Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Ships by name

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Category:Ships by name and sub-categories were listed for deletion on November 20, 2004. No consensus was reached. I have moved the various listings to this sub-page for organizational purposes. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:04, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Category:Ships named Nautilus 1.1 the discussion that led to this 1.1.1 Nautilus 1.2 VOTES 2 Category:Ships named Enterprise 3 Category:Ships by name 4 Category:Ships named Valiant

[edit] Category:Ships named Nautilus

There's already a page by this name. No need for a category. Also, disambig pages do this work. Remove because it's redundant and not helpful. Jinian 19:49, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

keep Each of these categories are names of ships that have had a long historic naval and nonmilitary tradition, have had fictional craft with these names and are names which have been used for multiple countries. I'm not trying to completely change the wikipedia, just to add minor changes that are worth making because they add missing functionality and make finding information easier.Pedant 22:04, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

[edit] the discussion that led to this

[edit] Nautilus

Nice additions to the Nautilus article, 2 things though, please don't remove this article from Category:Ships named Nautilus, as it was a ship named Nautilus. Also did you use Optical character recognition to scan this data in? Would you check this phrase: "arid after provisioning" is that not supposed to be "and after provisioning"? Anyway, good job de-stubbifying the article. Looks great.Pedant 17:57, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

sorry, I think I'm not understanding your comment on index pages, categories. Would you really explain that? It seems like you're saying, well it seems like you are saying several different things and I'd rather ask you what you mean than try to interpret it, since you're online now. Would you mind explaining it as if I am an idiot, so I'm sure I understand? thanksPedant

Okay, and I'll do it here so that we can have the conversation in one place.

Most information about the style of ships' pages can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships. Index pages are discussed in section 2.1, but for brevity, it says Index articles about ships should include in their titles only the standard prefix used by that ship. Other identification should be omitted, so that a reader can easily locate the material sought; eg, name an index article simply "USS Enterprise." So, instead of an article entitled "Ships named Nautilus", to be in line with what every other ship article in Wikipedia looks like, it would be "USS Nautilus" (Moving the current page to one with this title is now on my list of things to do, after I noticed the problem.) See USS Enterprise for an example of what a ship index page looks like. Then each ship goes into the proper category based on the type of ship it was/is (destroyer/sloop/aircraft carrier/gunboat/tug, whatever).

Hope this helps. Jinian 18:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships needs some discussion, however, Ships named Nautilus is not a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships, and I think that Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships needs some attention regarding systemic American-centric bias, if every ship is supposed to be listed under the designation "USS". Pedant.

One, Ships named Nautilus is not intended to be an index page, it is about all ships named Nautilus. Pedant

Fine, but it's pretty redundant with the individual ships' pages.[unsigned comment User:Jinian]

No, it is not redundant. Several of those ships pages are merely copied from Ships named Nautilus. USS Nautilus is not a likely page for me to look for HMS Nautilus or Nautilus (Fulton) -- neither of which are or ever were referred to as "USS Nautilus", or or USS O-12 (SS-73) which was USS Nautilus, but was not originally named Nautilus. Pedant

Two, not all ships named Nautilus were US ships. Pedant

Your point? [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

My point is that USS is a designation for United States ships. USS is not the designation for other nation's ships, nor for merchant ships, nor fictional ships. Pedant

Three, not all ships named Nautilus that were US ships were Navy ships. Pedant

Yes? [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

No. USS is a US naval designation, generally. Pedant

Four, not all ships that were Navy ships with the name Nautilus were named USS Nautilus. Please do not move Ships named Nautilus to USS Nautilus. Pedant

I was planning to break it into several pages, to properly disambig it. Obviously it's not as easy as just moving it, which is why I didn't just do it. [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

You "didn't do it because it wasn't easy". You actually said that? Then you say, 'to properly disambig it', but there is no ambiguity in the article whatsoever. Ships named Nautilus is not a disambiguation article, but it serves the function of one far better than USS Nautilus, as it has a broader scope, and disambiguation articles should have the broadest scope possible. Pedant

USS Enterprise is not the name of HMS Enterprise, however, HMS Enterprise is a "Ship named Enterprise. Pedant

And therefore has it's own page. [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

Lots of pages actually, the point of categorisation is to simplify searching and cross referencing... how would you navigate from HMS Enterprize (1709) to USS Enterprise (1799)? Pedant

