Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Union Navy officers and admirals
The following discussion comes from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, where it is currently listed as unresolved. It may be reviewed again in the future in the light of evolving standards and guidelines for categorization. 22:09, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit]
[edit]
- No clear consensus for either of these two. Obviously something needs to be done somewhere, but there is not enough input to form a consensus. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 20:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Recommend keeping these to be consistent with Confederate Navy categories. While technically part of the United States Navy, this was a unique time in the Navy's history. Breaking them out helps clarify where people fought. The alternative is dumping everyone into "American Civil War people" which is less helpful. Jinian 17:56, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Works for me. Maurreen 05:28, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete both. I don't think keeping these creates any consistency with the Confederate categories, because the U.S. clearly continued to exist during the Civil War, and the Confederacy was a government in opposition. That the U.S. had another nickname during this time does not justify a separate category for that nickname—it's merely going to be confusing to those not familiar with the topic, who are going to think that the U.S. and the Union were two separate things. But it is reasonable to try and subcategorize Category:American Civil War people, so the problem is more the name. We need something more along the lines of Category:U.S. military officers during the American Civil War. Cumbersome, but a more clear designation. Another thing to keep in mind is that we don't need categories for every relationship and every bit of information about a subject. But let's come up with a better solution than "Union" categories. Postdlf 23:42, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- How about making the Union Navy a subcategory of the US Navy? Or perhaps "Military officers during the American Civil War", with subcategories of "Confederate" and "Union"? Of course, that new category would be a subset of "American Civil War people" which would also contain politicians, activists, journalist, etc. Jinian 17:09, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It's ok to have a category or article be a member of more than one category, completely ok, no problem with that. Change to Category:U.S. military officers during the American Civil War since that seems like a good name if we aren't quibbling about the American part... and since we have American Civil War I guess it makes sense for consistency. ...and break out the Union and Confederate as well. I don't think we need a separate category for naval officers and for admirals... do we?Pedant 01:22, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that someone might object to putting Category:Confederate Army officers into that scheme. What about Category:American Civil War military officers? Both sides considered themselves Americans but I don't know about the U.S. part. Some folks would probably object to classifying Confederate Army officers under "U.S.". -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:32, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It's ok to have a category or article be a member of more than one category, completely ok, no problem with that. Change to Category:U.S. military officers during the American Civil War since that seems like a good name if we aren't quibbling about the American part... and since we have American Civil War I guess it makes sense for consistency. ...and break out the Union and Confederate as well. I don't think we need a separate category for naval officers and for admirals... do we?Pedant 01:22, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
- How about making the Union Navy a subcategory of the US Navy? Or perhaps "Military officers during the American Civil War", with subcategories of "Confederate" and "Union"? Of course, that new category would be a subset of "American Civil War people" which would also contain politicians, activists, journalist, etc. Jinian 17:09, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)