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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two changes - firstly the definite article is missing for the Yishuv, and secondly, whilst we're renaming, I thought it would be more appropriate to use the British English spelling of "organisation", as this operated in British controlled territory (MOS:TIES). Number57 00:17, 21 January 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.
Delete -- These are clearly all performance by performer categories, which we do not allow: WP:OCAT. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose supergirl, it should at the very least match the main article Super Girl (contest), since in DC Comics, there were several Super Girls that contested for the title in several of their storylines, and the comic book character is far more likely than some mainland China TV reality show. 70.24.249.190 (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:User knows the side effects dihydrogen monoxide[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Does not support collaboration; improper naming convention & grammar. VegaDark (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete forthwith my kind Sir. One must purport oneself with the utmost seriousness in such an esteemed publication as is Wikipedia. The chap who instigated this dastardly deed is a cad and a bounder. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:24, 24 January 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.
Subcategories of Category:Wikipedian underwater divers[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale - Upmerge all - First and foremost, none of these categories indicate they are user categories, so they all at minimum need a name change. My first choice, however, would be to upmerge them all to the parent category, Category:Wikipedian underwater divers. I don't believe there is a good reason to differentiate this far between users who are underwater divers, it seems overly narrow in scope and collaboration would likely be better served on the talk page of any related articles when we get a scope that narrow. VegaDark (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all per VegaDark's well-reasoned nomination. While categorization of certified underwater divers is potentially useful – under the assumption that these users have an above-average interest or expertise in topics related to underwater diving – this does not extend to subcategorization of divers by the certifying organization. -- Black Falcon(talk) 00:07, 21 January 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. "QQ, is the most popular free instant messaging computer program in mainland China." Does not support collaboration; improper naming convention. All "Wikipedians by instant messenger" categories have been previously deleted and subsequently endorsed at deletion review. VegaDark (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To quote User:Octane from the 2007 discussion: the "[o]nly perceivable purpose [of this type of category] is catcruft or social networking". It functions either as a bottom-of-the-page notice, which is not a primary function of user categories, or as a tool for off-wiki social networking, since there is no Wikipedia-related reason that one QQ user would need to find another random QQ user. -- Black Falcon(talk) 21:44, 20 January 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:keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Logician redirects to Logic. The dictionary definition of a logician is "a person who is skilled in logic." Logic would dictate that this category should be deleted as not supporting collaboration. There is no encyclopedia benefiting reason to group users via a user category who proclaim to be skilled in logic. VegaDark (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An alternative definition is "a student or scholar of logic", and I think that the category is being used not by editors who think that they are logical or skilled in logic (which I agree would be useless) but rather by those who have a degree of expert knowledge of logic as a field of study. All but one of the users in this category also identify as mathematicians or informaticians (informaticists?). I think it might even be useful to separate mathematical logicians (currently identified by Template:User mathlogician) from philosophical logicians – e.g., by creating Category:Wikipedian mathematical logicians as a subcategory of this category and Category:Wikipedian mathematicians. -- Black Falcon(talk) 21:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My search didn't come up with that definition. If this category is indeed intended for people who have expert knowledge in the field of logic, perhaps a better name is in order for the category, particularly since that definition doesn't appear to be universal. Additionally, I don't think it would be helpful to classify "students" of logic or any other particular field, it could only be useful for "scholars" of logic, further making "Wikipedian logicians" not as helpful as another name - perhaps something akin to Category:Wikipedian scholars of logic. VegaDark (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I suspect, about categorizing 'students' of any subject – the label 'student of logic' can apply to almost anyone, from an amateur self-styled 'philosopher' to a professional researcher or theorist, and is simply too vague to be useful. Perhaps a name change is in order, but "scholars of logic" strikes me as unintuitive or unnatural... I've not been able to think of a good alternative, though, so for now I've just added a category description to try to limit and clarify the category's scope. -- Black Falcon(talk) 07:48, 22 January 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - 'Advocacy' user categories, which are discouraged. Extensive precedent to delete advocacy categories. These do not support collaboration. There is no legitimate reason to be going through these categories to seek out users for purposes of collaboration. Additionally, these are categories of a temporary nature if SOPA is not passed, which is likely to be the case, and user categories for temporary issues are also discouraged. I think SOPA sucks too, but user categories for these are inappropriate. These also use an improper naming convention so at very minimum need to be renamed. VegaDark (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Wikipedia shuts down for a day over this issue, it falls under Ignore All Rules. I'm going to give a wide berth here especially to the pro-SOPA side since the web site took a position. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IAR only applies when doing so would improve the encyclopedia. How does keeping this category do so? VegaDark (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of an encyclopedia is neither to lobby Congress on a bill (as the Wikimedia leadership has done) nor to discuss/network along such a bill in a social networking fashion (as editors are attempting here). My concern is that taking a hard line here may increase the likelihood of alienating editors who are professional content providers so they stop contributing. (To answer your question directly, I am indirectly claiming IAR by reducing future harm; the identical claim for the SOPA blackout.)RevelationDirect (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC) (Re-reading this, I sound angry about the blackout which I'm actually not; just think it changes how we should treat these cats.RevelationDirect (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Am I correct in assuming that you perceive a possible risk of "alienating editors" by preventing them from expressing their opinion on the SOPA blackout? If that is the case, then I want to emphasize that that's not what would happen. All of the user pages in the pro-SOPA category appear to be there because they transclude Template:SOPA, meaning that: first, editors will be able to continue expressing their position via the userbox, or simply via a user page statement; and second, no one will even notice or be inconvenienced by the change unless they've watchlichsted the template. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right actually, the impact would be nominal. Consider me a mild Keep. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename to a form more approipiate to user categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Pro-SOPA and rename Anti-SOPA to "User SOPA" Whenaxisabout | talk 03:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as faction-forming and therefore inappropriate, but without prejudice to the creation of some new and neutrally-framed category of editors interested in the topic. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 23 January 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 then diffuse appropriately. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did find and add the festival Women in Jazz to this category. I daresay there may be more articles about notable works about women in jazz, and a redirect to Jazz Age#Women in the Jazz Age, that could all easily be created. But for now, I'd support the renaming, leaving the door open to recreating this category later, if needed, as a bona fide sub-cat of Category:Women in music, which is not just for bio articles on female musicians. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 20 January 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.
