Category:Georgia (country) in the Eurovision Song Contest
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.
Nominator's rationale: No need to disambiguate; the U.S. state has nothing to do with the contest. The pages in the categories are not disambiguated for the same reason. If for some reason the U.S. state starts competing in the contest, then this move can be undone. ―
Jochem van Hees (
talk)
22:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)reply
But then there's also
WP:C2D which says that eponymous categories should have the same name, which would support my proposal. And what I'm challenging right now is the consensus that "Georga" should always be disambiguated, even when there's no ambiguity. ―
Jochem van Hees (
talk)
07:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Do not rename. Similar proposals for categories relating to the country or the U.S. state seem to crop up at least every year. The principal reason is probably that the practice in naming/disambiguating categories has diverged from the guidelines for naming/disambiguating articles. I believe that it has been practice for some time to always disambiguate "Georgia" when it appears in a category name. I support that approach for the reasons mentioned by
Oculi – it prevents having to formally discuss every instance of "Georgia" appearing in category names. If this approach is going to change, we will need to discuss many Georgia categories – not just these ones. I don't think it's worth the effort.
Good Ol’factory(talk)02:53, 10 June 2021 (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:2018 European Athletics U18 Championships
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.
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category containing one article. No obvious scope for expansion as event result articles are typically not made for youth level competitions.
SFB21:35, 8 June 2021 (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:G-rated films
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.
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia purposely avoids incorporating content ratings systems into articles, as that's a regional thing and if we did it for one region, we'd have to do it for every other region a film was released, and that's beyond our scope. We focus on genre instead to indicate appropriateness.
Masem (
t)
20:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Yes, this I know was true for films as well as extended advice for video games (though games that do have debate/controversy over their ratings have sourced discussion to that. That doesn't meant we list out the ratings for each game or film ever, we discuss where necessary and make appropriate lists.) --
Masem (
t)
20:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. If we do this for the US rating system, then we have to start comprehensively doing it for every other country's rating system (which isn't always the same as the US's) too — but that's a really bad idea.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:34, 10 June 2021 (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:Gangsters who died in prison custody
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.
Keep I'd suppose our users are curious to learn about how frequently such cases have happened /occur in Wikipedia without diving deep into articles and details. It is service to have such categories. Wrong application of DEFINING -> it's not about biography but about sociological social facts. --
Just N. (
talk)
12:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Write an article about the sociology of gangsters dying in prison if that's your end goal. "It's interesting" or "it's useful" are not good reasons to keep categories. Lastly, it is definitely the correct application of
WP:NONDEF.--
User:Namiba15:07, 15 June 2021 (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:Spacecraft by launch system
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.
Nominator's rationale: launch system seems a non defining feature of spacecraft -- for example, a satellite wouldn't be any different had it been launched from a different type of rocket; possibly listify.
fgnievinski (
talk)
03:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Procedural comment@
Fgnievinski: If you are going to delete the entire tree, please nominate all the subcategories as well. You may use AWB or
WP:BOTREQ to tag them after listing them here. I'm undecided about the proposal, but articles tend to give at most a few sentences about the type of rocket used. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄)
00:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't have a strong view either way, but bigger satellites very much are designed to fit the diameter/payload of their launch vehicle. I'm no expert, but I also believe that launching from manned platforms like the Shuttle/ISS also has quite a bearing on the design versus launching from an unmanned rocket. On the flip side, it's less important for smaller satellites eg
CubeSats.
