User:Evad37/sandbox/Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 14

This is just a sandbox, for testing purposes.

• Propose renaming Category:X4 to Category:X5

Nominator's rationale: Rename to a gender-neutral title, since this title includes women. If "aircrew" is an inappropriate term, then please suggest a gender-neutral alternative. USER1 15:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The actual RAF rank is Aircraftmen, which has absolutely no chance of being embraced by the nominator! In practice though, this category has mostly non-career military people who served in some capacity in the RAF. I'm wondering if upmerging this to Category:Royal Air Force personnel but my knowledge is with the USAF so I would want a British perspective here. USER2 01:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The RAF is not gender neutral and has never been so. Airmen ≠ Aircrew I was an aircraftman for 12 years but was never aircrew. There are aircraftmen and there are aircraftwomen in the RAF and it would be quite reasonable to call the category Royal Air Force airmen and airwomen. The Category:Royal Air Force personnel, would of course embrace Officers, Senior Non-Commissioned Officers and Airmen. If that is the intention, then 'personnel' is the terminology that should be used.USER3 08:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose "aircrew" for the same reason as above: not all people serving in the RAF have been awarded the aircrew brevet. I don't think merging with Category:Royal Air Force personnel is the answer; I imagine the idea is to have separate categories for commissioned and non-commissioned personnel in the same way as Category:Royal Navy officers/sailors and Category:British Army officers/soldiers. How about Category:Royal Air Force other ranks? USER4 17:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Propose renaming Category:X4 to Category:X5

Nominator's rationale: Rename to a gender-neutral title, since this title includes women. If "aircrew" is an inappropriate term, then please suggest a gender-neutral alternative. USER1 15:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The actual RAF rank is Aircraftmen, which has absolutely no chance of being embraced by the nominator! In practice though, this category has mostly non-career military people who served in some capacity in the RAF. I'm wondering if upmerging this to Category:Royal Air Force personnel but my knowledge is with the USAF so I would want a British perspective here. USER2 01:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The RAF is not gender neutral and has never been so. Airmen ≠ Aircrew I was an aircraftman for 12 years but was never aircrew. There are aircraftmen and there are aircraftwomen in the RAF and it would be quite reasonable to call the category Royal Air Force airmen and airwomen. The Category:Royal Air Force personnel, would of course embrace Officers, Senior Non-Commissioned Officers and Airmen. If that is the intention, then 'personnel' is the terminology that should be used.USER3 08:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose "aircrew" for the same reason as above: not all people serving in the RAF have been awarded the aircrew brevet. I don't think merging with Category:Royal Air Force personnel is the answer; I imagine the idea is to have separate categories for commissioned and non-commissioned personnel in the same way as Category:Royal Navy officers/sailors and Category:British Army officers/soldiers. How about Category:Royal Air Force other ranks? USER4 17:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Propose renaming Category:X4 to Category:X5

Nominator's rationale: Rename to a gender-neutral title, since this title includes women. If "aircrew" is an inappropriate term, then please suggest a gender-neutral alternative. USER1 15:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The actual RAF rank is Aircraftmen, which has absolutely no chance of being embraced by the nominator! In practice though, this category has mostly non-career military people who served in some capacity in the RAF. I'm wondering if upmerging this to Category:Royal Air Force personnel but my knowledge is with the USAF so I would want a British perspective here. USER2 01:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The RAF is not gender neutral and has never been so. Airmen ≠ Aircrew I was an aircraftman for 12 years but was never aircrew. There are aircraftmen and there are aircraftwomen in the RAF and it would be quite reasonable to call the category Royal Air Force airmen and airwomen. The Category:Royal Air Force personnel, would of course embrace Officers, Senior Non-Commissioned Officers and Airmen. If that is the intention, then 'personnel' is the terminology that should be used.USER3 08:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose "aircrew" for the same reason as above: not all people serving in the RAF have been awarded the aircrew brevet. I don't think merging with Category:Royal Air Force personnel is the answer; I imagine the idea is to have separate categories for commissioned and non-commissioned personnel in the same way as Category:Royal Navy officers/sailors and Category:British Army officers/soldiers. How about Category:Royal Air Force other ranks? USER4 17:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Propose renaming Category:X4 to Category:X5

Nominator's rationale: Rename to a gender-neutral title, since this title includes women. If "aircrew" is an inappropriate term, then please suggest a gender-neutral alternative. USER1 15:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The actual RAF rank is Aircraftmen, which has absolutely no chance of being embraced by the nominator! In practice though, this category has mostly non-career military people who served in some capacity in the RAF. I'm wondering if upmerging this to Category:Royal Air Force personnel but my knowledge is with the USAF so I would want a British perspective here. USER2 01:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The RAF is not gender neutral and has never been so. Airmen ≠ Aircrew I was an aircraftman for 12 years but was never aircrew. There are aircraftmen and there are aircraftwomen in the RAF and it would be quite reasonable to call the category Royal Air Force airmen and airwomen. The Category:Royal Air Force personnel, would of course embrace Officers, Senior Non-Commissioned Officers and Airmen. If that is the intention, then 'personnel' is the terminology that should be used.USER3 08:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose "aircrew" for the same reason as above: not all people serving in the RAF have been awarded the aircrew brevet. I don't think merging with Category:Royal Air Force personnel is the answer; I imagine the idea is to have separate categories for commissioned and non-commissioned personnel in the same way as Category:Royal Navy officers/sailors and Category:British Army officers/soldiers. How about Category:Royal Air Force other ranks? USER4 17:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Propose renaming Category:X4 to Category:X5

