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, merging either to Telefonica or to O2 United Kingdom. –
FayenaticLondon 08:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Telefónica Europe is now obsolete as a company. The articles within that which are still part of O2 UK can go in the O2 (United Kingdom) sub-category. There are a number of other articles now not part of Telefónica that do not need to be connected with this category.
Cloudbound (
talk) 20:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment -- The fact that a company is obsolete is not a reason for deletion. The fact that it was important measn that an artiucle should exist. I would not oppose the category being emptied manually, ensuring that all articles are properly categorised and then deletedm but that should not be attempted until the normal closure. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Peterkingiron (
talk •
contribs)
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:Fauna of Delaware and Maryland
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. Note this is a follow up to the close of
this discussion. This one was not listed with the others since it was not in the same parent. Also it covers two states and per the introduction not all fauna exist in both states which would normally be expected for a category covering two states.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Upmerge wild animals don't recognize political boundaries unless they coincide with islands.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Upmerge - from the prospective of the animals, it's is a completely arbitrary area; and it's too small to say that the US category needs to be split like this.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 14:31, 23 December 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.
Nominator's rationale: Per multiple previous CFD, just two examples here
[1] and here
[2], we don't subcategorize at the city level per what type of athlete a person is.
...William 14:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Quite a number of these are quite well enough populated to be kept. Furthermore something has gone wrong with many of the additional nom which are expressed here (though not on the notices on the cats to be merged to themselves!
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support per consensus at many cfds. The objection is that the intersection of 'figure skater' and 'from Qiqihar' is trivial, regardless of how many there are. There need to be upmerges to other parent categories, eg
Category:Chinese figure skaters for the last one.
Oculi (
talk) 22:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Dual Upmerge These also need to be updated to the Figure skater categories though, per Oculi.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:11, 10 December 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.
The result of the discussion was:merge as amended by
Plantdrew. I have listed those in the Great Lakes region, which is international, for dual upmerging.
[3][4] –
FayenaticLondon 09:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Rationalle: Tree ranges don't recognize the state borders, I see no reason why these are defining for these trees. Note that the usage of these categories is mostly about tree species, not as subcats of
Category:Individual trees. Also note that Alaska and Hawaii are intentionally not included here.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 11:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm not sure whether categorization by growth form (tree) is particularly useful and might support upmerging all the tree categories to the relevant "Flora of" category. However, there is a standardized definition for the multistate regions. Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Dakota should perhaps be upmerged to a new
Category:Trees of the North-Central United States, which would follow the region as defined in
Category:Flora of the North-Central United States. Pennsylvania belongs in
Category:Trees of the Northeastern United States (per the definition of the parent Flora category).
Category:Trees of the Great Lakes region (North America) (and the parent Flora of the Great Lakes) isn't part of the standardized regions; Great Lakes states are in the North-Central and Northeastern regions. @
Rkitko: probably has more to say about this.
Plantdrew (
talk) 16:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
In deciding here these should be upmerged to, I used the existing parent categories. In 2 cases, where no such regional category was present (Rhode Island and DC) I figured that it would have to belong to one specific group, since the surrounding areas all did.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 17:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
And as to the usage of the tree categorization, this would require major discussion about
Category:Trees.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 17:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support All No objection to an alternative upmerge for RI and DC.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support and listify As per my previous comments, the contents are perfectly valid to have as lists for the relevant states as readers my be looking for content relevant to a particular state. However, categorising life by polity is a sure way to overwhelm an article with dozens of non-defining categories (
Oak, anyone?).
SFB 19:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)reply
are biospheres perhaps a better way to categorize all biota in US and elesewhere. Do we have information on this.
Hmains (
talk) 04:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Once I formally proposed that we abandon categorization of biota by country in favour of categorization by ecozone: see
here. As you can see, it was almost unanimously opposed. I don't know if views have changed since then, but some of the users in that discussion do have some good points about why we should categorize biota by political boundaries.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Yes; from what I have seen lately, users seem to want to group biota essentially by large or isolated land mass—by continent, in the case of Africa or Europe; or by country if the country is large, such as the United States; or by island group or island country, since islands often have different biota than the rest of the continents they are included in. Not much of a move towards ecozones or anything of that type.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)reply
In this case, I'm nominating these categories to be upmerged into already exatant regional categories - if anyone wants those deleted, they can nominate them.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 12:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)reply
How do you mean states are less than? By area? Oregon alone has >250,000 square km and would be the 78th largest country on the planet (larger than Guinea and the UK). —
Gaffταλκ 15:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Sub-national entities are, by definition, smaller than the country they are a part of. Large countries will have sub-sections that are larger than some countries.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 20:56, 12 December 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:Highlife albums by Nigerian artists
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.
