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 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Just another eponymous category that have been deleted over and over again in CfD due to a limited scope of articles which don't expand beyond the conventional song and album subcategories. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me22:44, 9 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 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 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.
Nominator's rationale: The word "modern" is very ambiguous and should be avoided where possible. A rename to "... by period" or an upmerge to the parent categories would also be OK. This is part of a long term plan to phase out use of the ambiguous "modern" in category names. DexDor (talk) 05:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support the contents are by century, so it would make sense. A second category scheme, "by period" can be created to complement this. (pre-airplane, pre-WWI, WWI, WWI-WWII, WWII, Cold War, post-ColdWar) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Surface-to-air missiles. A while back we had a wholesale cull of categories providing a 20th/21st century split as being an attempt to have a current/former split, which we do not allow. Since there were no 19th cnetury aircraft, or at least nothing worth shooting at, there should be no 19th (or 18th) century category, or possible one too small to be worth having. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: The "merge" referred to in the nomination is to upmerge this category - i.e. keeping the 20th/21st century cats (based on year of entry into service). There's no "attempt to have a current/former split" here. Can you refer to the CFD that culled 20th/21st century categories? Do you object to Category:20th-century military equipment for example? DexDor (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the 21st century should be treated as special, and not defining enough to separate from the 20th century. Or how 21/20 split would be considered former/current either, since you can still have 1950s airliners flying today, but they're still 20th century aircraft. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still say merge both to a single category. With only 26 articles, the target would not be big enough to need splitting. Where are the ancient SAMs? "Modern" is thus redundant. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:12, 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.
Nominator's rationale: The inclusion criteria of this category mean it includes articles like Chain pump, Horse collar, Naval mine, Paper and Wheelbarrow, but for such subjects being a traditional Chinese object is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Some articles that were placed in this cat inappropriately have already been removed (see cat's talk page). I'm open to suggestions for redefining this category and then purging, but otherwise it should be listified and deleted. Note: Many of the articles in this category will still be in a Chinese category. DexDor (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is covering much that is far too common to make a useful category. I suspect that the creator had in mind Category:Chinese inventions, but was trying to make something wider. However, many of the items would also fall inot "Traditional British objects" and "traditional American objects" etc. This is getting far too close to the performance (being a traditional object) by performer (China - or other country) type category, which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is deletion of this category results in many articles clearly associated with ancient China not being in any Chinese category. This is completely wrong. Try to improve the category navigation system to articles, not destroy it. Do this work first. Hmains (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More work is needed on the defining characteristics. What defines "traditional" here? I assume the chinese used buckets hundreds or thousands of years ago, so would that belong? if not, why not? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a reciepe for over categorization. How long ago does something have to have been used, and for how long, to be considered "traditional"?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vague. I have checked the ones that I thought should remain in a Chinese/East Asian category, and they are (now) in other suitable categories. – FayenaticLondon08:40, 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: This category contains just the eponymous article and one image. It's unlikely to grow and does not form part of a series of categories. Upmerge to parent cat. DexDor (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:SMALLCAT. It's probably not desirable for this to remain and become a category for (debatable) examples of skeuomorphism; a list or discussion in the article would be better for that. – FayenaticLondon08:42, 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.
