Category:Radio stations in the South Okanagan[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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unnecessary intermediate level of categorization; Category:Radio stations in the Okanagan is sufficient and does not require "central/north/south" regional splitouts of this type. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Steam5 (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BHG. It may be we need to merge the target upwards too, but that is for another day. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2013 (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:Radio stations in the Central Okanagan[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.
Merge per BHG. It may be we need to merge the target upwards too, but that is for another day. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2013 (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:Radio stations in the North Okanagan[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; there is no content to merge following the close of the discussion immediately below. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unnecessary level of intermediate categorization between Category:Radio stations in Vernon, British Columbia (itself up for deletion as WP:OC#SMALL) and Category:Radio stations in the Okanagan (which is also of uncertain value as a regional rather than market-based radio stations category, but that's a question for another time); furthermore, the Vernon category is its only entry, meaning that if and when it's deleted this will be empty. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Steam5 (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There will be nothing to merge, as its only contents are a single subcategory that's up for discussion immediately below. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BHG. It may be we need to merge the target upwards too, but that is for another day. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2013 (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:Radio stations in Vernon, British Columbia[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 as nominated; contents merged as nominated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Small radio markets are not generally permitted their own distinct "Radio stations in City" categories when they have only two radio stations to categorize as such; generally, the expected minimum is at least four or five entries. For the record, Vernon does not have additional radio stations which haven't been written or categorized yet; these two are all there are, meaning that there's no prospect of expansion unless and until the CRTC hypothetically licenses new stations in the future (and if that ever happens, we can always create a new category for them when that time comes.) Entries should be upmerged to Category:Radio stations in the Okanagan. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Steam5 (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Radio stations in the Okanagan. I agree that this intermediate categ is un-needed, but simply deleting an intermediate layer orphans the contents and subcats, so an upmerger is needed. (Oddly, that's what the nom's rationale proposes, even tho the nomination is to delete.) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only distinction between a "merge" rationale and a "delete" one in this instance would be keeping Category:Radio stations in Vernon, British Columbia in place as a {{categoryredirect}} to the target — but we don't need that and I don't want to propose it. The stations should be refiled in the target category, yes, but the outgoing category should just be canned rather than redirected. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BHG. It may be we need to merge the target upwards too, but that is for another day. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2013 (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, without prejudice to the creation of a Category:Dravidian-language films, which had some convincing support, though perhaps not quite enough for me to do a straight rename here.
Nominator's rationale: Unwanted category. A film is categorized by its country and language, then why this needless category? Separating films by regions should be the last thing! Johannes003 (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article is terrible. a mish-mash of already existing articles, but that's a different topic. Point is, we don't categorize films by regions. We just don't do that! Johannes003 (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split accoring to language used (or primarily used). I assume that each film is in one language. If it is really in two, it can be categorised by both languages. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The category is there for films made in more than one South Indian language, that's what we call "South Indian films" instead of Tamil, Telugu etc. Why should this cat be deleted then? It's an easy way to find all these films! --Dravidian Hero 13:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you. That exactly has been done, the articles have been categorized by both languages. Fellow editor Dravidian is hellbent on making "South India" a separate country, at least in Wikipedia, that's all. Johannes003 (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for displaying your real Anti-South Indian/Dravidian bias. This explains all your edits--Dravidian Hero 13:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, same applies to you dude. I really don't know what makes you think so. My edits are at least reasonable, since South India is neither a language nor a country. Wake up man! Johannes003 (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No such language as South Indian, therefore the category is not of any use. We're not talking about geography with this category, but language. If it was called South Indian films then that would be fine, but South Indian language films isn't. Canterbury Tailtalk 14:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no need for this category as nominator has explained. This category is covered in Category:Telugu-language films and other related categories. Tolly4bolly 16:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The category is discieving, the category is called South Indian-language films, but there is no South Indian language. It's like in the US you could have a category for Southern States films, but you couldn't have a category for Southern State-language films as it's not a language nor is there a regional one. It's been mentioned already that there is no single language of the South India region, but multiples. Canterbury Tailtalk 18:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Dravidian-language films If we are going to subcategorize indian language films, we should do so based on existing schemes, and in this case, Dravidian languages is a well-known language