Category:Buildings and structures in Gettysburg, 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.
The result of the discussion was:merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as described. Part of the Gettysburg Overcategorization Project that was missed in earlier passes over TfT contributions. Mangoe (talk) 22:15, 6 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.
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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:08, 13 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.
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) 23:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete Empty but it used to contain Astronomy North. Even with that article, it would be a small category with little or no potential for growth. Pichpich (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment if you include international organizations with presences in Canada, there would be enough... if you only count articles for organizations based in Canada... there's atleast 4 articles... 70.24.247.54 (talk) 07:26, 8 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.
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:American people of German descent by state, which is the only tree it seems to make any sense to put this in (and I'm not creating an entire branch of the "history" tree without more content than this). It can be further subcategorized from there if desired. But the commenters are right that the subcategories of this category are a complete mess, and they should all be rethought and possibly purged or deleted. If the latter happens, this can be deleted too.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per parent cat. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be a discussion about the scope of this category tree and whether its contents should be subdivided by topic or sets. All five subcategories contain a mix of articles about people, locations and other articles such as Meyer v. Nebraska and History of Fredericksburg, Texas. -- Black Falcon(talk) 03:04, 7 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.
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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and category redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:21, 12 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.
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 deleted. Deleted by User:Kww. Category created by a blocked editor (WP:G5), non-admin closure. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions. 04:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete I don't think this is a meaningful way of categorizing albums. It's not a defining characteristic and it's not something that readers are likely to use for finding information. (I would also argue that it's increasingly meaningless since the album is accessible to anyone with an Internet connection) Pichpich (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --ELEKHHT 04:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As being non-defining. I'm sure we've deleted a similar category for albums released in the US only before. Lugnuts (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the album Jentina was only released in Italy so it should stay. Kenzie (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. So far as I am aware, we have no other categories which try to group albums by the countries in which they were released. And if we tried, the result would be a nightmare to maintain. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 6 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.
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) 16:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete There's only one article in the category. The only option to grow is to include every show that's part of Animation Domination but I don't think that would be a reasonable way of categorizing tv shows. Programming blocks vary considerably over time and from country to country. Very popular shows like The Simpsons would inevitably end up in dozens of categories if we went down this road. Pichpich (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not a large enough category to keep.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 12 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.
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) 16:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not useful overcategorization of national parks by state. There are 67 NPs and 32 federal entities (states+district) in Mexico, about 2 NPs per state in average. States are of limited relevance as national parks are administered on federal level, and many NPs extend across multiple states. For geographic location the List of national parks of Mexico provides a good overview. ELEKHHT 00:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The parent category is not that large (and wouldn't be if it were fully populated, which it isn't; only about half the parks have articles thus far). Looking at the list there isn't more than a handful of parks in any one state. Mangoe (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is no reason why a category with all 67 national partks is too large. If Mexico creates a lot more national partks in the next few years, we can revisit the issue then. Otherwise, there is no reason to split by states.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 12 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.
