From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 1 July 3 >

July 2

Category:2. divisjon players

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 13#Category:2. divisjon players

Category:Original Wikipedian

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 result of the discussion was: delete ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: New category last month. Contains only a userbox template that is not transcluded anywhere; the creator's page has a link to the template, but that's all. – Fayenatic London 20:03, 2 July 2018 (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.

Category:SpaceX beyond-Earth-orbit rockets

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 result of the discussion was: delete ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category makes no sense, because all SpaceX rockets can launch payloads beyond Earth orbit (and some have). Made it empty pending deletion. — JFG talk 15:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I'm unsure on this. Clearly the currently-under-development BFR (rocket) is intended for BEO, as was made clear in the late-Sept 2017 sources where that rocket was announced. And the old design concept ITS launch vehicle (late 2016) was intended the same. Since September 2017, the Falcon Heavy had a maiden flight (Feb 2018), and launched a BEO payload on a heliocentric orbit. So those three would all belong in this category.
But the (retired) Falcon 1 rocket, and the 50+ flights to date of the still flying Falcon 9 have, I believe, all been geocentric orbit flights, and I'm not sure I seen a source for plans to launch a Falcon 9 to BEO. So the category still makes sense to me, for now. Is there some other logic as to why the cat could be broken up differently? N2e ( talk) 18:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
BFR is designed to fulfill all kinds of missions: ISS transport, LEO constellations, GTO transfer, interplanetary, and even suborbital Earth-to-Earth as competition to long-range aviation. The BEO-only category is pointless. — JFG talk 09:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply
With three other editors favoring delete, with plausible rationales, I'll happily remove my uncertainty expressed here and support the deletion of the category for BEO launch vehicles. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 04:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
That would make sense for consistency. I'd call it simply Category:SpaceX launch vehicles, because "space" is already in the company name. — JFG talk 09:50, 4 July 2018 (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.

Category:2034 FIFA World Cup

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 result of the discussion was: delete ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one item for now so no need at this time Hhkohh ( talk) 11:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh ( talk) 11:41, 2 July 2018 (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.

Category:Plants alluded to by William Shakespeare

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 result of the discussion was: delete. @ Izzat Kutebar and Peterkingiron: In case you want to start a list, these are the articles that were in the category: Aconitum, Pansy, Rose, Rosemary, Ruta graveolens, Shakespeare garden, Viola tricolor. ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Not essential—defining—characteristics, just tagging. Batternut ( talk) 07:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Better dealt with by means of a list. Izzat Kutebar ( talk) 12:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Listify -- I am sure there must be many more. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete alluded to seems a weak criterion, surely not defining for anything. Not sure on whether plants in Shakespeare is notable, but could be convinced - what coverage has that concept had in reliable sources or are we just being a concordance? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:41, 6 July 2018 (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.

Category:Anatolian peoples

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 result of the discussion was: keep ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous. Effectively a duplicate of Category:Ancient peoples of Anatolia in that the few articles it previously held were all about ancient peoples of Anatolia. These have been re-categorised accordingly. All that remains is the sub-categorical use of Category:Anatolian languages but that is irrelevant to a category which is nominally about peoples, especially as it is already categorised elsewhere in compliance with other linguistics categories. Thank you. Izzat Kutebar ( talk) 06:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Though the categories have similar names, they are certainly not duplicates.
We are thus dealing with two separate topics, namely ethnolinguistics and geography. Merging these two categories makes as much sense as merging Category:Iberians into Category:Pre-Roman peoples of the Iberian Peninsula, Category:Italic peoples into Category:Ancient peoples of Italy, or Celtic Britons into Category:British people. In other words. It makes no sense at all. Krakkos ( talk) 10:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
What makes no sense is a linguistics category with a title that is about peoples. It is completely misleading. You should request that the category is renamed Category:Anatolian languages. Articles about the peoples belong in the peoples category. Izzat Kutebar ( talk) 10:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Ha, I didn't know previously that there is already an Anatolian language category, so Category:Anatolian peoples is a duplicate whichever way it is viewed. The question to be answered is how to classify the article Anatolian peoples. If that is about languages, it needs to be renamed and Category:Anatolian peoples merged into Category:Anatolian languages. Izzat Kutebar ( talk) 10:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
ETHNOLINGUISTCS catogories with a title about peoples is a norm on Wikipedia. If you're suggesting merging Category:Anatolian peoples into Category:Anatolian languages, why not also merge Category:Turkic peoples into Category:Turkic languages? Krakkos ( talk) 11:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
You have completely missed the point. Category:Anatolian peoples has only one article called Ancient peoples of Anatolia but formerly called Anatolian peoples which you say is about Anatolian linguistics (actually, it really isn't clear what the article is about). Conversely, the Turkic categories are well-developed with extensive itineraries. Comparison of Category:Anatolian peoples with Category:Turkic peoples is nonsensical. If Ancient peoples of Anatolia is indeed about linguistics, then it needs to be renamed accordingly and moved into Category:Anatolian languages. That would leave Category:Anatolian peoples empty and so the best thing to do is either delete it or complete a category merge. Izzat Kutebar ( talk) 11:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
It's you who is refusing to get the point that it is a difference between an ethnolinguistic group and a group of unrelated people inhabiting a specific geographic area.
1. The only reason Category:Anatolian peoples has only one article is because you have removed the rest. It used to contain several articles, including Hittites, Luwians and others, who were PEOPLES speaking Anatolian languages.
2. I never said Anatolian peoples is about Anatolian lingustics. It is about the ETHNOLINGUISTIC GROUP who spoke Anatolian languages.
3. Comparison of Category:Anatolian peoples with Category:Turkic peoples is is sensical in the sense that both were/are ETHNOLINGUISTIC GROUPS.
Given the stated purpose of the article rename was to enable its transfer to the ancient peoples category as main article, that has been done. The only item left in the Anatolian peoples category is Category:Anatolian languages which is irrelevant and does not belong there. Izzat Kutebar ( talk) 12:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The list could go on and on. Being Anatolian is as much a defining characteristic for the Hittites, as being Dravidian is for a Tamil, or being Turkic is for a Kazakh. Krakkos ( talk) 12:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose The Anatolian languages are a subgroup or branch of the Indo-European languages spoken and written in Anatolia (Asia Minor) in the Bronze and Iron Ages. They do not just refer to any language spoken in Anatolia ever. Hattic, Hurrian, Phrygian, Galatian, Armenian, Greek, Kurdish and Turkish were or are spoken in Anatolia, but they are not Anatolian languages, they are (historical or contemporary) languages of Anatolia. This distinction is crucial. Anatolian peoples are an ethnolinguistic group: The peoples who spoke Indo-European Anatolian languages.
Consider this example: Estonian is spoken in the Baltic, but it does not belong to the Baltic languages; it is a Finno-Ugric language, while the Baltic languages are Indo-European. For this reason, Estonians are not listed in Category:Baltic peoples. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 17:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Oppose - Such a renaming is inconsistent with the related categories mentioned above. Among the subcategories of Category:Anatolian peoples we find Category:Anatolian mythology, which is not about linguistics. A title "Category:Anatolian-speaking peoples" would therefore be too narrow in scope. Krakkos ( talk) 10:15, 7 July 2018 (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.

Category:Glass makers and brands

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 result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering 07:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous. contents are all subcategorised in Category:Glassmaking companies, Category:Glass makers and Category:Glass trademarks and brands Rathfelder ( talk) 11:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:57, 2 July 2018 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_July_2&oldid=871692257"