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:speedy rename. It appeared that the relevant articles were redlinked to the target. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the category is currently empty, don't we have any articles about Episcopal church buildings in Idaho? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2018 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:upmerge to parent categories, as a redundant category layer with only one subcategory and no articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2018 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:rename per actual content, these container categories have been diffused by century. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and to match actual contents. Grutness...wha? 04:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom but would also like to see a Category:Racehorse births by year created for the purposes described. Greenshed (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2018 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The categorization of these professional wrestlers is not based on any definitive fact. A "jobber" in professional wrestling refers to a wrestler who loses frequently, however it's impossible to determine who and when someone should be included. Some people qualify as they had notable streaks of losing, but what about their careers outside that streak? Do they have to be a 'jobber' for their entire career, a part of it? The whole category can be debated and doesn't deserve a spot on Wikipedia as it doesn't help categorize or maintain anything. — MoeEpsilon 21:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's hard to find a single pro wrestler who didn't start their career as a "jobber".★Trekker (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, There are no such thing as "jobbers" in wrestling today, but they were indeed a clearly defined role in wrestling as recently as 25 years ago. These were guys who were hired only to lose, and do nothing else, for years on end. Job (professional wrestling)#Historic usage has greater detail. Borerline cases should be worked out on the talk page, as they have been previously. LM2000 (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it is subject to opinion. Let's take any article in the category, such as Barry Horowitz and look at them:
1959 births: Yes, he was born in 1959, it is indisputable.
Living people: Yes, he is living, hard to argue this category.
People from St. Petersburg, Florida: yep, he is from St. Petersburg.
American male professional wrestlers, Jewish American sportspeople, Jewish professional wrestlers: All accurately describe his profession and heritage associated with sub-categorization.
And then there is Category:Professional wrestling jobbers, jobber being a slang term created by the industry to describe someone losing a match/someone who regularly loses. How does that really jive with Wikipedia? It's about as logical as creating Category:Professional wrestling main eventers and Category:Professional wrestling mid-carders. If you couldn't accurately assign those categories, then can you accurately assign this one? Curt Hawkins is arguably a jobber now since he's lost 150+ matches recently, but he's not included. Is this an oversight or does he not qualify? Personally as a former tag team champion in two different promotions including WWE, he can be argued that he wasn't a jobber for most of his career before the last year. Gillberg is listed as a jobber, but had a Light Heavyweight Championship reign of over fifteen months. He's most notable for him winning/reigning as a champion and he's still marked a jobber. It's all subjective to the opinion of whoever adds/removes the category and debating about fictional wins/losses of thousands of wrestlers isn't exactly conducive to using time wisely. — MoeEpsilon 02:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's best to just follow the sources. If the mainstream press describe someone as being a jobber, then they are one. I don't think any source would describe Hawkins as a jobber and Duane Gill was a jobber whose win/loss record was used to mock Bill Goldberg's undefeated streak when jobbers went out of fashion in the Attitude Era. LM2000 (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At first I was leaning toward keep, however then I spot checked several articles and they don't even refer to the person as being a jobber. For example, The Italian Stallion (wrestler) only mentions jobber in terms of bringing someone else in as a jobber. The Barry Horowitz article mentioned above only brings it up in terms of when he started winning, not before. Most seem to be more like Bobby Blaze which doesn't mention it at all. If we aren't mentioning it in the article, having a category for it doesn't make sense. - GalatzTalk 02:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if a wrestler has spent a good portion of their career losing matches, then they are a jobber, so the term jobber does exist and should be kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Purge, remove articles from this category about wrestlers who weren't clearly a jobber. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There may be little to no sources for verifiability to prove anyone is a jobber, and some references we consider reliable may say someone is a jobber who isn't. That is the problem. — MoeEpsilon 01:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus about that, apparently. So we should start purging articles on which there is consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It is absolutely an element, particularly to TV based promotions. I agree with Davidgoodheart, if they spent a portion of their career serving as a jobber, they deserve to have that noted. Sometimes that elevates their creditworthiness within the organization and they get a payback push. We should allow discussion for inclusion and not limit inclusion to career jobbers. Such a harsh line would exclude many jobbers who got brief victorious periods as reward or to aid a story line. Trackinfo (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2018 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The province became the Metropolitan City in 2015. It's almost speedy-able, but I thought some people might want to keep the old category alongside the new name. Le Deluge (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I thought there would be quite a lot but on inspection the nom as it stands doesn't seem to introduce anachronisms, as Category:Venice could sit in either as immediate parent. Oculi (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: I don't understand. Why would we populate a former province category with Catholic dioceses? They are in the ecclesiastical province of Venice, not in the civil province of Venice. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because "province of Venice" can refer to either one, and having a category for the ecclesiastical province is quite reasonable. Nyttend (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2018 (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.
