Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 20

: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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose upmerging :Category:Spa towns in Montenegro to :Category:Spa towns, :Category:Populated places in Montenegro, :Category:Resorts in Montenegro, :Category:Springs of Montenegro

:Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT 1P, 0C. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Merge per nom, though it does not have to be merged to :Category:Populated places in Montenegro because the article is already in :Category:Populated places in Herceg Novi Municipality. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2023 (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 to :Category:People from Round Rock, Texas. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Rappers from Round Rock to :Category:People from Round Rock, Texas and :Category:Rappers from Texas

:Nominator's rationale: Dual merge per WP:SMALLCAT (1 article). User:Namiba 20:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Just merge to :Category:People from Round Rock, Texas, not to the other parent because the article is already in :Category:Rappers from Austin, Texas. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2023 (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. There is no value in keeping a category until we have enough articles to populate it. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Reliefs in Hungary to :Category:Sculptures in Hungary and :Category:Reliefs

:Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Keep - I created the category because I think there is a potential in having a separate category for notable reliefs. Hungarian art history is still underrepresented on English Wikipedia but I hope that gradually new articles will be written about notable artworks and added to the category.Zello (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2023 (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 just second as per nom..

• No consensus :Category:11th-century rulers in Al-Andalus
• Rename :Category:Rulers of Al-Andalus (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:11th-century rulers in Al-Andalus to :Category:11th-century emirs in al-Andalus

:* Propose renaming :Category:Rulers of Al-Andalus to :Category:Monarchs in al-Andalus

:** Re-parent :Category:11th-century caliphs of Córdoba from :Category:11th-century rulers in Al-Andalus to :Category:Monarchs in al-Andalus

:Nominator's rationale: All people in this category are already called/categorised as "emir" of a taifa, or sometimes in the case of Zaragoza, Granada and Valencia "king", the English equivalent of "emir". al-Mu'ayti is a doubtful case, called "ruler" and "caliph", but I think "emir" also covers it. The child :Category:11th-century caliphs of Córdoba should probably become a sibling, because a caliph isn't really a kind of "emir". The parent :Category:Rulers of Al-Andalus should be renamed :Category:Monarchs in al-Andalus rather than "of", because al-Andalus was not a "country", and "monarchs" is more WP:CATSPECIFIC for emirs and caliphs than "rulers". Grammatical point: 'al-Andalus' should be written with a lowercase 'a' unless at the start of a sentence. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• Somewhat unrelated question Were all :Category:Umayyad caliphs of Córdoba "Arabs"? There was an increasing influx of Berbers into al-Andalus, and we know that many of them became monarchs of their own taifa or other state, but these early Umayyad caliphs of Córdoba are defined as Arabs by definition through parent :Category:Arabs from al-Andalus. Is that correct? It may well be, I just have no idea. I'm thinking about how, for instance, the Golden Horde began as a "Mongol" dynasty, but gradually Turkicised, so that by the end of it, its reigning clans were called "Tatars" rather than "Mongols". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

:* For consistency with the existing category trees we should call them :Category:People from al-Andalus of Arab descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

:*:Sounds like a good idea. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support the second per nom. I wonder if we should rename century categories to "monarchs" too, so that they can contain caliphs as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• :We could do that, but I see no need for it if the more specific term/title 'emirs' suffices. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• :* It apparently does not suffice because there is also :Category:11th-century caliphs of Córdoba. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
• :*:Yes, at present it would not suffice, but if we make :Category:11th-century caliphs of Córdoba a sibling instead of a child of :Category:11th-century rulers in Al-Andalus/:Category:11th-century emirs in al-Andalus, as I propose by re-parenting, there will be no need for 'monarchs'. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• :*:* I fail to see the advantage of that. Besides we do not even have a more general :Category:11th-century emirs. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
• :*:*:We don't have any other {{xt|Xth-century rulers in Al-Andalus}} categories either (and so we won't have any other {{xt|Xth-century monarchs in Al-Andalus}} either if we alt-renamed it as you suggest), but that doesn't make it illegitimate to have one for the 11th century, does it? We do have :Category:Emirs as a potential parent, I think that is enough. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Marcocapelle, what do you mean by "Support the second"? — Qwerfjkltalk 14:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

