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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. –
FayenaticLondon15:25, 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. –
FayenaticLondon10:22, 21 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.
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
@
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.
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?
@
Marcocapelle Then you didn't really read the articles for Andrew Johnson's era yourself, since those by large go very well into depth with the congressmen's involvement in the impeachment and the trial.
SecretName101 (
talk)
07:24, 25 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.
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: 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.
twsabin13:38, 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
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.
ZerbuTalk10:26, 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
Keep, we are taking ourselves too seriously if we think we cannot tell the difference, and it's generally documented even if indirectly. But purge or split to adult/childrens' comic strips, as these categories mix comics with
comic strips. There is no point putting members of
Category:Beano strips individually into a children's category – the Beano has always been a children's comic. –
FayenaticLondon09:10, 6 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: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 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. –
FayenaticLondon15:25, 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. –
FayenaticLondon10:22, 21 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.
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
@
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.
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?
@
Marcocapelle Then you didn't really read the articles for Andrew Johnson's era yourself, since those by large go very well into depth with the congressmen's involvement in the impeachment and the trial.
SecretName101 (
talk)
07:24, 25 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.
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: 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.
twsabin13:38, 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
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.
ZerbuTalk10:26, 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
Keep, we are taking ourselves too seriously if we think we cannot tell the difference, and it's generally documented even if indirectly. But purge or split to adult/childrens' comic strips, as these categories mix comics with
comic strips. There is no point putting members of
Category:Beano strips individually into a children's category – the Beano has always been a children's comic. –
FayenaticLondon09:10, 6 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: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 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 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.