Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 3



Category:Pixar feature films

 * 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 to Category:Pixar animated films. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Pixar feature films to Category:Pixar animated films
 * Nominator's rationale: Unneeded level of categorisation. No other studio's category in Category:Animated feature films has this split; short films are split off into their own category (as is done here), while feature films are included in the main animated films category (which currently only holds a single article on references). WP:OC. The Bushranger One ping only 22:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.

Woodley Sports

 * 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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I propose renaming the following 2 categories:



This is to reflect the change in name of the parent article, which is now located at Stockport Sports F.C. GiantSnowman 17:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 17:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This is likely eligible for speedy renaming under criterion C2D. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Women justices of the Supreme Court of Canada

 * 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: Upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting women justices of the supreme court of canada


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Being a in a historically male-dominated court is indeed a defining characteristic, and this sort of situation is covered in WP:Cat gender with the example of female heads of state. As the guideline says, the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic head article be written for this grouping? ... and the answer here is yes. (Here's some sources, from a v quick bit of Googling:, , , , , ). However, this category fails the avoid-ghettoisation rule that "an ethnicity/gender/religion/sexuality subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree", which is why I support upmerger. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge/delete (depending if the contents are in the parent cat). With a small body like a specific supreme court, gender is not a defining characteristic of members, and there should be one category that puts all the members together.  If people within the body have specific positions, such as Chief Justice, they can be subcategorized by that, but they should not be subcategorized by specific traits like gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to all 3 parent categories, i.e. Category:Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, Supreme Court of Canada, and Canada, but not for the reasons stated by the nominator.


 * 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:Constitutional court women judges

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: keep. —  ξ xplicit  01:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting constitutional court women judges


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:OC, WP:DEFINING, and downright weird. Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete if all goes well, the contents will be merged/deleted to end the unjustified by gender divisions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This gender division is no different than other gender divisions on Wikipedia. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. JPL has participated in CFD for long enough to be aware of the long-standing guidance at WP:Cat gender, and he should have read it before supporting this nomination, because it covers this sort of situation. See my rationale above in the Canadian judges discussion for evidence of how being a woman on a constitutional court is a valid encyclopedic topic. There is no risk of ghettoisation here, so no valid reason to delete. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * What is a constitutional court?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Constitutional court, which I suppose means the category would cover multiple countries. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That article is virtually devoid of references. I can only speak for the United States. Almost every court in the U.S. can rule a law unconstitutional, not just the U.S. Supreme Court. That's why I find the term "weird".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably not a good idea to nominate something for deletion without figuring out what it actually is first. postdlf (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, a category is supposed to be self-defining. This one's meaning is unclear (to me) and, as a consequence, so is what people would fall into it, which is why I chose OC#ASSOCIATED. Perhaps I should have also used the rationale WP:OC as, by my interpretation, there would be a major overlap with Category:American women judges (only because, as I stated, I can't speak for other country's judges). What does the category mean to you?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a term used in the U.S. (at least not in my experience, contra the statement in constitutional court), but many other countries do have separate high courts of that kind (the list in that article alone should have made that clear). Which is why there are non-American judges in that category. I think a good question, however, is whether this should be renamed to something like "national high court women judges." postdlf (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, I had never heard the term used before in the U.S., which is why I said our article was effectively unsourced. As for your suggestion, I have no comment except that the description is at least self-defining, i.e., I understand it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment per the definition of the term, probably no US justices should ever be in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as valid as any gender differentiated category on here.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:United States women Supreme Court justices

 * 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, since the four articles are already categorized under the merge targets. —  ξ xplicit  01:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting united states women supreme court justices


