Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 22 August 24 >

August 23[edit]

Category:21st-century American male actors[edit]

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]
  • Oppose The general trend is to use "male actors" not just "actors". Actors is unclear if it is gender specific or not. We have with categories such as Category:American male child actors and Category:American male stage actors clearly decided we need to go to using male. A look out how people actually add to these categories shows that people often will add females to the general actor category (even when the articles refer to them as actresses), and so the best way to deal with this is to have the clearly named category. We should be clear we are splitting by gender in those cases that we do so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I concur that the general trend of late is to use explicitly gendered categories for both male and female, rather than presuming that the term "actors" equates to "male actors". Cgingold (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • CFD explicitly established a consensus some time ago that male actors should be recategorized as "male actors" rather than just "actors", because if that isn't done then the separate categories for Category:Actresses can't exist without violating WP:CATGRS' proscriptions against gender ghettos. (A female-specific subcategory cannot be a subcategory of a male-specific one, because that implies that women are a subcategory of men rather than both women and men being subcategories of humanity — so in a case like "actors", where there is no other term that can be the gender-neutral parent of the female-specific category, either the men get bumped down to "male actors" instead of just "actors" or the women can't be "actresses" at all.) Accordingly, while not all of the relevant articles have actually been refiled yet, it is indeed the consensus position that categorizing male actors as "male actors", not just "actors", is the direction that we're going in now. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 25 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]
  • Oppose. A long series of well-attended CFDs at the end of 2012 established that:
  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]
    • For what it is worth, it seems the previous discussion was so focused on point 1, that point 2 was never really aired. I would say in the end we came to favor "Male actors", but the choice of "actresses" vs. "female actors" vs. "women actors" has never been directly discussed. Although the very fact that "actress" allows us to avoid debating "female actor" vs. "woman actor" helps. It also allows us to avoid discussiong "girl actors" vs. "female child actors".John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 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[edit]

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[edit]

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]
  • Keep. Not sure if there is a policy on this type of thing, but people from cities are due to grow with time. I'd prefer to see a "people from" every city in time.Hoops gza (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Without any prejudice against recreating if we can find at least 5 categories. It is much more useful to group small numbers of people by county then into one person by place categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Without any prejudice against recreating if we can find at least 5 articles to place in the category. South Pittsburg, Tennessee is not a tiny place (pop ~3,000), so the category may expand, but it looks unlikely to do so soon, and in the meantime its small size makes it an impediment to navigation.
    Please re-create the current title as a {{category redirect}}, so that any further articles may be easily placed in the appropriate category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 26 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[edit]

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[edit]

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]
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[edit]

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]
  • Comment - if I understand this correct, this category is for clubs that played in the top flight in Italy before Serie A was created in 1929, and from looking at both the Serie A and List of Italian football champions, it seems that the tournament back then was known as the "Italian Football Championship". If that is correct the best name for this category would be Category:Italian Football Championship clubs. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually the first division had many names before the creation of Serie A: Prima Categoria, Prima Divisione, Divisione Nazionale... "Italian Football Championship" (Campionato di calcio italiano) was the name used in the first few seasons, when there was only a division with very few teams or no pro/rel system between the the levels: the name is used here as a collective name. CapPixel (talk)
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[edit]

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]
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]
  • Delete We need to move away from categorizing venues by every type of event that has occured there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Johnpacklambert....William 16:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there are venues that are used for nothing else, whihc I very much doubt. This is essentially a performace (sport) by performer (venue) category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but purge of only venues where kickoboxing is defining - such as the ones in Thailand. This fits into a broader category of sports-venues-by-sport, which is not really performance by performer, but rather the defining characteristic of *certain* venues.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete performer by performance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:51, 27 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[edit]

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]
  • Merge to end the use of current. We avoid that at almost all cost.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per precedent, but I would repeat the plea made on the brigades nom for the non-current items to be moved into disbanded regiments category. This is even more important than with brigades, as the regiment is the basic organisation of the British Army, but since WWII there have been numerous mergers. Within the last 10 years, there has been a major reorganisation, under which numerous single-battalion regiments were made into larger ones, with four batallions. This means that sorting out the current wheat from the disbanded chaff will be quite difficult. If I have time, I will go through the regiments category to move the disbanded ones into another category. Comments on this suggestion, please. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - however I would make the point that these regiments have not been "disbanded", they have been amalgamated. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge current category to be avoided. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:52, 27 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[edit]

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]
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]
  • Delete This sort of designation is not worth categorizing by. It will lead to category clutter if kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is hardly even an award, thoughn the Award rule certainly applies. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not needed. Kumioko (talk) 18:03, 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:Aga Khan Award for Architecture winners[edit]

