Category talk:Naval ships of China

CfD discussions
The following refers to the debate over categories for aircraft carriers:

Category:Chinese aircraft carriers to Category:Aircraft carriers of China

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Per previous CfD, replace use of country adjective with noun.Joshbaumgartner 06:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sounds better as it is. Carina22 10:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, "sounding better" is POV, and consistency is more important. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or rename as category:aircraft carriers of the People's Republic of China. The PRC has never, until this moment, had any serving aircraft carrier in its military. Varyag may be being used for military purpose (in a dry dock), while Minsk is part of a theme park. &mdash; Instantnood 16:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's why I proposed the China category as opposed to a PLAN or even PRC category. The broader category makes it unnecessary to delve into the intricacies of the ownership and operational histories of the Minsk and Varyag, which haven't always been clear or stable.  Readers can read the articles to learn the detailed stories.  Joshbaumgartner 17:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Unlike submarines, there's little use of aircraft carriers functioning as such outside of military. Both Varyag and Minsk are not being used as aircraft carriers, and Varyag has never been used as such. That was why I suggested to delete the category. If the category is to be kept, it'd better be renamed to avoid possible ambiguity, and to go in line with naming conventions. &mdash; Instantnood 21:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The so called convention is wrong. I wish I hadn't started this process. CalJW 21:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete China has no aircraft carriers. It has a former aircraft carrier parked in a theme park and rusting hull in a dock.  What, if I write up some articles about the history of the original boats in Submarine Voyage can I create Category:Submarines of Disneyland as a sub-cat of Category:Navy of California?  If I browse to a sub-cat of the Chinese military, I expect to find military ships.  Not theme park rides or a rusting hull that were military ships for other countries who eventually were retired in China.  There are mothballed ships in the US that came from the Eastern Bloc too, there was a former Soviet sub docked in Elliot Bay for several years, but even if they had Wikipedia articles they wouldn't belong to a military of the US category.  SchmuckyTheCat 00:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * COMMENT I see no reason not to have Submarines of Disneyland if you can make the submarines in Submarine Voyage notable enough to have articles. A systematic bias against commercial submarines is a bad idea. I don't see why you would have it as a subcat of Navy of California, instead of ships of California (if somesuch category exists). As for military theme-park, if it's a museum display, sure, keep it as an aircraft carrier. If it's a "demonstration" ship, ditto. As for rusting hulks... we have the USS United States, an aircraft carrier that has never been in service, that was never completed, in the aircraft carrier categories, and the HMS Queen Elizabeth never started construction. The Varyag is intact, such as it is, and was not shipped to China to be sent to the breakers, and is owned by Chinese interests. 132.205.44.134 02:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment agreed with above. The category need to be retained because it is a subject people will be looking for information on.  They can then read the individual articles to learn the real stories behind these supposed aircraft carriers.  There are numerous articles about proposed or half-built ships and the like which never entered service, but they still are notable for researchers.  If the category simply doesn't exist, then some may conclude that Wiki has no articles on the matter. Joshbaumgartner 21:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but these ships have other categories they belong to - indeed, that they are better known for. It's not like these two articles will be lost without this category. SchmuckyTheCat 23:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete why have a category page for one article? MONGO 09:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are in fact two. &mdash; Instantnood 18:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename .--Jondel 09:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment See Naming conventions (categories) for official policy. Aircraft carriers (being military equipment), should conform to official "... of country" format.  Joshbaumgartner 16:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Varyag, which building as a carrier has not completed, may arguably be using for military purpose (in a dry dock), Minsk  is simply part of a theme park. Perhaps we can categorise Varyag to the military category of the PRC, Minsk to a theme park category, and both to category:aircraft carriers. &mdash; Instantnood 16:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The Minsk can be placed in both "aircraft carrier" and "theme park" categories. Joshbaumgartner 16:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What about Varyag? :-) &mdash; Instantnood 15:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Remame as proposed. --Vizcarra 15:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support for consistency. - TexasAndroid 15:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not to sysops: Renaming to China instead of the People's Republic of China may not be going in line with the naming conventions for categories and the naming conventionsfor Chinese-related topics. &mdash; Instantnood 15:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.