< August 22 August 24 >

August 23

Category:21st-century American male actors

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category - Category:21st-century American actors is specifically for males, with Category:21st-century American actresses being the female equivalent. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We may want to consider using category intersection links, like on the Singaporean Poets page, and just have one big container for male/female actors (BTW, makes me think, we should have one for TG/TS actors too), then the century/genre/etc cats can be non-gendered. WE don't have to gender EVERY actor category, do we?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that Category:19th-century American actresses are very, very defined by their gender (and maybe even more so for Category:19th-century British actresses, they are more likely to married earls than male actors are to have married countesses for example) so there is really no way to argue it is less than defining in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. acting is a gendered profession, in which men and women should be categorised separately
  2. Categories for women actors should be called "actresses", and those for men called "male actors"
As Bearcat noted, the diffusion of articles is far from complete, but that's the structure. If the nominator wants to change it, it should be changed globally rather than for one lone category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 31 August 2013 (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:Czech women's football biography stubs

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: upmerge to Category:Czech football biography stubs and Category:Women's association football biography stubs. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Stub-categories should have atleast 60 articles, this category only got 46. Category:Czech women's footballers has 47 members, so all the articles that could have been a member of this category are in it. I doubt that we'll see an increase of 30% of stub-articles on this subject in the near future, so it would be a long time until we actually need this category. The stub-template should be kept, but the articles should be categorized in Category:Women's association football biography stubs and Category:Czech football biography stubs. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2013 (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:People from South Pittsburg, Tennessee

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small city with just 3 entries. ...William 17:23, 23 August 2013 (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.

Year in Utah before it was a state

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: Rename. Note that I did fix about 5 spelling errors in the target categories. If anyone has an objection to this leave me a talk name and I'll change them back. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason why I have never gone there. There is the Provisional State of Deseret. However Utah does not officially become part of the United States until 1848. Although to what extent it was really part of Mexico in 1847 is questionable. The British had exercised more real authority within Utah than the Mexicans ever did. Although the people in Salt Lake starting in 1847 were not effectively recognizing any outside government. From Salt Lake City, Utah to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir we clearly have things that could be added to an 1847 category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2013 (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:National Polish-American Sports Hall of Fame inductees

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 (upmerging to Category:American sportspeople of Polish descent). Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:National Polish-American Sports Hall of Fame inductees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization by minor sporting award per WP:OC#AWARD. Similar discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 17#Category:Italian American Sports Hall of Fame. - Tewapack (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2013 (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:Italian football (soccer) First Division clubs

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: rename to Category:Italian football First Division clubs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To comply with football categories names guidlines. CapPixel (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2013 (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:Kickboxing venues

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Kickboxing venues
Nominator's rationale: That a venue (e.g. Amsterdam Arena) has been used for kickboxing is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the venue. DexDor (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2013 (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:Current infantry regiments of the British Army

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We normally avoid "current" categories as they categorize by a non-permanent characteristic. An example of a previous similar CFD is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_12#Category:Current_Brigades_of_the_British_Army. DexDor (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2013 (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:TR35 winners

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:TR35 winners
Nominator's rationale: According to the TR35 article "The TR35 is an annual list published by MIT's Technology Review magazine, naming the world's top 35 innovators under the age of 35.". Having received this (sort of) award is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic (see WP:OC#AWARD). For info: There is a partial list at TR35#Notable_awardees. DexDor (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2013 (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:Aga Khan Award for Architecture winners

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Aga Khan Award for Architecture winners
Nominator's rationale: Having received an award is not normally a WP:DEFINING characteristic (see WP:OC#AWARD). This category also places articles about buildings in inappropriate categories (e.g. under Category:Scientists). For info: There is a list (mostly of buildings) at Aga Khan Award for Architecture, but not all articles currently in the category (e.g. Henning Larsen) are in the list. DexDor (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2013 (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:Retired NBA players

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't make categories for qualities such as retired athletes. Hoops gza (talk) 03:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Describes a transitory condition of the years between an athlete's career and death, and is thus not a permanent or helpful category. JNW (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would eventually include all NBA players, and would be too large to be of much use. Zagalejo^^^ 03:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People are notable for having been a NBA player, not for being retired. DexDor (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DexDor....William 14:43, 23 August 2013 (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:Haskalah

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: No consensus. I suppose the short answer is that we are not likely to gain consensus for this rename as long as the main article is at the present name. So I would not suggest another nomination in the near future unless the main article happens to get move. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Note: This has been relisted from August 4]