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, providing they are upmergd as needed to Category:American women judges and the main SCOTUS category, if not already in there. postdlf (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unlimited future growth potential. bd2412  T 18:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hypothetically possible, of course, but over many, many years. It's too soon. Additionally, why stop at women? What aboutAfrican Americans? Jews? The list is endless, and all have the "potential" for growth. It's a can of worms.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The bigger problem than its immediate size is that it fragments a highly specific category in a way that is not a comprehensive subdivision, nor one inherent to the subject. Obviously we are not going to create a male SCOTUS justice category, so only the women are shunted off to their separate subcategory. And doing that for women leads to doing that for other demographics, such as ethnicities, place of origin, etc., so we have every position held crosscategorized by every significant biographical fact. The best way to represent this in the category structure is instead by having the most specific judge category (on which court(s) they served) be singular and intact, while intersecting the specific demographic characteristic at a more general level, such as all women judges in the U.S., or all women federal judges. The Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States article is the answer for people who want to see what groups have been represented on the Court. postdlf (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Longer ( :-) ) than my comment but very well put.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, these categories are non-diffusing so there is no fragmentation involved. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Which just presents other problems because then we have multiple categories for the same position, and then what of their other prior judgeships? Except for Kagan, all of the women on the Court were judges before. So do we then also create for them "women on the Second Circuit", "women on the Arizona Court of Appeals," etc, which would also be nondiffusing? Thus doubling every specific court category for them (more if other such demographic categories are created), and categorizing them as women judges many times over. postdlf (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Upmerge The only logical subdivisions of the court is of the chief justicies. The Supreme Court is too small and specialized a group to justify any other types of subdivisions.  Being a woman judge may be notable, but subdividing a specific body is not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment actually at times it seems the most defining traits of justices are law school they graduated from and religion. Somehow I see Category:United States Jewish Supreme Court justices being shot down.  As it is, the current name is also flawed, it should be Category:Women United States Supreme Court justices, or Category:United States Supreme Court justices who are women, the later is really ackward but is still better than putting women between United States and Supreme Court when that should be a unified title.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Triple upmerge, but not for the nominator's bogus reasons. The long-standing guidance at WP:Cat gender covers this sort of category, and per my rationale above in the Canadian judges discussion, being a woman on a constitutional court is a valid encyclopedic topic, and because of the rarity of women on this court. However, as in the Canadian example, this category is unacceptable because it is the final rung on the category ladder, and ghettoises women. It shoukd therefore be upmerged to all 3 parents: Category:United States Supreme Court justices, Category:American women judges and Category:Constitutional court women judges. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * You could have made your point without the word "bogus", which is gratuitously insulting.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And you could have stated your real reason, which you set out in the nom above for constitutional court judges. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you think, that I intentionally misled the discussion, which, of course, is based purely on your view of what's right to do here. That's crap. BTW, although you don't deserve this explanation, the truth is I have little experience nominating cats for deletion, but I'm learning that unfortunately it can be just as contentious a place as AfD. What is it that brings out the worst in people in deletion discussions? Finally, why is it that that postdlf, who seems to be far more experienced in this area than I and far more civil than you, said delete "per nom"? Is that because they too wanted it deleted for a "bogus" reason? Or was it just a figure of speech, and they were just in favor of deletion/upmerge but based on another rationale? Either way, unless you strike the word "bogus", this is my last comment to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment in United States jurisprudence the term "constitutional court" does not make sense. Probably over 95% of all rulings that have declared a law unconstitutional in a federal court have been done by courts other than the Supreme Court.  I am not convinced that being on the Supreme Court is as inherently different from being on other federal courts as some seem to be trying to imply.  At least I would say the difference between circuit courts of appeals and the Supreme Court is not really that great.  Since even US federal district court judges are appointed by the president for life with the confirmation of the senate, I think this attempt to treat Supreme Court Justicies as part of some sort of special trans-national category is unwise at best.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment since this is a non-diffusing category it should be urmerged to only Category:American women judges. It might be worth while to create Category:American women federal judges.  However it should not be upmerged to the constitutional court category, because the United States Supreme Court does not fit the standard definition of a constitutional court.  Its ruling on a matter is not appealable, but other than that fact it has no more power to declare something in violation of the constitution than does a circuit court, and its rulings no more nor less have the power of rule of law than do rulings of lower courts.  It does not have more inherent power, it just has more real power because lower courts can be reversed, while only its own actions or admendments to the constitution can reverse the Supreme Court.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep again seems just as valid as the other cats on here by gender and job.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment however this is not really a job, it is holding a very specific apointment. By gender and job would be Category:American women federal judges.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment is there any reason to keep this category when we have upmerged the roughly equivalent Canadian one?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.

