Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 23 August 25 >

August 24[edit]

Category:Channel 6 radio station[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a category which was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_7#American_TV_stations_by_channel_number, but as one user raised an objection to its inclusion in that batch but nobody else specifically addressed it at all, I think it's more appropriate to relist than to just speedy. The issue here is that because TV channel 6 is also audible on the FM radio band at 87.7, there are a small number of stations which use a TV channel 6 license to effectively operate as a radio station instead of as a TV station. However, as no other categories exist for radio stations on any other frequency, or for television stations on any other channel number, there's little value in this existing as an isolated "special case" — and because most conventional FM tuners can't pick up 87.7 at all, it's a fairly WP:FRINGE topic since one needs a tuner with 87.7 capabilities to actually listen. We already have a list at Channel 6 radio stations in the United States, so any station categorized here which isn't listed there yet should be added to that article, but a category for them is not useful or appropriate. And even if this were to be kept, it would still have to be renamed to Category:Channel 6 radio stations anyway, as categories are named in the plural form because they contain multiple exemplars of the topic, not in the singular. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I created the category after finding it listed on Special:WantedCategories. However, the rationale you so well provided above compels me to support the proposal to delete. Gjs238 (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the trait her categoized for does not actually create a unified relationship between the category contents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 11 September 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.

Category:Value[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename and purge, currently the category is a case of WP:SHAREDNAME as it combines various different concepts of "value". Note that Value is a disambiguation page. Since most articles in this category seem to be about Value (ethics) it is easiest to rename the category to Category:Value (ethics) and to remove content that no longer fits. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:58, 24 August 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.

Category:Political Prefect of Querétaro[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single-entry category which appears, from what I can tell, to simply be an unnecessary duplicate of Category:Governors of Querétaro. Although I know that there are some places where "prefect" is the proper name of a specific office that a politician can hold, in many others it's simply an alternative synonym for whatever the leader's more common title is. But I can find no indication that "prefect of Querétaro" is a distinct office from "governor of Querétaro" -- indeed, even in our article on prefect, the closest there is to any mention of Mexico at all is the phrase "in some Spanish-speaking states in Latin America...prefects were installed as governors" -- which means this is of the latter type, and therefore we don't need to categorize "prefects" as a separate thing from "governors". Upmerge to the governors category not necessary, as the only entry here is still sitting in the governors category alongside this one anyway. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 24 August 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.

Category:Queretaro interim rulers[edit]

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Wikipedia does not use the category system to separate interim holders of a political position from "permanent" ones -- interim governors of Querétaro and permanent governors of Querétaro go in the same category regardless of the constitutional nuances of their time in office. Upmerge to Category:Governors of Querétaro not necessary, as everybody filed in this category is simultaneously still filed in that category alongside this one anyway. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 24 August 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.

Category:Sainik School Kazhakootam alumni[edit]

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. If I understood correctly, User:Abledoc raised an objection against the existence of the target category, that can be handled in a separate nomination if desired. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sainik School Kazhakootam alumni, generally known as Kazhaks in the Indian armed forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abledoc (talk • contribs) 11:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – this has some connection with 10 Aug cfd. Oculi (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Because the first discussion has attracted zero comments after two full weeks, I'm closing it as a stale discussion and consolidating it with the new one. The original nomination rationale, for the record, was:
I'll express my own opinion separately from this post. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Redrose. They're entirely correct that a separate subcategory for each individual campus of the same parent institution is not necessary, but as long as the parent category does still exist the people here should be refiled in it rather than simply being removed from any alumni-related categories at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why were WP:CFD#HOWTO steps I and II apparently ignored by Abledoc (talk · contribs)? If step I had been carried out, the existing CfD would have been seen, and this one would not have been created; if step II had been carried out, the page history would show edits at or about 11:12, 24 August 2016. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Abledoc didn't create a new nomination using the proper process, but simply listed their rationale directly on this page without actually formatting it properly. Given that there was a prior discussion already open despite its lack of input after two weeks, the process error here and the fact that there have now been some merge votes, I would recommend if at all possible that somebody who hasn't already contributed to the discussion should speedy close it as a merge instead of forcing it to run for another full week. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I just realised that Abledoc was aware of the first CfD, because I told them at the time. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Redrose. The sole contribution by Abledoc was this, of mysterious intent. Oculi (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although Sainik Schools share a name, most of the schools do not have strong and well organised alumni networks like Sainik School Kazhakootam with chapters all over the globe. The first directory of "Kazhaks" was published in book form in 1987 and there are a lot more notable alumni than listed. Since a large number of them are defense officers, they have restrictions on media presence. Sainik School Kazhakootam news gets wide coverage in the state (Kerala) media. (Sorry, I dont know how to format this. Abledoc (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)The sub-category was included with the intention of updating the information with more notable alumni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abledoc (talk • contribs) 14:34, 25 August 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.

Category:Sociological genres of music[edit]

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, content merged as proposed. For clarity, that means no redirect will be created on the deleted category. (Regarding User:Bearcat's concern expressed in the discussion: It's an interesting point I think, but I'm not sure that a "merge" vote in every case carries with it an implied !vote for creating a category redirect on the nominated category. There's nothing in the guidelines that suggests that that's the case. It often depends on the context and nature of the nomination, and as a closer I don't routinely maintain a redirect after a "merge" result unless it somehow makes some sense to do so. Other closers' practices may vary. But it never hurts for users to clarify their position on the issue if they care one way or the other.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: this category suggests that this collection of music genres are a specific research topic for sociologists, but there is no evidence of this. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I see no connection with sociology. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There's no meaningful distinction between a "sociological" genre of music and a "non-sociological" genre of music — every genre of music has some sociological elements to it, through things like its fan culture and its dedicated media and its genre-specific festivals and awards and events, so "sociological" isn't a characteristic that distinguishes one genre of music from another. I'll grant that sociomusicology is a thing, but there's no genre of music that fails to be a topic of some amount of sociomusicological research. Do recat the entries back to Category:Music genres, but I'm not going with a full-on "merge" vote because it's not desirable to maintain the old title as a categoryredirect. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recatting can and should definitely happen — but strictly speaking, a normal "merge" would require keeping the "sociological" category in place as a categoryredirect. That latter part is something that shouldn't happen. But deleting it wouldn't inherently preclude recatting the entries elsewhere, so saying "delete" isn't in conflict with the former part — I will update my prior vote to specify recatting for clarity's sake, but I'm still standing by delete rather than merge as maintaining the redirect is undesirable. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The distinguishing trait that all these music subcategories share is, that they are associated with a non-musical topic, a certain area of social life for which these music plays an important role. Maybe rename to Category:Functional music or Category:Music by social function or a better suggestion. For this reason I see a good purpose in this category. Examples:
CN1 (talk) 10:10, 21 September 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.

Category:Sociological paradigms[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge in the spirit of WP:C2D, since Sociological paradigms redirects to Sociological theory. The category may need a bit of purging though. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Without an article or other sources supporting a distinction between paradigm and theory in this context, this seems a non-controversial upmerge. --Mark viking (talk) 23:45, 24 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_August_24&oldid=1074816066"