family. One could presumably do other language-family divides for other sections of Indian cinema. Given the differentiation between South indian cinema and mainstream indian cinema, to me this divide makes sense, but only as a non-diffusing *container* category - it should not include any films directly. As such, I have not reverted the removal of this category from films by the Johannes003. However, I have added it back into relevant categories - Johannes003 should be aware that removing items from a category or removing it from valid parent categories when the same cat is up for deletion is not allowed. That said, I would ask that User talk:Dravidianhero cease adding individual films to this category, as if it remains it won't make sense as such (and there would thousands of films to add with no discernible benefit to the reader), but it would make sense to add any other south-indian/dravidian languages that I've missed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The point of this category was to create a container with films, which have been produced in multiple South Indian (Dravidian) languages. For instance Eega was made simultaneously in 2 languages of the South industry. This development of producing multiple language films is unique and very recent with only a handful 20 or so of such productions til date.--Dravidian Hero 18:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is useful - there are many many films, say in Europe, that have multiple languages, and of course many Indian films are in Hindi + english or other languages. I don't think this is defining. As a container category, though, it could work (as I've explained above).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really?! Show me a single European film made originally in more than 1 language.--Dravidian Hero 19:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once Upon a Time in America is ONE film, Eega are TWO films in 2 separate languages! Is it so difficult to understand what I write? Show me a MULTIPLE European film.--Dravidian Hero 23:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "multiple" film? Every film is just one film! Eega is one film, it's a Telugu film. Naan E is one film, it's a Tamil film. As simple as that! And would you please avoid excessive emphasis? Johannes003 (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In case you didn't notice: There is only one article for both films: Eega for the simple that almost everything is same but different Dravidian languages. We have discussed the matter at Talk:Naan Ee for months and reached to the present solution. Now a totally uninvolved guy like you comes here and destroys everything because of a fanatic proselytizing agenda.--Dravidian Hero 11:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In July 2012: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 4#Bilingual films. I wrote about this long back, because I knew this will create trouble in future. Naan E has been merged into Eega because both have the same content, the same director and the same cast and crew. It is equal to a dubbed film (parts of the film possibly are even dubbed only!) If at all categorize it as a bilingual film but not South Indian because that's irrelevant here. And I'm warning you, stop calling me names and/or making false allegations, for heaven's sake! Is that your way for arguing? Cheap! Johannes003 (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I ignore the part, where you expose your low personality again.
2 Original films are not same as 1 Original and 1 dubbed films. It costs more (double) money and labour work. What a stupid statement.
"Bilingual" or "multilingual" is an ambigous term, which could mean 1 film in multiple languages like Life of Pi (English+Tamil song+French).
South Indian film is appropriate. South Indian film industry is an established industry cluster in reliable sources. It makes it obvious, that the article discusses more than 1 original film as opposed to Tamil film or Telugu film.
A category to find these South Indian films at once comes very handy for those who are interested in the South film industry.--Dravidian Hero 12:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In which case lets rename the category to 'South Indian films' rather than 'South Indian-language films'. Canterbury Tailtalk 18:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
rename per Obi-Wan Kenobi above; "Dravidian" is the proper basis of classification. We still have the nagging problem (of all films by language about how much of the language need be in the film for the film to be so categorized? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment depends on the aim, Dravidian isn't synonymous with South Indian, it also includes Sri Lanka, areas of Pakistan etc. IF this is for regional film then a rename to South Indian film would be more appropriate. Canterbury Tailtalk 18:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realize that. But since this is about the language the films are made in, classifying by a language grouping would make more sense.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, otherwise an English-language film shot in South India would be inappropriately included. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Films are not made in "south Indian language", they are made in Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, etc. Some films may be in more than one language but how we deal with that is categorizing them by all the languages they were made in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – We have separate categories for films made in South Indian languages: Tamil, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam, which would mean films are categorised at a more appropriate level. This category is unnecessary. —Vensatry(Ping me) 10:27, 7 June 2013 (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 to Category:Open source. No objection to a new name if a better target name is suggested. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Alternate proposal: Rename to Category:Open source Per main articles. Are all of these even methodologies? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure The category should exist but there is no obvious choice for a name. "Open source" is not a good option because that is a technical term which refers to a certain kind of software which can be shared gratis and libre. The gratis and libre traits are what is meant by "open" but I do not think there is any literature or theory which connects all the different applications which are called "open". Wikipedians proposed the term "open methodologies". "Openness" is an equally good choice. "Open" works also, and that is the common term actually used. None of these terms are understood in any field and no one but Wikipedians really talks about putting all these things in a common category. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2013 (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.
