Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 28

December 28

Category:Sports venues in Decatur, Illinois

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: dual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Five of seven pages are redirects –Aidan721 (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2022 (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 Hockey League venues by team

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 5#Category:National Hockey League venues by team

Historians of religion

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 5#Historians of religion

Category:Trinity Parish Church (Seattle)

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need to have a category for a single entry about topic. --Another Believer (Talk) 14:20, 28 December 2022 (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:Animated television series about teenagers

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a WP:CATDEF. There are dozens if not hundreds of animated television series featuring teenagers, which is inevitable as many of these series are targeted at young children/preteens/young adults, and we have other categories for those. The numerous shows in this category otherwise have very little in common, and, as far as I can tell, sources are not referring to nor discussing these series as "being about teenagers". silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 13:51, 28 December 2022 (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:Wives of the Beatles

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 5#Category:Wives of the Beatles

Category:Ports and harbours in Yemen

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same scope as Category:Ports and harbours of Yemen. DB1729talk 13:12, 28 December 2022 (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.

Buildings and structures by style

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/merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With a couple of minor exceptions, these are intermediate container categories holding only sub-cats titled "architecture" rather than "buildings", and there is nothing to distinguish them from the Architecture by country and period or style hierarchy which was recently renamed (see CFD Sept 2). A few have only one sub-cat, in which case I have proposed upmerging instead of renaming. – Fayenatic London 15:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal implies that we remove the content of e.g. Category:Buildings and structures in Denmark by style from the tree of Category:Buildings and structures in Denmark, isn't that odd? More generally, I think we have far more articles about buildings than about architecture, so this seems a step in the wrong direction. It would make sense if and only if we would regard "architecture" to be the plural of "building". Marcocapelle (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support together with the nominator's reasoning that"Buildings and structures in Foo" should be within "Architecture in Foo" and with adding the see alsos to the cats. It will upgrade the usefulness of all of the involved categories. —Alalch E. 19:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin note: I suggest that all the merged categories should initially be redirected, to allow careful attention to the Wikidata links. Alternatively, I am willing to implement the merges manually. – Fayenatic London 10:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:45, 28 December 2022 (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:House impeachment managers

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT / WP:CATDEFINING. These individuals are notable for being in the U.S. House and are otherwise already categorized in Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives. Being impeachment managers is not a defining characteristic. Likewise for the defenders. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nominator's rationale is greatly flawed. If prime notability is the only defining characteristic were are to organize by, most, if not all, sub-categories of Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives should be deleted. Organizing the defense for an impeached individual before the senate (being a defender) or prosecuting a president, judge, or cabinet official before the Senate is indeed a rare and noteworthy credential. Particularly in presidential impeachments. Some individuals only received national notability due to holding these roles, in fact, and were backbench congresspeople prior to that. SecretName101 (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tend to support, the biographies in these categories are very brief in describing what each of the individuals did or achieved while they were in this position. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that a fault of the article's coverage though? In many cases, I'd say so. Plenty of these congressmen have bare-bones articles that do not elaborate at all on any aspect of their congressional tenure with more than a sentence or two. SecretName101 (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently you did not bother reading these articles. Even articles in as far back as Category:House managers for the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson are very elaborate. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: Good point. The more developed articles in these categories (b-class, good articles, featured articles) tend to go in-depth on their involvement in the impeachments and impeachment trials.
    Examples:
    It's the less developed ones that only dedicate a passing mention or less.
    Many of the articles in this category are stubs merely adaptions of congressional biographies. Who could expect an in-depth analysis on such incomplete articles?
SecretName101 (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support — after consulting with the former Member of Congress in my home, this is simply WP:NONDEFINING and WP:OCTRIVIA. Nobody is best known for prosecuting or defending an impeachment (those members are usually the most well known and respected chairs of committees), or carrying the impeachment papers from the House to the Senate and attending the Senate hearings (ceremonial), or even holding press conferences about them. That public notoriety is temporary. Instead, impeachment managers should be listed in the impeachment articles, and navigated thusly.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2023 (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:Anti-patterns

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 5#Category:Anti-patterns

Category:English-language education

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 5#Category:English-language education

Category:Adult comics

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 Timrollpickering (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These two categories (Category:Adult comics) and Category:Children's comics) seem to be rather arbitrary, many comics are intended for both or intended for one and read by the other. In Europe at least, nearly all the comics listed here as for children are read widely by adults, and at least some of the "adult" comics like De Kiekeboes are read very frequently by young children, while most in this category are ready by adolescents. Vice versa, things like Calvin and Hobbes are listed as children's comics, but are probably more popular among adults. Some like Asterix are already included in both, making it rather poor defining characteristics. Fram (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I mean, we do have Adult comics and Children's comics. The nominated categories are not about who ends up reading the comics, but what the intended target audience is. If a comics article has sourced content about this, why not? It seems to work okay as a defining characteristic. But only a small subset of comics need one or the other category, because there are no relevant sourced claims of this type in most comics' articles. What should not happen and seems to be happening is a tendency to categorize any given comic as either an "adult comic" or a "children's comic" which I believe is not the original purpose of these categories; they only address the two extremes while leaving out the middle. Indeed, most comics are "adolescents' comics" (a "middle" demographic that is presumed) or are undefined in this respect. twsabin 13:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep If there is sourced information about the intended target audience, I do not see a reason not to keep the categories. What should be avoided is guess-work by Wikipedia editors. Dimadick (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I checked a number of articles both in Category:Adult comics and Category:Children's comics and none of them mentions an intended children or adult target group. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While I'm mostly indifferent to whether these should be deleted or not, if they get kept, there needs to be a stricter criteria for what gets included. Articles should only be included if their inclusion is supported by WP:RS, not just because a comic "looks like" it's for a certain audience because of stereotypes. Zerbu Talk 10:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know how this could be accomplished... Maybe by emptying the categories except for a nominal number of ideal members, and then letting them fill up again, but this time under a particular guidance about this. (But where to advertise the guidance?) —Alalch E. 19:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:34, 28 December 2022 (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:Sports venues in West Sacramento, California

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: dual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT (one page). Merge to county-level. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2022 (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:Sports venues in Stockton, California

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: dual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT (one page). Merge to Sports in Stockton, California. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2022 (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/2022_December_28&oldid=1132820178"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 28, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.