Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 15

< August 14	August 16 >

August 15

More critics of Bush

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Vague and ambiguous. Intangible 20:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Vague and ambiguous???? How much more precise do you insist upon? Category:Intellectual's who wear blue socks on Thursdays that are Critics of George W. Bush? It's your reasoning for deletion that's "vague and ambiguous." StudierMalMarburg 21:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, That's a good one, StudierMalMarburg. --Kalmia 04:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Critics of George W. Bush" serves all of the purposes. To the above user, please see WP:Civil.--Jersey Devil 21:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not sure if this will affect your vote, but note that Category:Critics of George W. Bush is up for deletion as well. --Cswrye 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the discussion at Critics of George W. Bush. --Cswrye 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all no argument advanced for deletion. Specificity is important, and these categories are helpful toward that end. --71.36.251.182 23:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same reasons as for the main category. These are actually worse because the subcategorizations are totally irrelevant to the main categorization; why would we separate "Hollywood" from "Musical" critics? Christopher Parham (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Many people in the news are notable only for criticizing G. W. Bush. I would also add Category:Republican Critics of George W. Bush -- Petri Krohn 00:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Per other discussions noted. Sandy 02:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Per other discussion. No clear criteria. -Will Beback 03:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The category system is too crude to be used for this purpose. Landolitan 08:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Intangible. jaco♫plane 09:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, too crude & ambigious to be useful Dman727 18:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, not even that defining a characteristic. Recury 18:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not a defining characteristic. Osomec 18:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The ambiguity arises over the term "critic," not various characteristics of various persons who could variously be described as critics in various ways of GWB.-choster 20:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. These many categories are super redundant. Just one category should be enough--Blue Tie 22:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, these categories are very vague, with no clear criteria for inclusion LaszloWalrus 00:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Not encyclopedic. This is partisanship, not knowledge.—Perceval 04:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. There would be room for an article (hopefully not just a list) of songs about Bush, or even musicians views about Bush expressed on stage. The category is not illuminating. - Jmabel | Talk 04:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia is not a talk show. Casper Claiborne 11:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Aside from the confusion of Hollywood and film-related, the definition of critic is ambiguous. Merge into (a) Category:Critics of George W. Bush and (b) the corresponding other category, and delete the former per its CfD. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The scope is potentially vast, and growing daily (or so I hear). The potential for parallel Category:Critics of Paris Hilton is unbearable. In any case, one's political criticism is not a defining characteristic, as one can criticize one day and cooperate the next. --Dhartung | Talk 11:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Wikipedia exists to painstakingly catalog celebrities opinions on a wide variety of subjects. I'm starting up Magician Critics of Genetically Modified Foods as we speak. I hear Siegfried and Roy hate GM crops.—74.237.158.41 01:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia does not exist to "painstakingly catalog celebrities opinions". Cloachland 02:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Only people who agree with EVERYTHING Bush has ever done in his life (political or otherwise) would not be included in these categories
Delete all, per nom --Baron Larf 21:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all — of necessity subjective and unencyclopedic. Tom Tancredo is a very strong critic of GWB on immigration policy, but extremely supportive in most other policy areas – does he belong on this list? The pope has expressed reservations about the Iraq war, as did his predecessor, do they belong? Osama bin Laden is very critical of Bush. This is beyond ludicrous IMO. Rlquall 22:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. A slippery slope set of categories.--Mike Selinker 12:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Military people to military personnel

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per this failed nomination of mine, I’m proposing we go the other direction: change all “military people” to “military personnel.”

