Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 8



Category:Musicals by John Barry

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Musicals by John Barry to Category:Musicals by John Barry (composer)
 * Propose renaming Category:Albums arranged by John Barry to Category:Albums arranged by John Barry (composer) (added on relisting)


 * Nominator's rationale: John Barry (composer). Fuddle (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Adding related category to nomination
 * Comment has any other John Barry composed a musical? If not, this is not ambiguous. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose No ambiguity. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename to match Category:John Barry (composer) albums, Category:John Barry (composer) soundtracks, Category:Films scored by John Barry (composer), Category:Albums conducted by John Barry (composer), Category:Songs with music by John Barry (composer). – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename per John Barry (composer), Category:Works by John Barry (composer) and per any number of similar cfds. Oculi (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Disclosure: I only just created Category:Works by John Barry (composer). – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename per C2D. No need for debate here. If editors don't like C2D then that is where the argument should be. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename per . Daask (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2020 (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.

Template:Lumbini-geo-stub

 * 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. MER-C 13:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting


 * Nominator's rationale: The template page says that it has been proposed for deletion since May 14, but the discussion it points to was about the category proper, not the stub template. The category that it populated has been deleted. The template is thus showing up at Category:Stub message templates needing attention since it no longer populates a category. Delete this template, as it is broken, obsolete, and possibly should have already been deleted. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 19:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - yeah, this seems to have been missed somehiw. you've been restubbing these - can this one go? Grutness...  wha?   03:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, as I believe that's an omelet on my face. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 05:13, 9 June 2020 (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.

Category:Causes of the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests

 * 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 Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Causes of the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests to Category:Causes of the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests
 * Nominator's rationale: Main page was renamed back to the 2019-20 format and a no-consensus close of an RM Starzoner (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. KingSkyLord (talk &#124; contribs) 23:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Dimadick (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Daask (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2020 (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.

Category:Timeline of the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Timeline of the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests to Category:Timeline of the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests
 * Nominator's rationale: This is a suggestion to rename to Category:Timeline of the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests as the main article was renamed to 2019-20 Starzoner (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. KingSkyLord (talk &#124; contribs) 23:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Daask (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2020 (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.

Category:Reactions to the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Reactions to the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests to Category:Reactions_to_the_2019–20_Hong_Kong_protests
 * Nominator's rationale: to match main page Starzoner (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. KingSkyLord (talk &#124; contribs) 23:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Daask (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2020 (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.

Category:Airline fleets

 * 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) 01:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Airline fleets to Category:Lists of aircraft by operator
 * Nominator's rationale: As far as I can tell, both categories have the same scope and currently have a large intersection. I think merging to Category:Lists of aircraft by operator is preferable because the scope is potentially slightly larger. Pichpich (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. SportingFlyer  T · C  02:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. ֆօʍɛɮօɖʏǟռʏɮօɖʏ05 (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Daask (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2020 (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.

Category:Basketball players at the 2019 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four

 * 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.