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]
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]
  • Delete Not a defining award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify in Aga Khan Award for Architecture then delete. The current list of winning buildings, not theri architects. I would suggest that the new list should be a new section in that article, "Other winning architects". This will enable an interested editor to convert the list into a table, where the architect can be placed next to the building. When the list is empty it can be removed. It is not reasonable to ask ther closing Admin to do this, but perhaps this suggestion could be added to the talk page. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 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[edit]

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]
  • Delete As bad if not worse than current categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the face of warnings, the category's creator has chosen to restore this to multiple articles after other users have deleted it, without engaging in discussion. JNW (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DexDor. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not useful or needed. Rikster2 (talk) 05:27, 2 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.

Category:Haskalah[edit]

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]
  • Oppose The Wikipedia article is at Haskalah. If you think the article should be at something else, get the article renamed, and then try to rename the eponymous category. We generally follow article names, and I see no reason to not do so here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 8 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]
  • Keep -- We have various articles with Hebrew/Yiddish terms as their titles. This is often appropriate, but there should be redirects (at article level) for such search terms as the target here. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 10 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]
  • Support – where there are several possible names for an article, its category should use the clearest of them. So rename per clarity, for which the nom makes a convincing case. Oculi (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- If the outcome is to rename, a category redirect should be created/retained. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename. seems like a reasonable exception to the rule of cats maching lead articles, which is not absolute.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:57, 24 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]
  • Oppose Rename The title of the category should match the title of the article. Why should I give a crap about the purported obscurity of the title for the category, when the article title has community consensus as is? If there were consensus to rename the parent article, I'd be fine with a rename here, but as it stands this CfD seems merely intended to address the ignorance of the nominator rather than to improve navigation. Alansohn (talk) 05:10, 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]
  • Oppose for now. I came to this discussion at the request of the nominator. The nominator makes a good case, and I generally support the principle that category names should be clear and free of WP:JARGON. Wikipedia is written for a general audience rather than a specialist one, and where alternative names are available we should choose the name most helpful to our generalist readers. That's why WP:COMMONNAME is such an important part of our policy on article titles.
    In this case, I assumed that "Haskalah" had been preferred for because it was the term more commonly used in specialist sources. However, I have done a general Google web search, a news search and a books search ... and in each case I find that Haskalah is the more commonly-used term by a margin of at least 2–1. So from what I can see at this point, Haskalah looks like the more appropriate term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 26 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]
  • Category Demonstration - Rather than just sitting there and cogitating in the abstract, I would like everybody to please take a look at these three categories: Category:Age of Enlightenment, Category:Jewish history, Category:Secular Jewish culture -- all parent cats of Category:Haskalah -- through the eyes of the average reader who has never come across that term before, but presumably has some interest in the Enlightenment and/or in Jewish culture and history. I submit that such readers would be vastly more likely to find their interest stimulated if they were to see a sub-cat for Jewish Enlightenment -- whereas they are entirely likely to just pass right by the sub-cat for Haskalah. (Can't believe I didn't think of doing this before!) Cgingold (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename. "Haskalah" is in far more common usage. I can see why one might choose the title that was more clear to the general population if all other factors were equal, but there is no call to favor a minority usage here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:03, 1 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]
  • Support proposal - In my opinion, a very good case has been made for changing the name of this category to one that will be understood by a lot more readers. I suppose I am the exception that proves the rule. I have been doing a lot of reading of articles in Category:Age of Enlightenment, as well as some editing (mostly pertaining to the Scottish Enlightenment), so I've perused most of the subcategories quite a bit. However I didn't waste my time on Category:Haskalah -- why would I, for goodness sake? Maybe it was just there by mistake. But my curiosity eventually got the better of me, and I finally decided to click on the link just to see what the heck it was doing there in Category:Age of Enlightenment. I was indeed quite surprised, and delighted, I must say, to find out that it was for the Jewish Enlightenment. If I had known that to begin with, I'm sure I would have looked inside the category much sooner. As it was, I very nearly missed the opportunity! All in all, this renaming proposal seems very obvious to me, so I am mystified as to why it isn't receiving near universal support from other editors. Anomalous+0 (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As long as the main article is at Haskalah, I think the category should match it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename We should have category names that are clear to English readers. I have become convinced that the meaning of Haskalah is not widely known enough to be truly a good category name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The main article of the category Haskalah, therefore the category should have the same name. If the article is ever renamed, than the category can speedily renamed. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:29, 7 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_23&oldid=1138397657"