< June 7 June 9 >

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)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: John Barry (composer). Fuddle (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding related category to nomination
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 22:12, 8 June 2020 (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.

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)[reply]
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.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:01, 8 June 2020 (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: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)[reply]
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)[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: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)[reply]
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)[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: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)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to match main page Starzoner (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2020 (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: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)[reply]
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)[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: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.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Basketball players at the 2019 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    - Category:Basketball players at the 1939 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) AND Category:Basketball players at the 2019 NCAA Division I Women's Final Four (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Category:Basketball players at the 2011 NCAA Women's Division I Final Four (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Category:Basketball players at the 1994 NCAA Women's Division I Final Four (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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. <added after nomination> 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Namiba: 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)[reply]
  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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The equivalent of these categories exist in no other sports competition. We don't have Category:American football players in AFC championship games or Category:World Series participants 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • That is very reasonable. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle:@Fayenatic london: 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)[reply]
      • Please explain why this sub-cat is "important" in terms of Wikipedia policy e.g. WP:OCAT. Category:Passover 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 London 20:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Fayenatic london: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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 London 12:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: 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)[reply]
  • Why would "definingness" take precedence over "usefulness", Marcocapelle? I'm certainly not finding specifically that at WP:DEFINING. Perhaps you can explain further. Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[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.
  1. ^ The Table of Contents from the Artscroll Siddur mixes English and Hebrew based on what they considered most familiar to their audience. English: "Eve of Sabbath (and Festivals)." Hebrew: "Pesach," "Shavuos," "Succos." Mixed: "Sabbath-Rosh Chodesh."
  2. ^ The table of contents for the Lubavitch prayer book, or Siddur Tehillat Hashem: English: "Order of the Passover Offering." Hebrew: "Shabbat and Festivals," "Rosh Chodesh," "Musaf for Festivals and Chol Hamoed," and "Sukkot/Shemini Atzeret/Simchat Torah."
  3. ^ R. Avrohom Davis's translation of Kitzur Shulchan Aruch is a more technical work of everyday Jewish laws and customs. Again, in the Table of Contents: Hebrew: "Various Laws Concerning Pesach," "Laws of Bathing (on Shabbos)," Mixed: "Laws of Chol Hamoed (Intermediate Days of a Yom Tov)."
  4. ^ The Artscroll Stone Edition Chumash contains one of the only topical verse indices of any Jewish edition of the Five Books of Moses. English: "Sabbath." Hebrew: "Passover; see Pesach," a group entry under "Festival" that drills down to "of Succos."
  5. ^ Songs of Our People, edited by Samuel Bugatch and published in 1961, was targeted at Yiddish- and English-speaking olim to Israel. From its English index: English: "Sabbath Songs." Hebrew: "Pesach-songs," "Shevuoth-songs," "Succoth-songs."
  6. ^ R. Hayim Helevy Donin's To Be a Jew is a beginner's guide to the Jewish faith. From its Table of Contents: English: "The Sabbath Day," "Passover." Hebrew: "Shavuot," "Succot."
  7. ^ Phyllis Goldstein's A Convenient Hatred: The History of Antisemitism was written for the not-necessarily-Jewish academic. "Many of them also made the long, often dangerous journey to Jerusalem for Passover, Shavuot, or Sukkot—the great pilgrimage festivals of ancient Judaism." (15) "Jews' insistence on observing their Sabbath was a sign of laziness or even religious absurdity." (16)
  8. ^ The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source Book by Norman Stillman is also written for an academic, mostly non-Jewish audience. "...[T]he Koran frequently mentions such typical Jewish institutions and the Sabbath, kashrut, and the Torah." (4) "...His experimentations with certain Jewish pietist practices such as the fast of Yom Kippur[...] made no impression upon these rancorous opponents." (11) "The local Christians, supported by the French Consul Ratti-Menton, accused the Jews of having murdered the two men in order to obtain their blood for the coming Passover." (105)
More