate and the scheme is an extension of OCAT by shared name.- choster (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OCAT per choster. If the articles don't talk about it, the categories shouldn't either. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per User:Talkback. Articles, however, without mention of origin need to be removed from the category in question. Mayumashu (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Possibly listify certainly delete -- The ethnic origin of place names is likely to indicate the ethnic origin of the first settlers. A list article is capable of expansion to provide translations and explanations, which a category cannot. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not by "ethnic origin", it is specifically naming a place after a place in the country mentioned. Not all of these even involve people of the nationality, which is probably why we do not have Category:Place names of Greek origin in the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no objection to listifying if each item is properly sourced. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete(/Listify) - Most of the articles do not mention where the name came from, and even where they do it is rarely referenced and certainly not defining of the town. --Qetuth (talk) 09:43, 9 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.

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]

• Propose deleting Category:Japanese comics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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.

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]

• Propose merging Category:Venezuelans in the United States to Category:American people of Venezuelan descent

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]

• Support per nom. Although don't you mean for one of those diffusion targets to be Category:Venezuelan emigrants to the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, that's what I meant. Thanks for catching that, I've corrected the nomination. Pichpich (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Diffuse into Category:American people of Venezuelan descent, Category:Venezuelan emigrants to the United States and Category:Venezuelan expatriates in the United States, as appropriate. The nominated category is a non-standard, unneeded addition. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Diffuse as per Good Olfactory. Some may be expats, others immigrants, and others U.S. citizens. Mayumashu (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good Ol’factory in principle. As a matter of practice, we cannot expect the closing admin to do the diffusing. The first step should be to upmerge per nom. Pichpich and other users can then recategorise those for whom one of the other categories is more appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; one of the target categories Category:Venezuelan expatriates in the United States smells like a "current" category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:01, 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.

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]

• Propose deleting Category:Books authored by me (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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.

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]

• Propose deleting Category:Erick Slootsky South Florida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:SouthFloridaEsquire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Erick B. Esquire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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.

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]

• Propose splitting Category:Deaths by location to Category:TBD and Category:TBD

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]

• Comment Category:Deaths by type of location ? -- 70.24.245.16 (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Deaths by geographic location would work for the other category (so "type of location" + "geographic location" would be the two categories.) "Deaths by location" would then be a dabcategory. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the fact that someone was, say, killed in a car bomb in Iraq has a different complexion and context to someone being killed by a car bomb in USA. Ephebi (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you totally missed the point of the nomination. How are "deaths on stage" the same sort of location thing as "deaths in the United States".John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:AGF? The use of "by country" is not the primary group, but just a way to split down the different locations. Adding the word "type" or some other arbitrary grouping word is superfluous and ambiguous. Ephebi (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Split to Category:Deaths by country and Category:Deaths by type of location.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Split per JPL. "type of location" may not be optimal, but "situation" or "scene" two alternatives just seem worse. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if my suggestions were optimal, but we needed to have some sort of suggestion. The problem is "location" alone gets conflated with place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "setting" perhaps? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:01, 7 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]

• What about Category:Deaths by site? Too internet-ish? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:48, 10 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.

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]

• Propose merging Category:Tri Nations (rugby union) to Category:The Rugby Championship

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.

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]

• Propose splitting Category:Fan-owned English football clubs to Category:Fan-owned football clubs in England and Category:Fan-owned football clubs in Wales

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.

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]

• Propose renaming Category:Book series templates to Category:Book series navigational boxes

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.

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]

• Propose merging Category:Indian film writers to Category:Indian screenwriters

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]

• Merge per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge generally people are screenwriters, whether it is for TV or for a movie. No reason to seperate out the two.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- The process is likely to be similar whetehr the medium is film or TV. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Merge of duplicate per Category:Screenwriters by nationality --Qetuth (talk) 09:53, 9 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.

