The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 relisting under umbrella for the in/of debate. Syrthiss 20:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_17#Internet_providers_standardization reply

Ian3055 10:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Moved here from speedy after discussion. Vegaswikian 23:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose The standard form for companies is "of". CalJW 15:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• ChangeAll of the other Internet service providers that are subcategorized by country use the word “in” except for India and the UK. Uniformity is not always a sin. Why not make those two “Internet service providers in the UK” and “Internet service providers in India”, even if it means a few extra keystrokes. Bejnar 18:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename category:Internet service providers of India so that multinational ISPs won't have to be multicategorised. Wikipedia is not an ISP finder service. Scranchuse 14:46, 17 March 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 relisting under umbrella for the in/of debate. Syrthiss 20:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_17#Internet_providers_standardization reply

Ian3055 21:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Moved here from speedy after discussion. Vegaswikian 23:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Having seen some other ISP categories, it seems that Category:Internet service providers in the United Kindgom would be consistent with other ISP by country categories. Ian3055 10:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • They should all change to "of" which is standard for companies. CalJW 15:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Was looking to get them all consistent - "of" would make more sense if they're all done. Ian3055 19:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Should this be changed to an umbrella nomination for all of the in country categories? Vegaswikian 00:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I find that "of" is particularly nondescript, while "in" at least has residual meaning. In this case I am not interested in whether an Internet provider is from India, I am intersted in whther they have services in India. "Of" may be fine for companies, but I would not apply it across-the-board, and not in this case. Bejnar 18:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename category:Internet service providers of the United Kingdom so that multinational ISPs won't have to be multicategorised. Wikipedia is not an ISP finder service. Scranchuse 14:46, 17 March 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 to Category:Railway companies of the United Kingdom. — akghetto  ^talk 17:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Ian3055 21:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Moved here from speedy after discussion. Vegaswikian 23:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• No, that's a stupid idea. — Dunc| ☺ 09:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Its inline with policy. I'd also like to point out that User:Duncharris has been removing the cfr tag on the category page. Ian3055 10:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Policy is to use the most common names. In this case "foo of bar" is decidedly French-esque grammar and unnatural English. — Dunc| ☺ 09:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support "Of" is the standard form for companies. CalJW 15:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Well it shouldn't be. Because other categories are wrong doesn't mean this one should be. — Dunc| ☺ 09:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:Railway companies of the United Kingdom. (Failing which, rename per nom.) -- Mais oui! 11:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • No, that's even worse. The British (GB) and Irish (ROI+NI) systems are separate. — Dunc| ☺ 11:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nom. Osomec 00:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. - EurekaLott 02:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:Railway companies in Great Britain Are we interested in railway companies that operated in Great Britain, or do we wish to include ones that had their head offices in G.B. but operated elsewhere in the Empire? The first would argue for the use of the preposition “in” and the later for the preposition “of”. Examining how the category has been used so far seems to favor the use of “in”. Bejnar 18:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:Railway companies of the United Kingdom. As Northern Ireland Railways is listed in a subcategory of this. If it is changed to ".... of Great Britain", it is specifically excluding Northern Ireland. Also, the parent category of British Railway Companies is Category:Companies of the United Kingdom and all the subcats of that are "... United Kingdom". If this is renamed, it's completely against consistancy. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per Stu above. -- Mal 00:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:Railway companies of the United Kingdom and create a GB subcat if appropriate. Scranchuse 14:48, 17 March 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 to delete, perhaps restructure the criteria. Syrthiss 20:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Poorly defined grab-bag of a "genre", whose scope is, and I quote in full, "Novels whose fictional structure is being used as a device to communicate ideas." Contents are a jumble of Rand (but of course), Dostoevsky and Pirsig. Not usefully usable. Alai 22:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Move Heinlein out of the science fiction and into here just delete. Too vague - all novels are devices to communicate ideas. Grutness... wha? 03:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom and Grutness. Pavel Vozenilek 14:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Could be useful with a more discriminating definition. There is a tradition of using fiction to communicate philosophical ideas, which Sartre, Rand (like her or not), Voltaire, and perhaps Nietzsche and Plato (depending on how you want to read those two) engaged in. This also pretty much defines the 19th century Russian philosophical tradition. - Seth Mahoney 21:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • OK, so to return to my semi-flippant comment, what would stop things like Stranger in a Strange Land from being in here? Or Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, for that matter? Grutness... wha? 00:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Well, if it matters to you, authorial intent could be used. To my knowledge, anyway, neither of your abovementioned works was envisioned as a philosophical novel by its writer, though they are philosophically rich and interesting. Sartre, on the contrary, certainly declared his intention to write Nausea as the great philosophical novel; likewise, his contemporary Camus. Of the other writers named hereinabove, I cannot definitively speak, except that Plato does not belong, as the application of the "novel" concept to his work is grossly anachronistic. Still my vote is below...
• Keep but edit for stricter criteria. Xoloz 19:00, 12 March 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 oppose rename/keep all. — akghetto  ^talk 17:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Defense companies and its sub-categories are contained within Category:Military industry. There needs to be consistency in wording between these categories. In this regard, " military", and not " defense", is the macro-level term used the strong majority of the time for armed forces categories and articles on Wikipedia. For example, there are a series of military budget articles like Military budget of the United States, Military budget of the People's Republic of China, and Military budget of Canada. Moreover, armed forces by country articles and categories use the word "military", such as Military of India, Military of New Zealand, Military of North Korea, and Category:Military of France. Category:Defence companies of France for example is currently within Category:Military of France, a hierarchy that is also done with the defense company/military categories of other countries.