Le Deluge (
talk)
15:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Le Deluge: You're right about the smaller satellites. But even for the bigger ones, there are typically more than one option of launch vehicle. Satellites deployed from the ISS actually does not belong to that category, as it does not involve a
carrier rocket, it's more of a piggyback mission, so I'm removing that one subcategory.
fgnievinski (
talk)
06:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I've got no idea why I should believe the nominator or not. It's just his affirmation to call it non-defining. But are rocket types really disposable alike taxis or tour buses? I'd guess that No! Keep or Delete -> confusing. --
Just N. (
talk)
20:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Justus Nussbaum: browsing any of the categories, one can notice that often the same type of rocket can be used to launch very different spacecraft, from Earth satellites to lunar probes.
fgnievinski (
talk)
06:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. Given that many satellites are designed so that they can be launched for a specific type of rocket, it could easily be argued that the launch system is a defining feature. Not a major defining feature, but defining nonetheless. The opposing viewpoint (one that no-one seems to have considered) is more relevant, however. It is definitely defining for the launch system to indicate which satellites have been launched from it, given that launching satellites and other pieces of space hardware is the very reason for those rockets to exist. As such, even if it's only weakly defining for the satellites, it is strongly defining for the launch systems.
Grutness...wha?06:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Lists, templates, and categories are three separate and equal ways of ordering a topic on Wikipedia, and exist in tandem.
Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates clearly defines that upfront: "This page in a nutshell: Categories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles. Although they each have their own advantages and disadvantages, each method complements the others."
Randy Kryn (
talk)
10:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep per Grutness, esp. "...given that launching satellites and other pieces of space hardware is the very reason for those rockets to exist. As such, even if it's only weakly defining for the satellites, it is strongly defining for the launch systems." 'Defining' is such a subjective word, an eye-of-the-beholder descriptor, and Grutness, in turning the point-of-view, has defined the 'keep' reasoning well.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
10:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep – As
Justus Nussbaum surmised, the orbital launch industry is far from being commoditized. Criteria to pick an appropriate launcher include the mission of the spacecraft, its target orbit, its mass, and even its shape.
Payload fairings and multi-launch capabilities are highly specific to each rocket family. As such, the launch system is indeed a defining category of spacecraft, not the only one, but certainly an important one. For example, the soon-to-be-launched
James Webb Space Telescope was specifically designed to fit within the flight envelope of the
Ariane 5 rocket.
U.S. spy satellites are finely tuned to match the capabilities of the
Delta IV Heavy rocket, which would have been retired long ago were it not for those particular requirements. The
Space Shuttle's giant payload bay was also designed to carry such hardware. Notifying
WP:WikiProject Spaceflight for further comments from contributors to this topic. —
JFGtalk12:22, 15 June 2021 (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:Films featuring luck
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.
Nominator's rationale: One may be hard-pressed to identify any film that didn't involve what someone could reasonably identify as "luck". It's a highly subjective criterion and not one that is amenable to categorization.
Good Ol’factory(talk)02:36, 31 May 2021 (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:Turkish Kurdish people
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.
Nominator's rationale: The two categories are duplicates and should be merged. 'Turkish Kurdish people' sounds weird so I propose merging the two categories under 'Turkish people of Kurdish descent'
Semsûrî (
talk)
17:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose as nominated,
Category:Turkish Kurdish people should be kept as a standard ethnicity category. On the other hand the descent category suggests it contains non-Kurdish people with Kurdish ancestors. Perhaps reverse merge, perhaps delete the target.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
18:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)reply
I'll support any move that will merge the two. Merging the descent category into the other would be fine as well. --
Semsûrî (
talk)
18:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)reply
With the articles in the descent category it is not always clear whether these people are still Kurdish. The reverse merge should be done manually, some articles should be purged.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose - The Kurds are split between Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. My guess is that this is about natives, not expatriates: the target would be for people from Kurdistan who had moved to Turkey, which is an oxymoron since (unless from the other coutries), they have not moved
Category:Kurdish people of Turkey might be a viable option. This may be a solution for a lot of ethnic and ethno-religious categories in the Levant.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose - The Kurds (by ethnicity and own language) are split between Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. Those that live on Turkish state territory are involuntarily forces to remain Turkish citizens. Their broad majority would prefer to have a chance to build their own Kurdish state. But Turkish nationalists are going to war against them. IMHO [:Category:Turkish Kurdish people]] is a correct description = Kurdish people but with forced Turkish citizenship. So maybe the other category should be purged and eliminated. --
Just N. (
talk)
12:33, 15 June 2021 (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.
