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. Dateable Irish history begins in the 5th century. Everyone in this category is legendary, or at least undateable. Nicknack009 (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of these characters - and they are characters - can be accepted as historical, except maybe a handful from the 4th century who lived into the fifth. Would you characterise Robin Hood as a 12th-century English person because his stories are set in the reign of Richard I? All the historical research from the 20th century on, from Eoin mac Neill to Francis J. Byrne, has established that the chronological scheme of the Lebor Gabála, developed by Keating and the Four Masters, is an artificial one designed to include all the politically-important aristocratic lineages of the early middle ages into one fictional lineage, and was done by projecting ancestors of families then prominent into the distant past, and by alternating kings of different regions of Ireland as kings of the whole island, thus artificially lengthening the chronology. To summarise, everything before the 5th century is not reliable history and should not be treated as such. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those issues should be discussed in the articles, and in many cases they are explained there. You may wish ti improve the articles, but that's not a CFD matter.
The articles are mostly fine, correctly recording that these are the dates given in the first written sources, of which the earliest main one is 11th century. The dates are not "estimates" by modern historians at all, but just record what the first written sources say (which often differ by 200 years or more); Nicknack has explained the background to the scheme devised centuries later into which they fit. No modern historian would attempt "estimates" based on this material, nor do they waste much time "debating" it. All sorts of countries have fictional protohistories, but we do not accept them for precise timeslot categories. Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Similar problems exist for the legendary Category:Kings of Rome. They can be dated (there's a traditional year-bracket for the reign of Servius Tullius, placed among Category:6th-century BC Romans), but most have legendary elements (Servius was credited with Rome's earliest constitutional reforms, but was also said to have been spawned by a disembodied supernatural phallus). You could say he was a Roman, though only debatably an actual person. One might also compare Caswallawn. If we didn't have Caesar's account, we'd be skeptical of a British king with a cloak of invisibility. Nicknack009's description, however, makes these Irish figures more like the Latin kings of Alba Longa, transparent inventions whose names provide aetiologies for toponymy and family names. Individual articles on those figures are categorized as "mythological kings" and such, not in century categories. We do have Romulus among Category:8th-century BC Romans. Just observations for comparison. I don't have an opinion. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also say it's a mistake to treat the kings of Rome as reliably historical figures - and the least reliable thing about them is probably their dates. Likewise, the chronology of Irish prehistoric tradition is clearly artificial. We know that the political picture of 2nd century Ireland in Ptolemy's Geography bears no relation to the stories placed in the 2nd century in medieval Irish tradition. I don't think we can say all, or even many, of the kings in the tradition are aetiological inventions - no doubt some are genealogical fictions, others are mythic heroes, others were real kings of part of Ireland, promoted to kings of all of Ireland to support their descendents' ambitions and pushed further back in time than they really lived. Some are duplicates, the same character split in two or more because they appear in different stories alongside characters that the chronology would say were not contemporaries. But, the most important thing is, we can speculate but we can't say which is which, because we have no contemporary sources, or even later sources that plausibly had access to contemporary sources. Even the events of the 5th century have to be reconstructed with care because of political distortion in the early annals. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all -- As long as we have articles to populate the categories they should exist. I appreciate that we know little or nothing of most of the people apart from their appearance in genealogies, but that is possibly an argument for merging articles, not one for deleting categories. Mythological figures may well warrant an article, and if they can be located to a century, they should be categorised accordingly. An alternative might be to merge them all into Mythological Irish kings and Mythological Irish people, but since genealogies are a major source, they can (i think) safely be located (at least approximately) to centuries. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them are not merely entries in a genealogy - most of them are characters from stories, some more detailed than others but none of them history, and are already categorised according to what branch of Irish mythology they appear in. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to me that the argument put forward is related to content quality (the articles within the categories) and not about the categories. --HighKing (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like every article in the "Monarchs" cats is also in the "Legendary High Kings" cat, but, of course, they are not broken down by century. Whether the "Monarchs" should be sub-cats of the "Legendary High Kings" is an interesting question, but not an easy one. Scolaire (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that some articles on the History of Ireland break it up into 5 or 6 periods, rather than organizing by centuries. Maybe placing all of these articles within a "Protohistory" period of Irish history would be a compromise solution. LizRead!Talk!02:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into some appropriately-named category, or Delete The idea these people, if they existed at all, can be dated this precisely is pure moonshine - the Lebor Gabála Érenn only survives in an 11th century text - yes that's a thousand years after the 1st century. The other two Scolaire cites are 17th century compilations for heaven's sake. They should all go into "Late Iron Age", "Legendary" or "Protohistoric" categories. Johnbod (talk) 04:33, 19 September 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.
