-
Category:KROQ (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
XfD|
restore)
The
KROQ page has a number of related subpages:
KROQ Top 106.7 Countdowns,
Loveline,
Epicenter (music festival),
LA Invasion,
KROQ Weenie Roast,
KROQ Almost Acoustic Christmas and
Commons:Category:KROQ
It would be good to group them.--
evrik (
talk)
18:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Comment as closer It's been nine years and I'm not sure which articles were around back then. Looking at the discussion it's hard to say a unanimous agreement was miscalled. Consensus can change, especially after nine years.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
19:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Question - This is an antique
CFD. Is this an appeal, or a request to create the category?
Robert McClenon (
talk)
03:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse the closure.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
03:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Allow Re-Creation.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
03:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- It seems that some of the pages proposed here to be added to this category are the sort discussed in the CfD (e.g. syndicated shows), while others were not discussed (e.g. events organised by this station) so it seems worthwhile having a discussion about the proposal with those familiar with the current consensus (which I am not). To this end I've left a message at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#US radio station categorisation inviting comment here. I'm leaning towards endorsing the close without prejudice to recreation after discussion, but I'm not bolding anything yet.
Thryduulf (
talk)
10:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Allow Re-Creation: I see no issues with the re-creation of this category. -
Neutralhomer •
Talk • 11:50 on May 13, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
- Endorse close, do not allow recreation I've sleuthed a little bit, and I can't find any examples of radio or television stations with their own category. Maybe I've looked in the wrong place, if I have let me know and I'll change instantly, and if the categorisation comes back with the okay I'm perfectly content to go with that, but I can't endorse recreating a category which would be out of place in our existing category structure.
SportingFlyer
T·
C
17:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- @
SportingFlyer: I searched for five seconds and found one:
Category:KCRW. I stopped looking. --
evrik (
talk)
17:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- I definitely looked at radio stations in California but not radio stations in Los Angeles! It certainly still seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
SportingFlyer
T·
C
17:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
-
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_20#Category:KEXP is from 2018 and wasn't exactly well attended, but to me it shows our consensus against radio station categories still applies, and I'm not sure DRV is the right place to change it.
SportingFlyer
T·
C
21:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- The principal objection to the category in that discussion seems to be that there was not enough relevant articles to justify a category, and indeed the sole comment explicitly allows that a category with sufficient articles could be justified. That seems to directly contradict the assertion here that the consensus is that such categories are never allowed (as does the existence of
Category:KCRW. Whether there are sufficient relevant articles for a
category:KROQ is not a matter for this DRV, beyond recommending discussion in an appropriate venue before creation.
Thryduulf (
talk)
11:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- @
Bearcat: who was the nominator and only commenter in that CfD.
Thryduulf (
talk)
11:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- For the record, ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:KCRW consists almost entirely of people who have been staff of KCRW, which makes it a
WP:PERFCAT violation. So any and all biographies of people have to be removed from it, and once that's done it won't have enough articles left to justify an exemption from the normal consensus against individual radio station categories.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- How many articles justify maintenance of a category? --
evrik (
talk)
20:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- In the KEXP discussion, one user,
Bearcat, asserted that there was a
longstanding consensus against such categories, but without linking to any policy, guideline, or prior discussion that established or confirmed such a consensus. Nor has anyone in this discussion or the currently open CfD linked to any such policy, guideline, or discussion. One user does not a consensus make. Moreover in that old CfD, the category was also said to be too small, which would alone have been a valid reason for deletion, so the deletion cannot be taken as establishing such a consensus. I do not think such a consensus can be regarded as established without better evidence than has been presented so far.
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs
12:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Consensus does not have to be formally written down in a policy statement to be real. Regular participants at CFD know that other prior discussions on individual radio station categories have come up in the past, and have always landed as delete — but in order to link to specific examples of such prior discussions for the benefit of the more casual users who don't already have that knowledge, I would have to remember which specific radio stations have had categories attempted in order to find them, which is not a realistic expectation.
Bearcat (
talk)
13:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- No, consensus does not have to be written down in a policy document,. It really should be written down somewhere, such as in a logged discussion or a talk page archive, that others can be pointed to. "Lore" is not a good way to -pass on consensus, and an even worse way to indicate exactly what the consensus does and does not cover. If there is no written record of the formation or the existence of a consensus, than a new discussion can always be held to confirm or re-formulate it. I accept that you are reporting in good faith your understanding of the consensus, but it has been known that different people had different understandings of a consensus here. In any case, consensus can change, and perhaps this one should.
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs
16:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Well, written consensus does exist: the discussions in 2007, 2008, 2011, and 2018 which deleted all similar categories, and the absence of any categories which have been kept.
SportingFlyer
T·
C
04:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse closure, do not allow recreation. Individual radio stations do not need a category, and these other articles can be easily linked from within the KROQ page. --
DrChuck68 (
talk)
21:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- After thinking about this for a few days and reading all the other comments here, I think the correct forward is to endorse closure without prejudice to recreation. However before creation I would strongly encourage a discussion about the general issue of radio station categories to establish what the consensus actually is. As best I can make out, it seems there is general agreement that certain types of article (e.g. syndicated shows or disc jockeys) should not be categorised by the radio station they appeared on, but if there are enough articles of other types to support a category then I see no reason to prohibit one (c.f.
Category:BBC Radio 1 which has 26 articles and 5 subcategories).
Thryduulf (
talk)
19:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
|