Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 30

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:All Progressive Congress politicians to Category:All Progressives Congress politicians

Nominator's rationale: Looks like a duplicate, we don't need this cat when the appropriate cat is already existing. Stanleytux (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge – All Progressive Congress redirects to All Progressives Congress. Oculi (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2015 (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.

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. MER-C 12:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Billboard Pop 100 number-one singles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not one song in this category is defined by it reaching #1 on this chart, nor does anyone ever refer to these as "the Pop 100 #1 song" in media. The chart itself didn't last 5 years and was too indistinguishable from the more prominent and well-known Billboard Hot 100 chart. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- We have repeatedly deleted such categories. No objection to a list, but it would be a very long one. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Secondary awards are non-defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent and WP:OCAWARD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2016 (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.

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 per nomination. – Fayenatic London 23:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Relativists to Category:Relativity theorists

Nominator's rationale: I confused this with moral relativism when I first saw it: that is a far more common use of the term in everyday speech. I am definitely open to better names than the one that I proposed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I rather agree with you and I also don't know if there is a better expression. Category:Physicists by field of research doesn't fill me with good ideas. Just to comment, although the category hatnote says the main article is Contributors to general relativity, some of the people included were only directly associated with special relativity. I think it is sensible to include both. Thincat (talk) 10:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Contributors to general relativity per main article. The present name is too ambiguous. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Einsteinian relativists which would cover both Special and General, and remove the main article (change it to a different statement, like {{seealso}}), per the statement that it contains both Special and General, not just General Relativity. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to make it clear this is not related to a philosophical view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed by nominator, since in the alternatives "general" does not suffice and "Einsteinian" seems too specific. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2016 (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.

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. MER-C 12:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Macau Grand Prix drivers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: As mentioned when it was last created, this is a category for drivers who competed in an invididual race event ("performer by performance", you might say). Now, some individual races rise to the level where participation in them is WP:DEFINING - the 24 Hours of LeMans, 24 Hours of Daytona, and such - however the Macau Grand Prix is not one of them, especially as the "Macau Grand Prix" is a collection of races in several series over the course of the race weekend(F3, WTCC, TCR International Series), meaning that it (as far as I can tell) lumps drivers from several series into the same category indiscriminately.

In short, participation in the Macau Grand Prix is not WP:DEFINING to a driver's career, the category is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and, therefore, it should be deleted. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- This is essentially a performance by performer category which we do not allow. Each year there are perhaps 20 races in the Grand Prix Series. For the most part the same drivers take part in each race, which would result in each driver getting 20 categories. I might not object to "Grand Prix drivers 2015" as a category. A driver's career may last a decade, so that 10 nauual categories might not be too bad. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of order: there is no "Grand Prix series". The event in question here is basically an "all-star" event for the champions and top finishers of various Formula Three series; "Grand Prix" usually refers to Formula One events but is also used (as here) for select other "Formula" (i.e. open-wheel) race events. We don't categorise racing drivers by the intersection of "series+year"; categorisation is done by notable series - Category:Formula Three drivers would be the relevant one here. An upmerge, however, is not indicated as this category appears to contain drivers from the other series mentioned that hold races as support events during the Macau Grand Prix weekend. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete performer by performance category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2016 (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.