Nominator's rationale: The term "Haskalah" is rather obscure and certainly not known to the great majority of readers, who would be much better served by the use of the English-language translation. While it might perhaps be acceptable to retain that name for the main article -- I don't have a firm opinion on that question -- it is most assuredly NOT appropriate for the name of a category, as categories are not accompanied by explanatory text and thus require the use of terms that are clear and easily understood, to the greatest extent possible. Since we DO have an exact equivalent in English, this should be an easy decision. I further note that the Commons Category also uses the term "Jewish Enlightenment". Notified Category creator using ((cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While that is indeed the general practice, it's NOT an absolute requirement, and there are occasional exceptions. As I said, I am not dead set against leaving the article at its current name. But the only reason that would even be possible is because we do have a redirect from Jewish Enlightenment, which now has a full complement of categories (that I added) to ensure that readers who aren't familiar with the term "Haskalah" will nonetheless find the article properly listed in those categories. But categories don't have the full equivalent in tems of redirects, so they are always required to have names that are clearly understood by all readers. There's no guarantee that the article would even be renamed if I made such a proposal. But that would not relieve us of the obligation to rename this category, so it seems to me that we should proceed with renaming, regardless of whether the article is ever renamed. Cgingold (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For crying out loud, Peter... you've completely reversed things. We're NOT talking about the name of the article -- we're talking about the proper name for the category. As I pointed out above, articles can have redirects -- but categories do not have redirects. And THAT is precisely why the category name needs to use plain English. Please have another go at this and reconsider what you wrote. Thanks. Cgingold (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually no, categories can be redirects. Plus, the general rule is to in almost all cases match article and category names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad, JPL -- I should have said "true redirects" [or perhaps "full-blown redirects"]. The thing is, there's a crucial difference between category redirects and those for articles. The wonderful thing about article redirects is that -- unlike category redirects -- they can have their own categories -- and those categories show up in other categories, just like those for the actual articles. Which is precisely why it would not be a real problem to leave the article at its current name: the great majority of readers who are unfamiliar with the term "Haskalah" will nonetheless see that there is, in fact, an article about the Jewish Enlightenment. But the only category name they will see is that for Category:Haskalah, which of course means nothing to most people. And THAT is why the category name needs to be changed to the English equivalent, regardless of how the article is named. Cgingold (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cgingold (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that it would be a good idea to address this issue explicitly in the guideline -- perhaps after this one goes thru (assuming it does). What do you think? Cgingold (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need - the guideline says "Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article. Examples: "Law", "Civilization", "George W. Bush"." - note the "normally" - so it's not ALWAYS WITHOUT EXCEPTION. I do think exceptions are rare, but this could be one of them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why, thank you for your kind words, Alansohn. As it happens, I am a member of WikiProject Jewish History -- and yet this particular term was not familiar to me. Why should you "give a crap"?? For starters, how about because maybe you might want general readers -- who don't happen to be specialists in Jewish History -- to have the opportunity to learn something of great value that would otherwise go right past them? I should think that would be something you would actually care about. As I clearly stated above, I don't have a problem with the article retaining its current name -- and I have never had any intention of asking for a name change. The redirect from Jewish Enlightenment is entirely adequate, since it now has a full complement of categories. But the Category is another matter entirely, and I am glad to see that this proposal is gaining support from other editors who comprehend why it is essential for categories to use terms that are understood by the average reader whenever possible. Cgingold (talk) 05:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad you were finally able to find the time to take part in this discussion, BHG. The findings you bring to our attention, though interesting, are not particularly surprising. However, they are of much greater importance in the context of choosing the right name for the article, and no doubt buttress the case for keeping the article at its current name. But please don't lose sight of the fact that I am not contesting the name of the article, only that of the category, which needs to take other crucial factors into consideration. In other words, this info doesn't really alter the "equation" when it comes to the choice of names for the category. It seems to me that making sure that our category system has maximum usefulness/usability for the average reader is of paramount importance -- which is why the other factors I've outlined here -- most crucially, the lack of "true/full-blown" redirects-with-categories for Categories -- should take precedence in this situation. So I hope you'll reconsider your tentative conclusion. Cgingold (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reconsidered it, but I haven't changed my mind. There are several reasons for this.
  1. I support the basic tenet that category names should align with article names. Unlike some editors, I support some exceptions to that principle; but I need very good reason to deviate from it.
  2. The word "Haskalah" is not simply Jewish in-house jargon. It has much wider currency.
  3. "Haskalah" is unambiguous, whereas "Jewish enlightenment" can be read as referring to enlightenment (spiritual), which is something completely different. So your proposed rename would reduce obscurity at the price of introducing ambiguity, and that's too high a price. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your additional explanation, BHG -- much appreciated. On your 2nd point, when you say that Haskalah "has much wider currency", what are you referring to? Among whom?? Scholars of Jewish history, whether Jewish or Gentile? That's a rather small group, don't you think? Who else do you have in mind? Certainly NOT the general public, i.e. the average Wikipedia reader. It seems to me that we have an overriding responsiblity to present things in such a way as to increase the size of the pool of potential readers, rather than limiting it to those who already have specialized knowledge.
As to point #3 - to begin with, "Jewish enlightenment" (as you typed it) is NOT the same as "Jewish Enlightenment", which clearly denotes a proper name. The former would be ambiguous, while the latter is in line with a whole array of other subcategories that use the properly capitalized term in their names. Moreover, seen in context -- i.e. as a subcategory listed within its various parent cats -- there is even less likelihood that it would be misconstrued in the way you suggest, BHG. Cgingold (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS - It occurs to me that the Hebrew word Haskalah translates literally to "THE Enlightenment" (Ha=The + Skalah=Enlightenment). So it would therefore be entirely valid to use the term "The Jewish Enlightenment", thereby completely eliminating any possibility of being misconstrued. Cgingold (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That argument is all well and good for the name of the article, but as I've endeavored to explain as clearly as possible -- NOT for the category. I really must ask -- in all sincerity -- have you actually read the entire discussion, Roscelese? Cgingold (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully, I would like to ask why you disagree, Roscelese, when I've explained at great length precisely why it is so important to choose a name for the category that would actually mean something to the general public. When you say, "there is no call to favor a minority usage here", the implied majority is people who have specialized knowledge of Jewish history. Why would you want to limit knowledge of this subject to those who are already aware of it, rather than helping to make it available to a wider group? Surely that runs contrary to the mission of Wikipedia. I do hope you will reconsider. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2013 (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.
More