Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 20

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 01:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All due respect to interdisciplinary approaches, but this is just silly. No useful categorization scheme. --Pjacobi 23:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 23:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. User:RayTomes The study of cycles is a discipline in its own right and contributes considerably to human knowledge. There are several organisations devoted to cycles research in the uSA, Europe and Russia and those working in the field will find this Category very useful. You put forward no argument for why it is silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RayTomes (talk • contribs) 21:27, 20 September 2005
  • What is the name of this discipline in its own right? Why is this a good way to categorize these articles? siafu 23:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is called Cycle studies. There are organisations called Foundation for the Study of Cycles and Cycles Research Institute amoung others.
      • See also Cycle synchrony, Edward R Dewey, List of cycles, Harmonics Theory/Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Harmonics Theory. IMHO already a lot of articles for a non-mainstram idea. Anyway, at least stop the catefory. --Pjacobi 12:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. User: Leslie Botha-Williams Cyles are the foundation of life. Their applications are worth studying - and are the foundation for human and planetary survival. Cycles are mentioned throughout history,religion, music, art,science, literature, politics and biology (to name a few). Just because this study does not resonate with you does not negate its importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.228.33.14 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 20 September 2005

Vote by 4.228.33.14 (talk · contribs), signature is forged, there is no User:Leslie Botha-Williams. --Pjacobi 12:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • This is a category, not an article. siafu 23:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: How about renaming it Category:Cycle studies? --G Rutter 07:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the name isn'the problem. The category lumps articles together, which have no sufficent cohesion, to fulfill categories' two main purpose

1. Navigation aid for the reader
2. Systematic division of article space

Take for example Astrology, Atomic clock, Bipolar disorder, and Joseph Schumpeter.

Pjacobi 08:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The cohesion depends on the perspective of the individual using the encyclopedia for resarch. To a cycles researcher the 4 topics listed do have some cohesion. There are many ways of looking at the world and an encyclopedia should cope with as many of them as possible. That is why astrology has a place, even though many of us may think it bunkum. Someone studying global warming might look up milankovitch cycles and finding the caegory ctcles be lead to discover a host of other climate cycles and also social cycles that might be relevant to their study. User:RayTomes Ray Tomes 00:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I direct you to Wikipedia:Categorization, specifically where it states: "If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?" Does this apply to bipolar disorder? Joseph Schumpeter? Astrology? Human timescales? This is not more useful than a category like Category:Things that happened more than once, and none of the arguments presented so far address the specific issue of categorization. siafu 03:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Jack Smith (tjs11) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjs11 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 21 September 2005

Vote by tjs11 (talk · contribs), 2nd contrib, 1st was at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Harmonics Theory. --Pjacobi 12:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only 2 contribs listed above. ∞Who?¿? 01:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - given the arguments above and on the various talk and AfD pages and the existence of list of cycles I do not see the need for a category for a theory which has very limited support. --G Rutter 15:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has nothing to do with any theory. You are totally confused. The category cycles is not as wide as list of cycles, as it includes only articles which are predominantly about cycles where the list includes also minor cycles references. Cycle studies is a well established branch of knowledge, with many mathematical tools (FFT, MESA, indicators for markets) and spans many scientific, economic and social disciplines. I recommend reading [1] by Edward Dewey. This explains the advantages of interdisciplinary cycles study. What possible harm does it do anyone to have a cycles category? Hint ... answer is none. User:RayTomes Ray Tomes 01:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fail to see how, say sonoluminescence is in any way "predominantly about cycles." Siafu is right--this is a category only in the mind of someone who is predisposed to see it as such. It's reminiscent of [Borges' Chinese encyclopedia], with its arbitrary classification of animals. The Dewey article exhibits a similar cargo-cult approach to science, one decried by the very Feynman he cites. The "harm" is to the credibility of Wikipedia as a source of information. rodii 23:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hint: Excess categories clutter up category listings, make navigation more difficult, and increase server load. siafu 23:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there is no theoretical underpining to the collection of articles in Category:Cycles then it should certainly be deleted. That lots of things have cyclic patterns is not disputed, but that there is a meta-explanation linking them all is. Can you provide independent references (preferably in peer-reviewed journals) that does link them? I'm afraid a paper with no references from 1967 which admits it doesn't have a theory to link the observations doesn't convince me of the need for this. --G Rutter 08:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. User:Pjorgens I use this category in preference to other cycle categories. If you feel you must go around deleting things for the greater good or just because YOU find them silly or excessive then attack those other categories rather than this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjorgens (talk • contribs) 01:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pjorgens (talk · contribs). Second contribution, first was ten minutes prior. siafu 03:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • First edit, userpage, second edit vote. Last contrib since. ∞Who?¿? 01:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is intersting and challenging to see the world from other vantage points than ones own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calmer (talk • contribs) 13:45, 22 September 2005