I’m sure I missed some.--Mike Selinker 19:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens (hundreds?) of sub-categories that may need renaming, depending on what naming convention we choose to go with here; but we should probably consider those after we've settled on one. Kirill Lokshin 02:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: not taking a stance on how to best approach this yet, as it's a complicated issue; but, just as a point of reference: the Military history WikiProject had earlier discussed converting all of these to use the form "... of Country" rather than the adjective, since (1) many historical countries don't have good adjective forms, and (2) most military personnel are categorized by country of service rather than country of birth, so this is closer to Category:Heads of state by country in nature. However, it seems that this would be inconsistent with the general scheme followed by Category:Occupations by nationality. Hence, I'm not sure which of the two options should be adopted; but it's clear that, whatever the outcome, we should at least try to get all of these names to follow the same scheme. Kirill Lokshin 19:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be fine with either outcome, but I lean toward "adjective noun" here because the categories we currently have are mostly (if not entirely) about people serving their own modern countries.--Mike Selinker 20:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suspect this depends on the age of the country; for older ones, it's pretty easy to find cases like Burkhard Christoph von Munnich (a German in Russian service) or John Stewart, 2nd Earl of Buchan (a Scot in French service) for which being described as "Russian" or "French" military personnel might not be the best solution. Kirill Lokshin 20:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It occurs to me that there is a sports category parallel to this: the Olympics. The people on the List of nationality transfers in athletics have two categories. For example, pole vaulter Dmitri Markov is in category:Belarusian athletes and category:Olympic competitors for Australia (well, and category:Australian athletes, since he actually changed citizenship). I think the parallel here might be that someone should only be in the military personnel category of their citizenship, but could be in a war-based category like category:World War II people of Canada. Maybe.—Mike Selinker 01:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - We'll certainly have war-based sub-categories, but I think it might be more confusing if the country suddenly changes there (not to mention being rather nasty to work out where we don't really know a home country—a lot of the French Foreign Legion people, for example—or where citizenship doesn't really apply, such as people serving the Holy Roman Empire). I think the most workable solution might be to simply go with one of the naming options and then make explicit which country is being listed—the country of birth, or the one of service—in the category descriptions. Or maybe I'm overthinking this issue. Kirill Lokshin 02:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        It sounds like we're agreed on this. We pick "personnel" and then tag all the categories with a disclaimer.--Mike Selinker 12:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to rename all as above, but note that the stub types are out of scope here, and besides, raise different naming issues entirely -- different scopes, different existential criteria, and different current names. I suggest taking them to SFD after this is closed, but do recommend doing so, as not even the stub naming guidelines or internal consistency are being followed). Accordingly, I've taken the liberty of striking them out from the above, but have not delisted/relisted/untagged them. Also, you missed a few... Alai 00:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I didn't even know there was an "SFD." Alai, as you clearly know more about it, please take care of this element when the discussion closes.—Mike Selinker 01:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Olborne 10:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Members of the Xian military or Category:Members of the Xian armed forces (presumably including former as well as undischarged members)...? Otherwise and in lieu of any other possibilites, rename to Military personnel of X format (Category:Occupations by nationality notwithstanding) as I'd imagine identifying the country of service is more pertinent than country of birth or the like. If so, this exception to the Category:Occupations by nationality standard would need notification. Regards, David Kernow 10:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Osomec 18:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Piccadilly 23:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Movie and TV figures

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Topics covered elsewhere; see Category:Actors, Category:Film, etc. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 19:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant and poorly named. --musicpvm 19:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. Osomec 18:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redudant and Clumsy Dman727 07:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:9/11 Truth Movement

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, A category for conspiracy theorists. WP:NPOV should not be subverted by labeling conspiracy theories as "Truth".