Upmerge Current main category is too small to merit national subdivision (the whole Nigerian and British trees contain 5 artist subcategories only). Contents should also be placed in the Nigerian tree if not already so.
SFB 19:02, 10 December 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:Highlife albums by British artists
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. –
FayenaticLondon 09:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Additional note: I created this subcategory but not the Nigerian one nominated above. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 10:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per my comments above on Nigerian nomination.
SFB 19:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Upmerge, I cannot see scope to expand this one, and Osibisa were not pure highlife anyway. –
FayenaticLondon 08:26, 11 December 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:Wagdug Futuristic Unity albums
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. –
FayenaticLondon 09:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: That's where the artist's article is located:
Hiroshi Kyono. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 09:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support per main article name.
SFB 19:03, 10 December 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:States and territories established in the 21st century
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. –
FayenaticLondon 09:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The term
State has very specific definitions and there is no reason to allow the terms state and territory to be confused. Legitimate national governments may reorganise their territories and
Geopolitical entities may otherwise sieze control of territories. Within the listings, I do not see a creation of actual states. If anything a new structure of "states established" categories should be generated to cover the few entries that may apply. See:
List of states with limited recognition. There are very few relevant candidates.
gregkaye✍♪ 09:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Sampling the subcats suggests to me that this is being used not only for national states (countries), but also lesser polities - regions, districts and the like. If we are to have a change at all, we need to change the whole tree. "Polity" would be a correct term -
Category:Polities established in the 21st century, but this uses an unusal word that many readers will not understand, so that I am not recommending a change to that.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. Exactly what Good Olfactory said. kennethaw88 •
talk 04:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Good Ol’factory,
Peterkingiron,
kennethaw88 what do you think of the general concept though. There is a huge difference between the establishment of a territory and the development of the level of international recognition necessary for a state to be established.
GregKaye✍♪ 22:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)reply
I think the categories should be broad and apply to the creation of subnational territories as well as states that are well recognized and states that are presumptively created but not well recognized or not recognized at all. Of course there's a big difference between all of these, but they are all actual or presumptive states or territories that share the establishment year in common, which is the central point of this particular category tree.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)reply
A new sovereign state, recognised by most of the rest is a great rarity. There are a number of unrecognised se facto sovereign states (as
Carlossuarez46 below). There are probably a few that are widely, but not universally recognised. I think it is much best not to leave well alone.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep per the above arguments, and the additional one impled by the nom's question posed above: the difference between a state and territory is often in the eye of the beholder or not subject to "international recognition" Which is Kosovo, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Palestine, Western Sahara, Somaliland? Some subjective or arbitrary level of recognition that is required is eliminated by lumping the two together, even though it encompasses "territories" which no one would consider a "state". And then there is the US and other uses of "state" as a strictly subnational entity....
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 22:07, 12 December 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:Royal Polish people
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.
Piotrus, I created the category (Royal Polish people) that stands for people who were born in the
Kingdom of Poland as there is a similar category in regards to Russia such as
Category:Imperial Russian people. I think that such category could qualify for irredentism, but if one exist, there should be consistency.
Aleksandr Grigoryev (
talk) 13:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete -- We have a category for Imperial Russia, because the next category is Soviet people and Imperial Russia was bigger than the present Russia. This is a problem that does not arise with Poland, because we can satsifactorily use it for pre-partition Kingdom of Poland, the Polish Grand Duchy of Warsaw (under Imperial Russia), the post WWI republic, and the post WWII republic, despite the variations in the boundaries between these successive polities. I presume that pre-WWII people from Lvov (or Lwow) now in Belorus can come under a Polish cateogry, since it was then in Poland.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:52, 9 December 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.
Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
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. –
FayenaticLondon 09:47, 29 December 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:SWR Big Band albums
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. –
FayenaticLondon 09:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete as the category is for albums on an artist that doesn't have an article.
-Fimatic (
talk |
contribs) 04:25, 10 December 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:Hiphop Tamizha albums
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 per the guidelines specific to categories for albums.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Categories are to help navigate between articles with the same characteristics, not just one article with a characteristic.
SFB 19:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep per explicit guidance and precedents. –
FayenaticLondon 08:43, 11 December 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.
