Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 24



Category:Prophets in Protestantism

 * 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * prophets in protestantism


 * Nominator's rationale: For the most part, Protestant churches do not recognize specific prophets other than those in the Old Testament and a very few New Testament figures. The only significant exception is the position of Ellen G. White in Adventism, which is better treated under that heading alone. The other members of this category are mostly mystics and could be so categorized instead; a number of examples (e.g. Edgar Cayce) would be vigorously denounced as false prophets by every Protestant church. The upshot is that the category is ill-defined in that there really isn't anyone who fits in it. Mangoe (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that there was an earlier discussion under Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 23 which was inconclusive. Mangoe (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2011 (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:My Own Planet albums

 * 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 The parent article was deleted per Articles for deletion/My Own Planet. Jafeluv (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * my own planet albums


 * Nominator's rationale: redlink record label —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Now a bluelink. Rich Farmbrough, 22:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC).


 * Delete I also nominated the record label.-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 16:33, 29 October 2011 (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:World Hockey Association first overall draft picks

 * 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * world hockey association first overall draft picks


 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, the WHA only existed for 7 years and is unlikely to restart again, so this category is unlikely to ever expand beyond the current five articles. TM 17:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep A category with five articles is perfectly reasonable. True, the WHA will never return but if the NHL folded tomorrow, I don't think we would seriously consider the deletion of Category:National Hockey League first overall draft picks. And from a history of hockey perspective, top WHA draftees are particularly interesting because it was hard for WHA teams to sign their picks without giving them ludicrous contracts (example). This in large part explains to the very significant decision to scrap the draft and sign junior players directly. Pichpich (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's for the article, not the category. We need to avoid categories which are small and will never grow, per the WP policy.--TM 01:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Perfectly reasonable category of a very defining aspect of a player. -DJSasso (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The question isn't about defining, it is about the fact that it will never grow and is very small, per WP:SMALLCAT--TM 13:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Smallcat is just a guideline not a hard and fast rule. When the category is helpful like this one it shouldn't be deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2011 (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:Wikipedians who use Joli OS

 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * wikipedians who use joli os


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete per precedent on "Wikipedian by OS" categories. In fairness, that discussion is over three years old and consensus can change. Personally I'm still convinced that this is not a useful category for collaboration. Pichpich (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2011 (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:Robotic speedcubers

 * 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * robotic speedcubers


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete I don't really think this is necessary since I don't think any other Rubik-specific bots exist. It makes more sense (at least for now) to categorize CubeStormer II as Sports robots | Speedcubers | Entertainment robots than to isolate it in a one-member category. Pichpich (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As the page creator, sounds fine to me. JORGENEV  02:44, 7 November 2011 (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:Sole albums by artist

 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * sole albums by artist


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete This is not a defining characteristic of an album. Every debut album is for some length of time a "sole album" but its nature doesn't change once an artist releases a second album.  Pichpich (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete – indeed it is not a defining characteristic of an album. Occuli (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Compare with Category:Singular albums and Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_9. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not having other albums of its type is not a defining characteristic for an album.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This is about the albums which have the status of being the only album released.  There is usually an interesting reason as to why no further ones were released.  Cexycy (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Because that band sucks? There may sometimes be some mildly interesting reason for it but let's face it, most musicians/bands who release only one record simply failed to get a sufficient number of people to listen. In the rare cases were there is a good story to tell, it should be detailed in the article. Pichpich (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2011 (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:Christian festivals founded in 1997

 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * christian festivals founded in 1997


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete The term "festival" is ambiguous in a religious context. For instance the parent category Category:Christian festivals and holy days is really concerned with religious festivals. In any case, it seems that the category was tailor-made for a single article (Passion Conferences) which is already categorized adequately. Pichpich (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * delete as small and poorly-defined. Mangoe (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2011 (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:Christian conferences founded in 1997

 * 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: Upmerge to Category:Christian conferences. Jafeluv (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * christian conferences founded in 1997


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete The parent category Category:Christian conferences is pretty small so there's no need to isolate this one article in a subcategory of its own. Pichpich (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * upmerge to Category:Christian conferences as unnecessary. I can't see that we would ever need to categorize these by year. Mangoe (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2011 (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:Aboriginal universities and colleges

 * 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:  to Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 12. Jafeluv (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Aboriginal universities and colleges to or
 * Nominator's rationale: "Aboriginal", in common parlance, is Australian; it's close to offensive in the United States. If people insist, we can make that two categories to acknowledge the Canadian term "First Nations". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Quick comment: at first glance, I find "tribally controlled" way more offensive than "aboriginal" in part because it almost makes it sound like that control is illegitimate (as in "mafia-controlled") Pichpich (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No. That's actually the term used by the institutions themselves. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My bad, sorry. Pichpich (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In Canada, the term "aboriginal" is quite common (and constitutionally, the official term), but extends beyond First Nations to include Metis and Inuit, and I see no reason to exclude those groups from this category. While technically accurate, "Native American" is rarely if ever used to describe Canadian First Nations, as it tends to describe Native Americans in the United States. "Tribe" and "Tribal" are quite acceptable in the United States, but generally considered offensive in Canada. Moreover, many of these schools are not controlled by any tribe/nation. In the past, Wikipedia has solved this problem by using the term "Indigenous" which is considered to be inoffensive and inclusive. Can I suggest Category:Indigenous universities and colleges or Category:North American Indigenous universities and colleges if you want to restrict it geographically? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2011 (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:Geometry algorithms

 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Geometry algorithms to Category:Geometric algorithms
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge As far as I can tell, the two have the same intended scope i.e. algorithms in computational geometry. Pichpich (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I started the first page and I agree. Go for it. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2011 (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.