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.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename per nom. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure about this -- possibly it should be renamed to Category:Liquefied Natural Gas terminals, so that the word "Liquified" doesn't appear (absurdly, of course) to be modifying the term "natural gas terminals". Cgingold (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - shouldn't it be "Liquefied" anyway, or is that another UK/US difference? Grutness...wha? 00:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, according to the Liquefied natural gas article should be "liquefied". I don't think that UK/US spelling difference rule applies here. Concerning "Liquefied Natural Gas", there is no established rule to use Capitalized version for the full term (although sometimes that is used). The main article of LNG series (Liquefied natural gas) spells it without capitalization, so categories should follow same standard. Different thing is with acronym LNG, which is always written with capital letters.Beagel (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a speedy with that spelling change hidden in there. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional discussion on CfD:
Rename per nom to fix caps and match spelling in main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Somehow it just bothered me the other day, but obviously it's not a proper name, so no caps. Sometimes we just have to live with the subtle ambiguities of the English language. Cgingold (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2008 (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.
That isn't just a capitalisation change. You also changed the first word.--Rockfang (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional discussion on CfD:
This is about the process of servicing aircraft on the ground. So it is directly about the aircraft. The fact that this service is commonly done at an airport is not as informative in the name. Also I believe that these services are the same if performed on an aircraft carrier, heliport, helipad, or a forward military base. Rename to Category:Aircraft ground handling. This position is supported by the main article, Aircraft ground handling. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename to Category:Police officers indicted for murder. After the bots transfer the articles, I'll go through and weed out the non-applicable articles. Feel free to double check my work on this. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Potential NPOV disaster. There are no rules given for the category and the category is open to interpretation. Some of those the category has been applied to have never been charged with any offence, Then there is the issue of what constitutes murder. Kernel Saunters (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems like a bad idea to have "[people] accused of [a crime]" categories due to WP:BLP problems. "[People] convicted of [a crime]" would be more acceptable, though. --Metropolitan90(talk) 20:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Police Officers charged with murder. The "charged" part seems less open to interpretation than "accused". For the "murder" part, you only use it when the court involved actually recognizes it as murder.--Rockfang (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why does being accused or charged make this notable? Literally is there anyone who is notable that has not been accused or charged for something. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the combination of "police officer" and "murder" helps with notability. It is not (at least to my knowledge) common for police officers to be charged with murder.--Rockfang (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it's extremely unusual for police officers to be charged with murder. I think the word we want here is "indicted", since that is the formal legal term, whereas both "accuse" and "charged" can be used informally. So rename to Category:Police officers indicted for murder. Cgingold (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines suggestion would be 'Includes police officers indicted by a recognised court of law for murder.. Note that many/most of the people in the category in question do not qualify for this rename suggestion so would need to be removed Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator agrees to rename with guidelines as in my previous post Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2008 (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:speedy delete. BencherliteTalk 21:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Please delete this one, i misspellt the title when creating the category. Soman (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator, all you have to do to get it Speedy Deleted is tag the category page with {{db-author}}. Cgingold (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2008 (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. The category title does not match the general naming conventions for categories. None of the articles in the category seem to be lists. I also wouldn't mind Category:Fictional mad scientists, as this category is a subcategory of Category:Fictional scientists and all the articles seem to be about fictional characters who fit the mad scientist stock character. Gentgeen (talk) 08:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This category is sorely in need of good, clear inclusion criteria -- otherwise, it's pretty much any-and-every-body's idea of just who is or isn't a so-called "mad scientist". Also, I don't think it's a good idea to have Category:Fictional characters with mental illness as one of the parent cats; as the main article points out, not all "mad scientists" are suffering from mental illness. If kept, it should be renamed to Category:Fictional mad scientists. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either Delete as redundant to List of mad scientists and having definitional issues, or if kept, Rename per Cgingold. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename- As long as we stick to the fictional world here, it should remain. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All are fictional - see above. Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2008 (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. Unclear to most reader what the initials stand for and the RAFVR has fought in more than one war. Kernel Saunters (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for clarity, and to expand acronym. --BelovedFreak 09:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nom -- acrnym needs expanding, even though it make it a mouthful. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2008 (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.