The result of the discussion was:delete, merging either to Telefonica or to O2 United Kingdom. –
FayenaticLondon 08:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Telefónica Europe is now obsolete as a company. The articles within that which are still part of O2 UK can go in the O2 (United Kingdom) sub-category. There are a number of other articles now not part of Telefónica that do not need to be connected with this category.
Cloudbound (
talk) 20:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment -- The fact that a company is obsolete is not a reason for deletion. The fact that it was important measn that an artiucle should exist. I would not oppose the category being emptied manually, ensuring that all articles are properly categorised and then deletedm but that should not be attempted until the normal closure. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Peterkingiron (
talk •
contribs)
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:Fauna of Delaware and Maryland
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. Note this is a follow up to the close of
this discussion. This one was not listed with the others since it was not in the same parent. Also it covers two states and per the introduction not all fauna exist in both states which would normally be expected for a category covering two states.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Upmerge wild animals don't recognize political boundaries unless they coincide with islands.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Upmerge - from the prospective of the animals, it's is a completely arbitrary area; and it's too small to say that the US category needs to be split like this.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 14:31, 23 December 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.
Nominator's rationale: Per multiple previous CFD, just two examples here
[1] and here
[2], we don't subcategorize at the city level per what type of athlete a person is.
...William 14:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Quite a number of these are quite well enough populated to be kept. Furthermore something has gone wrong with many of the additional nom which are expressed here (though not on the notices on the cats to be merged to themselves!
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support per consensus at many cfds. The objection is that the intersection of 'figure skater' and 'from Qiqihar' is trivial, regardless of how many there are. There need to be upmerges to other parent categories, eg
Category:Chinese figure skaters for the last one.
Oculi (
talk) 22:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Dual Upmerge These also need to be updated to the Figure skater categories though, per Oculi.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:11, 10 December 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.
The result of the discussion was:merge as amended by
Plantdrew. I have listed those in the Great Lakes region, which is international, for dual upmerging.
[3][4] –
FayenaticLondon 09:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Rationalle: Tree ranges don't recognize the state borders, I see no reason why these are defining for these trees. Note that the usage of these categories is mostly about tree species, not as subcats of
Category:Individual trees. Also note that Alaska and Hawaii are intentionally not included here.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 11:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm not sure whether categorization by growth form (tree) is particularly useful and might support upmerging all the tree categories to the relevant "Flora of" category. However, there is a standardized definition for the multistate regions. Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Dakota should perhaps be upmerged to a new
Category:Trees of the North-Central United States, which would follow the region as defined in
Category:Flora of the North-Central United States. Pennsylvania belongs in
Category:Trees of the Northeastern United States (per the definition of the parent Flora category).
Category:Trees of the Great Lakes region (North America) (and the parent Flora of the Great Lakes) isn't part of the standardized regions; Great Lakes states are in the North-Central and Northeastern regions. @
Rkitko: probably has more to say about this.
Plantdrew (
talk) 16:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
In deciding here these should be upmerged to, I used the existing parent categories. In 2 cases, where no such regional category was present (Rhode Island and DC) I figured that it would have to belong to one specific group, since the surrounding areas all did.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 17:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
And as to the usage of the tree categorization, this would require major discussion about
Category:Trees.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 17:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support All No objection to an alternative upmerge for RI and DC.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support and listify As per my previous comments, the contents are perfectly valid to have as lists for the relevant states as readers my be looking for content relevant to a particular state. However, categorising life by polity is a sure way to overwhelm an article with dozens of non-defining categories (
Oak, anyone?).
SFB 19:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)reply
are biospheres perhaps a better way to categorize all biota in US and elesewhere. Do we have information on this.
Hmains (
talk) 04:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Once I formally proposed that we abandon categorization of biota by country in favour of categorization by ecozone: see
here. As you can see, it was almost unanimously opposed. I don't know if views have changed since then, but some of the users in that discussion do have some good points about why we should categorize biota by political boundaries.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Yes; from what I have seen lately, users seem to want to group biota essentially by large or isolated land mass—by continent, in the case of Africa or Europe; or by country if the country is large, such as the United States; or by island group or island country, since islands often have different biota than the rest of the continents they are included in. Not much of a move towards ecozones or anything of that type.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)reply
In this case, I'm nominating these categories to be upmerged into already exatant regional categories - if anyone wants those deleted, they can nominate them.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 12:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)reply
How do you mean states are less than? By area? Oregon alone has >250,000 square km and would be the 78th largest country on the planet (larger than Guinea and the UK). —
Gaffταλκ 15:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Sub-national entities are, by definition, smaller than the country they are a part of. Large countries will have sub-sections that are larger than some countries.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 20:56, 12 December 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:Highlife albums by Nigerian artists
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.
