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.
Keep. In an English encyclopaedia, spelling variations are just something that are there and no point in discussing them as long as they are right for each country. "Sulphur" is correct in GB; "sulfur" is correct in USA. The category has been created using the British variant and so be it. I notice there is variation in the sub-categories too: Sulfur mines in Canada, Sulphur mines in Finland and Sulfur mines in the United States. All are correct, or at least not incorrect, so leave well alone. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is an ENGVAR issue. Whatever the outcome, the other version should exist as a cat-redirect. As an Englishman I prefer "sulphur". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, with no prejudice against a wider discussion on the spelling of this category tree. As long as the rest of the category tree is "sulfur", and this category isn't specific to a location where the used spelling is "sulphur", this category should match the rest of the tree. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu16:58, 27 June 2018 (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.
Rename: Unlike Solicitor General for instance, it appears that the nom is correct about the plural form, being used in official sources and various books titled The Lord Advocates of Scotland. Catrìona (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. The Solicitors General are solicitors, not generals; the Lord Advocates are advocates, not lords. Mangoe (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2018 (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 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:Government of United Republic of Tanzania
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.
Nominator's rationale: Small category (one member excluding itself) with no potential for growth - unlikely that more than one list will ever be needed. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There can only ever be one list of mayors of a single municipality, so each such list does not need its own dedicated category just to contain itself. This is effectively an WP:OCEPON violation, even if it isn't quite a literal one, because despite its different name it isn't serving and can't be made to serve any purpose different from a more literally eponymous category. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2018 (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: We don't have categories for other ranks, except for general, flag and air officers, who are a distinct group (and even then we don't divide them by exact rank). This rank is equivalent to lieutenant-colonel or commander. Any officer who reached a more senior rank would have held that rank en route. Douglas Bader, who is in this category, was actually one of them; he reached the rank of group captain. Surely we're not going to create categories for every single rank and include in them every single person who held that rank at some point in their careers? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- We have five people in the category, which would be enough to keep. However, the inclusion criterion should be that this was their highest RAF rank; ns the category should be parented in a (British) RAF tree not a general Air Forces one. I suspect that there is scope for populating this further. Holding that rank does not make a person notable, but an otherwise notable person who held the rank (and none higher) should be included. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Categorizing like that would mean that if a wingco was promoted they would need to be removed from the category - we generally try to avoid that in categorization. DexDor(talk)19:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are also plenty of notable captains, majors, second lieutenants, sergeants, privates, lieutenant-commanders, etc, etc. Are you advocating a category for every one? There are already categories for officers and rankers of each service (which these people are in); is that not enough? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, Peterkingiron and DexDor. I think it makes more sense to have a category for wing leaders (which doesn't exist yet) but we should not make a category for wing commanders unless there is also categories for colonels, Navy commanders etc. Catrìona (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, seems pointless to me as their only common denominator is that they were once a Wing Commander, their notability is for other things Lyndaship (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete military officers get promoted from time to time: it's not clear whether the category is for those who held the rank (i) when they became notable (ii) when they retired (iii) at any time (iv) currently hold the rank. I also think that careful improvement of Wing commander (rank)#Notable wing commanders serves a better purpose. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- although obviously many officers 'top out' at wingco, for others it's simply a step to higher rank, thus I don't think such a category counts for much; like Catrìona, I think a cat for wing leader would make more sense (of course I may be biased as the originator of the wing leader article)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - categorising by the final rank (per Peterkingiron's comment) would be the only sensible way to implement this (just as it is only ever final rank that is used to identify a person), but I agree with other editors that it would result in far too many categories if we had a category for every rank (not only on account of the size that the categories for junior officers and NCOs would rapidly swell to, but especially if editors began adding all a person's attained ranks). To my mind, simply having rank / position categories in line with WP:MILPEOPLE notability guidelines makes most sense. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 10:07, 22 June 2018 (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 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.
Wouldn't it just be easier to rename all, then move the one or two non-fish entries back to a new "Marine fauna of Australia" cat. ? --Couiros22 (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2018 (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 -- The solution is probably to merge to a parent, to ensure that the child is not orphaned. Conceivably there might be room for an article on the borders of Mandatory Palestine, though I doubt it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2018 (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 Carolingian Empire was multi-national, but the Merovingian kingdom(s) weren't really (as seen by the contents of the cat). So why is it needed? Nodody said it was an ethnicity. Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the the Merovingian kingdom (with or without capital K), but it is Francia, the kingdom of the Franks. Peterkingiron is right that Merovingian refers to a dynasty, not to an ethnicity (or a nationality, or a country). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2018 (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.