Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 12

< January 11	January 13 >

January 12

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Cycle

Delete. In September 2005, Category:Cycles was deleted after a previous CfD. A user, RayTomes, who was deeply involved with that category has now created a nearly identical category. Also see the relevant AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cycle theory and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cycle studies. The nominator in the 2005 CfD used the term silly to describe the category, and that rationale is still valid today. Also note that there is a List of cycles already. Tim Shuba 14:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This category is being used to collect all articles with anything to do with periodicity (sunspot cycle, business cycle, circadian rhythm, etc.). Aside from the fact that these things occur in cycles, they have nothing in common. Hence, the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 14:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to administrator - When Category:Cycles was deleted, multiple sockpuppets voted for keeping the category. Please watch for sockpuppets on this vote. Dr. Submillimeter 14:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Academy Awards

Delete all as nominee categories, see also a related discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scientists by religion

Propose renaming Category:Scientists by religion to Category:Scientists by belief about religion

A small change, but it might make it clearer this means belief/perspective, remotely related to how Category:Philosophy of science does, rather than just listing what scientist was born as what.--T. Anthony 12:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm supportive of the idea but a couple of queries. One, alas, there are lots of other "X by religion" categories. Are we going to fix them all? Treat scientists as a special case? Two, between "Scientists by religion", "Scientists by religious belief", "Scientists by religious faith", and "Scientists by belief about religion", is SBRB the clearest formulation of the category structure, to pick up Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, Christians, Deists, Theists, Roman Catholics, Mormons, Polytheists, Muslims, Pantheists (in no particular order) ??? Three, is this still intended to be a cat where the religion must have been notable in the career (or career must have been notable in the religion, I guess), or is it just an intersection category? --lquilter 14:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer notable. Possibly "Scientists by belief about religion" would be clearer on that. I'll do that.--T. Anthony 14:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of putting them all up for a rename, but I think it'll be clear the others are also based on their opinion of religions. (Category:Christians in science being the Christian opinion, etc. It says it well enough and anything else seemed horribly contrived)--T. Anthony 14:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Categorizing people by their religious beliefs is inappropriate unless their work is religious in nature. Dr. Submillimeter 14:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rhythmic Top 40 acts

Delete - This lists people who have appeared in a specific top 40 chart in Billboard magazine since 1987. It is the only such category within Category:Billboard charts. In the past, such categories have been deleted in favor of listifying because such categories are unweildly and less informative in terms of navigating the individuals. (This will also remove a category from Alanis Morissette, who has now beaten George H. W. Bush as the most categorized article on Wikipedia.) Dr. Submillimeter 10:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JW 11:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Natives of Württemberg

Propose merging Category:Natives of Württemberg to Category:Natives of Baden-Württemberg

Merging, Is this category really needed? Wouldn`t Native of Baden-Württemberg suffice? I mean natives of West Virginia when it was still part of Virginia dont have an own category either. I think, the current name and borders of the state should be used and are enough --Tresckow 09:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic dioceses of the United States

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic dioceses of the United States to Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States

Rename, For consistency with similar RC diocese categories for countries/regions.. MH au 08:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Warrior women

Warrior women is not encyclopedic term for historical figures. Warrior Woman is a comic book character. JBellis 07:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would guess that "female military soldier" and "female military officer" categories exists somewhere on Wikipedia, but I did not find obvious categories in Category:Women in war. This category should probably be renamed as something. Dr. Submillimeter 09:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computer Security

Category:Computer Security into Category:Computer network security

Merge. Apparent incomplete nomination from December 19. Relisting. Vegaswikian 06:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Vegaswikian. The Rambling Man 07:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Annual activist events

Propose renaming Category:Annual activist events to Category:Awareness Days

Rename. Apparent incomplete nomination from December 14. Relisting. Vegaswikian 06:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Awareness days with lower case d in days per Wikipedia style title capitalization. Doczilla 07:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Doczilla. The Rambling Man 08:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Patient's organizations

Category:Patient's organizations

Rename Category:Patient's organizations to Category:Patients' organizations --lquilter 05:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for the obvious reason. CiaranG 12:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of Marvel Comics superhero teams

Category:Lists of Marvel Comics superhero teams into Category:Lists of fictional characters by organisation

Merge, Proposed cat is a smaller subset of the second cat. Second cat, while it has to potential to grow, is not large enough to subdivide at this time. J Greb 03:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New York City Subway transfer-points

This appears to be over-categorization, better suited for a list. NE2 02:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am currently testing the category to give other members a clear view of my idea for station complexes. I'll speedy it if it doesn't make the cut. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 02:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand exactly what you mean, but why would a list not work? --NE2 03:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the second station complexes header and maybe you would understand instead of making a quick cfd. Signing off until tomorrow, --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#Station complexes, where several other people agreed that it was a bad idea? --NE2 03:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This is an unnecessary category. There is no need to have a category for transfer stations. It's just list cruft. And on top of that, you're showing borderline symptoms of going against consensus, once again. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 03:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear WP:POINT violation. In theory, this should be speedyible under G7 - author error (albeit it would be a stretch), since the author admits that it's WP:POINT and will speedy it if anyone disagrees. -- NORTH ^talk 04:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is so esoteric that it will not be useful to the average reader. (I could not understand the context of the category.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I considered whether it would be worth having such a category for London Underground stations, and the answer was no. Twittenham 12:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Batman Beyond villains

Merge into Category:Batman villains. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Doczilla 05:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --lquilter 05:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The Rambling Man 07:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rat genera

Propose renaming Category:Rat genera to Category:Genera of rats

Rename, similar to Category:Genera of mice. These two have been bouncing around CFDs separately with the result that they were not renamed in the same style. Timrollpickering 02:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I proposed the last rename, trying to standardize with Mice. I agree that they should be the same and don't have a preference between these two forms. ~ Bigr Tex 05:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. Doczilla 07:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The Rambling Man 07:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ooccupational organizations

Delete Category:Ooccupational organizations

speedy delete - I created it, did a preview, and still didn't see the typo. --lquilter 02:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Timrollpickering 02:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per typoo. The Rambling Man 07:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Serious games

Propose renaming Category:Serious games to Category:to be determined by consensus

No vote, as this is an admin sort of relisting. This category has been nominated twice before, here and here, just closed. The last has had a strong feeling for a clearer name, but rejected Category:Educational computer and video games as being too different. Category:Instructional computer and video games is one that was suggested but a wider debate is needed to resolve this one. Timrollpickering 01:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So is this for discussion here but no votes? Or discussion somewhere else? --lquilter 05:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say discussion and a suggested new name that could get consensus. Vegaswikian 06:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]