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: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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:United States state butterflies etc[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 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. -Splash - tk 23:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not convinced the number of pages is too little. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. 5 articles (excluding template) meets my bare minimum size threshold of 5. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small eponymous category with little to no likelihood of expansion. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not enough direct articles to justify the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2014 (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.
'Support all above changes. --AdmrBoltz 14:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, don't have anything to add, seems like pretty routine moves.AioftheStorm (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2014 (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:Divided highways 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: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete per nom --AdmrBoltz 01:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too broad in scope. Dough4872 04:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too broad and poorly defined a category to be useful. VC 13:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William 16:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, duh. Move the subcats to the parent but remove the articles entirely. --NE2 02:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[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.
