Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 12 July 14 >

July 13[edit]

USC Upstate athletics categories[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating all these categories to be renamed:

All because the University of South Carolina Upstate self-identifies as "USC Upstate" in athletics. Arbor to SJ (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Media agrees, USC Upstate is the most common name. Billcasey905 (talk) 14:34, 14 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:Clothing of Marilyn Monroe[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 to Category:Marilyn Monroe. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not sure how much expansion is possible for this three article category. All three items are already listed in Marilyn's navigation template. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete per nom or upmerge to Category:Marilyn Monroe if keeping a Monroe category is desirous. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the actress. I doubt we need a split. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there's nothing wrong with a small category, even if it can't be expanded. This is a fashion category, while Marilyn Monroe is not - those looking for fashion related articles will want this category available. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge we do not need such overly specilized sub-cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 19 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:Plants vs. Zombies[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small category with no immediate likelihood to expand. Three games in four years doesn't need a separate category. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:06, 13 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:Cavalry tanks[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: No consensus. I will note that the discussion seemed to lead to no objections for a cleanup of Category:Cruiser tanks by moving articles to other categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no article corresponding to this category (Cavalry tank is a redirect to Cruiser tank - which is UK-specific). "Cavalry tank" appears to be a designation used in some countries in the interwar period. This deletion is to avoid an overlap between categories to simplify the categorization scheme. All but one of the articles in this category are categorized under Category:Light tanks by country. DexDor (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Cavalry tank is a synonym for cruiser tank, and the term was also used in the UK. Cavalry/cruiser tank and infantry tank were fundamental tank classifications of the 1920–30s. The basic concept of categories allows overlap, so I don’t see why that is a problem. The article cruiser tank could be seen as unfinished and misnamed, or as wanting of a parent article cavalry tank – in either case I don’t see why deleting the category follows. —Michael Z. 2013-07-13 22:10 z
    Certainly the category’s fate should be decided along with that of Category:Infantry tanks, because it makes no sense to have either one and not the other. —Michael Z. 2013-07-13 22:23 z
    Okay, now I see that the overlap being mentioned is of Category:Cavalry tanks and Category:Cruiser tanks. Cruiser tanks is a specific British series of tanks. Most of the cruiser tanks belong to the generic type of cavalry tank, although if you look at the articles you’ll see that the Mk VIII was more suitable as an infantry tank and reclassified “heavy cruiser,” and the Centurion certainly belongs to the post-war generation of Category:Main battle tanks. Since we mainly categorize by type and not by series, I would support merging most of the cruiser tanks category into Category:cavalry tanks. —Michael Z. 2013-07-13 22:32 z
  • Comment -- In UK all cavalry regiments now mainly ride tanks, except on ceremonial occasions when they use their horses. I do not see why they cannot all be "tanks". Peterkingiron (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "cavalry tank" is not a "tank used by cavalry unit", it's a tank that is fast and can engage other tanks and pillboxes juxtaposed with an "infantry tank" which is a tank that goes as fast as an infantry charge and has just enough armour to defend against and attack machine gun nests . "infantry tank" would be an infantry close support tank, whereas the cavalry tank is "cavalry to the rescue of infantry" tank (the proverbial 7th Cavalry coming to the rescue).-- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:05, 16 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:Tracked armoured recovery vehicles by country[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/delete. All of the article were already in Category:Tracked armoured recovery vehicles. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having by-country categorization at both Category:Armoured recovery vehicles and Category:Tracked armoured recovery vehicles is unnecessary (especially when there's only 3 vehicles so categorized). This is part of tidying up a complex category tree. DexDor (talk) 06:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport very sensible approach.GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support  It looks like there are 7 more candidate articles, but since there’s only one wheeled ARV article, I don’t see a strong reason to categories these by their chassis type at all. —Michael Z. 2013-07-13 22:37 z
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:Heavy armoured personnel carriers[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 note that heavy armour is a redirect and that article does not address a definition for this term in at least the 1st ten hits. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no definition of what "heavy" means here (there isn't a "heavy military vehicles" category for this to fit under). This contains only 6 articles and is unlikely to grow much (APCs are getting lighter to be more transportable etc). This upmerge to parent cat is part of tidying up a rather messy category structure. DexDor (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/upmerge as above --Neutralitytalk 06:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Heavy means protected against armour-piercing ammunition and mines, like a tank, instead of only against artillery fragments and small arms, like a typical APC. They are mainly tracked, but not by definition, so this should be moved up under Category:Armoured personnel carriers alongside the tracked, wheeled, and amphibious categories. “APCs are getting lighter” is not a reason to delete this category; in fact it underlines its identity as a distinct category of vehicles that remains in service after 70 years, and is not getting any lighter. —Michael Z. 2013-07-13 22:20 z
There are several problems with categorizing like that - where exactly do you draw the line between heavy and not-heavy?, we may not know how well protected some APCs are, some APCs may be well protected in parts (e.g. against mines) but not in others. There are plenty of ways to categorize APCs (country-of-origin etc) that don't have such problems. Also cats generally work best when they form a complete set (e.g. tracked/wheeled) and I don't think a "light APCs" category would be appropriate. DexDor (talk) 06:02, 18 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:TMG - Truck Mounted Gun[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This recently created, unusually named category is largely redundant to the long-established Category:Wheeled self-propelled howitzers which fits much better into the categorization scheme for military vehicles. DexDor (talk) 05:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clear reason for deleting category, it has clear description and well established use. Wheeled self-propelled howitzers could include for example PLL05, Iveco Oto-Melara VBPA Centauro 155/39 Porcupine, M1128 Mobile Gun System, Boxer GTK with KMW turret or RWG-52 and they are not truck based. There is a clear difference between truck based and others self propelled howitzers and guns. And manufacturers are using term Mounted for truck based systems and in military history acronym TMG is well established. Loesorion (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. —Michael Z. 2013-07-13 22:38 z

"per nom" - you mean no reason for deletion? What is "per nom" except if it is not "no arguments" and lets agree with someone but not stating arguments? State arguments not phrases...lets get back to arguments: For example what is ATMOS from ATMOS 2000? It is short for "Autonomous Truck Mounted howitzer System". "Truck Mounted" not "Wheeled self-propelled".Arguments please... Loesorion (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Every member of the new category is in the other, and I don't see the distinguishing character of the non-included remainder. Also, given that some members are in an armored chassis and others are set on more conventional truck-like bodies, I don't see how the new name is any better. It's an improper name in any case. Mangoe (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe even if all members are in other category that doesn't mean that category itself is not OK, anyone can put anything in categories and that doesn't make it substantial and there is a lot of members for this category but articles currently doesn't exist on Wikipedia and in future someone would make it. Why you call it improper do you have anything to provide to that claim or it is one another opinion based on subject feeling? Do yu care to explain ATMOS - Truck Mounted in name and why it is not in name and acronym wheeled self propelled and is there any real reason except feeling to delete category specially if you not consider Truck Mounted distinguishing? There is more in fact reasons to delete Wheeled self propelled category on basis of distinguishing if you look that there is category's called Self-propelled artillery and Self-propelled howitzers then TMG. Loesorion (talk) 00:46, 18 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_13&oldid=1074811025"