- basketball players at the 1939 ncaa men's division i final four AND category - basketball players at the 2011 ncaa women's division i final four and basketball players at the 1994 ncaa women's division i final four
 * The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting basketball players at the 2019 ncaa men's division i final four
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF, and WP:TRIVIALCAT. Appearing in a certain portion of an amateur tournament is not defining. In not a single article examined did simply appearing in the Final Four appear in the introduction to an article and nor should it. Appearing in the Final Four does not make one notable. Let's look at what the Final Four really is. The Final Four is the final portion of a national championship tournament. Players appear in, at most, two games in this portion of the tournament which occurs at the end of a 30+ game schedule. For a professional basketball player, it is "wholly peripheral to the topic's notability." College basketball players are not inherently notable. An individual award, such being named the NCAA Basketball Tournament Most Outstanding Player, is both defining and sometimes mentioned in the article lead, but this is an award for their performance in the whole tournament. It is an individual award, which is different than one's team making a certain portion of a tournament. Lastly, I would also argue that WP:PERFCAT applies here, though this notion is disputed. Athletes are performers, especially at the top levels of amateur and professional sports. That is why millions of people watch them perform. See here for the previous discussion which ended without consensus. I randomly selected the 1955 men's category and 2019 women's category and found that 4/10 articles on men and 14/18 for women did not even mention their appearance in the final four outside of the category, never mind in the introductory sentence. User:Namiba 11:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Question It seems that there are many more categories that you nominated than what you have listed here. See pages that link here Is that your intention?—Bagumba (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think Namiba should do the work to nominate all of the categories for men and women so we can come to one consensus for the group. Nothing would fundamentally change year to year regarding the notability of the categories. Rikster2 (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not being a CfD regular, is there an easy way to just nominate a parent cat like Category:NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament Final Four players by year and all its children?—Bagumba (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have nominated and tagged them all and used the dash above. There are approximately 100 categories tagged and I felt that it was unnecessary to list all of them here. The rationale is the same for each category and the result should be the same for each as well.--User:Namiba 14:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. The dash was subtle and not obvious. You might want to make a special note for the closer.—Bagumba (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, as I mentioned before I think all of the Final Four categories should be considered together so that a call can be made once and for all. Rikster2 (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep – OK, a lot to unpack here. I would ask that anyone taking part in the discussion to please familiarize themselves with American college basketball (if not already familiar). Please no reasons like "a school event isn't notable" or "players aren't known for amateur achievements." College basketball is covered at the same level that professional leagues are in the US, and moreso than pro leagues in some countries. A little quick research outside of Wikipedia about it and the role of the Final Four will help you in the discussion. OK, so I think I need to make a few points:
 * 1) The Final Four is the defining event for college basketball, not just the NCAA tournament. 375+ teams play the college season, 68 make the tournament and 4 (obviously) make the Final Four, which is played in a sold-out football stadium converted to basketball because basketball arenas can't accommodate the crowd size. The Final Four is the "unit" that is the signature sport appearance, which is why we have lists like this and this and this and articles like this and this and this. To also underscore the visibility of the event, Hall of Famer Eddie Sutton's three Final Fours are prominently featured in every obituary (NY Times example). Note that this is all context to just illustrate that the Final Four as a notable and defining achievement, not just a national championship (which is the end result). I would also point out that three of the four 2019 participants published commemorative books about their Final Four seasons (Michigan State, Texas Tech and Virginia – though UVA won the title so you can ignore that if you want). Note that this is all just meant to establish that the Final Four as an event is well-established as an achievement in college basketball and a destination event. It isn't just the last three games of the season.
 * 2) Playing in a Final Four is absolutely defining for players. I would point out that each category does not need to be the most defining or singularly defining aspect of a career (though for some players it is). Otherwise we wouldn't feel the need to add Abraham Lincoln to Category:Illinois lawyers – the vast majority of Illinois lawyers are not notable and Lincoln is not notable specifically for being an Illinois lawyer. Relatively recent obituaries for people like Gale McArthur, Terry Fair and Eric Anderson and Jim McDaniels all prominently mention their Final Four appearances (none won the championship).
 * 3) I would point out that the NCAA Basketball Tournament Most Outstanding Player mentions is also called the NCAA Final Four Most Outstanding Player and is not for their performance in the entire tournament as namiba suggests, but for the Final Four only. See pages 25-26 here.
 * 4) Given all this, I do not believe this violates WP:NONDEF or WP:TRIVIALCAT at all.
 * 5) As for WP:PERFCAT, that guideline doesn't address sport at all, and in fact we have hundreds of categories of athletes (and coaches) by competition. I am not comfortable with the idea that this competition "unit" fails that while many, many others do not. If you want to make the case that this event isn't defining or notable for players then make that case, but that guideline has existed for years and has never included sportspeople (despite sportspeople being the largest biography category, I believe) so there is no precedent to apply it here and it feels like a reach to try.