Establishments in United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands
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/rename to existing Okinawa hierarchy for now. A further nomination may be held to rename all of that hierarchy to Okinawa Prefecture or Ryukyu Islands. –
FayenaticLondon14:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: this newly created structure duplicates an existing one for the same period. Okinawa and the Ryukyu Islands had several administrative forms of government when under American rule from 1945 to 1972, namely
USMGR and
USCAR. I am not sure these merit to be made into full-blown country category hierarchies. The only 2 articles here (
1 and
2) are both in Okinawa.
Place Clichy (
talk)
09:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Reverse merge Okinawa is too ambiguous, and can often refer just to the specific island. We should use a name that clearly refers to the whole place, and also makes it clear what political and time restraints apply. Since Okinawa and the other islands were all one system, we should categorize things in all together.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
12:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge/rename as proposed. Using "United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands" is ridiculous when "Okinawa" will do just fine. We don't need an entire establishments scheme for USCARI.
Good Ol’factory(talk)01:20, 11 June 2021 (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.
Anglican bishops in Africa
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.
Rename, meanwhile this has become standard procedure, especially for countries with a substantial Anglican and Catholic presence.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:53, 8 June 2021 (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:Hindu acharyas
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 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:County attorneys
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.
Nominator's rationale: According to
district attorney, different U.S. states use different names for this office, but district attorneys and county attorneys are the same thing. There should be only one category for them, and since the article uses "district", so should the category. The contents of the nominated category could probably be merged further downstream into some of the by-state categories for district attorneys, such as
Category:District attorneys in California.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge Open to any proposal that leaves us with 1 category but favor the original nom since it follows the main article. Having some states use the other term (as noted by JPL) and having a redirect would also be prudent. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
17:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge (as nom). The inclusion of county attorneys and other similar offices can be covered in a head note, without creating category clutter would an omnibus category name.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:47, 11 June 2021 (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:Insiders (Australian TV program) panelists
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.
Insiders (Australian TV program) is a
Sunday morning talk show that has been on the air for 20 years and each week the format includes an interview of a politician followed by a panel of three commentators, usually journalists. Other than the host, the show has a rotating guests although many people are invited to the show multiple times. This is the performance cat and the articles (click on any ones you like) treat it as such with a passing mention. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
00:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep I don't believe in nominators description. This sunday morning talk show has been on air for 20 years you state. In contrast to that the category contains up to date 23 articles. No overpopulation at all as it should be expected if you were right. Well, I'd suppose that this category does a good service to our Australian users who just want a quick overlook which people are wellknown as 'Insiders' panelists. Let us keep it! --
Just N. (
talk)
13:11, 15 June 2021 (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:Associates of the Royal College of Organists
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.
Keep as a defining characteristic, and a significant achievement. Lack of use, when there is great potential for use, is not a valid deletion rational. As for Dickinson, he was an Associate of the Royal College of Organists, which is why I said as much, in full, in his article.
[2] for example refers to his "lifelong interest in organ music had led to him repeatedly sit the examination of the Royal College of Organists, which he eventually passed". Not all British Organists achieve ARCO status, and not all Associates of the Royal College of Organists are British. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits10:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete (possibly manually merge to British organists or siblings). I strongly suspect that becoming an Associate is a matter of passing an exam. We do not categorise graduates by subject.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep as a defining characteristic. The description of that institution makes clear: a Royal Academy, very well funded, the UK state saw a great need for that much support. The organists and composers who were the recipients must have had a good standing in the historical UK society. In the category British organists I'd expect a mishmash of British musicians playing organ. A lot of e.g. hammond organ players (pop, rock, jazz) as well as church organists. Wrong? It may be a historical UK cultural phenomenon in decline but it's as such DEFINING. --
Just N. (
talk)
13:36, 15 June 2021 (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:Georgia (country) in the Eurovision Song Contest
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.