Nominator's rationale: This is a procedural listing following a previous nomination which was closed on procedural grounds. All categories affected by the proposed change have been tagged and all participants in the original discussion notified. I am neutral. -- Black Falcon(talk)19:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator, but recreate the old titles as {{Category redirect}}s. It's the same certifying body, just with a new name, so they don't need to recertify anything. Where a body changes name or has a single successor, we use the current name and redirect ... and a hatnote in the category can explanation of the change of name. The fact that there was a merger or whatever is an interesting bit of organisational history, but it isn't particularly relevant to the core fact being captured by these categories, which is "recorded music certified at particular level by the national certifying body in NZ". There's no point in splitting the category, and when a name changes we use the current name. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename only cats after the organisational renaming These certificates have a particular name on them. I understand that previous certificates aren't going to be reissued with the new name which will only be used on new certifications. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 04:16, 23 September 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:Wikipedians who fulfill the COI+ agreements
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.
I understand and I appreciate your response, Black Falcon. I know many CfD regulars always post notifications, I'm trying to encourage this practice, especially to WikiProjects that might be impacted by discussions here. I've been encountering some Editors with very negative views of the CfD process and I think a lot of that can be alleviated simply by being more transparent. Sometimes category creators object to deletions, sometimes they support deletions, I think people mainly want to be included in the discussion. Thanks! LizRead!Talk!15:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand; thank you for explaining. I do think that notification of active category creators should be mandatory for nominations that include only one category, and in the past I shamelessly advertised {{Cfd-notify}}, which I created, during every nomination. I have had both positive and negative experiences as a result, including some situations where a creator genuinely contributed to a discussion (either for or against deletion, it doesn't really matter...) and other situations where a creator actively disrupted a nomination or simply chose to offer a drive-by vote. Anyway, I suppose that this is a discussion for another venue. Cheers! -- Black Falcon(talk)05:36, 19 September 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:Wikipedian adults disgusted by "The Wikipedia Adventure"
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: This is a user category that, if it contained more than just one banned user, would group users on the basis of a particular dislike (see WP:OC/U#by dislikes). I'm not quite sure what "The Wikipedia Adventure" is; however, I am sure that this category in no way contributes to collaboration. -- Black Falcon(talk)16:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "The Wikipedia Adventure" was a project run over the summer. Safe to say, this sentiment is dated and since there is only one User page listed, I think it is appropriate to delete. LizRead!Talk!18:00, 15 September 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.
Nominator's rationale: "Kërçova" is simply the Albanian name of the town of Kičevo. No category for this town currently exists, as there may be no need since few articles related to people/places from the town exist. If this category were needed, it should be renamed "Kičevo." One of the three articles in this category, Ali Ahmeti, is about a man who is not from Kičevo. Another is about a football club based in a nearby village, but does play its game within the town. --Local herotalk16:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notify the category creators about this discussion. They might have plans to expand and place other existing articles into this category. It's biggest problem that I see is that it is not categorized itself and connected to similar categories for Albanian locations. LizRead!Talk!18:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I notified the creator. Kičevo is not an Albanian ___location: it is in Macedonia. The user created a category for this town under its Albanian name, "Kërçova." If there should be a category for this town, it should be name Category:Kičevo, to be consistent with the article name. Category:Kërçova, and its one or two articles, should be merged into the category should we decide one is necessary. --Local herotalk19:09, 15 September 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 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.
Oppose Not all of the articles listed in the original category are musicals. Some are songs or others are related to films. Rather than renaming the entire category, why not create a separate category for stage musicals? Music written for the stage is normally kept in a different category than film scores although they might all be subcategories within the Composer category. LizRead!Talk!18:11, 15 September 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.
