Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 10



Category:Juice drink brands

 * 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:Juice brands. -Splash - tk 23:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Juice drink brands to Category:Juice brands
 * Nominator's rationale: I suppose you could have juice brands that aren't used as drinks, but I don't see a great benefit to keeping them separate anyway. As such, "juice drink" just sounds redundant. BDD (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - the two concepts aren't synonymous. ReaLemon is a juice brand but not a juice drink brand unless a lot of people are bolting pure lemon juice. It seems marginally useful to maintain separate categories but I really can't make myself care enough to formulate an opinion strong enough to express. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom; whether the brand is delivered in concentrate, frozen, powder, whatever, it's the juice that's branded presumably; methinks that no other company can distribute lemon drinks in consumable form under the "ReaLemon" brand to use the above comment. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename The non-overlap is not really large enough to make the current names precision worth it. The fact that there are brands of non-drink juices is not really worth it. Anyway, how many people drink V-8 and some other juices, as opposed to just using them as marinades? It is much easier to define a brand as a juice than to know if people actually drink it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2014 (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 state butterflies etc

 * 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 all. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting united states state butterflies


 * Propose deleting Category:United States state fossils
 * Propose deleting Category:United States state birds
 * Propose deleting Category:United States state plants
 * Propose deleting Category:State shells of the United States
 * Nominator's rationale: Being a symbol for an American state is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a plant or animal species (e.g. Oyster, Chicken, or Mastodon). For info: There are lists at List of U.S. state butterflies, List of U.S. state fossils, List of U.S. state birds, List of U.S. state trees, List of U.S. state flowers, List of U.S. state grasses, List of U.S. state shells. DexDor (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete/Redirect: WP:DEFINE does pretty unambiguously discourage categories like these. Alternatively per WP:CHEAP we could redirect these to their parent category Category:United States state insignia.AioftheStorm (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete all - non-defining. I see no reason for redirects, cheap or otherwise. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete all not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2014 (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:Good Riddance

 * 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. -Splash - tk 23:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting good riddance


 * Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not convinced the number of pages is too little.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. 5 articles (excluding template) meets my bare minimum size threshold of 5. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Don't see how this aids in navigation that Good Riddance already doesn't do. The discography can simply be placed in the albums subcat, and one can link to Russ Rankin from each and everyone article within the albums category even without the navbox. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 23:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - small eponymous category with little to no likelihood of expansion. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly not enough direct articles to justify the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2014 (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 on Philippine cities

 * 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 all. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming:
 * Category:Butuan City to Category:Butuan
 * Category:People from Butuan City to Category:People from Butuan
 * Category:Dasmariñas City to Category:Dasmariñas
 * Category:Educational institutions in Dasmariñas City to Category:Educational institutions in Dasmariñas
 * Category:Imus, Cavite to Category:Imus
 * Category:Naga City to Category:Naga, Camarines Sur
 * Category:Media in Naga City to Category:Media in Naga, Camarines Sur
 * Category:Naga City radio stations to Category:Naga, Camarines Sur radio stations
 * Category:Television stations in Naga City to Category:Television stations in Naga, Camarines Sur
 * Other related categories
 * Category:Baguio City radio stations to Category:Baguio radio stations
 * Category:Legazpi City radio stations to Category:Legazpi, Albay radio stations
 * Category:Lucena City radio stations to Category:Lucena, Philippines radio stations
 * Category:Ormoc City radio stations to Category:Ormoc radio stations
 * Category:Media in Roxas City to Category:Media in Roxas, Capiz
 * Category:Schools in Roxas City to Category:Educational institutions in Roxas, Capiz
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename to match titles of main city articles. RioHondo (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. to follow parent articles, per Talk:Baguio, uncontested moves in 2010.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Support all above changes. --  Admr Boltz  14:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, don't have anything to add, seems like pretty routine moves.AioftheStorm (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2014 (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:Divided highways in the United States

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting divided highways in the united states


 * Nominator's rationale: This category, if properly populated would be so broad as to be useless, even if divided up by state. For one thing, every Interstate would be in this category, as well as the vast majority of toll roads. It would also contain a smattering of state and US roads, many of which have divided segments but are not divided for their entire length. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is a follow on to this discussion.  Which discussed at least two options, deletion or conversion to a container category. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --  Admr Boltz  01:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Too broad in scope.  Dough 48  72  04:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Too broad and poorly defined a category to be useful.  V C  13:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator....William 16:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, duh. Move the subcats to the parent but remove the articles entirely. --NE2 02:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete not defining; like whether some folks pay toll or not on various stretches of roads or bridges, which for whatever reason we like to keep. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2014 (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.