Five, Ships named Nautilus is not as you term it, a problem. It was written by 2 experts on the name Nautilus, the Officer-in-charge of the Historic ship Nautilus, and the curator of the United States Naval Submarine Force Museum, Groton, Connecticut.Pedant

It's completely different format and structure than every other page about ships on Wikipedia. That's the problem, not the text. [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

It's not about ships. Its about the naval history of the name Nautilus in fiction and the real world. Pedant

Six, There are however problems with USS Nautilus, it contains innaccurate data and weasel words as presently written.Pedant

Fix it then. [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

I don't intend to. I had 'fixed' it by changing it to a redirect. However, you pointed out that the structure that is in common use at this point is to have an article with that title. So I reverted to the earlier version. It doesn't however serve the purpose of, or have the scope of the article Ships named Nautilus. It links to less pages. I don't think the article serves the purpose it's intended to, as disambiguation pages should have the broadest scope possible.Pedant

Seven, These two articles are separate articles each of whose existence does not depend on the other's.Pedant

Huh? [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

Ships named Nautilus is a good article and is accurate, NPOV, has room for expansion and serves a purpose. USS Nautilus does not adequately serve the purpose it is intended to, and because of its name, is limited in scope, and can never adequately replace Ships named Nautilus. Except for it being as you say: "in line with what every other ship article in Wikipedia looks like" USS Nautilus is an inferior article, in terms of scope only, ie, every fact in USS Nautilus, can be (and probably is) in Ships named Nautilus, but the same does not hold true in reverse. HMS Nautilus, Captain Nemo's Nautilus, and USS O-12 (SS-73) are not likely to be looked for at USS Nautilus

Eight, there are more than one ways to categorize articles: articles and categories may be part of more than one categorization scheme. If you were going to look up for example the Nautilus whose keel was laid down in 1916, you can go to Category:Ships>Category:Ships by name>Category:Ships named Nautilus>Ships named NautilusPedant 21:36, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

This is the only category in the "ships by name" category. Look for my request to delete it and make your case to the community on that page. Jinian 19:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

It is not the only category in Category:Ships by name. You listed it for deletion while I was still populating it. I won't be doing any work on any categories until we get this straightened out.Pedant 21:36, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

Categories for deletion

Might be a good idea to wait for the community to decide on this new category scheme you've developed. There's a lot of other good work to be done that won't have to be undone. If the community agrees with this, you can always to the work later. Jinian 20:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you did not exhaust the discussion before you placed categories in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. You did not inform me that you had done so for 42 minutes, while I was still working. I consider your behavior to be rude and obstructive, and I will no longer discuss this on your talk page. Since you listed these categories on CfD, I will continue this there if necessary, but I think my point is made, that it is valid, and that community consensus will support it. I'm disappointed to find you taking an adversarial position, as I had looked forward to collaborating with you.Pedant 21:36, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

[edit] VOTES

• KEEP I hear and agree with all the points raised. Alkivar 21:35, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• keep in the commotion, I forgot to vote.Pedant 21:44, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)
• keep There are other ships which could easily fall into the "Ships by name" category - Endeavour comes to mind, as do Enterprise and Ark Royal.Grutness 22:15, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Yuck yuck yuck. :-) We have a system in place of cross-referencing the handful of ships that have the same name in more than one navy - HMS Enterprise mentions USS Enterprise, and vice versa. This has been working well for over two years. Creating categories for this kind of thing is just going to encourage people with too much time on their hands to create thousands of microscopic categories that will clutter up the encyclopedia without adding any capability not already available with the use of index articles. For instance, the most common use for an index article is to choose which of several ships is the one meant by an article. The category is of little use, because it will just have dates/hulls/pennants, and unless your memory is better than mine, "HMS Neversail (1895)" is insufficient - I'll want to know type and service dates to make sure I've found the right one. Another empirical observation is that article authors almost always know the nationality; the random reference needing disambiguation is going to look like HMS Nautilus, not Nautilus (ship). So while I understand the impulse behind a category like this, I don't think it corresponds well to our experience as to what is most useful. Stan 01:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • What about the French vessel l'Entreprise?
• Neutral. These categories doesn't do any harm. But it would have been much better for everyone concerned if User:Pedant had discussed this scheme first on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. Gdr 19:16, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Delete - IMO this boils down to using a category for the same purpose as a disambiguation page, the point being that a given ship name is not unique. In such cases, the relevant articles should all have a disambiguation link (near the beginning of the article) to a disambiguation page with links to all like-named objects (real ships, fictional ships, spaceships, ...). Using this method (rather than categories) still preserves the "two click" distance from any one like-named ship to another. -- Rick Block 21:09, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete the category - I sympathize with Pedant's intentions, I think he argued his case eloquently, and that Jinian was abrupt, uncaring, and unresponsive to civil discussion. However, I agree with Rick Block's reasoning above, and it seems more in line with the existing WikiProject:Ship's policies. I agree wholeheartedly that there should be an article named Ships named Nautilus, for all the reasons Pedant outlined -- he should work with the WikiProject to come to a consensus on changing existing (inaccurate, IMHO) "USS" policies. However, the category should go. [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\^talk]] 20:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • As I've said before, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships the policy is different from what's being done by its participants, as the policy specifically states not to 'make up' a prefix. And also, if these categories are so out of line with Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships, why are there not more votes to delete? I haven't gone looking for support, the only people I have discussed this with are two of the people voting to delete the categories, and they have shown by their remarks that they don't understand or don't wish to acknowlege the benefit of these categories.Pedant 01:00, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
      • Many of the people on the Ships project are probably unaware of this discussion. I almost missed it myself. Stan 17:58, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep From all the reasons I read, it seems worth keeping Sortior 23:36, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This is the job of a disambig page, not a category. Gamaliel 17:18, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Ships named Enterprise