 * To address some of the points, WP:OC states that "not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category." Simply being mentioned in an article does not mean we need a category for it. As for WP:NONDEF, it clearly states that "a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject." Would we EVER state in the introduction to a basketball player's biography that "X was a participant in the X NCAA men's final four"? No, that would be ludicrous. Might we say "Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer"? Yes, that was one of the defining characteristics. Would it be "appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article"? Probably not in the vast majority of cases. Participating in the Final Four is rarely if ever mentioned in the lead of any basketball biography.--User:Namiba 14:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * First, you need to not take the current state of Wikipedia articles as some sort of evidence. I spent a decent chunk of time yesterday rewriting leads (among other things) and by and large they aren't great for a lot of sports figures (example - Ed Pinckney's lead is literally "Edward Lewis Pinckney (born March 27, 1963) is a retired American basketball player"). That a player led their team to a Final Four or multiple Final Fours is absolutely a significant detail and leads should include a summation of college career. Obituaries tend to be where individuals' lives are summarized and almost all obits will cover a Final Four appearance because it is a significant achievement for a team and those on it - I would encourage you to go read the NY Times obit for Jim McDaniels that I linked as a great example. this effectively national newspaper mentions his leading WKU to a final four in the headline - and McDaniels had a significant NBA/ABA career. You absolutely don't have to mention Abe Lincoln was a lawyer in the opening paragraph. That is pretty clearly secondary to all of the things he achieved as President, the Douglas debates, emancipation, etc. Further, your argument that all college players are not inherently notable is true of Illinois lawyers as well. But if you make the case that it is important to Lincoln, does it matter that Illinois lawyers aren't inherently notable? It doesn't, so strike that argument. Rikster2 (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per nom - a quick check shows these players are not consistently defined by their final four appearance, even though it will be the highlight of the career for some non-professional players. SportingFlyer  T · C  14:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the 2019 group? Because I see players like Bryce Brown, Matt Mooney and Nick Ward where the Final Four appearance is specifically mentioned even though these articles are primarily about other things. Though I would say the final four becomes more prominent as it becomes a historical event, like the obituaries I named above. Rikster2 (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the group generally. We do not typically have categories for players who appear in specific phases of competitions, this is currently the exception, and as I've noted while this may be the defining moment for some players, if you go back 20 years most of these players are notable for other reasons. I might be okay with a blanket category of "NCAA men's basketball championship-winning players" similar to what we have with the FIFA World Cup, but this is too much, and arguably too specific. SportingFlyer  T · C  14:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There are also categories for participants in each FIFA World Cup by year, so let's not pretend the championship-winning player category is the only one concerning the Word Cup. But the "unit" shouldn't be determined by Wikipedia, it should be determined by sources. And there is a ton of evidence that Final Four appearances are significant and notable (some of which I have posted). Rikster2 (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No one is arguing that it might be personally significant for a player to appear in the final games of his or her college basketball tournament. What is being argued is whether appearing in said games is defining, which you still have not proven.--User:Namiba 15:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Being in the lead of an obituary is pretty damn defining, so yes I think I have demonstrated this. Rikster2 (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I am persuaded by Rikster2's arguments. I would argue that appearing in the final four is defining for many basketball players.— EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) 14:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears as if we've already voted to delete these categories as a community: Category:Basketball players at the 2015 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four. The arguments presented there were performer by performance, overcategorisation, and WP:PERFCAT concerns. This CfD brings up the fact the category is also not a defining category - for instance, for the players in the 2019 category, Ty Jerome, Kihei Clark, Jared Harper, or Aaron Henry (basketball) don't mention the final four appearance at all much less having it be definitional. Jarrett Culver, Bryce Brown (basketball), Mamadi Diakite, Samir Doughty, and Kyle Guy all mention the Final Four appearance briefly, mostly because they played notable roles in the semifinal matchup, which is what the "Final Four" means (a synonym for national semifinals.) The fact the Final Four was mentioned in an obituary does not make the entire category defining. Furthermore, we do not have categories for individual professional seasons, typically just the most major of tournaments. It looks like the error here was the fact the remaining categories were not put up for deletion in 2016 after the 2015 category was deleted, even though the nominator said they would. 2015 of course was recreated at some point because it was a missing category in what appeared to be a valid series. These all need to be deleted for multiple different reasons. SportingFlyer  T · C  02:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That previous CfD that you linked was a poor decision by the closing admin (who was later stripped of his admin authority). I would encourage any closing admin for this discussion to evaluate it on its merits in that light. All of the “delete” votes were solely focused on PERFCAT and I would still maintain that is NEVER used for sports categories, as evidenced by the hundreds that exist. Rikster2 (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The admin was not stripped for any reason related to the ability to close discussions, and there are multiple reasons why these should be deleted. I understand you created these and you like these, but there was nothing wrong with the close. Also, there are many definitional sports-related categories, but there are none related to reaching a specific stage of a competition, much less a competition in a specific year (Olympic medalists come close, but that's not a participation medal), which is why this is a potential PERFCAT issue - Asia Series participants was deleted on PERFCAT grounds awhile back, so the "never" isn't technically true, but again that's just one of many reasons why these cats don't work. