< March 28 March 30 >

March 29

Category:American aviation films

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. The nominator mentions a number of miscategorised articles, which can be dealt with through normal editorial decisions. If the result of fixing the miscategorisations significantly alters the viability of the category, feel free to promptly renominate this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:American aviation films to Category:Aviation films and Category:American films
Nominator's rationale: This seems like a minor intersection compared to some other subcategories of Category:American films by genre, and also a somewhat nebulously defined one. Is Independence Day -really- an aviation film? Team America: World Police? Really? Best, I think, to have this upmerged to its parents, and the films in it (properly) categorised in both if and as necessary. The Bushranger One ping only 23:29, 29 March 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.

Racing teams

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: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Formula One entrants to Category:Formula One teams
Propose renaming Category:Formula Two entrants to Category:Formula Two teams
Propose renaming Category:FIA Sportscar Championship entrants to Category:FIA Sportscar Championship teams
Nominator's rationale: These moves would conform to the remainder of Category:Auto racing teams by series. An earlier speedy move of some others sparked discussion that leaned torwards "teams" as being preferred for all, but wasn't 100% conclusive, so I'm nominating these for full discussion. The Bushranger One ping only 23:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I missed those. I still believe that changing these to "teams" and moving individuals to "Fooseries people" would make more sense, but hopefully others will chime in with their opinions. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 03:22, 30 March 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.

Category:Tier 1b

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:Tier 1b program per current convention. Feel free to renom for a more expanded name. - jc37 04:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tier 1b to Category:Tier 1b program
Nominator's rationale: Another situation where the name of the category should deviate from the main article name for clarity and disambiguation. Just "Tier 1b" is rather unexplanatory and ambiguous, and as part of the tree at Category:Human spaceflight programmes, including "program" fits the established pattern of the tree as well. The Bushranger One ping only 23:08, 29 March 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.

Category:Environmental issues with conservation

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:Environmental conservation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Environmental issues with conservation to Category:Conservation issues
Nominator's rationale: As the editor that created this category I am not happy with the name. It is a sort of "ugly" roundabout way of saying "conservation issue". It is sort of like a double negative but in this case it is a negative cancelling out a positive! Renaming it will make it match Category:Environmental issues and List of conservation issues, and a potential Conservation issue article. Is a speedy rename possible here or shall we wait for 10,000 editors to put in their 2 cents worth? (...that would make it worth $200.) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:38, 29 March 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.

Category:T. Damodaran

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 rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:T. Damodaran to Category:Screenplays by T. Damodaran
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is categorizing films that were written by T. Damodaran. I suggest renaming it to match the format of Category:Screenplays by author. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 29 March 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.

Pupils of 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.
The result of the discussion was: keep. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Pupils of Heinrich Schütz to article List of pupils of Heinrich Schütz
Convert Category:Pupils of Antoine-Jean Gros to article List of pupils of Antoine-Jean Gros
Convert Category:Pupils of Jacques-Louis David to article List of pupils of Jacques-Louis David
Nominator's rationale: Convert to lists. We have a general convention not to categorize people by who they were a student or pupil of. Such information is generally contained in lists, so I suggest converting these categories into lists. We have done this in the past for categories for students of Frédéric Chopin, Bach and Sweelinck, other musicians, F. F. Bruce, and others. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:38, 29 March 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.

Category:Female pornographic film actors

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. No full consensus for renaming - no prejudice against a prompt renomination for renaming if desired. The Bushranger One ping only 03:18, 5 April 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.

Category:Early Settlers of Michigan

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:People of the Michigan Territory. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:26, 7 April 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.

Category:Defunct companies

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: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:01, 9 April 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.

Defunct Museums

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a larger problem that cuts across many, many categories: an organization or institution can become very identified with the building it occupies, but one may persist or the other perish or the relationship between the two change. We have never achieved consensus on the best way to segregate the institutional and the physical natures of churches, schools, libraries, customs houses, brothels, fortresses, clubs, lighthouses, and so on. That is also why Category:Former buildings and structures by building type is distinct from Category:Buildings and structures by former use.- choster (talk) 21:20, 29 March 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.

