Talk:Cycle

Overall approach

I've extracted items eligible for the lead section per WP:MOSDAB, but most of the remaining material is barely usable, and perhaps has no place in the Dab. Unless someone is prepared to tackle it, i'll at some point move all of the rest to Talk:Cycle/Recycling center, so it remains accessible to editors inclined to further pick thru it to exploit the compilation in some way.
--Jerzy•t 21:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently cleaned up the article quite a bit, in terms of organization. I also removed all of the mathematics terms that were not applicable. I may, at some point, do so with the other subjects (particularly ones in which I am knowledgeable). There are several items (particularly some listed under Mythology) that are simply not something people will need to find if they look up "cycle." At least, that's how it looks. On the other hand, alot of the science terms may need to stay, because in some fields and in some written work, "cycle" is used in very particular and technical ways. We should be careful not to remove links to articles because we don't know that they belong here, when in fact they do. --Cheeser1 04:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I killed some more. In case you didn't noticed, there is a huge List of cycles artcle. So the cleanup here is still unfinished. `'Míkka 06:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I agree that many things need to be removed, I'm not sure if we can simply cut entire sections, because in many fields, "cycle" is used to refer to more technical things. And even in common parlance, the menstrual cycle, for example, is often referred to simply as "the cycle." I would really rather leave things in, if in doubt, and wait for a more qualified person to weigh in on it (like I did with the math). Tour de France, for example, is not referred to as "cycle" and is simply related to cycling. That can be removed, without expert opinion or consensus. The other stuff though I'd be more wary about deleting. I don't want to seem heavy handed though - feel free to discuss this and remove stuff if consensus is formed (or if I've missed a more obvious reason to remove things). And be careful - I don't think list of cycles includes all of this information. I would worry about cutting this article to bits and deferring to that one. --Cheeser1 13:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I didn't do it all at once. I want to be sure of each deleted item. Also, I strongly suggest you to read about what are disambig pages for and about ther style.`'Míkka 18:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why do you decided what is and isn't called "cycle"? I'm sorry, but you can't remove them one by one and say that doing so clears up this conflict. I can link you to policy too, but I'd rather discuss it than condescendingly dismiss you. I suggest you do the same and explain why you think the entire biology section doesn't refer to anything called "cycle" but so many of the things you've decided to leave do. Wikipedia is not written by your opinion or your interpretation of policy, even if you fancy yourself more informed about disambig articles than me. It's written by consensus. I suggest you keep that, the much more fundamental policy, in mind. --Cheeser1 21:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"And why do you decided what is and isn't called "cycle"?" I decided nothing. If you refuse to read the policy carefully, let me remind you that disambig pages are for navigation between articles that could have the same name. And if you want to claim that Citric acid cycle is commonly called "cycle", it your job to prove it, not mine. On the other hand, for me it is as simple as this: if the corresponding article does not say that the thing in question is commonly called as simply "cycle", then it has no place here. `'Míkka 23:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Whatever. I've read the policy (before now), I've listened to your explanation of it, and yet you continue to apply it in a completely awkward and inexplicable fashion. You want this article gutted according to the strictest interpretation of policy? You got it. I'm bothered that the best I can do to form consensus with you is take your interpretation of policy and apply it in a sensible and unbiased way, but at least it's not your implementation of your interpretation of policy, which was inexplicable and awkward. --Cheeser1 02:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete issues

Talk page redirect

The talk page for this article should not redirect to another article's talk page. I have fixed this, but may have interrupted discussions about this article. --Philosophus 06:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The overwritten lk was Talk:Cycle studies, and should have appeared here to ameliorate such disruption. It was soon deleted pursuant to an AfD.
--Jerzy•t 20:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of The Foundation for the Study of Cycles

I have removed the prominent link to TFSC at the top of this page's article. The relatively obscure organisation should not have such high placement on a general page, especially when many of the topics (fuel cycle, etc) are unrelated. --Philosophus 06:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Signed article modified (in bold) to fix misleading reference. --Jerzy•t 20:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cycles and Hertz

I see the line "Frequency can be measured in cycle per second, but is instead typically measured in Hertz" as implying that 'cycles per second' and 'Hertz' are being two different quantities. They mean exactly the same thing. To quote the 'Hertz' article:

One hertz simply means one cycle per second (typically that which is being counted is a complete cycle); 100 Hz means one hundred cycles per second, and so on. The unit may be applied to any periodic event—for example, a clock might be said to tick at 1 Hz, or a human heart might be said to beat at 1.2 Hz. The frequencies of aperiodic events, such as radioactive decay, are expressed in becquerels.

Could someone explain why the removal of the line was reverted? At least replace 'measured' with 'expressed as.'\ 132.206.67.32 02:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed as irrelevant to this page anyway. `'Míkka >t 03:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up

What clean up does anyone expect here? It seems to be properly organized and everything. Adding a tag like that requires some explanation, or nobody's going to know what needs fixing. --Cheeser1 05:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle also means recurring events

Here is an extract from Merriam Webster Dictionary of the meaning of the word "cycle":

1: an interval of time during which a sequence of a recurring succession of events or phenomena is completed <a 4-year cycle of growth and development>2 a: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting point b: one complete performance of a vibration, electric oscillation, current alternation, or other periodic process ....