Wikipedians who edit audio files categories

 * 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: Upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * wikipedians who edit audio files-1‎
 * wikipedians who edit audio files-2‎
 * wikipedians who edit audio files-3‎
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge all to Category:Wikipedians who edit audio files. We don't typically have "level" categories for such a thing.  Presumably these additional categories are to indicate proficiency level, although there is no explanation as such.  Presumably the collaborative use for this category is for someone to have an audio file they need edited for a particular article - If users are not proficient enough to do this then they should remove themselves.  Additionally, totally subjective criteria to self-classify in one of these categories.  It makes more sense to just have it a single category. VegaDark (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Mario Bros. derivative works

 * 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 (C2C). The Bushranger One ping only 17:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Mario Bros. derivative works to Category:Works based on Mario
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard naming; the parent is Category:Mario. This naming pattern may be established enough for a speedy close. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Chinese literary derivative works

 * 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: relisted at CfD 2012 September 21.  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Chinese literary derivative works to Category:Works based on Chinese classics
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Nominated category has only 2 members, and the explanation on the category page gives it identical scope with the target category. I am open to renaming the target as "novels" or "literature" rather than "classics". – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I fail to see how the two are equivalent "classics" are not equivalent to all literature, so it would be a subcategory. Indeed, the description offers no such equivalency. Further, there are many works based on Chinese literature that are not classics, so it has much room for growth. We have many articles on such things that are not currently categorized. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Television programs based on the Four Great Classical Novels as a subcat of Category:Television programs based on novels. All contents are currently based on Dream of the Red Chamber, which is one of the Four Great Classical Novels; it's logical that there are other FGCM-based series either existing or upcoming and thus it can be reasonably expanded, while the proposed, more precise title reflects the category's actual contents. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment should it be restricted to television? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, with a seperate tree for "Films based on..." as is the standard. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * While I don't strongly oppose this, do we need to subcat these two this way? Incidentally, I wonder if perhaps creating Category:Works based on the Four Great Classical Novels as a parent cat might be a step in the right direction? - jc37 20:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with this. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Works based on Dream of the Red Chamber, per Dream of the Red Chamber and other subcats of Category:Works based on Chinese classics. - jc37 20:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.

Categories for Pipelines (Oil & Natural Gas)

 * 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.

There does seem to be support for some changes here, so I suggest it would be better to consider these issues one step at a time. Feel free to renominate without delay. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was: no consensus. The nominator has clearly given a lot of thought to this topic, and the proposal below amounts to a comprehensive set of changes. However, there at least 3 different types change are proposed, and the resulting discussion takes in too many questions to make it possible to fairly weigh the consensus.


 * Propose renaming
 * Category:Pipelines in Albania to Category:Natural gas pipelines in Albania
 * Category:Pipelines in Colombia to Category:Oil pipelines in Colombia
 * Category:Pipelines in Germany to Category:Natural gas pipelines in Germany
 * Category:Pipelines in India to Category:Natural gas pipelines in India
 * Category:Oil and gas pipelines in Bulgaria to Category:Natural gas pipelines in Bulgaria
 * Category:Oil and gas pipelines in Hungary to Category:Natural gas pipelines in Hungary
 * Category:Oil and gas pipelines in Iran to Category:Natural gas pipelines in Iran
 * Category:Oil and gas pipelines in Pakistan to Category:Natural gas pipelines in Pakistan
 * Category:Oil and gas pipelines in Romania to Category:Natural gas pipelines in Romania
 * Category:Oil and gas pipelines in Turkey to Category:Natural gas pipelines in Turkey
 * Propose renaming (parent categories)
 * Category:Pipelines by country to Category:Natural gas pipelines by country & create Category:Oil pipelines by country
 * Category:Pipeline systems of Russia to Category:Energy infrastructure in Russia


 * Propose (up)merging
 * Category:Fuels infrastructure in the United States to Category:Energy infrastructure in the United States
 * Category:Oil infrastructure of India to Category:Energy infrastructure in India