Category:Highlander immortals

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: Consensus to upmerge to Category:Highlander characters and Category:Fictional immortals. The Helpful One 15:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose upmerging Category:Highlander immortals to Category:Highlander characters and Category:Fictional immortals
Nominator's rationale: All of these characters are also in Category:Highlander characters. There are not so many of them that they need to be divided in this WP:CRUFT manner.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 17:49, 29 March 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.

Category:Sesame Street Muppet monsters

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. If the category can be filled in an expanded, and sourced, manner in the future distinguishing "monsters" from Statler and Waldorf (whatever the recepients of their heckling might think!), no prejudice against recreation, or of the creation of Catgeory:Muppet monsters if desired. The Bushranger One ping only 03:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Sesame Street Muppet monsters to Category:Sesame Street Muppet characters
Nominator's rationale: While I support keeping the humans and Muppets separate, there aren't so many Muppet characters on the show that we need to divide them in this WP:CRUFT manner.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 17:47, 29 March 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.

General Hospital families

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 all. The Bushranger One ping only 03:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Spencer family (General Hospital) to Category:General Hospital characters
Propose merging Category:Scorpio/Jones family to Category:General Hospital characters
Propose merging Category:Quartermaine family to Category:General Hospital characters
Propose merging Category:Hardy/Webber family to Category:General Hospital characters
Propose merging Category:Corinthos family to Category:General Hospital characters
Propose merging Category:Cassadine family to Category:General Hospital characters
Propose merging Category:Baldwin family to Category:General Hospital characters
Nominator's rationale: There are not so many articles here that they need to be categorized in this WP:CRUFT manner. The "family" tree should be reserved for real people, such as the Category:Baldwin acting family. See below for more soap opera family categories.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 17:34, 29 March 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.

Current heads of federal subjects of Russia

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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:23, 5 April 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.

Verbotene Liebe families

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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Lahnstein family to Category:Verbotene Liebe characters
Propose merging Category:Brandner family to Category:Verbotene Liebe characters
Nominator's rationale: There are not so many characters that they need to be subdivided in this WP:CRUFT manner. The "family" categories should be reserved for real people. See below for several similar One Life to Live categories.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 17:27, 29 March 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.

Category:Gondola lifts in Hong Kong

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: no consensus. It appears that there may be a consensus for upmerging all the national sub-categories of Category:Gondola lifts, but since only one of those categories was nominated here, that cannot be an outcome of this discussion. Editors who want to pursue the idea of upmerging all the Gondola-lifts-in-Foo categories should feel free to open a new discussion on that idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Gondola lifts in Hong Kong to Category:Gondola lifts in China
Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT. Recently created category split from the China category. The HK category contains only one article and will never have more. There are several gondola in China that need articles, so that category has potential to be populated. Gondolas do not present any political issue where separation makes sense, so an upmerge from the territory to the country is a natural fit. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are the same country. HK and China are. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • I'm not sure whether you are a native speaker or not. In English we don't normally consider dependent territories like these as part of the sovereign countries. Jeffrey (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What an amazingly overbroad statement! There certainly is no "standard English language" way of considering dependent territories! It always depends on the subject and upon context. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why I said normally. There are always exceptional cases. Jeffrey (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I don't think what you said is true as a default case. This is not a subject for which there is a "normally" in English—it always depends on the subject and upon context. The English language has a lot of traditional grammar and usage "rules", but this certainly is not one of them! Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my understand the usual usage of the English word 'country' covers dependencies, and dependencies aren't normally considered part of the metropolitan country. French overseas departments may appear to be exceptions. Yet French overseas departments aren't dependencies. But yes your understanding could be different from the mainstream. Jeffrey (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further note: There is no precedence on Wikipedia to merge HK's topical categories into the Chinese counterparts. The Wikipedia precedence is to make HK's categories subcats of the corresponding by country categories for the same topic. The same rule applies to all dependencies. Jeffrey (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bold assertion. Sorry, but it isn't true. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
But being a separate customs territory is irrelevant to a gondola. There are more gondola in the rest of China, that is the category with the potential to avoid SMALLCAT. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • For Wikipedia purpose there is currently no article for any gondola in China. Jeffrey (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all country categories to Category:Gondola lifts, per JPL, there's so few of them, is there a need to separate by country? They can also be upmerged to the respective country/region based transport categories closest in purpose (I suppose in this case, it's rail) 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since the other country categories aren't nominated, nothing can be done with them with this nomination in its current form. Jeffrey (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You sure do know a lot about cans and cants and precedence, 30 day old account. CfD makes bold umbrella decisions quite often. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
The one article in the HK category was in the China category yesterday. I'm surprised there aren't other articles, quick research showed me China has the top two gondola lifts by elevation in the world. My time for writing articles currently is non-existent but it'd be easy to fill a cat there. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Agreed that the China category is certainly viable, however my understanding of categories is that they're intended to be navigation aids more than topic tags. The question is whether the articles should exist before creating the category, or whether the category is okay with just one article. I'm not sure, so my first preference is closer to the status quo (putting the article in the China gondolas category) . – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Viability cannot be proven by assertion. Jeffrey (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a fairly obvious strawman, even for you Jeffrey. Viability is determined by assessment against our policies and guidelines, nobody suggested otherwise. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits›     23:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes there are. I have created them just now. I don't think they're unnamed systems. Jeffrey (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please refer to my comment above on the provisions of WP:SMALLCAT. Jeffrey (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The one on Mount Parker clearly doesn't fit in the China category. (Unless the Wikipedian community agree that the word 'China' may mean a geographical region, which the country is part of.) Jeffrey (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why wouldn't it? Mount Parker is in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is part of China. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits›     22:55, 6 April 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.

