- 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. Timrollpickering 09:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Utterly subjective and unverifiable category. WP:CATDD Rathfelder ( talk) 21:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. More or less every news outlet that exists at all is capable of doing some form of investigative journalism — the question of whether the importance of that investigation is localized or nationalized in scope (e.g. the matter of whether they're investigating Watergate or just a video of the local mayor smoking crack) isn't relevant to whether the investigation is investigative or not — and I've also already had to remove one "scandal sheet" that did not do any "investigative journalism", but simply reported gossip. Basically, there's no way to make this category work: if you leave it at the broadest "media outlet that does investigative journalism" level, then it's effectively an WP:INDISCRIMINATE category for almost every media outlet that does journalism at all, and if you try to apply the "featuring a significant proportion" test suggested by the usage note, then you're imposing an arbitrary and subjective cutoff. For example, how are we supposed to measure how much of any given news outlet's reporting is "investigative" in nature in order to properly judge if it's enough to meet the cutoff? Bearcat ( talk) 16:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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: merge (
non-admin closure).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Student news websites by country to Category:Student media
- Nominator's rationale: unnecessary intermediate category. There don't seem to be many student news websites, and its not obvious that student news is different from any other news. Furthermore I suspect that student newspapers, magazines, and yearbooks, are all mostly websites these days. Rathfelder ( talk) 15:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merge, per nom. Makes sense. DA Sonnenfeld ( talk) 16:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merge - there is just one country involved with 3 articles: Category:American student news websites. Oculi ( talk) 23:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merge, per nom. Superfluous cat. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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 in line with outcome of RM. (
non-admin closure)
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Progress (history) to Category:Progress
- Nominator's rationale: There is consensus to merge several articles, including progress (history), into Social progressto be renamed just progress in the near future (RM in progress here). This category should reflect that. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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: merge.
ℯ
xplicit
00:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Anatolia by region to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Bithynia to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Cappadocia to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Caria to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Cilicia to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Galatia to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Ionia to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Isauria to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Lycia to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Lydia to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Mysia to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Pamphylia to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Paphlagonia to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Phrygia to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Pontus to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Nominator's rationale: merge, anachronistic use of old Roman province names for medieval categories because in the course of the 7th century the Roman provinces in Anatolia were replaced by larger themes. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose These are geographic regions, not provinces. See relevant articles Bithynia, Cappadocia, Caria, Cilicia, Galatia, Ionia, Isauria, Lycia, Lydia, Mysia, Pamphylia, Phrygia, and Pontus. In most cases, the regions received their names and classical definitions severalm centuries before the arrival of the Romans, and the terms have continued being used ny geographers and other sources. The term Pontus is still being used, though mostly in reference to the Pontic Greeks, their diaspora, and the Pontic Greek language, which currently has about 778,000 speakers. Dimadick ( talk) 11:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- By far the most what is written about these 'regions' is about the ancient past, either as a pre-Roman kingdom or a Roman province. The name of Cappadocia is still in use but just for tourism, that has nothing to do with the Middle Ages. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merge to categories for the themes. The question of when "medieval" should begin in the Eastern Empire is debateable. The term "late antique" is also used. I would be happy with not having a start for "medieval" there at about 750, in which case the need for any of these would disappear, as anachronistic. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merge to themes categories - use of names that were both geographic and prior provincial names is confusing and/or ambiguous. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merging to themes is a problem. Themes were not stable throughout the Middle Ages (and not defining either). Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support all they don't have any precision beyond the 7th century. Where individual articles can with confidence be put into themes, do so; I would not be confident that all the content of Category:Medieval Mysia was always in a single theme in the medieval period. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 11:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Empty category. It doesn't follow the category structure since there are no other Comedians by continent categories. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Place Clichy ( talk) 09:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Weak keep. We have a parent category for "African people by occupation"; I don't see why we can't just populate this and create similar categories for other continents. However, I'm not immediately clear how useful this is, so I can imagine someone making a "not particularly useful" argument for deletion. Nyttend ( talk) 01:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - there is indeed Category:African people by occupation including such as Category:African actors (a container category for those of the various nationalities in Africa) and it is difficult to see why comedians should be excluded. The category is far from empty. Oculi ( talk) 07:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- People by continent categories are not very useful. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- There is then the whole Category:People by continent and occupation to consider. Oculi ( talk) 23:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete just because there is a category for occupation by continent doesn't mean that every occupation needs such a category. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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 (
non-admin closure).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Water parks in Idaho