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only one article, which is also in the parent categories W.D.Graham(previously GW) 10:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the nom, it is also better covered by other categories.--NavyBlue84 19:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello, tried to address population issue. A useful cat for the numerous ROSAT type articles. Fotaun (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I appreciate the effort to populate the category, its the category itself that is the issue. While the articles are somewhat related to the category, they would probably better fit under a different category.--NavyBlue84 15:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well you have a point, and an alternative is something like Category:IRAS objects, but it is not uncommon to combine objects and instruments either. Fotaun (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The alternate name you have suggested is a good one, and I would support that. Naming the category ROSAT or having that in the name could be misleading. People might think its all about the spacecraft. The articles on the instruments could be put in there, and I am sure there are many other articles that could be included. I think IRAS objects is generic enough, but still specific enough that it strikes the right balance.--NavyBlue84 03:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful cat for the numerous ROSAT type articles. Fotaun (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question ROSAT looks like a particular satelite. How are the other articles now in the category related to the main article? RevelationDirect (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply One way to think of it is that is more like Hubble, but different. It was a special observatory to look at X-rays and ultraviolet, and it discovered and surveyed stuff in space; those articles are in the category. Fotaun (talk) 18:50, 21 January 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I started removing articles and then I realized that if I continued this category would be empty or very close, so bringing it here. Most of these entries were temporary usage as a hospital including fields as well as buildings. For most of these buildings it is not defining. If this information is needed, then a list or article on the topic should be created. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:30, 20 January 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Guess who? Do we really need to split out the ones that are named for the building they are in rather then for the painting itself? Given the small number, I don't think we need two categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Amazingly, keep. I have identified two other articles which belong in this category, one being as much about the building as the painting, and the other about a building built to house a cyclorama but now put to other use. Both are listed in the NRHS. I'm not so sure about listing the current Gettysburg visitor's center in this category, but it does seem to me that there is justification to categorize these purpose-built structures together, particularly as they do have histories beyond simply housing their unique works of art. Mangoe (talk) 17:41, 20 January 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:47, 28 January 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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename this is not about the OAS (Organization of American States), the most obvious use of OAS. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as stated The disambiguation is necessary. Mangoe (talk) 16:13, 20 January 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 per main article. Adjust if that is moved. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. Alternately, close this and rename the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate Rename I think "Mithraism" is a more accepted description snd should be used for both the article and the cat. If "Mythraic Mysteries" is kept I would go with capital M's because "Mysteries" is being used as part of a formal noun. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the capitalization of 'Mysteries', the article seems to alternate between upper and lower case and the latter is present in quotations from at least two sources: e.g., see citations 107 and 114 here. I think "Mithraism" would be, as you suggest, the better choice for the category and the article. -- Black Falcon(talk) 07:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Coastal defense sites in the United States[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge or just delete. I'm not convinced of the need for this category based on the contents. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:25, 20 January 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unneeded extra navigation level for one category with two articles.Vegaswikian (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and sort? There seems to be a categorization issue with Category:Coastal artillery in that it mixes types of equipment (gun models, specific design features, etc.) with coastal emplacements (that is, specific sites). I'm not sure that this is the right name for the "site" category but I think it would make sense to separate the equipment from the locations. Mangoe (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that doing the merge followed by an intelligent split if needed is the best way to go forward. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mangoe has a good point about artillery being equipment. How about merging them all into a new Category:Coastal defence and fortification to match the article that seems to have the most directly relevant name? --Northernhenge (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Defunct companies based in Adams County, Pennsylvania[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. No need at that time since there are only two members and the parent category is not excessively large. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:49, 20 January 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The main article, one of two entries, is ample for navigation. This is related to the other nominations of late. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete naming is bad, it assumes that there are no such things occuring outside the US. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:14, 20 January 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Two entry category where one member may not be generally considered an alliance. Again, part of the long series of nominations. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:40, 20 January 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Single member subjective inclusion criteria category. Yes, part of the series being nominated. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:36, 20 January 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.
Rename to Category:Events in Kentucky, there is also Category:Events in Pennsylvania and could be extended to other U.S. states. It is clealrly not overcategorisation if a more specific category, Events in Lousville, Kentucky exists and is not being considered for deletion, but instead a level between that and Events in the United States. Tim! (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Events in the United States is mostly organized by the type of event. So it is questionable if we also need to split these out at this level by state. Currently there are only two state and one city categories. If the proposed changes gain consensus, there will be no state categories and two city categories. Maybe at some point in the future there will be a need to organize by state, but the by type seems to be the preferred method at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:11, 21 January 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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 01:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. More over cat. The parent category is not so full that we need to break these out by state at this time. If kept, the sorting of this needs looking at. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:28, 20 January 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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Maybe if we had a definition of these regions, but then we would have an article that met the need for navigation. In any case, only one of these is really a region. So merge and if there is a real need in the future we can recreate. If kept, the sort key needs cleaning up, comment not withstanding. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:24, 20 January 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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge or Delete. Another one in a series of over categorization for Pennsylvania. Contains one article and one redirect. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:18, 20 January 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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 1. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)