< January 24 January 26 >

January 25

Category:National Football League players with multiple rushing titles

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. To help anyone who wants to make a list, I have made a list of pages currently in the category, at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 25#Category:National_Football_League_players_with_multiple_rushing_titles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:National Football League players with multiple rushing titles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIALCAT, while this category may be interesting, it is trivial to their overall career. TM 19:32, 25 January 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:Lenar games

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) 19:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. There are only three articles on Wikipedia which fall into this category, and since Lenar is now defunct, it is unlikely that that number will grow. The parent article has already been deleted due to lack of independent notability.Martin IIIa (talk) 18:35, 25 January 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:Cultural depictions of Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener

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, without prejudice to removing pages which are inappropriately categorised here, e.g. passing mentions rather than actual depoictions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While WP:SMALLCAT is a bit vague as to what constitutes a small category, I believe this one may qualify. DonIago (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a WP:NAVBOX might be more appropriate? DonIago (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why not have both a navbox and a category?--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in my nomination, it appeared that this might be a WP:SMALLCAT. I leave it to consensus to decide whether that's a legitimate concern or not. DonIago (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I had always thought SMALLCAT applied to categories with no potential to grow beyond five articles, but reading it over again, I noticed some of the examples it cites included 7-10 articles. This does make me wish SMALLCAT was less vague, and perhaps gave some rationale; it's easy to see why a category with just two articles is useless, but the problem with a category having "only" ten articles is less obvious (to me, at least). But back on topic, surely this particular category has realistic potential for growth?--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much of a horse in the race either way, but thought it seemed like enough of a potential case that it should be brought here for discussion. I'd be happy to see SMALLCAT clarified, though I'm doubtful as to whether that will happen. No idea as to whether Kitchener's likely to receive additional cultural depictions at any point in the near or far future. I do think a navbox may be a better approach regardless. DonIago (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Bit of a conundrum for me here. I'm fine with self-closing this (is that permitted?) on the premise that SMALLCAT is intended to only be applied to cats of five items or fewer, but I'm reluctant to do so only to have that interpretation not end up making it into the guideline. In other words, I wouldn't want to close this as not applicable under SMALLCAT if the actual consensus for SMALLCAT ended up at, say, 20 items or fewer. Hope that makes sense! DonIago (talk) 16:59, 26 January 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:Artists with only one studio album

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) 13:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is populated with albums not the artists as suggest by its name, and there's no real connection between the albums themselves outside of the novelty that they were the only albums released by whatever artist recorded them. If kept, the name needs to be changed to accurately reflect its content or the content needs to be changed to fit the title. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: Here is a CfD from October 2009 for a similar category and the same issues presented here were discussed. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
why have a "one" article but not a "two", "three", "four", or even "zero"? That's a good point. Just like with "debut", you could say "second" or "third" is a similarly defining characteristic in the way I argued above. This is making me think that maybe we should delete "Debut albums" as well. -- irn (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting thought, but I'm not sure if I agree -- being the first work of an artist could be considered a defining characteristic of that work, especially if it establishes the notability of the artist and their related works. But on the other hand, yeah, why categorize debut albums but not, say, Category:Final albums? Could make for an interesting CFD discussion. — Warren. ‘ talk , 00:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 8#Category:Final albums --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:40, 28 January 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:Flag design terms

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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 2#Category:Flag_design_terms. Note that the category was not tagged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Flag design terms to Category:Flag design features
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia is not about terms but about things the terms refer to. Nikola (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
some previous "terminology" discussions
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_26#Category:Terminology_of_Carl_Jung
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_5#Category:Aviation_terminology
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_6#Category:Habitat_(ecology)_terminology
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_19#Category:Seismology_and_earthquake_terminology
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_21#Category:Warfare_terminology
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_24#Category:Statistical_terminology
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_5#Category:Rally_racing_terminology
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_27#Category:Labor_terminology
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_30#Category:Globalization_terminology
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 contribute to DMOZ

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) 13:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: DMOZ is no longer active, so these Wikipedians really can't contribute. – S. Rich (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, of the 30 users listed in the category, only 12 have been active contributors in the last 12 months. All 12 have gotten a notice about this CfD. – S. Rich (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)05:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. Curlie.org, the successor to DMOZ, is active, although it's possible that not all formerly active editors are aware of it, as "we" haven't got editor e-mail working. On the other hand, this category never met the current criteria in Wikipedia:User categories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As one of the 12, I have no objections. 15:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Gerald Tan (talk)
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.
More