Jump to content

Talk:List of Swedish Victoria Cross recipients

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deletion discussion from VfD:


I sort of think it takes more than one item to make a "list". This one just seems pointless. If his Swedishness is so important it can be mentioned in the regular Victoria Cross list. He doesn't need a list of his own. -R. fiend 04:23, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • D Rm Like \i in TeX, there is no point to this list. Merge this, and all others, into one list at List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality. Chris 05:44, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I can decode "D", but if "Rm" is supposed to be a vote, what action does it call for, and what does this terseness accomplish other than annoyance? --Jerzy(t) 07:04, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
  • Looks like this was made to fill a category - I'd suggest a merge into a list, something like List of other Victoria Cross recipients. Lists such as the Australian or Irish recipients are clearly going to be long, but there are too many short lists in this category. Given how hard it is for British soldiers to win the Victoria Cross these days, it's highly unlikely the Swedish list will expand to a useful size. Average Earthman 08:52, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • And the category in question exists, apparently, to duplicate the data structure contemplated by someone's decision not to support the special-purpose site they had planned. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Victoria Cross Reference Migration is the description of the one-person WProj that seems to be the vehicle for warping WP into something that will serve that special purpose. Was there serious consultation with well experienced WPians before instituting this WProj, or is its existence simply an expression of audacity? --Jerzy(t) 07:04, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
  • Keep. Logical part of a larger structure. Changes to this structure should be discussed on Talk:List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality first. Andrewa 09:52, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    In which case, I'm having trouble parsing your logic. Note change of vote above. Chris 15:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Something very like that was a reason for keeping List of people by name: Db-Dd, but that was part of long-standing structure with a WP-pervading significance. The significance of this structure is strictly limited. --Jerzy(t) 07:04, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
  • Keep. Intrigue 20:36, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this and many other lists. Make a stub for Peter Brown (VC) and put it in Category:Swedish people and Category:Victoria Cross recipients, and wait for MediaWiki's category browsing capabilities to improve. And in the meantime, maybe list Peter Brown on List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality, like Chris said. ~leif 21:54, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. Conceptually, i would say rename as List of VC recipients of nationalities with fewer than five of them, but even if the name weren't so unwieldy, i don't think dislike for slashes in titles is the real reason for barring sub-page articles: rather, articles should stand on their own feet. The only way an article serving this function can stand alone is by being List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality (which probably obviates all the lists in Category:Lists of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality).--Jerzy(t) 07:04, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
  • Comment: the Wiki-project mentioned above sounds like it calls for a data-base implementation rather than an encyclopedic one. I've heard before some hints of desire for DB-like WP features, e.g., lists that let the user resort them from "by name" order to, say "nationality" order. Perhaps this area of interest should be brought to the attention of a "Data-architecture Committee" charged with considering what other organizing principles besides articles, lists, and Cat structures might further our encyclopedic mission. I don't have any clear vision of what "shapes" of data-bases w/in WP are widely enough useful to justify integrating them with the article concept (beyond a personal obsession: DBs aren't worthwhile in any form that can't do everything LoPbN is trying to), but i suspect what we have so far is less rich and efficient than the features that future enhancements may include. They may also support a VC project (and draw encyclopedic benefits from it) better than we now can. --Jerzy(t) 07:04, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

end moved discussion