Category:Unorganized areas in Quebec

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 all. The Bushranger One ping only 03:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Quebec to Category:Unorganized territories in Quebec
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Abitibi-Témiscamingue to Category:Unorganized territories in Abitibi-Témiscamingue
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Bas-Saint-Laurent‎ to Category:Unorganized territories in Bas-Saint-Laurent‎
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Capitale-Nationale to Category:Unorganized territories in Capitale-Nationale
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Côte-Nord to Category:Unorganized territories in Côte-Nord
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine‎ to Category:Unorganized territories in Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine‎
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Lanaudière‎ to Category:Unorganized territories in Lanaudière‎
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Laurentides‎ to Category:Unorganized territories in Laurentides‎
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Mauricie‎ to Category:Unorganized territories in Mauricie
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Outaouais to Category:Unorganized territories in Outaouais‎
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean to Category:Unorganized territories in Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean‎
Nominator's rationale: These are called territoires non organisés in French, and in English "unorganized territories". In the text of articles in this category, the term "unorganized territory" is used (I didn't check all of them, though). There is an unorganized territory article, though it is mostly about the US. There is an article specific to Canada that is titled unorganized area (Canada), I don't know if "area" is used in some other province of Canada; it's not used for Quebec. P.T. Aufrette (talk) 07:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, that would seem to be "per nom" since I just supported the nom. Aufrette's most recent statement makes it even more clear that the initial nom is correct.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 5 April 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.

Category:Cramer family

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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Cramer family to Category:One Life to Live characters
Nominator's rationale: This is the third in the series of families for One Life to Live. I'm making this a merge nomination like my votes below.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:22, 29 March 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.

Buchanan Family

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:One Life to Live characters. The Bushranger One ping only 03:27, 5 April 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.

Lord Family

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:One Life to Live characters. The Bushranger One ping only 03:27, 5 April 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.

Category:2012 in UK politics

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. It's possible that the entire tree should be renamed to "United Kingdom" (spelled out), but if desired that should be another full AfD with all the cats under Category:Years in British politics. Until then, this has consensus that it should conform to the rest. The Bushranger One ping only 03:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:2012 in UK politics to Category:2012 in British politics
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Opposed speedy as below

Category names should be concise as possible whilst avoiding abbreviations. "UK" is very seldom used in category names which would leave "2012 in United Kingdom politics" or "2012 in politics in the United Kingdom" both of which are very unwieldy and do not add anything to "2012 in British politics". One can see the need for "United Kingdom Acts of Parliament" to clearly distinguish from the 18th century Parliament of Great Britain. The proposed name matches its sibling categories Category:2012 in British music, Category:2012 in British sport and Category:2012 in British television all of which use the naming conventions of their particular trees. Instead of saying "we ought to be renaming the older cats in this direction" and creating the new category with a different name, Mais oui! should have nominated those categories for renaming. Tim! (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'British' and 'United Kingdom' are not synonyms, as you know very well. UK or United Kingdom is correct and inclusive. "British" is most certainly not. It is highly unwise of Wikipedia to allow so many sectarian category names: we are explicitly advised to avoid controversial category names, but some people just go out of their way to be provocative. "British" should not be allowed in any cat names that are meant to denote a UK-related cat. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:46, 29 March 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.

