Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 20 July 22 >

July 21[edit]

Category:World selection for the Prix Versailles Airports‎[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. bibliomaniac15 22:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are shortlist categories of Category:Prix Versailles‎ and should be deleted as nondefining per WP:OCAWARD. They are already listed in the articles for Prix Versailles 2019, etc. TSventon (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Prix Versailles. TSventon (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The press release 3 days before that one was about students buying tea to thank the staff for their work during the pandemic: https://www.wadham.ox.ac.uk/news/2021/july/wadham-students-say-thanks . RevelationDirect (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This would be a clear case of OCAWARD, even if it only covered winners, not nominees. If it were for winners, I would have suggested listifying. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete, G5, creator is a sock.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 20:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eostrix, I don't think speedy applies as the creator wasn't blocked at the time. I suggest discussing the other PV categories when discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prix Versailles is concluded. TSventon (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, you are correct that the master wasn't blocked at the time.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 05:39, 25 July 2021 (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:15th-century Korean women[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. bibliomaniac15 22:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: selectively merge per WP:FINAL RUNG, these are (and will probably remain) ghetto categories for women because Category:15th-century Korean people etc are unlikely to become largely diffused. The merge needs to be selective with regards to target Category:Joseon women because most articles are already in a princesses or royal consorts subcategory within that tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge only to the x-century Korean people. We have over and over again decided these women categories should be container categories except when a clear passing of ERGS rules is shown. The intersection of polity or century and and being a woman does not meet standard ERGS rules, we should as we have in the past restrict placement of articles on women to things like occupation categories that clearly abide by ERGS rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support NavjotSR (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think that navigation to historical women leads to ghettoisation. So I don't appreciate the approach to eliminate these categories, even if there may exist other cats that contain them. Women have a right to be seen as a social group of personalities throughout history. Tht's why these categories are IMHO unrenounceable! --Just N. (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia categorization is never about a "right" to anything. Using such rhetoric is a horriable way to discuss categories. No category ever exists just because some group has a "right" to anything. This is not the purpose nor the function of categories. This also goes against the clear guidelines of ERGS. All categories must be able to be justified according to those rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Final Rung is irrelevant here. These are standard subcategories of Category:Women by century, which is frankly the only way to locate female-related biographies and women's history in Wikipedia. Dimadick (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • ERGS rules are always relevant and should never be flippanltly disregarded.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 20 August 2021 (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:Twice (group)[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: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per main article. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Twice is unambiguously the primary topic among existing Wikipedia articles. But it is too ambiguous for a category name, given that this is a common English-language adverb. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: You wouldn't use it for anything else, would you? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 17:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HueMan1: I don't know, but people unfamiliar with the topic might misuse it. I had never heard of this group until this CfD came up. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: That is completely manageable. I can keep an eye on it. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There might be potential for an WP:RM discussion on the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: The main article was moved to "Twice" because Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Are you suggesting a reversal? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TBH I hadn't pulled up the main article history until just now. With the most recent RM, I would have !voted differently and can see why the close was controversial enough to go to move reviews. Given the large number of participants last year, I don't think a new RM would make sense right now. Still, CFD should not be a secondary venue to relitigate RM decisions; we should defer to the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't think the parenthetical "group" helps make this title less ambiguous and, in general, I favor deferring to the article space on naming. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, a "group" could be a musical group but could also be a grouping of something happening twice. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Four of the five categories were not tagged for discussion. I have done so after relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I too would have voted differently for the article, and the closer would have ignored my view. 'Twice' is ambiguous per WP:GlaringlyObvious. Twice (band) might be better per Category:Musicians by band (which appears to use 'band' as a dab more often than 'group'). Oculi (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would have supported your alternative suggestion of "(band)" in that RM; much clearer.- RevelationDirect (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi and RevelationDirect: But they're not a band. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As we see in Twice (disambiguation) it's a very ambigious lemma. I'd see the proposition as completely unnecessary and driven by an excessive sense of formalism. And further on aren't a capella ensembles the equivalent of bands and shouldn't they treated alike? --Just N. (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw my proposal. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:00, 28 July 2021 (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:Fiction about magic[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. bibliomaniac15 22:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:NONDEF. It's impossible for fiction to be "about" magic because, as a fundamental aspect of a setting, it cannot be a defining characteristic. (as opposed to being about the casters/users of magic, such as witches and wizards.) Magic is contained within the setting. The exception, perhaps, may be fictional grimoires, but I cannot find any such things here. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:29, 21 July 2021 (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:Passenger coaches[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 29#Category:Passenger coaches

Category:Airliner accidents and incidents involving mid-air collisions[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. bibliomaniac15 22:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "accidents and incidents" is totally redundant. Also matches the format of the other subcategories of Category:Mid-air collisions, Category:Mid-air collisions in Africa, as well as the soon-to-be-created Category:Mid-air collisions involving military aircraft. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also the newly created Category:Mid-air collisions involving helicopters. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, the current name is redundant and is also redundant. Carguychris (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question -- Does the target reflect the actual content? the present name include "incidents": a near miss is an incident that gets investigated. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. By the way: accidents and incidents" is NOT totally redundant but formulated for good reasons. Nevertheless the new wording is better fitting to the category tree. --Just N. (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename It is overly long, and there is no case where a mid-air collision is not an "incident". Dimadick (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2021 (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:Nuclear energy in Argentina[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: hybrid according to option C (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option A – Nuclear power
Option B – Nuclear energy (added 8 June)
Nominator's rationale: Most of these appear to have been created as Nuclear energy in Foo back in 2007, though a few categories were later created as Nuclear power in Foo, leading to a 2012 CfD which reverse merged those and merged the parent cat (previously Category:Nuclear energy by country) to Category:Nuclear power by country. However, there doesn't appear to have been a follow-up nom to bring the rest of the Nuclear energy in Foo categories in accordance with that result. This is that follow-up. Paul_012 (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pinging Hugo999, LeadSongDog, Hmains, Peterkingiron and Johnpacklambert from the previous discussion. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The renaming to power IMHO sounds a little bit like overlapping civil and military uses. Is it definitely sure that no one ever will put miilitary uses articles into this category? I don't suppose nominator intends it, but does the language will not invite it evéntually? --Just N. (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think so. While nuclear powers would refer to countries with nuclear weapons, the formulation Nuclear power in Foo makes it quite clear it's a topical term referring to electric power generation. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nuclear energy is definitely broader term than Nuclear power. While nuclear energy covers also uranium mining, nuclear power does not by my understanding. Renaming/merging per proposal, a number of categories Uranium mining in X ends as subcategories in Nuclear power in X. Beagel (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment: Given the lack of participation, maybe it would be better to later re-nominate by formulating the request as a choice between Nuclear energy in Foo and Nuclear power in Foo. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding Option B
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 14:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin note: As suggested, I have relisted this with the original nomination now headed as "Option A", and adding "Option B" which would reverse the 2012 CFD. "Nuclear energy" could be a more valid parent for Category:Uranium mining by country & its subcats, and could also hold Category:Nuclear history by country. – Fayenatic London 14:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option A per nom and the arguments in the 2012 CfD. I looked at a few of the "nuclear energy" articles and most of the contents are actually about nuclear power. I do notice though that there are quite a lot of articles such as Nuclear energy in the Netherlands that need to be moved as well. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nuclear power and nuclear energy are different things. The former covers electricity generation. The latter covers other uses, primarily research reactors. The nuclear fuel cycle (mining, conversion, fabrication, waste processing, disposal, reprocessing) is yet another topic that may or may not be considered a subtopic of nuclear energy. One option would be to have both types of category: nuclear power (including only countries that have nuclear power plants) and nuclear energy (including also countries that have non-power programs). NPguy (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @NPguy: if you look at the categories, pretty much everything is about nuclear power, not nuclear energy in general. That's the reason for this proposal. By the way, "nuclear energy" generally refers to nuclear binding energy, which is in literally every atom in existence. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In a context like this, the term nuclear energy is commonly used to describe the use of energy from nuclear fission. It can also be used to cover fusion and radioactive decay (i.e. the use of radioisotopes), but it's always about using the release of nuclear energy.