Nominator's rationale: No need to disambiguate; the U.S. state has nothing to do with the contest. The pages in the categories are not disambiguated for the same reason. If for some reason the U.S. state starts competing in the contest, then this move can be undone. ―
Jochem van Hees (
talk)
22:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)reply
But then there's also
WP:C2D which says that eponymous categories should have the same name, which would support my proposal. And what I'm challenging right now is the consensus that "Georga" should always be disambiguated, even when there's no ambiguity. ―
Jochem van Hees (
talk)
07:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Do not rename. Similar proposals for categories relating to the country or the U.S. state seem to crop up at least every year. The principal reason is probably that the practice in naming/disambiguating categories has diverged from the guidelines for naming/disambiguating articles. I believe that it has been practice for some time to always disambiguate "Georgia" when it appears in a category name. I support that approach for the reasons mentioned by
Oculi – it prevents having to formally discuss every instance of "Georgia" appearing in category names. If this approach is going to change, we will need to discuss many Georgia categories – not just these ones. I don't think it's worth the effort.
Good Ol’factory(talk)02:53, 10 June 2021 (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:2018 European Athletics U18 Championships
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.
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category containing one article. No obvious scope for expansion as event result articles are typically not made for youth level competitions.
SFB21:35, 8 June 2021 (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:G-rated films
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.
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia purposely avoids incorporating content ratings systems into articles, as that's a regional thing and if we did it for one region, we'd have to do it for every other region a film was released, and that's beyond our scope. We focus on genre instead to indicate appropriateness.
Masem (
t)
20:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Yes, this I know was true for films as well as extended advice for video games (though games that do have debate/controversy over their ratings have sourced discussion to that. That doesn't meant we list out the ratings for each game or film ever, we discuss where necessary and make appropriate lists.) --
Masem (
t)
20:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. If we do this for the US rating system, then we have to start comprehensively doing it for every other country's rating system (which isn't always the same as the US's) too — but that's a really bad idea.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:34, 10 June 2021 (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:Gangsters who died in prison custody
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.
Keep I'd suppose our users are curious to learn about how frequently such cases have happened /occur in Wikipedia without diving deep into articles and details. It is service to have such categories. Wrong application of DEFINING -> it's not about biography but about sociological social facts. --
Just N. (
talk)
12:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Write an article about the sociology of gangsters dying in prison if that's your end goal. "It's interesting" or "it's useful" are not good reasons to keep categories. Lastly, it is definitely the correct application of
WP:NONDEF.--
User:Namiba15:07, 15 June 2021 (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:Spacecraft by launch system
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.
Nominator's rationale: launch system seems a non defining feature of spacecraft -- for example, a satellite wouldn't be any different had it been launched from a different type of rocket; possibly listify.
fgnievinski (
talk)
03:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Procedural comment@
Fgnievinski: If you are going to delete the entire tree, please nominate all the subcategories as well. You may use AWB or
WP:BOTREQ to tag them after listing them here. I'm undecided about the proposal, but articles tend to give at most a few sentences about the type of rocket used. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄)
00:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't have a strong view either way, but bigger satellites very much are designed to fit the diameter/payload of their launch vehicle. I'm no expert, but I also believe that launching from manned platforms like the Shuttle/ISS also has quite a bearing on the design versus launching from an unmanned rocket. On the flip side, it's less important for smaller satellites eg
CubeSats.
