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. – Fayenatic London 08:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Telefónica Europe ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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• Comment -- The fact that a company is obsolete is not a reason for deletion.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.

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 to Category:Fauna of the Eastern United States‎. – Fayenatic London 20:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fauna of Delaware and Maryland to Category:Fauna of the United States

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 מישהו Od Mishehu 14:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• @Vegaswikian:@RevelationDirect:@Od Mishehu: shouldn't the merge target be the regional parent category, Category:Fauna of the Eastern United States? We have missed the opportunity to merge the other state categories into their local sub-cat of Category:Fauna of the United States by region, but can do it this time. – Fayenatic London 08:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate Upmerge To the current parent category, Category:Fauna of the Eastern United States‎. If that category has problems we can upmerge it in a separate nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection from me, either. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise no objection. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you all. – Fayenatic London 20:27, 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.

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 proposed and also to Category:Ukrainian figure skaters, Category:Russian figure skaters, or Category:Chinese figure skaters, as appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Figure skaters from Odessa to Category:Sportspeople from Odessa

Also propose merging-

Category:Figure skaters from Dnipropetrovsk to Category:Sportspeople from Dnipropetrovsk

Category:Figure skaters from Beijing to Category:Sportspeople from Beijing

Category:Figure skaters from Harbin to Category:Sportspeople from Harbin

Category:Figure skaters from Kharkiv to Category:Sportspeople from Kharkiv

Category:Figure skaters from Kirov, Kirov Oblast‎ to Category:Sportspeople from Kirov, Kirov Oblast‎

Category:Figure skaters from Liaoning‎ to Category:Sportspeople from Liaoning‎

Category:Figure skaters from Perm to Category:Sportspeople from Perm

Category:Figure skaters from Saint Petersburg to Category:Sportspeople from Saint Petersburg

Category:Figure skaters from Yekaterinburg‎ to Category:Sportspeople from Yekaterinburg‎

Category:Figure skaters from Qiqihar to Category:People from Qiqihar

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] – Fayenatic London 09:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Trees of the United States by state

And upmerging:

• 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 מישהו Od 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 מישהו Od 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 מישהו Od 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]
    • We already have Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 6#Category:Moths of Cameroon, which I didn't nominate, and I think there are other recent precedents. Anyway, US states are less than countries. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:11, 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 מישהו Od 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). —Gaff ^ταλκ 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.

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:  Relisted at 2015 JAN 15 CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Highlife albums by Nigerian artists to Category:Highlife albums

Nominator's rationale: The scheme at Category:Highlife albums by artist nationality was deleted. This is too small and narrow to support. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]
• Oppose again, as this is a useful sub-cat of Category:Albums by Nigerian artists by genre. The nominator had moved this down the hierarchy into Pop albums, but I dispute that categorisation as a sub-genre of pop - the article Highlife does not support this. Note: this is a repeat nomination, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_9#Category:Highlife_albums_by_Nigerian_artists, which was closed with no consensus. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_12#Category:Highlife_albums_by_artist_nationality. – Fayenatic London 08:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom and also to this cat's other parent, Category:World music albums by Nigerian artists. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:15, 30 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. – Fayenatic London 09:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Highlife albums by British artists to Category:Highlife albums

Nominator's rationale: The scheme at Category:Highlife albums by artist nationality was deleted. This is too small and narrow to support. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:46, 9 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. – Fayenatic London 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.

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. – Fayenatic London 09:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Wagdug Futuristic Unity albums to Category:Hiroshi Kyono albums

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.

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. – Fayenatic London 09:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:States and territories established in the 21st century to Category:Territories established in the 21st century

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]

• Oppose changing this one in isolation. There are dozens of such categories in Category:States and territories by year of establishment, Category:States and territories by century of establishment, Category:States and territories by year of disestablishment, etc. I see no good reason to change one in isolation. On its merits, I doubt there will be confusion as to what the category is meant for—it can apply to the creation of recognized sovereign states, territories which claim to be a state but which are not recognized, or to non-sovereign territories within states. To exclude any of these types would be POV-pushing. Thus, it's best to keep the category names broad rather than narrow. (In one of the categories, Category:States and territories established in 2011, we have South Sudan, and South Sudan most certainly is a widely recognized "State".) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:38, 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Royal Polish people ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. What is this poorly named category supposed to contain? We already have a category:Polish royalty. I have just moved the Category:People from the Lesser Poland which used it as the single parent category to Category:People by region in Poland, so at this point this should be an uncontroversial deletion of a poorly named cat. PS. Can someone speedy move Category:People from the Lesser Poland to Category:People from Lesser Poland? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Aleksandr Grigoryev You linked to a disambig page. There never was one entity that could be classified as Kingdom of Poland, we instead use categories for smaller entities, ex Category:People from Congress Poland and Category:People of Congress Poland (which probably should be merged). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:25, 11 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.

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. – Fayenatic London 09:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2014 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2014
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2013 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2013
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2012 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2012
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2011 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2011
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2010 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2010
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2009 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2009
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2008 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2008
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2007 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2007
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2006 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2006
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2005 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2005
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2004 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2004
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2003 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2003
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2002 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2002
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2001 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2001
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2000 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2000
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1999 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1999
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1998 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1998
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1997 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1997
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1996 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1996
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1995 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1995
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1994 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1994
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1992 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1992
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1990 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1990
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1989 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1989
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1988 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1988
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1986 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1986
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1985 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1985
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1984 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1984
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1981 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1981
• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1976 to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1976

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Grammatically speaking, using the verb "have filed" for Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy is OK. So too is Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy by year. But once we get to specific years, the word "have" should be omitted to remove an awkward language construction that is unnatural in the context because it gives the phrase an air of temporal indefiniteness that is combined with the definiteness of the specific year. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- The proposed use of the aorist tense instead of the perfect is wholly appropriate. Perhaps Category:Companies filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1976 etc (being briefer) would be even better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)
  • English has an aorist tense? Never heard that one before ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. kennethaw88 • talk 04:31, 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: delete. – Fayenatic London 09:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:SWR Big Band albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Redlink musical artist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:58, 9 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.

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]

• Propose deleting Category:Hiphop Tamizha albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:TOOSOON, as the artist has released only one album so far. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:ALBUM guidelines: there are subcategories under Category:Albums by artist for every artist, even if there is only one album. How is this any different than Category:4 Non Blondes albums? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:21, 9 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. – Fayenatic London 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.