Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 11 April 13 >

April 12[edit]

Category:Professional wrestling jobbers[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. Despite the weakness of the !votes to keep, I judge that this falls just short of a consensus to delete. A discussion which focused on the guideline WP:SUBJECTIVECAT might have had a clear outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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. — Moe Epsilon 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. — Moe Epsilon 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. — Moe Epsilon 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]
Relisted from CFD 2018 March 1 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be consensus that per Job (professional wrestling), the concept of a "jobber" is well-established. The issue at stake here is whether there is some reasonably consistent, objective way of defining who is a "jobber" and who isn't. The relevant guideline is WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, and the viability of a category like this depends ultimately on the ratio between undisputed inclusions and edge cases. If the proportion of edge cases is small, then the category is probably viable; but if the proportion of edge cases is high, then the category becomes a timewasting battleground between good faith editors who draw the line at a different place in the grey zone. I think the onus is on those wanting to keep the category to demonstrate that the category has a reasonably clean dividing line.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:50, 12 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.

Category:Zaporozhian Cossacks[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename in order to distinct the two categories more clearly: the first is a history category (see Zaporozhian Host), the second is a biographies category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2018 March 11 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 12 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.

Category:Ukrainian Cossack nobility[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 per nom, but with "the" added to the second rename target, i.e. Category:Hetmans of Ukrainian Cossacks‎ to Category:Hetmans of the Zaporozhian Cossacks‎. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to align with Category:Zaporozhian Cossack people‎ and Category:Zaporizhian Cossacks noble families‎ and to use a contemporary category name than an anachronistic 21st-century category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also:
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_10#Category:Ukrainian_Cossack_officers
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_18#Category:Ukrainian_military_personnel_of_the_Khmelnytsky_Uprising
- Marcocapelle (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inserting "the" in the category name sounds reasonable. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2018 March 11 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 12 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.

Category:Unary operations[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, this is (mostly) a collection of mathematical functions and transformations, there is too much overlap with Category:Functions and mappings. Besides, as the article Unary operation points out, the concept is mainly used in programming rather than in mathematics, not surprisingly it is also not a defining characteristic of the math content in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am not much into these categories, but having one of them (nullary, unary, binary, ternary) sort of requires to have at least all of them, if not to add even more (n-ary and variadic). I think of having just (binary and ternary) being rather clueless. Purgy (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The number of arguments to a mathematical operation is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that operation. This is true in both mathematics and computing; that's why we have separate main articles on unary operation, binary operation, etc. No valid reason for deletion has been given; being "(mostly) a collection of mathematical functions and transformations" is certainly not a reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd lean toward delete, but mainly only because this category doesn't seem particularly well-defined. It includes purely mathematical functions like the natural logarithm, but then also things like pre/post-increment/decrement, which are notions in programming that cause side-effects, and even the cast operator, which is pretty questionable. It also contains Barrel shifter, and I can't figure out why. So, if kept, there should really be some more specific inclusion criteria. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all arity cats. Having read the !votes and the comments, and, especially, having noticed some resilient efforts to establish a formal parallel structure to WP-content via abundant use of categories, which I consider inappropriate within an interface to humans, I support deletion. Furthermore, I want to add to the given caveats of these categories being meagerly defined (especially in Computer sciences) by mentioning currying and the cartesian product. Purgy (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per David Eppstein's !vote above. Figuring out whether inclusion criteria should be sharpened up is a matter for a WikiProject talk page, RFC, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2018 March 13 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note: Category:Nullary operations deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 March 13#Category:Nullary_operations
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep seems to be a reasonable grouping of math functions. Hmains (talk) 03:13, 13 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.

Category:Humankind (grouping)[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. ℯxplicit 05:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: these 2 pages were orphaned by the CFD 2018 February 28 deletion of Category:Kind (grouping), and I don't think it's worth seeking a new home for them. Each contains solely a set of redirects along with a 1-para explanation and some search links ... so they don't function as normal categories. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 12 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.

Category:Armenian people from Istanbul[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 to (i) Category:People from Istanbul or appropriate sub-cats, and (ii) Category:Turkish Armenians or Category:Armenians of the Ottoman Empire as appropriate. – Fayenatic London 07:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:Ethnic Armenian people. This is an overcategorization which includes an ethnicity and sub-national (city) entity. TM 17:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. Personally, I don't support Ethnic group in City categories in general, but I am especially opposed to biographies of members of an ethnic group from a city because it is likely to be included even when the city and their ethnicity are irrelevant to notability.--TM 13:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a well-populated intersection. Even if ethnic group by city categories are discouraged, in this case there it an adequate population to keep. It should be stressed that Armenians as an ethnic group in Turkey are not expatriates from the Republic of Armenia, but people who were subjects of the Ottoman and Byzantine Empires, long before the present republic was even thought of. Due to the Ottoman millet system, such religious groups were in practice endogamous, so that they have become ethnicities or something close to that. I think they retain their own language. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are literally thousands of categories that could be adequately populated but that does not mean it is defining.--TM 18:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2018 March 8 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge' but to specific by nation sub-categories of the Ethnic Armenian people categories. For these people their ethniciy is always at least worth putting them in a category for. The same is true of Jews. It has nothing to do with the Armenian gencide per se, and has everything to do with the 500 year lasting millet system of the Ottoman Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 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.

Category:Late Iron Age Scotland[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: split because this is not a clear period in the history of Scotland. It has Scotland in the Early Middle Ages as it main article, while this is already the main article of its subCategory:Scotland in the Early Middle Ages; there are no articles Late Iron Age Scotland or Iron Age Scotland that indicate a clear period for the Late Iron Age in Scotland; and article British Iron Age suggests that the Scottish Iron Age ends as early as the 5th century, so long before 843 as the header of the category claims. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dubious -- In England and Wales, Iron Age ends soon after AD 43. In Scotland, there was no permanent Roman conquest, so that the Iron Age continues much later. In Ireland the equivalent of the Dark Ages is "Early Christian". However, I am not clear what the accepted practice is in Scotland, where Christianity was a slightly later arrival. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal is not to retain this category, exactly because it is not clear indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2018 March 8 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:53, 12 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.

Category:Video game locations[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is a very large amount of overlap between this and Category:Video game levels. The majority of notable game locations are also most likely going to be levels, aside from the rare article about a notable fictional world. Sometimes it is hard to figure out what's a level but not a location. It's easier to just merge one into the other and avoid the hassle, I think. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2018 March 8 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:53, 12 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.

Category:Simplification[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF and WP:OR, items in these categories are not defined by the concept of simplification, the category content just reflects a personal view of what belongs to simplification. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not useful categories.Rathfelder (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simplify the category tree by deleting these categories. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2018 March 8 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - abstraction is not simplification, so I immediately dispute an entire subcat. Inclusion is indeed merely a personal opinion. Categories which need paragraphs of inclusion criteria are rarely defensible. Oculi (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would have thought abbreviations were simplifications, but the WP gods thought not; I guess since we cannot indisputably know what's in and what's out, it's not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:50, 12 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_12&oldid=1004659303"