Nominator's rationale: Rename to a gender-neutral title, since this title includes women. If "aircrew" is an inappropriate term, then please suggest a gender-neutral alternative. USER1 15:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The actual RAF rank is Aircraftmen, which has absolutely no chance of being embraced by the nominator! In practice though, this category has mostly non-career military people who served in some capacity in the RAF. I'm wondering if upmerging this to Category:Royal Air Force personnel but my knowledge is with the USAF so I would want a British perspective here. USER2 01:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The RAF is not gender neutral and has never been so. Airmen ≠ Aircrew I was an aircraftman for 12 years but was never aircrew. There are aircraftmen and there are aircraftwomen in the RAF and it would be quite reasonable to call the category Royal Air Force airmen and airwomen. The Category:Royal Air Force personnel, would of course embrace Officers, Senior Non-Commissioned Officers and Airmen. If that is the intention, then 'personnel' is the terminology that should be used.USER3 08:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose "aircrew" for the same reason as above: not all people serving in the RAF have been awarded the aircrew brevet. I don't think merging with Category:Royal Air Force personnel is the answer; I imagine the idea is to have separate categories for commissioned and non-commissioned personnel in the same way as Category:Royal Navy officers/sailors and Category:British Army officers/soldiers. How about Category:Royal Air Force other ranks? USER4 17:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Propose renaming Category:X4 to Category:X5

Nominator's rationale: Rename to a gender-neutral title, since this title includes women. If "aircrew" is an inappropriate term, then please suggest a gender-neutral alternative. USER1 15:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The actual RAF rank is Aircraftmen, which has absolutely no chance of being embraced by the nominator! In practice though, this category has mostly non-career military people who served in some capacity in the RAF. I'm wondering if upmerging this to Category:Royal Air Force personnel but my knowledge is with the USAF so I would want a British perspective here. USER2 01:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The RAF is not gender neutral and has never been so. Airmen ≠ Aircrew I was an aircraftman for 12 years but was never aircrew. There are aircraftmen and there are aircraftwomen in the RAF and it would be quite reasonable to call the category Royal Air Force airmen and airwomen. The Category:Royal Air Force personnel, would of course embrace Officers, Senior Non-Commissioned Officers and Airmen. If that is the intention, then 'personnel' is the terminology that should be used.USER3 08:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose "aircrew" for the same reason as above: not all people serving in the RAF have been awarded the aircrew brevet. I don't think merging with Category:Royal Air Force personnel is the answer; I imagine the idea is to have separate categories for commissioned and non-commissioned personnel in the same way as Category:Royal Navy officers/sailors and Category:British Army officers/soldiers. How about Category:Royal Air Force other ranks? USER4 17:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Propose renaming Category:X4 to Category:X5

Nominator's rationale: Rename to a gender-neutral title, since this title includes women. If "aircrew" is an inappropriate term, then please suggest a gender-neutral alternative. USER1 15:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The actual RAF rank is Aircraftmen, which has absolutely no chance of being embraced by the nominator! In practice though, this category has mostly non-career military people who served in some capacity in the RAF. I'm wondering if upmerging this to Category:Royal Air Force personnel but my knowledge is with the USAF so I would want a British perspective here. USER2 01:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The RAF is not gender neutral and has never been so. Airmen ≠ Aircrew I was an aircraftman for 12 years but was never aircrew. There are aircraftmen and there are aircraftwomen in the RAF and it would be quite reasonable to call the category Royal Air Force airmen and airwomen. The Category:Royal Air Force personnel, would of course embrace Officers, Senior Non-Commissioned Officers and Airmen. If that is the intention, then 'personnel' is the terminology that should be used.USER3 08:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose "aircrew" for the same reason as above: not all people serving in the RAF have been awarded the aircrew brevet. I don't think merging with Category:Royal Air Force personnel is the answer; I imagine the idea is to have separate categories for commissioned and non-commissioned personnel in the same way as Category:Royal Navy officers/sailors and Category:British Army officers/soldiers. How about Category:Royal Air Force other ranks? USER4 17:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Propose deleting Category:X2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No article on category subject, see no reason to have a cat on their works. USERSIG 05:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. The songwriter(s) are a defining attribute of the song, that is not dependent whether the songwriter is notable. --USERSIG 10:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Every single one of her five songs is written by at least one other person who is not the artist performing the song, so I have a real issue with saying "the fact that Courtney Harrell wrote this song is a defining feature of this song." There's got to be some sort of lower limit where this becomes WP:TRIVIA. I'd also note WP:NONDEF as "something we wouldn't mention in the lede or is not mentioned often in sources" also fits here. USERSIG 23:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per USERSIG . This writer has a page at AllMusic [1] and Discogs,[2] but I can't find any sources that might allow us to create an article about her. IMHO, co-writing songs as one of many does not confer sufficient notability to make that contribution defining. Her self-promotional page [3] highlights three songs, none of which have not achieved articles in Wikipedia (e.g. theme single from Think Like a Man); although she claims "Grammy honors", this is only for contributing to the writing of one song on F.A.M.E. (album), and not the one which won "Best Song". The best that I can find is this [4] for the Kelly Rowland song "You Changed", but it has no article and I can't see a way to work that citation into the article on the album. Having a category seems in effect promotional (but I do not denigrate the good faith work of Richhoncho, who created it). – USERSIG 19:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Propose deleting Category:X3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A sparsely populated county in Iran. Permanent category only has the 5 articles, which have all been tagged as stubs. No need for a stub category at this time. Propose deleting stub category and upmerging template to Category:Razavi Khorasan Province geography stubs. Dawynn (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• It was a new county, split from Sabzevar County. A quick look at the template would indicate that there were likely 50+ entries in the category that no one bothered to relabel. I bothered, now there are 50 or so members of the category. I think a little more investigation than this cat doesn't have x many is probably in order; rather this cat can never have x many, which is clearly here disproved. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)