Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 2

: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)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Original Wikipedian}}

: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)

----

: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.

: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)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|SpaceX beyond-Earth-orbit rockets}}

: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)

• 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)

::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)

:::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)

• Delete, unneeded over-categorisation. At this moment, there are four distinct SpaceX rocket designs (F1, F9, F9H, and BFR), all currently categorised under :Category:Falcon (rocket family). If more designs or families are produced (which seems unlikely given current SpaceX plans) then maybe such a category would be useful. Aside from this, why is the rocket's launch regime even a factor in how we categorise it? This isn't done for any other rocket that I'm aware of. Feels like categorisation for the sake of categorisation. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete and create {{cat|SpaceX space launch vehicles}} instead which will contain {{cat|Falcon (rocket family)‎}}, BFR (rocket) and ITS launch vehicle. Similar to {{cat|Orbital Sciences Corporation space launch vehicles}}, {{cat|Lockheed Martin space launch vehicles‎}}, {{cat|Blue Origin launch vehicles‎}}, {{cat|NASA space launch vehicles‎}}. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

::That would make sense for consistency. I'd call it simply {{cat|SpaceX launch vehicles}}, because "space" is already in the company name. — JFG ^talk 09:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|2034 FIFA World Cup}}

:Nominator's rationale: Only one item for now so no need at this time Hhkohh (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. No point in having this category until several more articles can be created and that will be after it is decided where the tournament will be staged. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - TOOSOON. GiantSnowman 07:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with nominator, this cat seems pointless and a long way off from being useful. Govvy (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Way, way too soon. Note: it seems like there ain't a snowball's chance in hell that the consensus changes at this point. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. {{ping|Izzat Kutebar|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)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Plants alluded to by William Shakespeare}}

:Nominator's rationale: Not essential—defining—characteristics, just tagging. Batternut (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Better dealt with by means of a list. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Listify -- I am sure there must be many more. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• 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)

----

: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.

: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)

• Propose deleting :Category:Anatolian peoples – amending proposal from merge to delete. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

: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)

:*Oppose. Though the categories have similar names, they are certainly not duplicates.

::* :Category:Anatolian peoples is a category for peoples who spoke Anatolian languages.

::* :Category:Ancient peoples of Anatolia is a category for ancient peoples of Anatolia.

::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)

:::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)

:::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)

::::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)

:::::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)

::::::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)

• Precedent found. I believe there is a precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 17#Category:Indo-European peoples. I removed the defunct :Category:Indo-European peoples from :Category:Anatolian peoples yesterday. The same basic argument of WP:NONDEF is applicable in this case, as is the salient point about false equivalency of a people and their language. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

:*Counter-precedents found. Wikipedia at the moment contains numerous categories on Ethnolinguistic groups.

::* :Category:Afroasiatic peoples

::* :Category:Austronesian peoples

::* :Category:Baltic peoples

::* :Category:Dravidian peoples

::* :Category:Finno-Ugric peoples

::* :Category:Turkic peoples

::* :Category:Slavs

::* :Category:Uralic peoples

: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)

• 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)

• Oppose Anatolian peoples is about the ethnolinguistic group. Dimadick (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is an ethnolinguistics and human-geographical distinction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Update: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anatolian peoples closed (WP:SNOW keep, then withdrawn by nom).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Rename -- It looks like a duplicate but seems not to be. :Category:Peoples speaking Anatolian languages would perhaps better describe its scope. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

:: 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)

----

: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.

: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)

:* Propose merging :Category:Glass makers and brands to :Category:Glass industry

: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)

• Merge. As Rathfelder says, it is superfluous. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

----

: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.