Upmerge Current main category is too small to merit national subdivision (the whole Nigerian and British trees contain 5 artist subcategories only). Contents should also be placed in the Nigerian tree if not already so.
SFB 19:02, 10 December 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:Highlife albums by British artists
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. –
FayenaticLondon 09:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Additional note: I created this subcategory but not the Nigerian one nominated above. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 10:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per my comments above on Nigerian nomination.
SFB 19:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Upmerge, I cannot see scope to expand this one, and Osibisa were not pure highlife anyway. –
FayenaticLondon 08:26, 11 December 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:Wagdug Futuristic Unity albums
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. –
FayenaticLondon 09:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: That's where the artist's article is located:
Hiroshi Kyono. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 09:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support per main article name.
SFB 19:03, 10 December 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:States and territories established in the 21st century
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. –
FayenaticLondon 09:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The term
State has very specific definitions and there is no reason to allow the terms state and territory to be confused. Legitimate national governments may reorganise their territories and
Geopolitical entities may otherwise sieze control of territories. Within the listings, I do not see a creation of actual states. If anything a new structure of "states established" categories should be generated to cover the few entries that may apply. See:
List of states with limited recognition. There are very few relevant candidates.
gregkaye✍♪ 09:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Sampling the subcats suggests to me that this is being used not only for national states (countries), but also lesser polities - regions, districts and the like. If we are to have a change at all, we need to change the whole tree. "Polity" would be a correct term -
Category:Polities established in the 21st century, but this uses an unusal word that many readers will not understand, so that I am not recommending a change to that.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. Exactly what Good Olfactory said. kennethaw88 •
talk 04:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Good Ol’factory,
Peterkingiron,
kennethaw88 what do you think of the general concept though. There is a huge difference between the establishment of a territory and the development of the level of international recognition necessary for a state to be established.
GregKaye✍♪ 22:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)reply
I think the categories should be broad and apply to the creation of subnational territories as well as states that are well recognized and states that are presumptively created but not well recognized or not recognized at all. Of course there's a big difference between all of these, but they are all actual or presumptive states or territories that share the establishment year in common, which is the central point of this particular category tree.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)reply
A new sovereign state, recognised by most of the rest is a great rarity. There are a number of unrecognised se facto sovereign states (as
Carlossuarez46 below). There are probably a few that are widely, but not universally recognised. I think it is much best not to leave well alone.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep per the above arguments, and the additional one impled by the nom's question posed above: the difference between a state and territory is often in the eye of the beholder or not subject to "international recognition" Which is Kosovo, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Palestine, Western Sahara, Somaliland? Some subjective or arbitrary level of recognition that is required is eliminated by lumping the two together, even though it encompasses "territories" which no one would consider a "state". And then there is the US and other uses of "state" as a strictly subnational entity....
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 22:07, 12 December 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:Royal Polish people
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.
Piotrus, I created the category (Royal Polish people) that stands for people who were born in the
Kingdom of Poland as there is a similar category in regards to Russia such as
Category:Imperial Russian people. I think that such category could qualify for irredentism, but if one exist, there should be consistency.
Aleksandr Grigoryev (
talk) 13:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete -- We have a category for Imperial Russia, because the next category is Soviet people and Imperial Russia was bigger than the present Russia. This is a problem that does not arise with Poland, because we can satsifactorily use it for pre-partition Kingdom of Poland, the Polish Grand Duchy of Warsaw (under Imperial Russia), the post WWI republic, and the post WWII republic, despite the variations in the boundaries between these successive polities. I presume that pre-WWII people from Lvov (or Lwow) now in Belorus can come under a Polish cateogry, since it was then in Poland.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:52, 9 December 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.
Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
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. –
FayenaticLondon 09:47, 29 December 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:SWR Big Band albums
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. –
FayenaticLondon 09:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete as the category is for albums on an artist that doesn't have an article.
-Fimatic (
talk |
contribs) 04:25, 10 December 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:Hiphop Tamizha albums
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 per the guidelines specific to categories for albums.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Categories are to help navigate between articles with the same characteristics, not just one article with a characteristic.
SFB 19:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep per explicit guidance and precedents. –
FayenaticLondon 08:43, 11 December 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.