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no need for you to take an insulting tone (“I understand you created these and you like these” - should I have started this response by saying “I understand you don’t like people disagreeing with you and are kind of sensitive ... ?”). I am sorry, it is not appropriate to have hundreds of categories exist where athletes are “performers by performance” for things like international competitions and the like but PERFCAT is never invoked but to whip it out now because it’s a convenient reason that sort of, kind of fits (if you squint hard enough). As I said, the guideline has NEVER applied to athletes and has NEVER mentioned athletes. It is clearly talking about artistic performances. If you want to argue that category by stage of an athletic competition is not appropriate somehow, then great (or one of the other arguments). But it is not appropriate for PERFCAT to suddenly be all about sports when we as a community NEVER apply it to sport categories otherwise. Add - if PERFCAT was used to justify deletion of categories of Asia Series then link the discussion so we can all be privy to the arguments. Rikster2 (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The equivalent of these categories exist in no other sports competition. We don't have or  because appearing in a specific portion of a tournament is overwhelmingly trivial. That is why it is not even mentioned in so many existing Wikipedia articles and rarely if ever featured.--User:Namiba 12:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And yet, it is commonly prominently featured in obituaries (as I have shown). As I said, you shouldn't put too much stock in the present state of Wikipedia articles, many of which have poor leads. I could go out to the articles of Jarrett Culver, Matt Mooney and Tariq Owens right now and add to the leads "____ led Texas Tech to the their first Final Four appearance in program history" and this would be wholly appropriate. You keep acting like the Final Four is some arbitrary cutoff point. It isn't, it's one of the top sporting events in the US (as the Final Four). Rikster2 (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't insulting you - I was commenting on the fact you put down a validly closed previous deletion discussion because the closer was subsequently banned. You also continue to ignore the fact we don't typically classify players in categories based on competitions for anything other than either winning or participating in the entirety of the tournament, and it's never broken out by year. We don't even have AFL Grand Finalists, FA Cup Winners, Premier League Champions, NBA Champions, or World Series Champions categories. The exceptions, as far as I can tell, are the World Cup, the Stanley Cup, the Super Bowl, and the Champions League. For the Asia series discussion, see here. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure you were insulting me. Re-read what I quoted from you. Don’t do it again now by trying to insult my intelligence. The only clarification I will make is that you are incorrect that “it is never broken out by year.” See here and here and here. The proliferation of these categories is precisely why trying to use PERFCAT in these arguments is improper. It’s being selectively used for some but not all (or even most) categories of athletes as “performers by performance.” BTW - just read that “discussion” on the Asia Series. One participant other than the nominator. Real solid consensus there, but that always seems to be the case when decisions on athletes comes down to PERFCAT. Rikster2 (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to believe that, fine; if you want to do anything about it, take it to ANI, but at no point was I insulting you. All of the competitions you linked to are quadrennial and list participation in the event as a whole, not just a subset of the competition. In any case, we've spilled a lot of text here, it's still a non-defining overcategorisation, it's been identified as such before but only one category was deleted and not all of them due to a technicality, and neither of us are going to change each other's minds, so I'm unfollowing this discussion. SportingFlyer  T · C  04:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with Rikster2 arguments. Dammit_steve (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and listify, if the list does not already exist. Sure it is important in the life of these players, but this is still not WP:DEFINING. If a player's main claim to fame was to have appeared in one of these tournaments, they would probably not be eligible to have a Wikipedia article anyway. This is what roster articles are for. I suggest reading Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Place Clichy (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment “If a player's main claim to fame was to have appeared in one of these tournaments, they would probably not be eligible to have a Wikipedia article anyway.” This is a personal assumption on your part, not a fact and it is incorrect. College players meet GNG based on their coverage in reliable, independent sources and these sources cover players who lead their teams to the pinnacle of the sport. As I have said, this is defining for a large number of players. There is no requirement that it is the most defining aspect of every player who does it. It is not necessarily defining for players like Dwyane Wade or Billy Donovan who have gone on to compile significant lists of achievements (though I’d argue both could have met GNG on the basis of the coverage associated with their Final Four appearance even if their careers had ended the day after), but it most certainly does for Eric Anderson or Terry Fair, as demonstrated by this being in the lead of their obituaries. Rikster2 (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rikster2's reasoning and arguments. Playing in the Final Four is a career-defining achievement for basketball players. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2020 (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.

