< August 23 August 25 >

August 24

Category:Channel 6 radio station

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[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[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

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[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[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

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[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[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

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[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[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

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[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[reply]

I'll express my own opinion separately from this post. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[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

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[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[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[reply]
CN1 (talk) 10:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[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

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[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[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.
More