You will see that one of the main meanings is a series of events or operations that recur regularly. There has been a deliberate campaign to remove articles that I have have written about cycles in wikipedia. Now they are not even mentioned as a possible meaning of the word. What sort of revisionism is this of knowledge in the world. Pimply kids just out of university go around deleting stuff that they weren't taught about and wikipedia looks really stupid as a result.

I don't plan to put a sensible definition of cycle in here because there are people that will then delete it. But there should be a page on cycle with the meaning of regular recurring events and the disambiguation should refer to it. There was a page called "cycle studies" which was deleted based on a series of lies by user CH who has now left wikipedia. There have also been fraudulent vote counts and deletions done based on them and unsubstantiated accusations of sock puppets. There is no one that will look into these matters seriously. Shame on wikipedia.

I can be contacted by email at ray(at)tomes(dot)biz by anyone who wants to assist in re-establishing cycles (meaning recurring periodic events) information in wikipedia. Ray Tomes (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary covers the dictionary definitions of words. I bet

The dictionary definition of cycle at Wiktionary (which is referred to by the dab page) covers what you're talking about. Dictionary definitions are not encyclopedia articles. WP:NOT#DICTIONARY -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with this article

In addition to or including some noted above:

If it truly is a disambigation page, that should be in the title. In truth this is just a short version of List of cycles.
There is no page defining what a cycle is or relating that to what a Wave is, as I noted on Talk:Wave.
Obviously there has been a WP:OR bias against cycle theory which extends, absurdly enough, to even having an article like this define what a cycle is, which is incredibly WP:POV.

I will do my best to correct these issues by turning this into a real article unless someone has some sensible explanation for the problems in this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name of this article is not in disagreement with the naming conventions for disambiguation pages, see WP:DABNAME. What do you consider a "real article" on cycle, i.e. a primary topic with respect to cycle, given the ambiguities? -- Crowsnest (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also see the section above, and the page itself, referring to Wiktionary:cycle. -- Crowsnest (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue is, that I wanted to move cyclic (mathematics) to the Mathematics and physics section, to find out it is another disambiguation page, which in turn refers to the disambiguation page cycle graph (disambiguation). It seems to me some reorganisation is needed.
And what to do with vibration, oscillation, wave, turn, which do not contain cycle or cyclic, but are what people are looking for when they think of cycles. -- Crowsnest (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I edited this and the other mathematics dab pages on cycle and cyclic, to reduce the level of nested-dab pages to two. Also note that periodicity is a dab page. -- Crowsnest (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question remains, shouldn't the unidentified "disambiguation" page have a similar structure to List of Cycles (and vice versa) instead of a haphazard overlap?? Shouldn't they be worked on together? And if done right, why is the list needed at all? CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the disambiguation page is in agreement with WP:DABNAME. And Cycle (disambiguation) redirects here. For me, this seems workable. And as far as I can see, lists most times don't work together with anything. Overlap cannot always be avoided, and may in fact in cases like these -- e.g. lists, disambiguation pages and categories -- be one of the strengths of Wikipedia when you want to find something. -- Crowsnest (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was once an article Cycle studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which did attempt some prose on the subject of cycles. It was a bit of a battle ground as there are all sorts fringe cycle theories. I think there is scope for an article on the topic covering man's fascination throughout history with all things cyclic. If someone wants to have a go I can userfy the old article.--Salix (talk): 20:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Since our goal is to be helpful to readers, if this a disambiguation page, let's make it explicit in title or at least description. It took me several times coming to it to figure it was not a poorly written article or just redundant to List of cycles.

2. For starters, how about changing top of article to read:

This disambiguation page does not deal with vehicles or riding (Cycling). For relevant pages see Category:Cycle types.

3. Perhaps what is needed is a new article called Cycle (scientific) that would be able to get into the various details of the most mainstream science. For example asking about the difference between wave and cycle in the Wave article someone answered something that belongs in wikipedia if true:

A wave is (often) an oscillatory – or cyclic – event that propagates through space. A cyclic event does not need to propagate. A solitary wave (water waves) is an example of a wave that is not cyclic, within the class of solitons.

4. I think it would be a good to have another article called something like Cycle Theories which will allow for the more speculative topics without upsetting the more mainstream scientists. So reviving and renaming Cycle studies might be a good idea. ("Studies" may have been problematic because of relation to "Foundation for Study of Cycles" which obviously is controversial to some.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle in music

A cycle can also be a musical work comprising several pieces of music, e.g. Song cycle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.189.232 (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclic link

The first link on the page, Cycle, just redirects back to this page. Funny, but useless. 91.85.35.235 (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle (graph theory) discrepancy

In this page a cycles in graph theory is briefly summarised as:

a nontrivial path in a graph from a node to itself

(emphasis mine)

Whereas on the Cycle (graph theory) page it is defined as:

In graph theory, a cycle in a graph is a non-empty trail in which only the first and last vertices are equal

(emphasis mine)

However according to Path_(graph_theory) these are two separate things:

* A trail is a walk in which all edges are distinct.
* A path is a trail in which all vertices (and therefore also all edges) are distinct.

Should this be corrected, or am I missing something?

122.57.14.154 (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]