Category:Hebrew names of Jewish holy days

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Hebrew names of Jewish holy days to Category:Jewish holy days
 * Nominator's rationale: merge, the fact that (most) Jewish holy days have a Hebrew name is too obvious to make a separate category for it. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge, but also manually merge to Category:Hebrew words and phrases if not in the sub-cat Category:Hebrew words and phrases in the Hebrew Bible. (Skip the current parent Category:Hebrew-language names which is intended for human names.) – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That is very reasonable. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "reasonable" about the suggestion because Jewish holidays as they are named in Hebrew are an important sub-category all of their own. IZAK (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please explain why this sub-cat is "important" in terms of Wikipedia policy e.g. WP:OCAT. of course also has a Hebrew name, but is excluded from this category simply because in English Wikipedia the well-known English name Passover is used to name the article and category; I have just added the redirect Pesach which was missing. It's something of a linguistic accident as to whether article/category pages use English or Hebrew names – e.g. Sabbath/Shabbat, Yom Kippur/Day of Atonement – so this sub-cat seems WP:NONDEFINING. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Elementary my dear Watson, the Hebrew names are important because those are the names that Jews and Judaism use for their Holidays. A Jew does not say "Happy Sabbath" but Shabbat Shalom or "Good Shabbos" and the idea of an encyclopedia is to teach and inform, as much as possible, as to how key concepts and subjects are named in the original especially if they are still in current use among many Jews and certainly in Israel. This is done all over WP, for example, there are many articles with ARABIC titles such as Eid al-Adha and not "Festival of the Sacrifice" or Eid al-Fitr and not "Festival of Breaking the Fast" see Category:Islamic terminology (or maybe I should create redirects and ask for merges using yours and User:Marcocapelle's faulty logic??) Therefore, leave matters where they are because there are many WP:NOTABLE Jewish festivals with Hebrew names and they are fully deserving a category of their own. IZAK (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Um Fayenatic london, NOT all Hebrew names of Jewish festivals appear in the Hebrew Bible, such as Rosh Hashana, Lag BaOmer, Simchat Torah and a few more due to those festivals being named by the rabbis of the Talmud, the Oral Torah of Judaism. IZAK (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and that is why I suggested a double manual merge also to Category:Hebrew words and phrases only for those very pages which are not in the Bible sub-cat. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In other words you just want to deprive Category:Hebrew names of Jewish holy days of their uniqueness, by just turning them in mere "words and phrases"? IZAK (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * KEEP the nominator is wrong, because (1) he cites no violations of WP policies, and (2) there is NOTHING "obvious" about Hebrew language names being equal to English names. (3) The current set-up is perfect with Category:Hebrew names of Jewish holy days being part of two parent categories: Category:Hebrew words and phrases and Category:Jewish holy days. (4) The same is true for other languages on WP such as Category:Arabic names task force articles, Category:Chinese-language entertainment articles by importance (many like this!), Japanese names on the moon craters (list), etc etc etc, (5) so what does the nominator have against Hebrew names of Jewish holidays?! Please drop this nomination ASAP! IZAK (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 18:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)  IZAK (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, per IZAK's argument. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply. (5) I have nothing against against Hebrew names of Jewish holidays, what happened to WP:AGF? (1) Both WP:NONDEF and WP:OVERLAPCAT apply, the scope of the two categories is largely overlapping and hardly anyone will primarily refer to a Jewish holy day as a Hebrew-language word, again because that is too obvious. It is not obvious by necessity, but it is obvious in practice, because Jewish holy days are generally not translated in English. Furthermore (4) is a matter of WP:OSE. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * so are you saying that if a subject or topic or article or category is not in English then it is not WP:NOTABLE because only a small handful of people understand or use Hebrew, or Dutch, or Finnish etc etc etc?? What your argument essentially boils down to is simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT/I just don't like it and as you know, having a peeve doth not an argument make. IZAK (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not claimed anything about notability. Nor do I understand why it matters that a small handful of people understand or use Hebrew or Dutch or Finnish. This is just about English language that generally leaves Jewish holy days untranslated. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per IZAK and also because Christians have adopted some of the Jewish holidays and made them their own. Thus they would call it Passover, not Pesach, and of course Sabbath, not Shabbat. As IZAK states, the purpose of the encyclopedia is to educate, and there is nothing wrong with having this sub-category of Category:Jewish holy days. Yoninah (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Passover is not in the category that we are discussing, so how does the existance of the category educate people that this is not a Hebrew term? Besides the article starts with:
