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. MER-C 11:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:TOOSOON. These stations are planned and 2019 is over 3 years away. ...William 22:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If both articles in the category had references stating that they are scheduled to open in 2019, I wouldn't see a problem. However, as it stands, they don't. Currently delete, unless sources are found. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 06:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't care if there are reliable sourced references or not. The fact of the matter is lots of things can occur over the next 3 years to delay the opening, or maybe speed them up. We should not have opened categories for future years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:CRYSTALBALL even if they are planned to be opened in 2019, does not mean they will, there could be delays as with most projects. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Marcocapelle's action is the appropriate outcome. As the line (on which most of the stations will stand) is under construction, its opening is a reasonably certain future event. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Agree with the change to title eg to Category:Railway stations scheduled to open in 2015 etc for years of 2015 etc. I also think that the categories Category:Proposed railway stations scheduled to open in 2015 etc for years of 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2024 should be renamed or merged to "Railway stations scheduled to open in ...." to avoid duplicate categories in each year. Also the "Proposed" prefix is superfluous here as a railway station that is scheduled to open must be not yet open. This would probably require a separate CFR proposal though. Hugo999 (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. A lot can happen in four years to speed up or slow down the opening date of a railway station, or cause it to be cancelled entirely and never open at all. No prejudice against recreation in 2019 when reliable sources start confirming that a station will definitely open in 2019 and is not just currently planned to open in 2019. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2015 (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:British Navy Commando officers
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:split as proposed. This will be listed at WP:CFDWM for completion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Split. There's no such thing as the "British Navy". It's the Royal Navy. The Royal Marines are part of the Naval Service, but are effectively a separate service and are usually treated as such. The term "Royal Navy Commandos" is used for RN personnel either forming their own commando units or attached to RM commando units. Both terms were used during WWII and have been used ever since, so I'm not sure why this category should be confined to the war. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (it shouldn't say "British Navy Commando", at least not with that capitalisation). I suggest that before this CFD closes the nominator creates the proposed target categories and moves articles into them - that way the admin who closes this discussion won't have to determine which articles belong in which subcategories. DexDor(talk) 05:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll happily do that if my nomination is supported. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- Today all British Commando units are Royal Marines, who are technically the Navy's soldiers. No doubt officers of other parts of the armed forces are seconded to them occasionally, but I do not think such secondments should give rise to a category. The difficulty arises from a WWII unit No. 30 Commando, which was a special inter-forces formation, with men from all the armed forces (including army and RAF) to undertake a special intelligence related mission, led by the later novelist Ian Fleming (who is missing from the category). We should not have a category for "No. 30 Commando officers" because it would be too small to be worthwhile, but navy, army and RAF commando officers will be even scarcer. The best solution that I can come up with is to rename to Category:Royal Marines commando officers, but provide it with a headnote that the category includes WWII No. 30 Commando officers, despite them not being marines. I accept that this is not a wholly satisfactory solution, but I cannot see a better one. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not true. Many of the current British Commando units are actually almost entirely Army units (e.g. artillery, engineers, much of the logistics organisation). Only the infantry units and some support personnel come from the Royal Marines. Medical personnel, chaplains, etc, in RM units come from the Royal Navy and have worn (and may still wear) a "Royal Navy Commando" shoulder title. I think it's perfectly acceptable and sensible to have three separate categories for the three separate services. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 17 August 2015 (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.
