Category talk:Interwar tanks of the United Kingdom
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Andy Dingley
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Category:Military vehicles of the interwar period edit
 | Category:Military vehicles of the interwar period | Delete | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | For temporal organization, use 'by year/decade/century' scheme as a more accurate and less POV/context-dependent method. | |||
 | Josh (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
- Then shouldn't Category:Interwar period and some of its other subcats also be addressed? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: Yes, it probably deserves some attention, but I am not nominating it for deletion or any other specific action at that level. There are certainly some contents that do not make sense (why are some countries of this period listed and not others?) but for military equipment (and other discrete objects I would venture) it is pretty simple. There are many ways to periodicize history depending on point of view, what events you are focused on, what kind of history you have in front of you, what country you are in, and so forth. But an object is not necessarily relevant to the concept of any defined period just because it happens to coexist with that period or even have been conceived during that period. An object can be objectively classified by its date of inception, so doing so by year/decade/century is a very clean and NPOV way to categorize objects temporally. It is a very simple matter to remove objects from period categories and restrict them to year/decade/century categorization. I personally find 'interwar period' to be a rather lazy stab at putting a title on 'between World War I and World War II', but it is a period when a great many unrelated and in-their-own-right important things happened. Lumping them together as if they had some real relationship to eachother other than just a coincidental landing between two massive wars is not terribly insightful. Josh (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry for not commenting earlier, but this has now been applied to Category:Interwar tanks in museums, where the discussion was never tagged. "Interwar period" is correct and appropriate: it represents a time of relatively slow development, outside the pressures of war, and thus is influential. Many of the tanks here (the Renault FT / M1917 in particular) didn't change for 20 years. This important distinction has now been lost. Also the idea of imposing "by decade" is largely arbitrary and pointless - just the regular meaningless wikibollocks of introducing a "consistent" (we don't actually need consistency) scheme to a place where it means nothing. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: This discussion is closed. I recommend you start a new discussion for the categories you're concerned about. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) raised a fair point about this particular sub-category not being tagged and thus they were unaware of the discussion. However, Auntof6 (talk · contribs) is correct that the proper forum to discuss this is a new CfD. Also, Andy Dingley (talk · contribs)'s reverts of edits done to implement a closed CfD created a mess which should be cleaned up and a proper CfD held. Josh (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hey, you don't get to accuse other editors of creating a mess when it stems from you either not listing a CfD correctly, or else using that CfD (two editors? you call that a consensus?) to start deleting a number of other correct categories, with no discussion whatsoever. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) raised a fair point about this particular sub-category not being tagged and thus they were unaware of the discussion. However, Auntof6 (talk · contribs) is correct that the proper forum to discuss this is a new CfD. Also, Andy Dingley (talk · contribs)'s reverts of edits done to implement a closed CfD created a mess which should be cleaned up and a proper CfD held. Josh (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: This discussion is closed. I recommend you start a new discussion for the categories you're concerned about. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Closed discussion