Le Deluge (
talk)
15:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Le Deluge: You're right about the smaller satellites. But even for the bigger ones, there are typically more than one option of launch vehicle. Satellites deployed from the ISS actually does not belong to that category, as it does not involve a
carrier rocket, it's more of a piggyback mission, so I'm removing that one subcategory.
fgnievinski (
talk)
06:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I've got no idea why I should believe the nominator or not. It's just his affirmation to call it non-defining. But are rocket types really disposable alike taxis or tour buses? I'd guess that No! Keep or Delete -> confusing. --
Just N. (
talk)
20:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Justus Nussbaum: browsing any of the categories, one can notice that often the same type of rocket can be used to launch very different spacecraft, from Earth satellites to lunar probes.
fgnievinski (
talk)
06:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. Given that many satellites are designed so that they can be launched for a specific type of rocket, it could easily be argued that the launch system is a defining feature. Not a major defining feature, but defining nonetheless. The opposing viewpoint (one that no-one seems to have considered) is more relevant, however. It is definitely defining for the launch system to indicate which satellites have been launched from it, given that launching satellites and other pieces of space hardware is the very reason for those rockets to exist. As such, even if it's only weakly defining for the satellites, it is strongly defining for the launch systems.
Grutness...wha?06:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Lists, templates, and categories are three separate and equal ways of ordering a topic on Wikipedia, and exist in tandem.
Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates clearly defines that upfront: "This page in a nutshell: Categories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles. Although they each have their own advantages and disadvantages, each method complements the others."
Randy Kryn (
talk)
10:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep per Grutness, esp. "...given that launching satellites and other pieces of space hardware is the very reason for those rockets to exist. As such, even if it's only weakly defining for the satellites, it is strongly defining for the launch systems." 'Defining' is such a subjective word, an eye-of-the-beholder descriptor, and Grutness, in turning the point-of-view, has defined the 'keep' reasoning well.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
10:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep – As
Justus Nussbaum surmised, the orbital launch industry is far from being commoditized. Criteria to pick an appropriate launcher include the mission of the spacecraft, its target orbit, its mass, and even its shape.
Payload fairings and multi-launch capabilities are highly specific to each rocket family. As such, the launch system is indeed a defining category of spacecraft, not the only one, but certainly an important one. For example, the soon-to-be-launched
James Webb Space Telescope was specifically designed to fit within the flight envelope of the
Ariane 5 rocket.
U.S. spy satellites are finely tuned to match the capabilities of the
Delta IV Heavy rocket, which would have been retired long ago were it not for those particular requirements. The
Space Shuttle's giant payload bay was also designed to carry such hardware. Notifying
WP:WikiProject Spaceflight for further comments from contributors to this topic. —
JFGtalk12:22, 15 June 2021 (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:Films featuring luck
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.
Nominator's rationale: One may be hard-pressed to identify any film that didn't involve what someone could reasonably identify as "luck". It's a highly subjective criterion and not one that is amenable to categorization.
Good Ol’factory(talk)02:36, 31 May 2021 (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:Turkish Kurdish people
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.
Nominator's rationale: The two categories are duplicates and should be merged. 'Turkish Kurdish people' sounds weird so I propose merging the two categories under 'Turkish people of Kurdish descent'
Semsûrî (
talk)
17:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose as nominated,
Category:Turkish Kurdish people should be kept as a standard ethnicity category. On the other hand the descent category suggests it contains non-Kurdish people with Kurdish ancestors. Perhaps reverse merge, perhaps delete the target.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
18:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)reply
I'll support any move that will merge the two. Merging the descent category into the other would be fine as well. --
Semsûrî (
talk)
18:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)reply
With the articles in the descent category it is not always clear whether these people are still Kurdish. The reverse merge should be done manually, some articles should be purged.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose - The Kurds are split between Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. My guess is that this is about natives, not expatriates: the target would be for people from Kurdistan who had moved to Turkey, which is an oxymoron since (unless from the other coutries), they have not moved
Category:Kurdish people of Turkey might be a viable option. This may be a solution for a lot of ethnic and ethno-religious categories in the Levant.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose - The Kurds (by ethnicity and own language) are split between Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. Those that live on Turkish state territory are involuntarily forces to remain Turkish citizens. Their broad majority would prefer to have a chance to build their own Kurdish state. But Turkish nationalists are going to war against them. IMHO [:Category:Turkish Kurdish people]] is a correct description = Kurdish people but with forced Turkish citizenship. So maybe the other category should be purged and eliminated. --
Just N. (
talk)
12:33, 15 June 2021 (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.