  • Support option B Energy is still the more comprehensive term contrary to 'power' that only points to the end-product. Uranium as source material, as well as nuclear waste are faded out of sight and mind if you call it nuclear power. That's not a correct behaviour! Let's keep it nuclear energy analogue to renewable energy! --Just N. (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As the original nominator, I would support either option. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think that the reverse merge back in 2012 was the best solution. Nuclear energy and nuclear power are different things – while nuclear power is also part of nuclear energy, not all things belonging to the category of nuclear energy are belonging to the category of nuclear power. Therefore I propose to keep category nuclear energy in foo and to create also subcategory nuclear power in foo, where appropriate, to have correct category tree. Beagel (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Paul 012, Beagel, Fayenatic london, Jochem van Hees, and NPguy: this discussion seems to be heading towards a no consensus closure, unless you are supporting Beagel's late suggestion or if you get to an agreement about the most preferable merge direction. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think we should reach some sort of consensus, because currently the category Nuclear power by country is a big mess. Most of the subcategories are called "Nuclear energy in <country>", whereas the eponymous articles appear to be almost entirely about nuclear power. It seems to me that the words energy and power are often used interchangably on Wikipedia. I think it's best to start a different discussion outside of CfD (maybe at WikiProject Energy?) about not only the whole category tree but also the affected articles. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not quite sure what can be done here either. Beagel's suggestion to populate both trees might be workable, but I guess that can be done manually outside the CfD process (ideally with further input as Jochem van Hees suggests). Please consider there being no objection on my part. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As there is no strong consensus to rename the whole hierarchy in either direction, I'm considering relisting again with an additional hybrid option for this CFD according to the member pages/subcats & other existing material, along the following lines:
    • If a country only has pages about nuclear power, e.g. Armenia, then rename to "Nuclear power"
    • If a country only has pages/subcats about uranium mining, e.g. Botswana, then keep "Nuclear energy"
    • If a country has pages about nuclear power and other topics e.g. nuclear history/uranium mining, e.g. Australia, then it should have both "Nuclear power" (sub-cat) and "Nuclear energy" (parent)
    • If a country only has one page about (proposed) nuclear power, e.g. Estonia & Kenya, then upmerge the category to relevant parents (this could normally be done speedily as WP:C2F).
The hierarchy for countries should follow that for the general topic categories, i.e.
Nuclear energy (parent)
Nuclear history
Nuclear power
Nuclear technology
Note that this would empty some current national sub-cats of Nuclear technology by country. – Fayenatic London 09:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a much better solution. Support that ReOrg. - jc37 07:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
It is very exceptional to relist a discussion this often, but User:Fayenatic london added an entirely new proposal on July 15 that is worth discussing. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Support the hybrid option of Fayenatic london above. Oculi (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the hybrid option of Fayenatic london above. That compromise seems like it comes closer to a consensus here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Restructure proposed by Fayenatic. This is a good solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, here is the list. I found that Nuclear power is usually a subcat of Nuclear technology, and will maintain that hierarchical structure for now, hence the upmerges to Nuclear technology; any resulting WP:SMALLCATs in Nuclear technology by country can be brought back for a separate discussion later.
Option C – Hybrid, according to contents
I'll be happy to implement this if somebody else closes it. – Fayenatic London 14:10, 28 July 2021 (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:Urban squares by city in Libya[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 all to Category:Squares in Libya. bibliomaniac15 22:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the similar category (Category:Squares and plazas in the United Kingdom by city). أحمد الغرباوي (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No oppose, but the subcategories should be nominated for upmerging per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/Comment Agree with Macrcocapelle, I don't think the subcategories make sense since there are only 2 articles. No objection to the proposal per se; it's fine to rename in the mean time per WP:C2C. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a difficult one. Surely there are plenty of urban squares in Libya. But they don't have articles due to lack of authors from Libya to write them. So a classical SMALLCAT case. Merge to Category:Squares in Libya? --Just N. (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Squares in Libya. The nominated category is a new layer, probably created in error as a copy of the name used at Commons. I am also tagging the following subcats. – Fayenatic London 14:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned before, support this merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this Merge, although they should also be upmerged to city cats. (This is my 2nd !vote.) - 23:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
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:Squares in Libya[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the main category (Category:Squares and plazas by country). أحمد الغرباوي (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2021 (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:Corinthian Yacht Club of Seattle[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. – Fayenatic London 20:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:TRIVIALCAT & WP:SMALLCAT)
We don't have a main article for Corinthian Yacht Club of Seattle and the only article in this category is William Earl Buchan, an Olympic sailing athlete that competed in 1984 and won the gold medal. The infobox for that article has a line that reads:
"Club: Corinthian Yacht Club"
That's a pretty thin basis for category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2021 (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:Whiting Ciesar All-Americans[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT approaching WP:C1, an empty category
The Hammond Ciesar All-Americans were an NBA basketball team that played in Hammond, Indiana but, for the first couple years, they played down the street in neighboring Whiting, Indiana and this category is for that short period. We have other categories for former team locations like Category:Brooklyn Dodgers so this might be conceptually okay but the problem is with the lack of contents. The only article directly in the cat shouldn't be there because the Hammond Civic Center is where they played after they left Whiting. No objection to recreating if we ever gets to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2021 (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/2021_July_21&oldid=1039812840"