Nominator's rationale: The sole purpose of this category appears to reflect a liking for the motto "you only live once", commonly abbreviated "YOLO". I do not begrudge anyone the right to express an opinion about the motto, but there is no valid basis for a user category here; a text statement or userbox is entirely appropriate, but not every userbox needs a category. -- Black Falcon(talk)06:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep sorry about that, I was the user that reverted Black Falcon. I thought they accidently deleted their own entry and I didn't think to check for a duplicate. My apologies. — -dainomite19:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notify the category creator, give them a chance to respond. After notification, I'd favor deletion. But I don't know why Editors keep skipping this step. It's part of the nominating process. LizRead!Talk!18:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, in the case of a single-user category like this one, I would prefer to appraoch the creator directly. However, s(he) has not edited in nearly two months, so I'm afraid notification would not achieve the desired effect. -- Black Falcon(talk)18:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notification of the category creator is not a listed step on the outline of categories for deletion. Categories are about grouping articles, and grouping knowledge. I can see maybe special rules for user categories, but even there they need to abide by certain standards. Creators will receive notice on their watch page. It is very easy to create categories, it needs to be similarly easy to nominate them for merger, deletion, renaming etc. Making the process more involved and requiring notifications will make things harder. It will also lead to people being even more hesitant to make group nominations. The long process of AfD, 3 part, process of AfD has on multiple occasions convinced me not to try it, only articles that fairly clearly did not meet notability but I did not see a real problem with. However, the negative consequences of poor categories is another matter. For one thing, recreation of deleted categories is a lot more prevalent. Requiring more notification will not help things, it will just make the process more difficult.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 16 September 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.
Nominator's rationale: As it's currently configured, this combined category doesn't really make good sense. Visual pollution and Light pollution are 2 different things. We could rename & limit the category to Category:Visual pollution, which comprises only 2 articles (one of which I just added myself). Alternatively, we could rename & expand it to Category:Visual, light and noise pollution (unless another word order is preferred), thereby encompassing the 2 sub-cats plus the 2 articles pertaining to Visual pollution. Notified Category creator using {{cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 04:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm uncertain why these two were grouped together...is it because them are immaterial forms of pollution? Can they just be kept under the Category:Pollution with the other forms of pollution? I think that is where readers will go to find this kind of information. And if I was looking for information on Light Pollution, I wouldn't think of it as "Visual Pollution". If you do rename this category, Cgingold, could you supply it with a description that explains why the articles are grouped together? LizRead!Talk!18:29, 15 September 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.
Well, I targeted this category because several articles got added to it recently. But we can add those other pages. Can someone help me group them together? I rarely spend time at CFD. Zagalejo^^^05:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am a strong supporter of categories for occupation by ethnicity. However, I am not entirely sure how I feel about this group of categories for criminals by ethnicity. That said, this particular category should NOT be singled out for deletion. We should either debate all of the sub-cats together, or not at all. Cgingold (talk) 08:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. This category is a perfect illustration of the dysfunctionality of the categorisation logic imposed on us by the inadequacy of the technology. If we had dynamic category intersection, then readers could create for themselves an intersection between Category:American criminals and any other attribute they chose. They could choose to view the set of American perjurers who are also Presbyterians, rapist who are also Republicans, Catholics who are confidence tricksters, or whatever. If we didn't have such a huge number of static intersection categories, the category system would be much easier to maintain. And there would be no need to try to apply the sort of complex sets of principles expressed in WP:CATGRS and elsewhere. In the meantime, we are stuck with this crude technology, and with our current guidelines. I see no doubt that Category:African-American criminals meets all of the very carefully-designed principles of WP:CATGRS, so those grounds it's a clear keep. However, Category:African-American criminals is also just the sort of grouping which supports the racist stereotyping of Africa-Americans, and that is clearly wrong. I dunno how to reconcile those two principles, so I will remain neutral. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would support this category if all criminals were sorted according to their ethnicity but there are just categories for ethnic minorities (and a Finnish criminal is thrown in there for some reason). I'd say eliminate Hispanic and Latin American criminals and Puerto Rican criminals, too. I think of how people search and it's more likely for someone to be looking for a 19th century politician convicted of fraud than a "African-American criminal". It's just a way to divide a group up, it doesn't serve any purpose to group criminals by ethnicity. "Mobster" is entirely different, if you look at that category, it is composed of people with a variety of ethnic backgrounds. The label defines a criminal who is part of organized crime, not solely people of a certain ethnic background. Personally, I think the appropriate subcategories for a loaded term like "Criminal" would be by Nationality, by Type of Crime, by Occupation (if it is relevant), by Criminal Teams/Organizations/Gangs and by Era (18th century, 21st century?). LizRead!Talk!18:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My guess that more reliable sources can be found on the intersection of criminals and ethnicity than for any of the Jewish actors/actors of Fooian descent, and all those categories that the throngs feel like keeping despite WP:CATGRS; much the more notable intersection but just doesn't feel right. Why people need to subdivide everything by race and ethnicity around here is perplexing. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but Puerto Rican; which is a "nationality". Per WP:CATGRS; note: many of those folks who need to have football players, actors, etc. by ethnicity draw the line here. Why? There is no reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WP:CATGRS should be applied equally everywhere for all categories to avoid (the appearance of?) hypocrisy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:41, 17 September 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 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.