 * Nominator's rationale: Most countries categorise pipelines as either “Natural gas pipelines” or “Oil pipelines” but a number of countries have a combined category called either “Pipelines” or “Oil and gas pipelines”. The majority are natural gas pipelines, so it is proposed to rename the combined categories to “Natural gas pipelines“ with the additional “Oil pipelines” category by country created as required, eg Category:Oil pipelines in Germany. This will standardise the listing of pipelines and fit better into the separate parent categories Category:Oil pipelines & Category:Natural gas pipelines. The categories for each country “Natural gas pipelines in Foo” (and “Oil pipelines in Foo” if needed) will retain the parent category of “Energy in Foo”; or “Energy infrastructure in Foo” for the countries that have that category eg Category:Energy infrastructure in Germany. This would apply also to Russia, India and the United States, along with upmerging of the “orphan” categories Category:Fuels infrastructure in the United States and Category:Oil infrastructure of India plus a renaming of the category Category:Pipeline systems of Russia. NB: the category Category:Energy infrastructure by country contains 21 subcategories by country. Hugo999 (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * do not upmerge Category:Fuels infrastructure in the United States to Category:Energy infrastructure in the United States. This is not adequately examined or justified.  The is no good reason to repopulate both the parents of Category:Fuels infrastructure in the United States with its contents, which just helps to overwhelm them with detail.  And it is obviously not an orphan, since it has 2 parents. Hmains (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Category:Energy infrastructure in the United States would be better then Category:Fuels infrastructure in the United States which is not proper American English to my ear. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * do not rename or delete Category:Pipelines by country. Keep as the natural parent of Category:Natural gas pipelines by country and Category:Oil pipelines by country in order to have a single category covering both these and any other type of pipeline by country, for its parent structure. Hmains (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I regarded the category Category:Fuels infrastructure in the United States as an orphan, as no other country has such a category. The category Category:Energy infrastructure in the United States contains only three subcategories and no articles. One of the subcategories Category:Tankers of the United States should arguably be in the subcategory “Fuels infrastructure” also. Then the Category:Energy infrastructure in the United States would contain only two subcategories and no articles; indicating to me that subcategorising most subcategories and articles into Category:Fuels infrastructure in the United States is not very useful. PS: The overall category Category:Pipelines by country could be retained as a parent category for Category:Natural gas pipelines by country & Category:Oil pipelines by country. Hugo999 (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Further comment As the new category Category:Fuels infrastructure by country now contains four countries (United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Germany) I withdraw the proposal to upmerge Category:Fuels infrastructure in the United States. NB: When there are only a few in a “by country” category, I normally expect to find at least the United States and the United Kingdom; after them Australia and Canada. Hugo999 (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * rename 'xxx pipelines in foo-country' to new names as indicated above.  This change reflects the contents of the categories, which I have already put into their correct parent categories. Hmains (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I would suggest that rather than renaming "oil and gas" categoris to "gas", we rename them to "Fuel pipelines". In practice, pipelines will only carry one fuel, but it is useful to deal with them together, without having to be too specific as to what grade of fuel is carried.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * comment If done, then the 'fuel pipelines' would be misfit childen which would not into the separate 'Oil insfrastructure' and 'Gas infrastructure' parent categories where they properly belong and currently are located. Hmains (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support nom if the structure "Category:Pipelines in X" with subcategories "Category:Natural gas pipelines in X" and "Category:Oil pipelines in X" (in case there are articles about both kind of pipelines in X are exist) is followed. I am not supporting renaming categories to "Category:Fuel pipelines in X" per arguments presented by Hmains. Beagel (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 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 from Dayton, Iowa

 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Dayton, Iowa to Category:People from Webster County, Iowa
 * Propose merging Category:People from Orange City, Iowa to Category:People from Sioux County, Iowa
 * Propose merging Category:People from Orient, Iowa to Category:People from Adair County, Iowa
 * Propose merging Category:People from Sibley, Iowa to Category:People from Osceola County, Iowa
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Cateories have 3 or fewer entries ...William 13:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge all per nominator. Two of these categories contain only one article. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Vandal removal department

 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting vandal removal department


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Misnamed (no indication it is a user category), no reason to seek out users in such a category- it would be faster to just revert it yourself, unless a block is required - but there's already a venue for dealing with that - WP:AIV, which would be infinitely faster than searching through such a category requesting that someone deal with it. No collaborative function to specifically seek out users in such a category. VegaDark (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. WP:AIV is a better way of organising collaboration against vandalism. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Also it wasn't even clear to me if the category was intended to include vandals or vandal "removers". Pichpich (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Products of Sweden
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 (C2C). The Bushranger One ping only 04:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Products of Sweden to Category:Goods manufactured in Sweden
 * Nominator's rationale: Not part of a series. Odd one out. Contents need to be checked to see if they suit the new name. See also Category:Manufactured goods by country -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. postdlf (talk) 05:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nominator and per convention of Category:Manufactured goods by country. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.