Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 31

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< July 30 August 1 >

July 31

Category:Royal Navy courts martial

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a non-defining category, apparently applied to ships, and also at the moment, one series of accidents which resulted in a court-martial. The loss of a ship routinely resulted in a court-martial to investigate the circumstances of the loss, so this can be for any ship captured, shipwrecked, etc. It could also be for a wide range of many other reasons. It could apply to people who were court-martialled, the incidents which caused it, etc. If we had articles on the specific court-martials themselves this category might be appropriate, but we don't.
Benea (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Repurpose to Category:Royal Navy ships that were sunk or something. The 40 sub-cats of Category:Ships of the Royal Navy don't include such a category, which would seem useful & interesting & is certainly defining. Johnbod (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless it is used exclusively for courts-martial themselves. The articles now populating this category are all on ships, a fortified island, and a battle. Perhaps it would have some utility if also applied to individuals subjected to notable courts-martial (e.g., Bligh, Byng), where the proceedings are part of the biographical article, but the category is not now used for such pages, and has no valid use for vessels.
    Kablammo (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete The articles are on ships, not court martials. Plus, not all these ships were sunk, the one article I looked at was on a ship captured by the French.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well obviously it would need weeding out (and adding to) if repurposed, but it is not yet large. Johnbod (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Keep or Rename -- Category:Royal Navy ships for which a courts martial was held I believe that a court martial followed a ship being captured by the enemy as well as sunk. One case I examined related to a failure to engage the enemy, where the captain was acquitted with honour. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Courts martial is the plural. And they are not held for ships, but members of the crew, commanding officers, admirals, etc. For anything from disciplinary offences to alleged mismanagement of a fleet in battle. Do all the ships that were present at Cape Finisterre get the category because Calder was court-martialled over the battle? Virtually every ship in existence probably had at least one member of her crew that was court-martialled, for drunkenness, sodomy, or any one of a number of offences, crimes that would have changed over the history of Royal Navy. An equivalent category would be
      Benea (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Delete per arguments of Benea, Kablammo ec. DexDor (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The characteristic is not defining for the subjects, mainly ships, being categorized. A category for articles about courts martial would be useful, but I could not locate any such articles. A category for people who were subjected to courts martial would be questionable, in my opinion, since generally it is not defining merely to be charged at a court martial and, depending on the charges (e.g., drunkenness), sometimes not even to be convicted. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2013 (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:Retro video games

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Retro game" is not an established video gaming term and is a subjective label that reliable game press (such as
WP:OVERCAT.(brought attention to this after Minecraft was categorized in it.) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:18, 31 July 2013 (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:American child actresses

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. If a rename is to happen it must be from the top of the tree on down. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I offer two different proposal scenarios, either one I think would work:

Nominator's rationale: There isn't a similar category for boy actors. There are approximately 1,200 female child actors and 1,200 male child actors. This would be a general category to hold both male and female child actors which would hold approximately 2,400 different biographical articles.
Nominator's rationale This would establish a parity, both a
talk) 15:53, 31 July 2013 (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:People from Stewartstown, New Hampshire

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SMALLCAT. Small town with just two entries. ...William 13:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Place of birth
    generally is not defining, yet both individuals in the category are connected to Stewartstown only by birth. They have no strong connection to either Stewartstown or Coos County. So, my first preference is to delete the category; if there is no consensus for that course of action, then I support merging per the nominator's rationale. However, this example also highlights a danger with merging in the manner proposed: Stewartstown was incorporated in 1795, but Coos County was not established until 1803. Yet, under our existing category scheme, we would identify someone who lived in Stewartstown from 1795 to 1802 as a person "from Coos County". Of course, there are many administrative divisions around the world that are far more modern than Coos County, and it is there that the problem is most apparent. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2013 (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:Archaeological terminology

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.
Nominator's rationale: Articles like
User:DexDor/TermCat and a previous terminology CFD. There's a related discussion here. DexDor (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2013 (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:Modern military equipment of Japan

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to avoid the ambiguous word "modern" - sometimes it means from 19th Century, but usually it refers to a much more recent period. For info: A previous similar CFD was Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_5#Category:Modern_military_equipment_of_Germany. DexDor (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2013 (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:Star Trek Q episodes

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. Would have potentailly been a listify, but the list is already at Q (Star Trek)#List of all appearances. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial association: We can't categorize a large media franchise by every individual character who appears in a piece of media. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep having inspected the contents the connection appears non-trivial. All episodes in the category have the character Q central and features in the titles of several of the episodes e.g. Q-Less. Tim! (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William 13:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; pretty crufty. We don't generally subdivide TV program episodes in this sort of way. Fan websites do it often, but WP doesn't need to emulate this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Listify and why do we have so many articles on non-notable episodes? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a real trivial criteria; next we'll be having Category:Brady Bunch episodes having to do with Jan, etc.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found this page useful, Q is a very interesting character, and watching just the episodes related to Q is a very reasonable idea - and what made me found this page in the first place. That said, the content appears to be duplicated in relation to the List of all appearances section in Q. If we renamed that section to "List of all episodes", it would be more relevant to people searching for Q episodes (e.g. in Google), and then we wouldn't need the separate category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.202.13 (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify to Q (Star Trek)#List of all appearances; since that has already taken place, delete. The characteristic is not defining as it groups real-world subjects (episodes of a TV series) on the basis of an in-universe characteristic; information of this type is more suitable for a list than a category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2013 (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:IRB Junior World Championship team navigational boxes

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The category seems to serve a useful purpose by separating the navboxes from the main category. If the navboxes are deleted (they are
    criterion G8 as a page dependent on a set of deleted pages. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2013 (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:Bookstores in The Netherlands

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:Bookstores in the Netherlands. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:SMALLCAT - a category of one doesn't seem to serve much purpose, and it does not appear to have a good possibility of much expansion ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2013 (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/2013_July_31&oldid=1084319554"