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary subcategory of Category:Amusement parks in Idaho. The only entry both categories has is the same park. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- comment Maybe I'm confused but the article claims that they are two separate parks which are adjacent to each other; it even gives a separate name for the water park. Possibly the main article needs to be split. Mangoe ( talk) 12:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Created in anticipation of the Disney/Fox deal to categorize the entity that will keep the assets not acquired by Disney. Too early, as the deal isn't finalized, and "New Fox" isn't necessarily the name that will be used. Trivialist ( talk) 02:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- DElete -- Until the merger is completed, this is pure WP:CRYSTAL. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete as unconfirmed speculation. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 20:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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. Timrollpickering 09:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Utterly subjective and unverifiable category. WP:CATDD Rathfelder ( talk) 21:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. More or less every news outlet that exists at all is capable of doing some form of investigative journalism — the question of whether the importance of that investigation is localized or nationalized in scope (e.g. the matter of whether they're investigating Watergate or just a video of the local mayor smoking crack) isn't relevant to whether the investigation is investigative or not — and I've also already had to remove one "scandal sheet" that did not do any "investigative journalism", but simply reported gossip. Basically, there's no way to make this category work: if you leave it at the broadest "media outlet that does investigative journalism" level, then it's effectively an WP:INDISCRIMINATE category for almost every media outlet that does journalism at all, and if you try to apply the "featuring a significant proportion" test suggested by the usage note, then you're imposing an arbitrary and subjective cutoff. For example, how are we supposed to measure how much of any given news outlet's reporting is "investigative" in nature in order to properly judge if it's enough to meet the cutoff? Bearcat ( talk) 16:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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: merge (
non-admin closure).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Student news websites by country to Category:Student media
- Nominator's rationale: unnecessary intermediate category. There don't seem to be many student news websites, and its not obvious that student news is different from any other news. Furthermore I suspect that student newspapers, magazines, and yearbooks, are all mostly websites these days. Rathfelder ( talk) 15:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merge, per nom. Makes sense. DA Sonnenfeld ( talk) 16:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merge - there is just one country involved with 3 articles: Category:American student news websites. Oculi ( talk) 23:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merge, per nom. Superfluous cat. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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 in line with outcome of RM. (
non-admin closure)
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Progress (history) to Category:Progress
- Nominator's rationale: There is consensus to merge several articles, including progress (history), into Social progressto be renamed just progress in the near future (RM in progress here). This category should reflect that. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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: merge.
ℯ
xplicit
00:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Anatolia by region to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Bithynia to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Cappadocia to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Caria to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Cilicia to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Galatia to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Ionia to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Isauria to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Lycia to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Lydia to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Mysia to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Pamphylia to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Paphlagonia to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Phrygia to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Pontus to Category:Medieval Anatolia
- Nominator's rationale: merge, anachronistic use of old Roman province names for medieval categories because in the course of the 7th century the Roman provinces in Anatolia were replaced by larger themes. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose These are geographic regions, not provinces. See relevant articles Bithynia, Cappadocia, Caria, Cilicia, Galatia, Ionia, Isauria, Lycia, Lydia, Mysia, Pamphylia, Phrygia, and Pontus. In most cases, the regions received their names and classical definitions severalm centuries before the arrival of the Romans, and the terms have continued being used ny geographers and other sources. The term Pontus is still being used, though mostly in reference to the Pontic Greeks, their diaspora, and the Pontic Greek language, which currently has about 778,000 speakers. Dimadick ( talk) 11:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- By far the most what is written about these 'regions' is about the ancient past, either as a pre-Roman kingdom or a Roman province. The name of Cappadocia is still in use but just for tourism, that has nothing to do with the Middle Ages. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merge to categories for the themes. The question of when "medieval" should begin in the Eastern Empire is debateable. The term "late antique" is also used. I would be happy with not having a start for "medieval" there at about 750, in which case the need for any of these would disappear, as anachronistic. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merge to themes categories - use of names that were both geographic and prior provincial names is confusing and/or ambiguous. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merging to themes is a problem. Themes were not stable throughout the Middle Ages (and not defining either). Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support all they don't have any precision beyond the 7th century. Where individual articles can with confidence be put into themes, do so; I would not be confident that all the content of Category:Medieval Mysia was always in a single theme in the medieval period. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 11:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Empty category. It doesn't follow the category structure since there are no other Comedians by continent categories. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Place Clichy ( talk) 09:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Weak keep. We have a parent category for "African people by occupation"; I don't see why we can't just populate this and create similar categories for other continents. However, I'm not immediately clear how useful this is, so I can imagine someone making a "not particularly useful" argument for deletion. Nyttend ( talk) 01:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - there is indeed Category:African people by occupation including such as Category:African actors (a container category for those of the various nationalities in Africa) and it is difficult to see why comedians should be excluded. The category is far from empty. Oculi ( talk) 07:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- People by continent categories are not very useful. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- There is then the whole Category:People by continent and occupation to consider. Oculi ( talk) 23:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete just because there is a category for occupation by continent doesn't mean that every occupation needs such a category. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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 (
non-admin closure).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Water parks in Idaho
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary subcategory of Category:Amusement parks in Idaho. The only entry both categories has is the same park. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- comment Maybe I'm confused but the article claims that they are two separate parks which are adjacent to each other; it even gives a separate name for the water park. Possibly the main article needs to be split. Mangoe ( talk) 12:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Created in anticipation of the Disney/Fox deal to categorize the entity that will keep the assets not acquired by Disney. Too early, as the deal isn't finalized, and "New Fox" isn't necessarily the name that will be used. Trivialist ( talk) 02:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- DElete -- Until the merger is completed, this is pure WP:CRYSTAL. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete as unconfirmed speculation. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 20:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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.