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]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Authors of books about writing fiction to Category:Writers of books about writing fiction
• Propose renaming Category:Horror author navigational boxes to Category:Horror writer navigational boxes
• Propose renaming Category:Speculative fiction author navigational boxes to Category:Speculative fiction writer navigational boxes
• Propose renaming Category:Author templates to Category:Writer navigational boxes
• Propose renaming Category:Authors of captivity narratives to Category:Writers of captivity narratives
• Propose renaming Category:Authors of the Upanishads to Category:Writers of the Upanishads
• Propose renaming Category:Film adaptations directed by authors of original works to Category:Film adaptations directed by writers of original works
• Propose renaming Category:Kohanim authors of Rabbinic literature to Category:Kohanim writers of Rabbinic literature
• Propose renaming Category:English given names invented by authors of fiction to Category:English given names invented by fiction writers
• Propose renaming Category:Themes of author's works to Category:Themes of writers' works
• Propose renaming Category:Self-published authors to Category:Self-published writers
• Propose renaming Category:Hugo Award winning authors to Category:Hugo Award winning writers
• Propose renaming Category:World Fantasy Award winning authors to Category:World Fantasy Award winning writers
• Propose renaming Category:Nebula Award winning authors to Category:Nebula Award winning writers (or, likely better, Category:Nebula Award winners)
• Propose renaming Category:Sidewise Award winning authors to Category:Sidewise Award winning writers (or, likely better, Category:Sidewise Award winners)
• Propose renaming Category:Prometheus Award winning authors to Category:Prometheus Award winning writers (or, likely better, Category:Prometheus Award winners)
• Propose renaming Category:Endeavour Award winning authors to Category:Endeavour Award winning writers (or, likely better, Category:Endeavour Award winners)
• Propose renaming Category:Micro Award winning authors to Category:Micro Award winning writers (or, likely better, Category:Micro Award winners)
• Propose renaming Category:Literary awards honoring authors to Category:Literary awards honoring writers
• Propose deleting renaming Category:Authors writing in dialects from England (or renamed to Category:Writers writing in dialects from England) to Category:British writers writing in dialects
• Propose renaming Category:Works by author to Category:Works by writer
• Propose renaming Category:Adaptations of works by author to Category:Adaptations of works by writer
• Propose renaming Category:Ancient Greek works by author to Category:Ancient Greek works by writer
• Propose renaming Category:Literary works by Austrian authors to Category:Literary works by Austrian writers
• Propose renaming Category:Books by author to Category:Books by writer
• Propose renaming Category:Literary works by British authors to Category:Literary works by British writers
• Propose renaming Category:Comics by author to Category:Comics by writer
• Propose renaming Category:Literary works by Dutch authors to Category:Literary works by Dutch writers
• Propose renaming Category:Essay collections by author to Category:Essay collections by writer
• Propose renaming Category:Essays by author to Category:Essays by writer
• Propose renaming Category:French literature by author to Category:French literature by writer
• Propose renaming Category:Literary works by Hungarian authors to Category:Literary works by Hungarian writers
• Propose renaming Category:Japanese works by author to Category:Japanese works by writer
• Propose renaming Category:Libretti by author to Category:Libretti by writer
• Propose renaming Category:Musicals by author to Category:Musicals by writer
• Propose renaming Category:Novellas by author to Category:Novellas by writer
• Propose renaming Category:Novels by author to Category:Novels by writer
• Propose renaming Category:Philosophical works by author to Category:Philosophical works by writer
• Propose renaming Category:Picture books by author to Category:Picture books by writer
• Propose renaming Category:Plays by author to Category:Plays by writer
• Propose renaming Category:Poetry by author to Category:Poetry by writer
• Propose renaming Category:Screenplays by author to Category:Screenplays by writer
• Propose renaming Category:Short stories by author to Category:Short stories by writer
• Propose renaming Category:Short story collections by author to Category:Short story collections by writer
• Propose renaming Category:Literary works by South Korean authors to Category:Literary works by South Korean writers
• Propose renaming Category:Speeches by author to Category:Speeches by writer
• Propose renaming Category:Literary works by Swiss authors to Category:Literary works by Swiss writers
• Propose renaming Category:Single-author short story collections to Category:Single-writer short story collections
• Propose renaming Category:Single-author horror short story collections to Category:Single-writer horror short story collections
• Propose renaming Category:Horror short story collections by author to Category:Horror short story collections by writer
• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by interest in an author to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a writer

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:

• Category:Horror author navigational boxes > Category:Horror writer navigational boxes
• Category:Speculative fiction author navigational boxes > Category:Speculative fiction writer navigational boxes — Preceding unsigned comment added by86.40.100.33 (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added to the nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]

