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 ALL as is. -Splash - tk 23:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I recently created a category structure for Category:Establishments in Indian Territory by year without realizing these already existed. In the article Indian Territory, it is referred to as both Indian Territory and the Indian Territory, but it is much more common without the. Kennethaw88 (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We are trying to invoke with these names the more specific name and limit it to parts of the United States clearly in no other territory, and primarily to modern Oklahoma in the era from the Civil War to 1907. Having "The" makes it clear that it is a specific and not a general usage of the name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per JPL; use of "The" avoids finding various things that began in Delhi being included. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:17, 31 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.
The result of the discussion was:KEEP (I interpret both the comments thus, and respect the established consensus). -Splash - tk 23:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category only has one page, and the artists' page is redlinked Mjs1991 (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the artist's article doesn't exist, does that make the album non-notable too? I see that the artist page has never been created, rather than it being deleted. If the album is notable, then I see no problem with having the category. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 09:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for as long as there is at least one article to populate it with. There is a long-standing consensus that albums are categorised by artist, even if there is only one article on that artist's work. The fact that there is no article on the artist is irrelevant. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 31 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Disambiguation, picking the larger topic. – FayenaticLondon 14:07, 28 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.
Maybe oppose. Is this part of a by city series set of categories, which would argue for keeping? Also should the correct upmerge target, if we go that way, be Category:Pombal Municipality and not Category:Pombal? Yea that last is a rename proposal. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vegaswikian: Pombal, Portugal is a town of c. 18,000 people. It has a one-line article. List of cities in Portugal confirms that it has city status, but there is no evidence that it has more than one notable building. TripAdvisor lists a water park and a disco as well as the castle. Therefore I do not think this category is worth keeping as part of the city hierarchy. As for the Pombal category for upmerging, yes the target is up for renaming. – FayenaticLondon 22:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The municipalities are the basic and most stable entities. Districts lost some functions in the last years, regions, subregions, municipal cooperations overtaking some. @User:Fayenatic london, the city may have 18,000, but the municipality has 58,617. There can be several cities in one municipality. Propose rename to Category:Buildings and structures in Pombal Municipality. Androoox (talk) 04:05, 5 February 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, since the category has expanded (slightly) beyond only containing the bio, so we can't run with a no objections basis. -Splash - tk 23:47, 5 February 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 to Category:Ryan Adams seems like an editorially reasonable move, followed by DELETE. -Splash - tk 23:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary overcategorization. Only serves to categorize the category for members. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: no it doesn't, it also links to the parent Category:Ryan Adams. Should it be upmerged to that? – FayenaticLondon 14:35, 28 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.
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SMALLCAT. The one article is now adequately otherwise categorised in both the parents of this category. – FayenaticLondon 14:27, 28 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.
Reverse merge, since "Shipbuilding" is the more common name. bobrayner (talk) 21:07, 28 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.