 * Passover or Pesach (Hebrew: Pesah)
 * so that this educational aspect is well-covered anyway, without making use of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, per argument given by IZAK.Davidbena (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as nominated plus additional manual merge to Category:Hebrew words and phrases per above. There is no info loss by doing this. Users navigating from different wikis or using searches in other languages will be "educated" by being directed to the correct English-language page of this English variant of wiki. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're kidding, right?! "this English variant of wiki" is more hospitable and open-minded to ALL languages in their original contexts, and not as chauvinistic, than you make it out to be, just see these examples: Category:Sharia legal terminology (all from the Arabic), Category:Catholic Church legal terminology (all in Latin), Category:Russian-language designations of territorial entities, Category:French legal terminology, Category:Spanish slang, Category:Italian opera terminology, Category:Japanese Buddhist terminology, etc etc etc, so much for English jingoism on WP. So give us a break and please see that there is nothing wrong with keeping Category:Hebrew names of Jewish holy days which is just another way of saying the Jewish way of calling their own holidays as in their religion of Judaism. IZAK (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem to misunderstand the purpose of the category. This is not about a Jewish way of naming these holy days, but it is about the English-language way of referring to these holy days. But then, in this case it does not discriminate, because nearly all these holy days keep their Hebrew name in the English language. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * in whose book? "Scholarly" works do their best to assign secular names to the holidays—e.g. The Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot), Pentecost (Shavuot), the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Right here in en.wp, in accordance with what reliable sources use for any particular holy day. Sukkot should be in this category because Sukkot has been identified as the common name in English and is also tbe Hebrew name. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. This avoids a stilted renaming all the articles to English. In English, I encounter both translated and Hebrew names of the holidays, both in regular conversation and published works. In the name of ease of discovery, whichever name is most common seems the proper article title. For example, I've never heard a Jew say "Feast of Tabernacles" or "Festival of Booths" without a wry grin, when "Sukkos" or "Sukkot" is easier and familiar. On the other hand, "Passover" is about as common as "Pesach," even within many observant Jewish circles. Other holidays have no common English name at all, like Chanukah and Purim. ("Festival of Lights" is not a literal translation of "Chanukah"; that would be "Dedication." "Purim"/"Lots [as in Lottery]" has no common English term at all.) Current article titles consistently use one of the most commonly-used terms which vary between English and Hebrew, just like the literature       per WP:COMMONNAME. This in turn makes a Hebrew naming category especially valuable, since it collects useful information in one place, which would normally be tedious or hard to collect. As an added bonus, the redirects like "Festival of Tabernacles" are formatted in italics, which automatically shows which terms are not preferred. Additionally, I find the pattern of similar categories that IZAK listed for other languages convincing, that we aren't going against the grain. Musashiaharon (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Avoiding a stilted renaming of the articles to English would only be effective if there would be more traffic on the category page than on e.g. the Sukkot article, which obviously is very unlikely. Besides a bold renaming will never sustain so that a WP:RM would take place with an even broader exposure. Besides with the addition of User:Fayenatic london the articles stay in Category:Hebrew words and phrases so if you want you can still use that category for the particular purpose you described. By the way, this is just my personal curiosity, have there been any attempts to rename any of these articles? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * IMHO, IZAK has not provided any basis on which the category is WP:DEFINING for its member pages and sub-cats. Marcocapelle has offered one, namely that these are Jewish holidays which are known mainly by Hebrew names in English. Musashiaharon has actually provided evidence which goes some way in support of that. Well, if that was the definition of the category, then I should not have added the redirect Pesach into it. Should the category be renamed to "Jewish holy days known by Hebrew names in English"? – probably not.
