Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 26#Category:Muscovite Russia

: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)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Tank aces}}

: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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Delete, not complete and subjective. Kierzek (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Delete -- The definition of who was or was not an ace is a POV issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

----

: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. – Fayenatic London 12:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

:* Propose merge :Category:Conflicts in 405 to :Category:405 and :Category:400s conflicts

:* Propose merge :Category:Conflicts in 406 to :Category:406 and :Category:400s conflicts

:* Propose merge :Category:Conflicts in 419 to :Category:419 and :Category:410s conflicts

:* Propose merge :Category:Conflicts in 463 to :Category:463 and :Category:460s conflicts

:* Propose merge :Category:Conflicts in 468 to :Category:468 and :Category:460s conflicts

:* Propose merge :Category:Conflicts in 484 to :Category:484 and :Category:480s conflicts

:* Propose merge :Category:Conflicts in 489 to :Category:489 and :Category:480s conflicts

:* Propose merge :Category:Conflicts in 589 to :Category:589 and :Category:580s conflicts

:* Propose merge :Category:Conflicts in 602 to :Category:602 and :Category:600s conflicts

:* Propose merge :Category:Conflicts in 628 to :Category:628 and :Category:620s conflicts

:* Propose merge :Category:Conflicts in 630 to :Category:630 and :Category:630s conflicts (the latter only insofar not in a Muslim conquest subcat already)

:* Propose merge :Category:Conflicts in 631 to :Category:631 and :Category:630s conflicts (the latter only insofar not in a Muslim conquest subcat already)

:* Propose merge :Category:Conflicts in 632 to :Category:632 and :Category:630s conflicts (the latter only insofar not in a Muslim conquest subcat already)

:* Propose merge :Category:Conflicts in 633 to :Category:633 and :Category:630s conflicts (the latter only insofar not in a Muslim conquest subcat already)

:* Propose merge :Category:Conflicts in 634 to :Category:634 and :Category:630s conflicts (the latter only insofar not in a Muslim conquest subcat already)

:* Propose merge :Category:Conflicts in 635 to :Category:635 and :Category:630s conflicts (the latter only insofar not in a Muslim conquest subcat already)

:* Propose merge :Category:Conflicts in 636 to :Category:636 (no double merge needed, content is already in a Muslim conquest subcat)

:* Propose merge :Category:Conflicts in 637 to :Category:637 and :Category:630s conflicts (the latter only insofar not in a Muslim conquest subcat already)

:* Propose merge :Category:Conflicts in 642 to :Category:642 (no double merge needed, content is already in a Muslim conquest subcat)

:* Propose merge :Category:Conflicts in 651 to :Category:651 and :Category:650s conflicts

:* Propose merge :Category:Conflicts in 652 to :Category:652 and :Category:650s conflicts

:* Propose merge :Category:Conflicts in 720 to :Category:720 and :Category:720s conflicts

:* Propose merge :Category:Conflicts in 721 to :Category:721 and :Category:720s conflicts

:* Propose merge :Category:Conflicts in 737 to :Category:737 and :Category:730s conflicts

:* Propose merge :Category:Conflicts in 791 to :Category:791 and :Category:790s conflicts

:* Propose merge :Category:Conflicts in 794 to :Category:794 and :Category:790s conflicts

:* Propose merge :Category:Conflicts in 799 to :Category:799 and :Category:790s conflicts

: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)

• 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)

----

: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. – Fayenatic London 21:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Luftwaffe units referenced in the Wehrmachtbericht}}

: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:

:*CfD: Military personnel referenced in the Wehrmachtberich

:K.e.coffman (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• 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)
• Delete per nom. Trivia at best, and definitely not a defining characteristic. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

----

: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: Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Films directed by Minoru Kunizawa}}

: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)

• 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)
• Keep per the reasons listed by Lugnuts. Dimadick (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

----

: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; in practice, merge what remains to :Category:Tsardom of Russia. {{ping|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)

:* Propose splitting :Category:Muscovite Russia to :Category:Grand Duchy of Moscow and :Category:Tsardom of Russia

:* Propose splitting :Category:Politics of Muscovy to :Category:Grand Duchy of Moscow and :Category:Tsardom of Russia

: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)

• Support -- They seem to be about the same thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• Second thoughts -- Would it not be better to merge the lot? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment to facilitate closure, I've already moved (a few) articles to :Category:Grand Duchy of Moscow. So the remainder, which is the larger amount of articles, may then be merged to :Category:Tsardom of Russia. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

----

: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: 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)

:* Propose merging :Category:British Army appointments to :Category:Military appointments of the British Army‎

: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)

• 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)
• 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)

• Support merger per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

::I agree. Opera hat (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment {{ping|Necrothesp|Peterkingiron|Laurel Lodged|Opera hat}} perhaps this is leading towards consensus about a rename but if so please suggest a new name. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• How about renaming the first category :Category:Senior appointments of the British Army and making it a subcat of the second (since all are in fact appointments, whether unique or generic)? -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

:::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)

::::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)

----

: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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|PlayStation 3 games with online pass}}

: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)

• Delete as non defining. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-defining trait. Items already in parent category. czar 16:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

----

: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.