Category:Automated Office Management

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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Automated Office Management (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:19, 29 March 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.

Category:Deceased Hong Kong actors

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) 08:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Deceased Hong Kong actors to Category:Hong Kong actors
Propose merging Category:Deceased TVB actors to Category:TVB actors
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Based on lots of previous discussions, we don't divide divide people by occupation categories into "living" and "deceased" (or "current" vs. "former") subcategories. If we did so for all categories it would be a real pain because it would require many categories to be updated when a person dies and constant patrolling of the categories to see if it includes any since-deceased people. These can simply be upmerged. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thought: I thought it would work, because they're not acting anymore, but they're still famous. I think it would save space, since they're not alive and we're not looking for them it would save time by not confusing with alive actors and deceased actors. People might think it wastes time with the confusion. If it is a deceased category, then we would know that we shouldn't look there for the living actor.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thought 2: It wouldn't cause any trouble for you, other people would be willing to sort the categories.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thought 3: Some people would be willing to.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no guarantee of that. Users come and go in editing. Users forget about required tasks. Users lose track of the thousands of categories that would need updating. And so on. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would work for actors, but not politians or some other historical figure. There's a distinction politicians can be deceased without a category, because politicians are more historical. Often actors need the category to differentiate, people will often know that a politician is dead through research, but people rarely research actors if it's work related, they might be not as well known to everyone.It would help with identifying. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your claim that it would work for actors but not others. Acting as a profession has been around for a long time too. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the general public of Wikipedia would be interested in whether or not someone is alive by what category the article's in.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they would be, perhaps not—but even if they would be, it's not an answer to the other concerns raised above about developing this type of scheme. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:58, 3 April 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.

Florida mayors

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) 22:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Mayors of Cooper City, Florida to Category:People from Cooper City, Florida and Category:Mayors of places in Florida
Propose merging Category:Mayors of Naples, Florida to Category:People from Naples, Florida and Category:Mayors of places in Florida
Propose merging Category:Mayors of Ocala, Florida to Category:People from Ocala, Florida and Category:Mayors of places in Florida
Propose merging Category:Mayors of Ocean Breeze Park, Florida to Category:People from Martin County, Florida and Category:Mayors of places in Florida
Nominator's rationale: One-entry categories of cities that are of a population and geographical size that being mayor of them does not make one sufficently notable for an article in and of itself, and are, therefore, unlikely to be expanded. Could be argued to fall under the WP:SMALLCAT exemption but given the above, I believe these are best folded back into the parent categories, without prejustice against recreation if additional mayors of these cities become notable enough for articles. The Bushranger One ping only 00:22, 29 March 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.

Category:Kent County Early Settlers

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 both to Category:Michigan early settlers. There are other proposals on the fate of Category:Michigan early settlers, but there is clearly a consensus not to divide "early settlers" by county. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Kent County Early Settlers to Category:Michigan early settlers
Propose merging Category:Saginaw County Early Settlers to Category:Michigan early settlers
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC/WP:SMALLCAT. Small categories with little chance for expansion, no established category tree, no need to be seperated out from the parent cat. The Bushranger One ping only 00:14, 29 March 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.

Category:United States Early Settlers

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:American pioneers. Editors may wish to further sub-categorise to Category:American pioneers, but there seems to be no dissension from the nominator's contention that these categories are duplicates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:United States Early Settlers to Category:American pioneers
Nominator's rationale: This was objected to at a speedy for decapitalising with the comment that it should be looked at more thoroughly, as there wasn't a United States at the time some of the people here were doing their settling. Aside from that, the distinction between "pioneers" and "early settlers" seems a bit dubious. Propose upmerging to the parent American Pioneers category accordingly. The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 29 March 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.
More