• Added.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Plus Category:Works by author to Category:Works by writer as the main article linked is "writer" and it seems to focus on "written works".
  • Category:Adaptations of works by author to Category:Adaptations of works by writer
  • Category:Ancient Greek works by author to Category:Ancient Greek works by writer
  • Category:Literary works by Austrian authors to Category:Literary works by Austrian writers
  • Category:Books by author to Category:Books by writer
  • Category:Literary works by British authors to Category:Literary works by British writers
  • Category:Comics by author to Category:Comics by writer
  • Category:Literary works by Dutch authors to Category:Literary works by Dutch writers
  • Category:Essay collections by author to Category:Essay collections by writer
  • Category:Essays by author to Category:Essays by writer
  • Category:French literature by author to Category:French literature by writer
  • Category:Literary works by Hungarian authors to Category:Literary works by Hungarian writers
  • Category:Japanese works by author to Category:Japanese works by writer
  • Category:Libretti by author to Category:Libretti by writer
  • Category:Musicals by author to Category:Musicals by writer
  • Category:Novellas by author to Category:Novellas by writer
  • Category:Novels by author to Category:Novels by writer
  • Category:Philosophical works by author to Category:Philosophical works by writer
  • Category:Picture books by author to Category:Picture books by writer
  • Category:Plays by author to Category:Plays by writer
  • Category:Poetry by author to Category:Poetry by writer
  • Category:Screenplays by author to Category:Screenplays by writer
  • Category:Short stories by author to Category:Short stories by writer
  • Category:Short story collections by author to Category:Short story collections by writer
  • Category:Literary works by South Korean authors to Category:Literary works by South Korean writers
  • Category:Speeches by author to Category:Speeches by writer
  • Category:Literary works by Swiss authors to Category:Literary works by Swiss writers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.195.253 (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment These last group of categories were never tagged, and therefore shouldn't be renamed. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Those were suggestions, subcategories of the above. No one responded. Anyway, they're all tagged at this stage so can be renamed. --86.40.98.217 (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer: please wait 48 hours from now, as the late additions were tagged but not linked to this page or section until now, and 48 hours will at least meet WP:CFDS. – Fayenatic London 15:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedily rename all as above except:

  Category:Comics by author should be Category:Comics by creator (rather than writer) to match its sub-cats.

  Agreed that it should be "Comics by creator."--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Category:Authors writing in dialects from England should be Category:British writers writing in dialects, as one was Scottish rather than English, and "English writers writing in dialects" would be WP:OCAT for the remaining 2 pages.

  Use "winner" rather than "winning author" where suggested above. – Fayenatic London 15:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Proposal is for 46 renaming and one deletion. No rationale is given for the proposed deletion. The deletion should be proposed separately. HairyWombat 06:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I've changed that outlier to a rename to Fayenatic's suggestion above.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:39, 21 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]

• Fixed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Perhaps the same could be said for Category:Single-author short story collections/Category:Single-writer short story collections, Category:Single-author horror short story collections/Category:Single-writer horror short story collections, Category:Horror short story collections by author/Category:Horror short story collections by writer? --86.40.201.132 (talk) 04:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Added Category:Wikipedians by interest in an author to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a writer. --86.40.110.93 (talk) 23:46, 4 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.

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]

• Propose renaming Category:Browser-based games to Category:Browser game

Nominator's rationale: To match the Browser game article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Browser games. The category should use the plural.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Mike Selinker. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Fine, rename (I created the category). ··gracefool☺ 09:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Can be speedied now that the cat creator has agreed. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:24, 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.

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]

• Propose merging Category:Technical terms to Category:Technical terminology

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]

• Merge per nom (both these categories are under Category:Terminology). DexDor (talk) 23:13, 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.

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]

• Propose deleting Category:QR National locomotives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Empty category following renaming of company. Dbromage [Talk] 09:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the new name. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 10:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Contents were moved out of process to Category:Aurizon locomotives.- choster (talk) 15:31, 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.

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]

• Propose renaming Category:Vietnamese television to Category:Television in Vietnam

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]

• Rename per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 10:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. These categories are supposed to be by country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, and Category:Hong Kong television‎ which got missed too. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:21, 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.

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]

• Propose merging Category:President of the Russia templates to Category:Political leader navigational boxes

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]

• Merge per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 10:57, 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.

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]

• Propose deleting Category:Deaths at Walter Reed Hospital (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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.

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]

• Propose deleting Category:Interstate 89 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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.

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]

• Propose deleting Category:Interstate 82 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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]

• Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:40, 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 for reasons given under Category:Interstate 89. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am not convinced any specific interstate cats are needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 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} 19:40, 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.

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]

• Propose deleting Category:Interstate 17 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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]

• Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the inclusion criteria are not very well defined, but I am not sure that we want all articles of roads that connect to it, which seems what we are headed for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:57, 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 per nom. This is not a system worth having for cases where there are two few articles to adequately populated the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 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} 19:40, 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.

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]

• Propose deleting Category:Interstate 16 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. Only one page that is not a redirect. Dough4872 00:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:19, 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 for reasons given under Category:Interstate 89. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete most of the cat is redirect, the contents are adequaltely connected as it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 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.

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]

• Propose deleting Category:Interstate 12 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. Only one page. Dough4872 00:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:20, 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.

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]

• Propose deleting Category:Interstate 11 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. Only two pages that are not redirects. Dough4872 00:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Proposed Interstate Highways, the parent. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:21, 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]
  • OK, Merge only Interstate 11 to the Category:Proposed Interstate Highways. The other articles are not proposed interstates. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:17, 10 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.

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]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Interstate 678 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. Only two pages that are not redirects. Dough4872 00:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Interstate 78, the parent. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:18, 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.

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]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Interstate 676 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. Only two pages that are not redirects. Dough4872 00:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Interstate 76 (east), the parent. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:18, 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 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.