See above. Same same... Jinian 19:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

keepPedant

see [1]

I think I have plainly stated that this category is not redundant and does not replace any other category or indexing scheme.. It serves a similar purpose to Category:Ships by type Category:Ships by nationalityCategory:Ships by eraCategory:Naval ships except that it includes ships that do not fit those categories! Not all ships are named USS Shipsname, Not all ships are naval. This is a useful category because: If one is looking up a ship, and find they are looking at the wrong Enterprise for instance, they can look at the category, and find other ships named Enterprise. This won't work with the categories as set up now.

Example: HMS Enterprise (1705) but I really want USS Enterprise (1874)... with the new category Category:Ships named Enterprise the other article is 2 clicks away... so it's useful. Without this category, what process do I use to navigate between those articles? I would need to already know to look under USS Enterprise and HMS Enterprise and any other index pages, or what, do I click on the disambiguation category and navigate from there? What other category scheme allows one to navigate this easily? What harm does this category do to wikipedia that outweighs the good it does, making information accessible and structure transparent?Pedant 20:34, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

But to be complete, we'd need a Category:Ships named Lady Washington, of which I'm pretty sure, there would be only one. Numerous ships in the Indian Navy have gone by only one name, the Japanese Navy have unique names as well. Would the category only include ships' names that have been used multiple times? If so, then it would be useless to me when I go in looking for Lady Washington. Jinian 20:47, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Irrelevant question. there is no Category:Ships named Lady Washington, if there were, that question would belong in that discussion. The categories I added are names used many many times in many navies, as well as merchant vessels, and for which there are numerous similarly named articles. If I were looking for Lady Washington, there would first need to be an article about her.

KEEP see the points in the above entry. Alkivar 21:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

keepPedant 22:04, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

keep as above, so below Grutness 22:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Postdlf 03:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - see comments above. -- Rick Block 21:09, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This is the job of a disambig page, not a category. Gamaliel 17:15, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Ships by name

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships community uses index / disambig pages for this Jinian 20:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, it uses those pages for a different, and equally laudable reason. keepPedant 22:04, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

KEEP see the points raised in the Ships named Nautilus entry. Alkivar 21:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

keep as above Grutness 22:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep it and all subcategories. Postdlf 03:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - see comments above. -- Rick Block 21:09, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Ships named Valiant

We can do this all day..... Jinian 20:18, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No. Now that you have informed me you want to delete these categories, I'm done for the day. I'll get back to work on this after the community has a chance to decide what to do. I'm not the type to get into edit wars of any kind including category deletion. I beleive in discussion and consensus, am quite willing to let the community decide the appropriate course of action. I welcome any questions on my intent and purpose of this categorization scheme on my user page. Keep all these categories. Each of these categories are names of ships that have had a long historic tradition, have had fictional craft with these names and are names which have been used for multiple countries. I'm not trying to completely change the wikipedia, just to add minor changes that are worth making because they add missing functionality and make finding information easier.Pedant 22:04, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

KEEP see the points raised in the Ships named Nautilus entry. Alkivar 21:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wow. Deja vu... keep as above Grutness 22:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - see comments above. -- Rick Block 21:09, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)