 * Despite the lack of rationale by the opposers, it seems unlikely that there will be consensus for the category to be merged. I suggest as a fallback that sub-cats should be moved out of it, leaving only articles and the redirect Pesach. It should also be moved up from "names" to "words and phrases". – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If the discussion is going to closed as no consensus, I support both these changes. But I am also still counting on the possibility that the closer of this discussion will weigh arguments in the spirit of WP:NOTVOTE. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow! Now that your proposal is going down the drain, you want to turn WP policies on their head and just get your way because you are angry! Pity! IZAK (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Usefulness serves as a justification for a Category's existence. The reader should be availed of the opportunity to peruse the Category Category:Hebrew names of Jewish holy days. The initiative here is to create compactness. But that initiative is at odds with usefulness. The reader comes first. Categories serve navigational purposes. Clearly there can be concern on the part of readers to peruse specifically Category:Hebrew names of Jewish holy days. Bus stop (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, not usefulness but definingness serves as a justification for a category's existence, per WP:DEFINING. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would "definingness" take precedence over "usefulness", ? I'm certainly not finding specifically that at WP:DEFINING. Perhaps you can explain further. Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Definingness is the central concept of the category system, see Categorization. Categories based on non-defining characteristics (like this one) are, very literally, the prime example of overcategorization, see Overcategorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Distinct English and Hebrew names for Jewish holidays are used in various contexts in the English-speaking world, and both categories are useful for classifying and sorting these names. -- Chefallen (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That may be the case in the English-speaking world in general, but here in en.wp we almost exclusively use the Hebrew names, which is what the discussion is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom; if not merged, re-parent under the proposed target. This is an amalgam of things where the Hebrew name is the same as the English one - most English sources call "Purim" "Purim", and Independence Day (Israel) doesn't seem to be a Jewish holiday but a secular one, and is certain in the English language - presumably doesn't even belong in this category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Only Hebrew-named transliterated categories and names are in Category:Hebrew names of Jewish holy days, so what are you going on about? IZAK (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * but Independence Day (Israel) is in there, which is neither a Jewish holy day nor transliterated from Hebrew. It's just an English name. Since you are willing to distort truth to advocate your position, I don't think it worthy to address the rest of your rant. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't even notice it and I removed it . So now everything is consistent within the category. Any time a transliterated Hebrew name for a festival is used anywhere on WP it will go into the category. It is actually very simple! Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as nominated plus additional manual merge to Category:Hebrew words and phrases per above. Category:Japanese companies with Japanese names or Category:Polish foods with Polish names would both have the same issues: all of those things have a name in their native language but only some are translated for English speakers. This is approaching WP:SHAREDNAME. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge, because I interpret Categorization to mean that categories should be based on article topics rather than article titles. Discussion on that interpretation here. Daask (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Izak, this is useful to the reader and should be kept. I am not sure why we have such a bureaucracy over cats, when it's clear that Jewish holidays can be in English and Hebrew and having these categories would be beneficial to the reader. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge absolutely non-defining. Daask is also correct that categorization is based on content rather than title, which can change all the time due to RM and similar. buidhe</b> 08:21, 21 June 2020 (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.