As creator, I think we should Upmerge as per Oculi. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2013 (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:No consensus other then to cleanup and purge of items that are not scandals. Once cleanup is done, a renomination for some action would be OK. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ConvertCategory:Sex scandals to article [[[Using this as a substitute for a 'discuss' template; see below.]]]
Nominator's rationale: The "sex scandals" in this category are almost entirely rape and child abuse scandals. I don't think that's an appropriate use of the category; those incidents are "scandalous" because they are criminal. I would expect content of the category to be along the lines of Lewinsky scandal or Mark Sanford disappearance and extramarital affair, not cases of child molestation and gang rape. Content of the category is also inconsistent with content of the article. I recommend removing abuse/assault events from this category, creating a new category to house them if necessary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a child-sexual-abuse scandal would be a subcategory, I'd think, as would a rape scandal. So we can create subcategories for them (child-sexual-abuse would also be a subcategory of child-abuse in general.) Though "child" is a very problematic term, considering what is a "child" varies from place to place, and what is the threshold for statutory-rape also varies from place to place. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nom has a point: crime and scandal overlap but not perfectly. Extramarital affairs can become scandalous for those involved, and notable with enough coverage, but only rarely criminal in the West. Mass media may generate notability for some criminal cases (that may fall apart later, like the LaCrosse and most of the pre-school cases; or may linger, like the Catholic sex scandal). The whole notion of "scandal" is loaded, but we do have Category:Scandals with the weaselly worded content: "A scandal is a widely publicized incident that involves allegations of wrongdoing, disgrace, or moral outrage. A scandal may be based on reality, the product of false allegations, or a mixture of both. Inclusion in this category does not imply guilt, but rather that a scandal (whether justified or not) has taken place." So, while nearly everyone would concede that Watergate was a US scandal. Others may disagree on whether humanity allowing some of its less fortunate members die of starvation while others are obese from overeating is a scandal or not. Too subjective all-round IMHO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure what to do, but we have horribly written articles like Gwangju Inhwa School involved here. The article is worded in bad English, and just from looking at it, it seems to have serious POV-issues. Also, are we sure we want to be putting articles on a school directly under the scandal tree and reducing our coverage of the school to only the scandal? I not sure what to do but I think some of the articles involved here are not well written.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given the points raised above, I'm not sure that this is worth retaining at this point. Maybe someone would like to see a list created, but given the presence of casting couch and Marquis de Sade which are not sex scandals in my book, deletion may be the wisest action to take. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose articlising -- This is properly onstructed category. I agree that "scandal" is a weasel word, since it involves the editor's POV, but can any one suggest something better? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating the creation of an article - it's just that there's a limited number of templates that will actually get the category onto this page, and "discuss" is not an option. I favor, as I said, establishing as a rule that assault etc. is not a "sex scandal", creating a separate category if needed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and purge. The nomination is an argument for purging, not deletion. Category:Scandals by type definitely should include sex scandals, but I agree that child abuse scandals are not among those.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, Purge of child abuse and rape examples per Mike Selinker and others above. That said, the comments of how the word "scandal" is questionable as a defining term for categorisation are interesting. Perhaps a broader group nom in the future might be in order? - jc37 17:35, 3 July 2013 (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.