It is improper on Wikipedia that the companies that provide for and service what we have termed a "military" have been termed differently, as "defense" companies. As concluding evidence of this improper wording, Category:Defense companies describes itself as containg articles about companies involved in the production of things ranging from "military vehicles to naval vessels to military aircraft and satellites". Category:Defense companies is also described in Category:Firearms manufacturers as: "See category:Defence companies for companies which make other types of military equipment such military vehicles, naval vessels and military aircraft." "Military" and not "defense" is the most appropriate word to use in the following categories. I am proposing the following renamings:

• Category:Defence companies to Category:Military companies
• Category:Defence companies of Brazil to Category:Military companies of Brazil
• Category:Defence companies of Canada to Category:Military companies of Canada
• Category:Defence companies of Finland to Category:Military companies of Finland
• Category:Defence companies of France to Category:Military companies of France
• Category:Defence companies of Germany to Category:Military companies of Germany
• Category:Defence companies of India to Category:Military companies of India
• Category:Defense companies of Israel to Category:Military companies of Israel
• Category:Defence companies of Italy to Category:Military companies of Italy
• Category:Defence companies of the United Kingdom to Category:Military companies of the United States
• Category:Defense companies of the United States to Category:Military companies of the United States

-- Kurieeto 14:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep. "Military company" is triply ambiguous, as it may refer to the type of infantry unit, to PMCs, or to the aerospace-defense industry. It is entirely consistent with common English usage to say "defence" or "defense" to refer to military security topics, well-illustrated by a Google search which returns 3,760,000 results for "defense industry" and 403,000 for "military industry." The main article for these businesses is appropriately defense contractor. - choster 14:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I now recognize the ambiguous problem re: infantry units, I hadn't thought of that. Substituing "corporations" or "businesses" for "companies" would address that however.

My concern is that the industry in question here has been termed the "military industry". Logically, the next hierarchical step as per other Wikipedia industry categories is to have a category for the companies of that industry. "X Industry" -> "X Companies", "X Corporations", or "X businesses". If the defense company categories remain for now, what category should we use to group all businesses involved in the military industry, defense and non-defense alike? Kurieeto 15:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose as per choster CalJW 15:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose as per choster. Defense/Defence now pretty much standard. Nobunaga24 22:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose As much as I deplore double-talk and double-think, I agree that the change would be much worse here. Bejnar 18:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I agree that constructions like "defence" and "Ministry of Defence" are euphemisms, but "military companies" really opens the door for ambiguity, since a 'company' is also a name for a military unit. Could we find another rewording that's less problematic? Ideas are "military corporations" and "military industry companies", neither of which I like, but might get the ball rolling on a rename. -- Saforrest 21:28, 15 March 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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. — akghetto  ^talk 17:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Not exactly identical, but close enough for a merge, I think.-- Mike Selinker 13:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support upmerge. Overcategorization. × Meegs 17:29, 9 March 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 speedy delete G7. — akghetto  ^talk 17:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Created by myself in error, already exist at Category:Northern Ireland comedians. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:16, 9 March 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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. Syrthiss 19:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty, and almost totally redundant given Category:Prehistoric arthropods