Please note that a club called 9/11 Truth Movement may exist. Membership in the club and membership in this category only exist on Wikipedia, thus making this original research at best. (Though it is hard to know if the club (or clubs?) exists, as much of the article is not backed up by reliable sources. Or if the club exists, which of the things and people described in the article really belong in it.) Even if Wikipedia invents a club like that it shouldn't be called "Truth". Let's not be quite this blatant about pushing conspiracy theories, please. Weregerbil 17:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another way to deal with this would be to label it "9/11 conspiracy theorists". However, I suggest not doing that. "People who like cats better than dogs"? "People who once discussed the question that that maybe George Washington wasn't the best president of all time"? Random opinions that change over time. This is not a defining characteristic of these people, merely a reflection of something that the people in question may or may not have hinted at at some point in time. Weregerbil 17:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_14#Category:WikiProject_9.2F11_Truth_Movement
Comment Bah, who cares for arguing, its not worth the effort. Its not like the majority cares for objectivity in this issue... --Striver 17:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So is that CSD G7? (I would suggest not pretending to be a martyr of "objectivity" after trying to label conspiracy theories as "Truth". Just my personal opinion obviously.) Weregerbil 18:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Stop arguing on assumptions that i obviously did not make. If the category should be deleted as a POV title, so should the 9/11 Truth Movement, but its not. How can a title be NPOV for a article name, but pov as a category name? Your whole arguementation revolves around the ide that the people in the 911TM hold alternative theorites, something that the category and article explicitly reject. But i am familiar with how this things work by now. shoult "its POV" high enough, and people will echoe you. And when enough people have echoed it, then arguements do not matter. --Striver 18:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - A club can be called 9/11 Truth Movement if it calls itself that (per verifiable reliable sources; the lack of which in that article is problematic, but that's another issue). But labling a bunch of conspiracy theorists "Truth" with no external reliable sources is original research. You truly cannot see the difference between the name of a club and a categorization that only exists on Wikipedia?!? Weregerbil 19:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:LIVING. --Aude (talk contribs) 17:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we already have a category for conspiracy theorists --Peephole 19:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or as a compromise, merge into Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks. 9/11 Truth Movement is the easily verifiable name of an existing movement. The "Truth" in the name is part of the organization's actual name (which is why it is capitalized), not a claim by Wikipedia that the movement is true. There are plenty of categories named after organizations, clubs, or movements, and I don't see how this is any different. --Cswrye 20:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you know of a reliable source for the membership list of the 9/11 Truth Movement? The comments by the creator of this category indicate to me that the intended members of this club and category would be pretty much what Wikipedia editors decide. "Question what happened" = "membership in club" = "Truth". Weregerbil 15:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - A movement isn't necessarily a formal "club" or organization, so there may not be an actual membership list. For example, there are women's liberation movements, animal rights movements, anti-globalization movements, and so on. There are individuals who profess association with these movements, and there are people who are members of organizations that profess to be part of these movements, but there won't necessarily be a membership list for the movement as a whole. That doesn't mean that people aren't part of the movement. I do agree with you that Wikipedians should not arbitrarily decide who is part of this movement, and there should be sources that indicate that a people or organizations have affiliated themselves with it. That being said, a quick search did uncover a membership list for Scholars for 9/11 Truth, so at the very least, we can be sure that this categorization exists beyond Wikipedia. I get the impression that your issue with the category mostly has to do with the word "Truth" being in the name. Keep in mind that if the actual name of the movement is 9/11 Truth Movement, the name of the category is simply stating the name of the movement, not making claims that the movement is true. There's nothing POV about stating a movement's name even if we don't agree with it, and it does look like there is evidence for the movement's existence outside of Wikipedia (which is why an article exists for it). If you are still caught up with the name of the category, think about giving it a more generic name (such as Category:Conspiracy theorists of the September 11, 2001 attacks) rather than just deleting it. --Cswrye 17:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is the stated intent of the category's creator not to follow any membership lists as criteria for inclusion. And as you seem to agree "there may not be an actual membership list". So we are back to original research, and calling suitably picked people "these are the ones that know the Truth". The word "Truth" indeed comes from a movement, which is convenient for this particular original research. Since the category isn't about actual verifiable members of a movement the name of the movement shouldn't be used IMHO. That would be misleading.

I wouldn't rename it either as the category would need to be based on what people have said at some point in time. It is impossible to verify whether those people still entertain conspiracy theory thoughts. So we'd be left with "people who at some point in their lives have expressed some sort of doubt towards the 9/11 commission report". Categorization of people based on what they have once said or thought about one particular subject seem unwieldy. A person can have opinions on thousands of things and change his opinions several times in his life; is it really practical to have "thought categories"? Categories are also a non-optimal tool for it: a person who once wonders aloud "I wonder if the 9/11 commission report got everything completely right" is categorized along with professional conspiracy theorists. Again misleading. Weregerbil 22:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this title is an accurate description of the contents of the category. --71.36.251.182 23:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pandering to conspiracy theories damages Wikipedia's credibility. Landolitan 08:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olborne 10:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category already exist for consipiracy theories. No need to be redundant Dman727 18:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above arguements make the misstake of assuming that one needs to have an alternative theory to be in the 911TM. That is not true, one only needs to not agree with the official one. --Striver 22:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Casper Claiborne 11:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If necessary, merge to Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks, but I think they're already there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Baron Larf 21:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)03:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Shows premiered on Cartoon Network's Sneek Peek Week 2005

