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) 23:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Standard to keep the categories for players separate when the team name changes. As a player who played on the Fort Worth Brahmas didn't necessarily play on the Texas Brahmas. -DJSasso (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Actually Djsasso is wrong. The standard practice is to rename all categories and have all players in the category reflecting the current name when we accept it is the same team. Anything else would lead to small cates with many players in multiple cats for playing in the same team, considering how often some teams have been renamed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 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.
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) 21:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In this category, one sub-cat, albums by Weep, the main band article and one member of the band, therefore the nominated category is not needed nor required. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Albums are already categorized per convention. The inclusion of an article for one member of the band doesn't seem to justify this eponymous category. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:07, 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.
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) 21:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In this category, one sub-cat, albums by the band, the main band article, a template and a discography. In all reasonableness if these did not exist there would be no main article either. Therefore the nominated category is not needed nor required. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If necessary, the discography article can be merged into the albums category. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:07, 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:The Simpsons characters featured on DVD and Blu-Ray[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) 21:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A poorly worded, and superfluous category. MrMarmite (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I assume these are characters who are on the covers of the DVD season sets. Hardly a defining characteristic of those characters. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with the cat header explantion, I am still not sure what this actually means. If it is what Starcheerspeaksnewslost suggests it is, than I definately think it should be deleted. What next Category:Harry Potter characters on book covers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 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.
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) 21:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT. Upmerge to parent categories. AFAIK other vehicles do not have such a category (e.g. M4 Sherman variants). DexDor (talk) 05:36, 15 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.
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. There is no consensus in the discussion about moving this. However it is clear that something is needed. So feel free to create Category:Plate armour and move all of the articles that belong there and cleanup the rest as would normally be done. Once the cleanup is done, this should be brought back for more discussion if the category still needs renaming. There are some medieval things in there and clearly they probably need to be dealt with as a group. I'm also concerned with Category:Medieval armour stubs and where that would go if the nominated category were to be deleted or renamed. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most of the suits of armour seen in museums are in fact Renaissance rather than medieval (and many are Early Modern), and the armour-making tradition bridged the transition with little change except for styling. This is the correct term, and Plate armour is the main article title, which we should use, perhaps with a note (Medieval armour is currently a redlink, which should be redirected). These categories are a mess - Category:Personal armour could probably be split into contemporary and historic. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split apart into armour by type and armour by period category trees -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if that is supporting the nom or not, but I'll assume it is supportive. The proposed change is the most crucial - from a false period concept to a type. Most of the plate armour articles are for things like terms for different bits of armour which run across periods. On reflection a much smaller Category:Medieval armour is probably needed for pre-plate armour, helmets and so on (with a note explaining its scope). A sub-cat for Category:Renaissance armour might work later, but the main cat needs to be sorted first - it can't really be a sub-cat of Medieval armour. We already have Category:Early Modern armour which is fine but again can't be a sub-cat of the present main category. Non-European armour needs some tidying too - at the moment Category:Japanese armour is a subcat of medieval, which ain't right. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Body armour was not generally used by armies between the mid-17th and late-20th centuries. Plate armour was largely a medieval development. Category:Medieval and early modern armour would thus be a possibility to keep this separate from modern military armour. This avoids the difficulty of when medieval ends and something else begins, which is not an easy question. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Plate armour was largely developed in the Middle Ages, yes, but kept on going right through the Renaissance, which is the period most examples people see come from. There are (remarkably) no pieces surviving that can be securely identified as English-made body armour of pre-1500, for example. You can't just skip the Renaissance period as your suggestion does. The aim is to get the main category away from the difficulties caused by a classification in terms of period altogether. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose this rename, support some other resolution We already have period categories under Category:Personal armour; the issue appears to be that the pages and subcats are not properly sorted out. I would suggest that it is useful to create Category:Plate armour and place all the plate components under it, but it would either become a subcat of the various relevant period cats, or would go directly under the main cat, with its subcats and pages also being categorized by period. Mangoe (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a support, but involving more work, to me. As explained above, we don't have Category:Renaissance armour which actually ought to be the largest of the period categories, & most of the articles are in Category:Medieval armour (59 pages) but cover all periods equally. It's a lot more work to move them manually. The trouble is people think that what they are interested in or looking is "medieval armour" but it isn't. It's wrong to place the emphasis on periods as most plate armour articles apply across all 3 periods (plus the awkwardness of deciding the period boundaries). Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Category:Early Modern armour which covers the early modern warfare period, which I understand covers the Renaissance. Also, I'm seeing a fairly complex set of article relationships here because there are different kinds of "typeness" involved. The most basic armor technology articles (laminated, mail, plate and so forth) divide up fairly roughly by period. The different pieces tend to divide up quite specifically because they are particular to a place and time (sabatons being a rare exception). The basic problem with the original proposal remains: a lot of the articles aren't about plate armor. Creating a category for it doesn't need discussion here; the issue would be what to do with it once it be created. Mangoe (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm used to distinguishing Early Modern from Renaissance, but perhaps this is a quirk of art history. There are few Renaissance articles currently in the small Early Modern category. Sabaton is very far from being "a rare exception" - most names for armour parts are both medieval and Renaissance. I don't agree at all that "different pieces tend to divide up quite specifically because they are particular to a place and time" - perhaps you have been working from our articles which are often very inaccurate regarding dates. Develpments in armour diffused internationally very quickly and there was a lot of importing, & movement of armourers, so relatively little is specific to places. Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm making this too complicated, & it should just be considered as a rename to match the main article, Plate armour, while Medieval armour is currently a redlink. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 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.