Unsigned edit by Calmer (talk · contribs) - first edit. siafu 18:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And last edit. ∞Who?¿? 01:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. More a hobby or pseudo-discipline that any real area of human knowledge. rodii 22:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note. Discounted sock-puppet votes. 5 total, 4 del, 1 keep. ∞Who?¿? 01:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 23:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Clothing and textile manufacturers of the United Kingdom. CalJW 22:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Syntax. siafu 22:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. -- Reinyday, 20:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 23:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the same category. This is my initial opinion of which direction the merge should go, but I'm subject to persuasion on this one. TexasAndroid 21:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. The only instance in which "label" is more common, AFAIK, is with Record labels. siafu 22:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 23:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization of WP users. Also, only one member of the category, the creator. TexasAndroid 20:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete CalJW 22:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Also user doesn't seem aware that he shouldn't put himself in article categories. Whitejay²⁵¹ 15:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Osomec 15:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 23:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically could be populated, but do we really want to start categorizing talk pages? TexasAndroid 20:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:NOT a blog/chatroom, all this does it promote that. It is quite enough to have the article's cat'd appropriately. ∞Who?¿? 21:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This project is about content, not wikipedians. CalJW 22:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Talk page abuse. siafu 22:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 23:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another non-standard category. It was created by a Swedish Wikipedian who was probably unaware that it is not standard in English to think of things like films and albums as "publications" - perhaps the Swedish equivalent is commonly applied to them. I have checked that all the entries are already in the appropriate standard Swedish categories (music, cinema, literature etc) so nothing will be lost if this one is Deleted. CalJW 18:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 23:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The British institutions category was recently deleted and I would like to see all of the small number of national "institutions" categories go. It is a hopelessly vague term. It can mean:

• An organisation with the terms "institute" or "institution" in its name - a pretty random selection. So use the categories in category:Organizations by country instead.
• Any organisation - so use organisations categories instead as it is a clearer term, and already has more traction in the category system.
• Things that are said to represent a country. Vague, and the main reason for getting British institutions deleted. In any case, it is a secondary use so it just creates muddle as to what belongs in the category. "National icons" is a better option here, though I'm against that too personally and would prefer to see such matters covered in articles.

Due to the rather random variations in what is in each institutions category and where they fit into their country's overall menu system they need to be dealt with one at a time. I have emptied the Swedish category by moving items into category:Swedish organizations, which was already better populated, and the appropriate subject area categories in the Swedish menu. As an example of the vague categorisation that institutions categories lead to the Supreme Court of Sweden was only to be found in Swedish institutions, which was a subcategory of category:Swedish society - not where I would think to look for it. Now it is in the government, law and organisations categories, which are all in the top tier of the Sweden menu - much easier to find I hope. The category system is a navigation tool, and should be as clear and as standardised as possible so people can build up a sense for where thing will be. CalJW 17:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Osomec 16:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 23:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are four categories in category:Businesspeople by nationality which use non standard terms:

• category:Indian businessmen
• category:Bulgarian businessmen
• category:Swedish industrialists
• category:Russian oligarchs

All of these should be renamed to Fooian businesspeople. I don't expect there will be much opposition on the two gender exclusive categories. As for the other two:

• Swedish industrialists. "Industrialists" is an oldfashioned term in English. Internet entrepreneurs are not referred to as industrialists. If there are separate terms with separate meanings in Swedish, they can be used in the Swedish wikipedia, but the categorisation system of the English wikipedia should use standard modern English terms on a consistent basis. If anyone wishes to discuss the role of Swedish industrialists during the period of Sweden's economic rise in Sweden's social history, the place to do that is in an article, not the category system. If this is renamed the blurb will need to be deleted.
• Russia: this is an informal term which is probably passing its peak usage. I expect there will be future articles about emerging Russian businesspeople who had nothing to do with the privatisation era and are not really "oligarchs". The place to discuss the era and the concept is in the article, which exists (Business oligarch). The category system is a navigation tool, it should use the most standardised and neutral terms possible, and avoid terms which come loaded with assumptions.

CalJW 17:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment please consider using {{cfdu}} or {{cfru}} for umbrella nominations, more details can be found on Cfd howto page. ∞Who?¿? 21:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to "Fooian businesspeople". I'm pretty sure that's just a typo there in the nom, but I thought I'd make sure. siafu 22:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now corrected. CalJW 16:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to "Fooian businesspeople". -- Reinyday, 04:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 23:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard category with an awkward name. I have moved the handful of articles to the standard categories category:Sweden-related lists, category:Demographics of Sweden and subject area categories as appropriate. Delete. CalJW 15:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus (no change). ∞Who?¿? 00:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Radio_stations_in_Sweden follows the same pattern as other radio stations in countires. This category should be merged into the other. Kushboy 23:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per Kushboy. Capitalistroadster 01:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why is this on AFD? Is it not a category? Take it to WP:CFD Grutness...wha? 02:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's now on CFD. Uncle G 15:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep The two things aren't the same at all. Radio stations is one of the subcategories of a national radio category. See category:Radio in the United Kingdom for an example of a more mature category. I'm sure there must be some articles about Swedish radio personalities to add at least. CalJW 15:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, all the articles but one need to be moved to the other category for sure. But that leaves only one article. Most countries have "Radio Stations in Country", some have "Country Radio", but no country has both. Perhaps the other category should be merged into this one. Kushboy 16:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The UK, Canada and the U.S. all have both for a start. CalJW 17:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correction Alright, so that's right. The new question is whether or not Swedish Radio deserves its own category. It only has one article. The rest must be moved out.
        • It certainly does. It has an article and a subcategory and plenty of potential for expansion. As I said before there are probably already further articles that should be in it. It it is deleted visitors to category:Radio by country may mistakenly assume that Wikipedia has no coverage of Swedish radio. CalJW 18:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ∞Who?¿? 07:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as nominated. Smart people who hang out at CfD might know the difference, but I'm sure there are a lot of editors who would be confused at the "duplication". --Kbdank71 13:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 23:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard, probably unique, category which was only categorised within the Sweden menu. It contained three sub-cats which I have moved to their standard homes, including category:Conservation in Sweden, which is he closest standard equivalent. The one that isn't there was category:Churches in Sweden, which is now in buildings and structures and religion as are its equivlents for other countries. Delete CalJW 13:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "Heritage" is hopelessy vague and broad. siafu 22:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 02:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ararat is a redirect to Mount Ararat, not Ararat, Victoria which is what both the category description and the articles in it are about, nor any other uses of the name. (see Ararat (disambiguation)) Caerwine 08:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. ∞Who?¿? 21:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 22:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Bhoeble 17:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Refer to WP:SFD. ∞Who?¿? 22:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I messed up when I created the category... can I get it renamed? Rschen7754 03:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this is outside the scope of WP:CFD and should be handled by stubs for deletion, for both the template and the category. As far as renaming, changing the template and null editing the 1 article would accomplish this, which would leave the category empty. Also, as the creator, you can just add {{db}} tag and request speedy deletion. ∞Who?¿? 22:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge. ∞Who?¿? 02:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant category with few articles, everything that can be grouped into this category can be grouped into Category:Second Sino-Japanese War, which is also more inclusive since WWII began 1939 but 2SJW began 1937. Miborovsky 01:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. No argument. siafu 22:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.