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a distinguishing characteristic. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Recury 19:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sumahoy 20:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:People of Kosovo

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 20:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People from Kosovo, per usual naming conventions. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, people are of a nation until they leave it, then they are from it. --M @r ē ino 17:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for consistency. --musicpvm 18:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The naming convention of Category:People by nationality is to use the adjectival form, so the category should be renamed to Category:Kosovar people or Category:Kosovaran people. - EurekaLott 19:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I support this rename to Category:Kosovar people. --M @r ē ino 23:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:People of Adelaide

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People from Adelaide, per usual naming conventions. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom for consistency. --musicpvm 18:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Olborne 10:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:People of Åland

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 20:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People from Åland, per the usual naming conventions. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, people are of a nation until they leave it, then they are from it.--M @r ē ino 17:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for consistency. --musicpvm 18:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see any consistency or naming conventions in Category:Finnish people by region. Perhaps the subject should be discussed more before we decide here. - EurekaLott 19:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All of those (except Category:People from Siikalatva) should probably be renamed to a consistent "People from foo" form. I think it's a good idea to use this form not only for cities, but for all subdivisions of countries. --musicpvm 19:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this ill-thought-out charge to the POV "from" categorisation system. --Mais oui! 22:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On further reconsideration, the same "people by nationality" argument that EurekaLott used above applies here. Ålanders are semi-autonomous, so a rename to Category:Ålander people would be approporiate. --M @r ē ino 23:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should say that, cos I just noticed your comment above and was about to say the same thing! Although is the adjective not "Åland", rather than "Ålander"? (cf. "New Zealand people".)--Mais oui! 23:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's even funnier is that the category was renamed from "Åland people" to "People of Åland" not two months ago (along with a slew of other "...of Åland" categories), on the grounds that it was not the adjectival form...but if it is, renaming it to its old name would be the most appropriate thing to do. NordicStorm 08:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, alternatively Rename to Category:(Åland adjectival) people, if we can reach a consensus as to what the adjectival form is. NordicStorm 08:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Affinal

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand what this is for, aside from having something to do with Category:Marriage. -- ProveIt ^(talk)

Delete The one article refers to "affinity" but nothing has been done to show that this category is required. Cloachland 23:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently "affinal" means "related by marriage"; I'm not sure how a category named Category:Related by marriage would work. David Kernow 09:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Game and Watch

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Game and Watch to Category:Game & Watch

Rename, Game & Watch is spelled with an ampersand. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Royal Marines officers

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 20:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Royal Marines officers to Category:Royal Marines people