• Delete Stemonitis 12:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• I know they're generally pretty robust, and that humans don't pay much attention to them, but it seems hard to believe that there aren't any arthropods that are known to have become distinct recently. There are three listed at Endangered species#Endangered arthropods. Oh well, if it's empty, delete; it can be recreated later. × Meegs 18:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge prehistoric into extinct, or supercat prehistoric into extinct. I suspect some arthropods have gone extinct during historical times. 132.205.44.134 23:18, 13 March 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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. — akghetto  ^talk 17:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

"Programming" does not always refer to computers! There is also television programming, mental programming, etc. Most if not all of the articles in here seem to refer to programming of the computer variety, however. Programming redirects to Computer programming. Lankiveil 12:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as suggested. Q0 13:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nom. CalJW 15:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nom. David Kernow 16:24, 9 March 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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. Syrthiss 20:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

US Army soldiers in Iraq is too limiting and ignores other service members. In addition, all other veterans categories are by conflict, not branch of service. Nobunaga24 06:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as per nom. CalJW 15:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Agree with the need to rename, but oppose proposed new name. A change to accommodate other U.S. military personnel would be fine, but the new name covers anyone who served in any capacity in the Iraq War from any nation - US, British, Polish, Australian, Iraqi... Grutness... wha? 03:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I agree with that...how about "American Iraq War veterans"? However, some categories like Vietnam War veterans and Korean War veterans don't differentiate by nationality; for example Category:Vietnam War veterans includes American as well as Australian veterans, and even one South Korean veteran. Nobunaga24 04:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Wait, didn't that war start with the French?
• Rename Category:American Iraq War veterans Scranchuse 14:52, 17 March 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 all as nominated. — akghetto  ^talk 10:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename good idea, consistent with general naming convention re Georgia (U.S. State). BrownHairedGirl 14:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to avoid possible confusion with Georgia (country). - EurekaLott 05:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename Q0 09:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Good de U.S.-centrism. CalJW 15:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all as per comments above. David Kernow 16:23, 9 March 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 keep. — akghetto  ^talk 17:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Simply rediculous --- Lancini87 05:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep - It is usually well established in the show work of fiction if a fictional character is from another country. Therefore, there is no POV or interperation issues that may be present with other categories. In addition, there is a category Category:Naturalized_citizens_of_the_United_States that already exists about non-fictional people. Q0 05:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Neutral. However, "ridiculous". Lankiveil 12:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I suppose there are a fair number of characters in books and other media whose story involves emigrating to the U.S. David Kernow 16:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per David Kernow.-- Mais oui! 13:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per David Kernow. Scranchuse 14:50, 17 March 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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. — akghetto  ^talk 17:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

delete unnecessary duplication, and not being used as a supra-category page of the category pages Category:Swedish Canadians, Category:Norwegian Canadians, Category:Danish Canadians, etc. but has listed under it all people listed under these specific national/ethnic origin cats. i don t however see the need to have it as a supra-cat page even if properly used as such Mayumashu 02:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, as per above. Lankiveil 12:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC). reply
• Delete, per nom. Skeezix1000 13:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. The creator went and individually added every single person who was already in the subcategories, which makes this, at best, an entirely unnecessary duplication. Bearcat 20:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Saforrest 21:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Scranchuse 14:49, 17 March 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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. — akghetto  ^talk 09:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The format "The Xs" for a family X is very nonstandard, and found nowhere else in Category:Families or Category:Royal families. The convention of just using the name "Bonaparte" by itself follows the pattern of Category:Habsburg, Category:Bernadotte, Category:Sobieski, Category:Beauharnais, etc., and the article Bonaparte itself. Saforrest 02:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Suggest rename to Category:People named Bonaparte. David Kernow 16:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nom. David Kernow 16:53, 9 March 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.