Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deutschland class cruiser
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 20:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deutschland class cruiser[edit]
Delete There is a better article about the same thing at Pocket battleship --Yooden
- Keep, while "pocket battleship" is the term for the genre of the Deutschland-class, the class itself deserves an article as well, like all warship classes. If anything, pocket battleship should redirect to the class, but I don't think that's necessary. Lord Bob 21:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as I mention above, Pocket battleship is an article about the class. --Yooden
- I'm not quite sure how to express my opinion. Words are not forming in my brain. I shall try...while pocket battleship could be quite a reasonable article on the background and things, Deutschland class cruiser could be quire a reasonable article on the technical characteristics associated with class pages. In addition, if one should be merged into the other, it should be Pocket battleship into Deutschland class cruiser. Was I able to make sense that time? Lord Bob 21:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice plan. Currently however, Deutschland class cruiser is a subset of Pocket battleship, so it should go. Later on, the then single article can be named as it is deemed best. Currently we have three articles about the individual ships, two about the class and one category. Cleanup is required. --Yooden
- I'm not quite sure how to express my opinion. Words are not forming in my brain. I shall try...while pocket battleship could be quite a reasonable article on the background and things, Deutschland class cruiser could be quire a reasonable article on the technical characteristics associated with class pages. In addition, if one should be merged into the other, it should be Pocket battleship into Deutschland class cruiser. Was I able to make sense that time? Lord Bob 21:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as I mention above, Pocket battleship is an article about the class. --Yooden
- Move pocket battleship to Panzerschiff ('armoured ship'), which is the name of this ship class in German. Make Deutschland class cruiser a redirect to Panzerschiff. In particular, as each of the three ships have their own article including relevant technical information, and Deutschland class cruiser holds no further information, there is no need for two articles. Sliggy 22:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep!!!! WP:Ships has had extensive discussions about organizing ship articles, and this one is perfectly in line with the arrived concensus. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) for further talk on the matter. Pocket battleship should remain as an article about the term, not specifically about the Deutschland class (although it is true that it is the only class to be called by the term), which information belongs exactly in the targetted article. Panzerschiff is a fine name for the German Wikipedia, but not for the English version. The Deutschlands really weren't 'Panzerschiff' at all (the term was used for political/legal cover). Keep Deutschland class cruiser, keep pocket battleship. Josh 15:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I don't mind an article about the class, but there are two, and one is a subset of the other.
- No, only Deutschland class cruiser is a class article. Pocket battleship is a ship type article. Josh 20:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, and the ship type has exactly three ships, the same as the class. Don't you think it's a bit nit-picking to make a distinction here? Some quotes: "Pocket battleship(s ...) were also known as the Deutschland class", "The British began referring to the (Deutschland class cruisers) as pocket battleships" --Yooden
- No, only Deutschland class cruiser is a class article. Pocket battleship is a ship type article. Josh 20:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would you want one article about one specific nickname and one about everything else?
- The nickname represents an interesting phenomenon, which it can be argued is worhy of an article to discuss. I would tend to agree, given the term's unique presence in naval history. However, it doesn't mitigate the need for the correct class article Deutschland class cruiser. 20:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- The nickname is not worth more than a paragraph.
- I don't mind what the article is called. At the moment, pocket battleship is a superset of Deutschland class cruiser; the latter is simply redundant. --Yooden
- The nickname represents an interesting phenomenon, which it can be argued is worhy of an article to discuss. I would tend to agree, given the term's unique presence in naval history. However, it doesn't mitigate the need for the correct class article Deutschland class cruiser. 20:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind calling the one remaining article Deutschland class cruiser. In fact, given that all of you do your best to misunderstand me, I should've simply moved the content and redirect. (That's what you get for pleasing the rule fanboys.) --Yooden
- The reason I submit my proposals to CfD or AfD is not to 'please the rule fanboys', but instead because I am not the only one with ideas on how to do things, and my ideas aren't always the best. This is especially true when dealing with subjects that aren't central to my own knowledge, but even on those I consider to be my forte it is helpful to get other's views. Intentionally making edits to circumvent the CfD/AfD process, especially when a vote like this has expressed that there is no concensus for what you are doing, is grounds I believe for administrative action. Josh 20:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So watch me not doing it until this is over. After that, however, I will start a new discussion on the two pages. And I really don't think that removing redundant information is grounds for administrative action. (To give you a head start: Please provide a list of information that is in Deutschland class cruiser but not in pocket battleship.) --Yooden
- To qualify that: I know that rule are required, I only think rules work against Wikipedia in this case. The article is completely and completely obviously useless (so far no reason was given why it should exist), and I think work directly on the articles would have shown that in a much simpler way than this AfD. --Yooden
- The reason I submit my proposals to CfD or AfD is not to 'please the rule fanboys', but instead because I am not the only one with ideas on how to do things, and my ideas aren't always the best. This is especially true when dealing with subjects that aren't central to my own knowledge, but even on those I consider to be my forte it is helpful to get other's views. Intentionally making edits to circumvent the CfD/AfD process, especially when a vote like this has expressed that there is no concensus for what you are doing, is grounds I believe for administrative action. Josh 20:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand — Pocket battleship is a superset of this class. — RJH 15:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wikipedia article is a subset of the ship class? Please elaborate. --Yooden
- RJH did say 'superset' not 'subset'. 'Pocket battleship' is a moniker applied by the British to the Deutschland as a counter to the German moniker of Panzerschiffe. The name could well apply to not only the Deutschland class, but also could apply to other similar German designs such as 'Cruiser P' and other designs that were not produced. None-the-less 'pocket battleship' is not strictly limited to the Deutschland even though in practice, it was the only class to actually be built that was called such. Josh 20:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, whatever, I was confused about whether he refered to the articles or the classes. Anyway, the nickname was only applied to the Deutschland and her siblings. --Yooden
- RJH did say 'superset' not 'subset'. 'Pocket battleship' is a moniker applied by the British to the Deutschland as a counter to the German moniker of Panzerschiffe. The name could well apply to not only the Deutschland class, but also could apply to other similar German designs such as 'Cruiser P' and other designs that were not produced. None-the-less 'pocket battleship' is not strictly limited to the Deutschland even though in practice, it was the only class to actually be built that was called such. Josh 20:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - pocket battleship should refer to the Deutschalnd class for the ship details, explain how the term came about - eg newspaper reports - and then comment on any modern day usage of the term. GraemeLeggett 10:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it should, but it doesn't. So what's your point? --Yooden
- That we shouldn't just redirect pocket batleship to "Deutschland class". GraemeLeggett 11:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, so once again more slowly. Whatever Pocket battleship could be in our collective wet dream, at the moment it is a superset of Deutschland class cruiser. Even if it were different, the circumstances leading to the nickname 'pocket battleship' are hardly worth a paragraph. --Yooden
- That we shouldn't just redirect pocket batleship to "Deutschland class". GraemeLeggett 11:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it should, but it doesn't. So what's your point? --Yooden
- Keep - integrate relevant data from Pocket battleship an redirect "Pocket battleship" ->"Deutschland class cruiser" --Moroboshi 19:27, 7 February 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.