Rename, Not all those in the category are officers. The next level category up is Category:Royal Marines which also has some people in it, but is generally about aspects of the service, not the people in it. It's currently quite a small category, so it doesn't really seem worth creating a new category for "Royal Marines other ranks" in order to split out those who aren't officers. I'm not sure "people" is the best description either, but I couldn't think of anything better, and hoped bringing it here might get some better ideas. I couldn't really see a relevant precedent in the naming conventions. David Underdown 13:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Having nosed around a bit more I see that the United States Marine Corps categories have Category:United States Marine Corps people which then goes down to Category:United States Marines for enlisted personnel and Category:United States Marine Corps officers for officers, this distinction doesn't really work in the Royal Marines case due to its use as both the name of the service, and sometimes the people in it.
Oppose The other services are divided into officers and other ranks. This one should be subdivided too. Chicheley 15:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, at least rename to Category:Royal Marine officers or Category:Officers of the Royal Marines.
If to be renamed, rename to Category:Royal Marine personnel. See below. David Kernow 15:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC), amended 10:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC), stricken 09:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment happy with any of these suggestions really. If we want to keep the Officer/OR distinction, what should the currently non-existent OR rank category be called? David Underdown 13:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and subdivide into category:Royal Marines officers and Category:Royal Marines other ranks. Osomec 18:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The RM other ranks cat already exists. See Category:Royal Marines ranks. Greenshed 23:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What a misleading name, I have to admit I never even looked in that category as I just assumed it was something to do with rank structure rather than anything else. In the light of that I'm perfectly happy to withdraw my original suggestion, but perhaps Category:Royal Marines ranks should be renamed as per Osomec above. David Underdown 08:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Officers of the Royal Marines and make subcategory of Category:Members of the Royal Marines.
Merge Category:Royal Marines ranks with Category:Members of the Royal Marines.
Rename Category:Royal Marines brigades to Category:Brigades of the Royal Marines.
Regards, David Kernow 09:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and subdivide into category:Royal Marines officers and Category:Royal Marines other ranks. Casper Claiborne 11:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Royal Marines officers. Rename Category:Royal Marines ranks to Category:Royal Marines other ranks. Recat members of Category:Royal Marines officers to Category:Royal Marines other ranks as appropriate. Greenshed 12:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per last entry above. Jonathan Bowen 21:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:RS 500 songs

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 20:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The list was removed from The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time as a copyright violation (see Talk:The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time). How can it be any less of a copyvio recreating the list by way of a category? Also, I think a Rolling Stone list is not sufficiently important to categorise songs by. kingboyk 12:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed. Recury 16:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, These greatest lists do not belong in categories. --musicpvm 18:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After spending quite some time on updating this category for the good of the site, I find it both frustrating and upsetting that all my work now runs the risk of being deleted for extremely picky reasons. First of all, it is not a copyvio. Having the list on the site in its chronological order is, because it's an exact copy of a previously published text. But merely explaining that each song was featured on this list and proving it by grouping them together is not disruptive in any way. Second, it is only one user's opinion that "greatest lists do not belong in categories" (without even explaining why). But personally, I think some people would consider it informative for people to see a group of songs chosen by a very major magazine as being the greatest of all time all classified together in alphabetical order. For this reason, I insist that you PLEASE leave this category alone, and do not delete it. Helping to expand it would be even better. THANK YOU!-- 2Pac, 7:51 17 August 2006.
Keep. Seems like an interesting set of songs and it is an alphabetic ordering rather than a numerical ordering. Jonathan Bowen 21:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fictional mutants

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 20:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Definition for inclusion seems murky; includes characters born with superhuman powers, such as Marvel Comics' X-Men, but also characters who have been changed by radiation or some other means. And Daleks. Chris Griswold 06:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no precise real-world definition for a jargon sf term. --Dhartung | Talk 06:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - LA @ 09:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete RobJ1981 00:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean-up - The majority of entries listed here should be sub-categorised. For example:
- Several under the main category more appropriately belong under the sub-category: Marvel Comics mutants
- A similar sub-category for DC Comics (and cartoons) mutants might be appropriate.
- Category:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters A TMNT mutants sub-category could be created, as well.
- I'm not certain that Demon Beast (Kirby series) and the sub-category Category:Nightmare Enterprises Monsters belongs in the category.
Keep, too many mutates have been accidentally included though. If the main category definitely has to be deleted (shame for characters like Gwen Raiden), then at least keep Category:Marvel Comics mutants and create another one for DC comics. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Ivo Lola Ribar Institute

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do we need a category for three computers that are all already linked in the main artcile? Vegaswikian 02:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --kingboyk 12:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteA category doesn't add much here. Piccadilly 23:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Spider-Man Movie Actors

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spider-Man Movie Actors into Category:Spider-Man actors

Merge, Unneeded split off category (and misnamed). See format for other "Actors by series". Crumbsucker 02:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; I think the category creator was Unclear On The Concept. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 14:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --musicpvm 18:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. - LA @ 09:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.