Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 25 March 27 >

March 26[edit]

Category:Tank aces[edit]

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category, failing WP:CATDEF. "Tank ace" is not a well-defined concept; a "tank ace" is a recent creation within popular culture, and assigning the status of a "tank ace" by its nature involves OR.
For comparison, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Submarine ace which resulted in a redirect to Ace (military). "Tank ace" is redirect to the same article and is briefly discussed there. The category "Aces of the Deep" has been likewise deleted/merged into U-boat commanders (see CfD: Aces of the Deep.)
K.e.coffman (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too ill-defined for use as most countries didn't keep formal track of tank kills/claims.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too judgmental. To my knowledge, the U.S. Army has never had such a -- what? -- designation yet Creighton Abrams is a member of the category.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The entire 'tank ace' construct is dubious, and largely invented by people looking to glorify the military of Nazi Germany, so this is not a useful way of categorising people. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not complete and subjective. Kierzek (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The definition of who was or was not an ace is a POV issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2017 (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.

Early medieval conflicts[edit]

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: merge. – Fayenatic London 12:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, mostly just one article per category; and besides most decade categories of this period aren't yet diffused by year anyway. Only the 630s have a larger number of articles but most of them are in a Muslim conquest subcategory already so that's no reason not to merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all -- This is too remote a period for annual categories to be useful, or rather for the year category to need to be split by subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2017 (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:Luftwaffe units referenced in the Wehrmachtbericht[edit]

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. – Fayenatic London 21:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining as none of the units are known for being mentioned in the Wehrmachtbericht (see WP:CATDEF).
A similar category for the German personnel of WWII has recently been deleted; pls see:
K.e.coffman (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not much point to it, IMO, as many, if not most, Luftwaffe units had somebody mentioned in the Wehrmachtbericht.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Trivia at best, and definitely not a defining characteristic. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2017 (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:Films directed by Minoru Kunizawa[edit]

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: Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category contains one entry (other article in this cat having been deleted). K.e.coffman (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:FILMCAT - "A category for a director's films should be created even if they have only directed one film (irrespective of whether they are likely to direct more in the future), providing that the director already has an article". Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 07:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reasons listed by Lugnuts. Dimadick (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2017 (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:Muscovite Russia[edit]

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; in practice, merge what remains to Category:Tsardom of Russia. @Marcocapelle: given the time that has unfortunately elapsed, please review the results afterwards again, whether from Cydebot's contributions of from the eventual members of the category. – Fayenatic London 22:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: split, in article space Muscovite Russia redirects to Grand Duchy of Moscow but both these categories contain a mix of articles referring to the Grand Duchy and to the Tsardom of Russia. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2017 (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 Army appointments[edit]

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:Senior appointments of the British Army and make it a sub-cat of the second. – Fayenatic London 07:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Means exactly the same thing, so a complete duplicate category. I think the latter title is the better of the two (see Category:Military ranks of the British Army‎), but wouldn't object to a reverse merge if preferred. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The scope is not quite the same one is about offices to which people are appointed, the other about ranks, some specialist ones. However the distinction is a narrow one. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what you mean. I'm not suggesting appointments should be merged to ranks. They are different things. I'm suggesting two categories about appointments which differ only in the wording of their titles should be merged. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Support merger per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The two categories have different scope. The first is for specific posts, usually pretty senior ones. The second is for generic job roles, so e.g. someone might hold the rank of Warrant Officer Class 1 but the appointment of Regimental Sergeant Major. I agree that the two category titles are confusingly similar, but I think it would be better to rename Category:British Army appointments to something else first, and then redirect the old category title to Category:Military appointments of the British Army. Opera hat (talk) 06:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. If Category:British Army appointments needs a rename, per User:Opera hat, please suggest a concrete name.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Oppose (commented above) -- The first is largely commanders - General (or other) officers commanding a district or station, but including a few obsolete offices in the Ordnance. Each such role is fulfilled by one person at a time. The others are generic roles - every regiment with a band will have a band sergeant major; every battalion will have an adjutant, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If they are supposed to reflect different things, then they should be clearly renamed to reflect this. At the moment both titles mean essentially the same thing! Being psychic is not a required attribute when reading Wikipedia! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Opera hat (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion. All I was coming up with was Category:British Army posts, Category:British Army offices—too similar to officers?—and even wondering whether a merge might be better after all (Category:Military appointments of Canada encompasses both senses). Category:United States Army job titles and Category:United States Navy job titles exist as well. This proposed title preserves the difference but also maintains consistency with other categories in Category:Military appointments. Opera hat (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I could accept the Category:Senior appointments of the British Army: they are mostly appointments held by generals (or above). The exception (which may need purging) is the officers of the Ordnance Board: they could go into the target or a separate category on that Board. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2017 (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:PlayStation 3 games with online pass[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:DEFINING, WP:CATDEF. Online pass is not a defining characteristic of a video game. The1337gamer (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non defining. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-defining trait. Items already in parent category. czar 16:55, 7 April 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_26&oldid=1138411141"