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.
Purge and upmerge per previous comment and I remember we have applied this solution more often. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2018 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 year categories in Russia before 1547 to century categories in Russia and to Europe categories. This consensus is without prejudice to further discussions. – FayenaticLondon 08:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The full list of nominated categories can be found here.
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, mostly just one article per category. This is follow-up on a previous nomination that was supported in principle but considered to be too broad so that country specific details could not be discussed. So here is another separate nomination by country.
In the previous nomination there was no specific discussion about Russia. Nevertheless all nominated categories have anachronism issues. I would suggest to proceed with this merge anyway, because it will be much easier to discuss the anachronism issues after the merging: there will be way fewer categories that need to be nominated for a fresh discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No objection -- I wonder whether this batch of mergers etc might be taken forward to the time of Ivan the Terrible, as a boundaryu in Russia between medieval and modern. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense indeed. I've added the years of 1500-1547 to the list, up to the proclamation of the Tsardom of Russia. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there was no Russian Tzardom until 1547 and even then it should not be called Russia (redirect to the modern Russian Federation), but Tsardom of Russia. Between 1283–1547 there were separate Duchies, such as Duchy of Moscow, Chernigov and Ryazan - which were not named Russian at all. Cut the anachronism.GreyShark (dibra) 13:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above@Greyshark09: is correct. A split by Duchy, Grand Duchy and Tsardom is necessary. However, can live with the proposal as proposed (i.e. in Russia only at a "by century level") as this seems to be the consensus for long-lasting countries. I don't necessarily agree with the concept, but it seems to have strong precedents. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support not a useful level to populate. Request that the above question on Tsardom of Russia is treated separately as that will affect many other categories that are not subject to the above issue. SFB 02:47, 18 April 2018 (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.
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. ℯxplicit 05:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While I can reluctantly defend Category:Appalachian people as a category that has a reason to exist (its content mostly comprises people like Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett), this isn't useful as a subcategory of it: it's being used to backdoor everybody from every county in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama or Georgia that's part of the Appalachian geographic region at all. People from Binghamton, New York (here via Broome County NY) or Pittsburgh (Allegheny County PA), for instance, are not defined by any unified trans-Appalachian culture that links them with Alabama or Maryland or Tennessee over and above the non-Appalachian parts of their own states. People who are strongly defined by Appalachianness as individuals should be added directly to Category:Appalachian people, but every county across the entire jurisdictional area of the Appalachian Regional Commission should not be automatically backdooring everybody from there into it. Bearcat (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A category of this sort ought to be the topographic/cultural definition of Appalachia, which the ARC definition definitely isn't; look at the map here for example, which extends into the Mississippi Delta, the Lake Erie coastal plain, and for a long distance follows the southern border of Tennessee except for a protrusion north to Lewis County, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever from a topographic/cultural perspective. (Ditto Henry County, Virginia getting included, but almost nothing bordering it, while places like Fort Valley are excluded.) Since this definition follows a different standard, and since there's no real alternate definition, we ought to delete. Nyttend (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needless bi-section. Appalachia categories should focus on Appalachia-specific content rather than grandfathering in all the content of the states into new structures. SFB 02:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just looking at the map I highly question its extent. Most people would not consider anything along the Lake Erie cost to be Appalachia, nor would they count Pittsburgh as such. In fact I would say maybe 2 counties in southern Ohio, northing in Pennsylvania. The extent south from there shown by the map probably works, but the categorization by county is questionable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2018 (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.