Establishments in United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands
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/rename to existing Okinawa hierarchy for now. A further nomination may be held to rename all of that hierarchy to Okinawa Prefecture or Ryukyu Islands. –
FayenaticLondon14:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: this newly created structure duplicates an existing one for the same period. Okinawa and the Ryukyu Islands had several administrative forms of government when under American rule from 1945 to 1972, namely
USMGR and
USCAR. I am not sure these merit to be made into full-blown country category hierarchies. The only 2 articles here (
1 and
2) are both in Okinawa.
Place Clichy (
talk)
09:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Reverse merge Okinawa is too ambiguous, and can often refer just to the specific island. We should use a name that clearly refers to the whole place, and also makes it clear what political and time restraints apply. Since Okinawa and the other islands were all one system, we should categorize things in all together.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
12:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge/rename as proposed. Using "United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands" is ridiculous when "Okinawa" will do just fine. We don't need an entire establishments scheme for USCARI.
Good Ol’factory(talk)01:20, 11 June 2021 (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.
Anglican bishops in Africa
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.
Rename, meanwhile this has become standard procedure, especially for countries with a substantial Anglican and Catholic presence.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:53, 8 June 2021 (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:Hindu acharyas
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 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:County attorneys
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.
Nominator's rationale: According to
district attorney, different U.S. states use different names for this office, but district attorneys and county attorneys are the same thing. There should be only one category for them, and since the article uses "district", so should the category. The contents of the nominated category could probably be merged further downstream into some of the by-state categories for district attorneys, such as
Category:District attorneys in California.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge Open to any proposal that leaves us with 1 category but favor the original nom since it follows the main article. Having some states use the other term (as noted by JPL) and having a redirect would also be prudent. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
17:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge (as nom). The inclusion of county attorneys and other similar offices can be covered in a head note, without creating category clutter would an omnibus category name.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:47, 11 June 2021 (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:Insiders (Australian TV program) panelists
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.
Insiders (Australian TV program) is a
Sunday morning talk show that has been on the air for 20 years and each week the format includes an interview of a politician followed by a panel of three commentators, usually journalists. Other than the host, the show has a rotating guests although many people are invited to the show multiple times. This is the performance cat and the articles (click on any ones you like) treat it as such with a passing mention. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
00:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep I don't believe in nominators description. This sunday morning talk show has been on air for 20 years you state. In contrast to that the category contains up to date 23 articles. No overpopulation at all as it should be expected if you were right. Well, I'd suppose that this category does a good service to our Australian users who just want a quick overlook which people are wellknown as 'Insiders' panelists. Let us keep it! --
Just N. (
talk)
13:11, 15 June 2021 (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:Associates of the Royal College of Organists
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.
Keep as a defining characteristic, and a significant achievement. Lack of use, when there is great potential for use, is not a valid deletion rational. As for Dickinson, he was an Associate of the Royal College of Organists, which is why I said as much, in full, in his article.
[2] for example refers to his "lifelong interest in organ music had led to him repeatedly sit the examination of the Royal College of Organists, which he eventually passed". Not all British Organists achieve ARCO status, and not all Associates of the Royal College of Organists are British. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits10:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete (possibly manually merge to British organists or siblings). I strongly suspect that becoming an Associate is a matter of passing an exam. We do not categorise graduates by subject.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep as a defining characteristic. The description of that institution makes clear: a Royal Academy, very well funded, the UK state saw a great need for that much support. The organists and composers who were the recipients must have had a good standing in the historical UK society. In the category British organists I'd expect a mishmash of British musicians playing organ. A lot of e.g. hammond organ players (pop, rock, jazz) as well as church organists. Wrong? It may be a historical UK cultural phenomenon in decline but it's as such DEFINING. --
Just N. (
talk)
13:36, 15 June 2021 (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.