:* {{ping|Qwerfjkl}} I am supporting renaming :Category:Rulers of Al-Andalus while for the first I am suggesting alt rename :Category:11th-century rulers in Al-Andalus to :Category:11th-century monarchs in al-Andalus. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2023 (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: speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. ✗plicit 05:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Musical Artists}}

:Nominator's rationale: Self-promotional category. This really should be speedy deletable but it doesn't quite fit any CSD criteria, so I guess here we go. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per WP:G11. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Speedy delete – unsourced self-promotion created in the wrong namespace. —Bruce1ee^talk 22:20, 20 July 2023 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Dutch-speaking countries and territories to :Category:Countries and territories where Dutch is an official language

:Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C parent :Category:Countries and territories by official language, recently renamed siblings about German, Greek, Portuguese, Azerbaijani, Hungarian, Somali, and Tamil, and many, many more. Also WP:C2D per main article List of countries and territories where Afrikaans or Dutch are official languages. Currently, countries and territories where Afrikaans is an official language (which according to the infobox at Afrikaans seem to be South Africa, Northern Cape, Western Cape, City of Cape Town, and Namibia) are not included in the category, and do not have their own category. The current category scope is limited to Dutch per parent :Category:Dutch language, and I recommend to keep it like that. At Talk:Dutch language#Official language of the Netherlands, Austronesier and I have so far not been able to reach consensus on whether Dutch is an or the "official language of the Netherlands", but for the time being Netherlands can stay in this category until agreement is reached. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

::Support It should not matter if a country has more than one official language. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:10, 28 July 2023 (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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Rugby union players that played in the NFL}}

:Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIALCAT, playing in the NFL has nothing to do with playing rugby. A similar category was deleted in 2020 by consensus. A follow-up discussion on this one led to no consensus. User:Namiba 16:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2023 (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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Meng Huo and associates}}

:Nominator's rationale: delete in the spirit of WP:C2F. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

::*Delete per nom. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 16:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

::Delete per nom, WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH, and precedent. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

::Delete per nom. SAAeh (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2023 (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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Three Kingdoms nobility to :Category:People of the Three Kingdoms

:Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer, only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2023 (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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:6th-millennium BC people to :Category:Human remains (archaeological)

:* Propose merging :Category:7th-millennium BC people to :Category:Human remains (archaeological)

:Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 11#Category:7th-millennium BC people, which resulted in "no consensus", but a {{xt|suggest[ion to] start a new nomination just focusing on the earlier categories.}} Alright, here it is. Barum Woman is the only item in :Category:7th-millennium BC people, and Minnesota Woman is the only item in :Category:6th-millennium BC people. Minnesota Woman is also already in target :Category:Human remains (archaeological). The dating of these prehistoric women's lives is so difficult and wide-ranging that not even millennia can be accurate categories for them. And as we know nothing about their lives except from what can be (re)constructed from their archaeological remains, that is the appropriate category, and we should take them out of these inaccurate and unhelpful millennia categories. The previous CfM was unhelpful in suggesting :Category:Ancient people as a target, because Ancient history is generally considered not to begin until {{circa}} 3000 BCE. And however vague the datings of the Barum and Minnesota Women are, they definitely lived and died at least 2000 years before then, so 'ancient' doesn't really apply to them. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

::Tagging previous participants: {{ping|Qwerfjkl|Fayenatic london|PamD|Marcocapelle|Est. 2021|Pppery}} for your information. I expect we will be able to find agreement on just these two more easily, so let's do these first. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

:::No need to tag me. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

::::Ok I just wanted to let you know I acted upon your advice to start a new CFM for just the oldest ones. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• Merge, splitting archaeological findings from biographies. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Merge : I think I'm happy with this (as creator of the article Barum Woman). As long as we can still keep her in :Category:Ancient European women, because she needs to have a category reflecting being a woman. PamD 16:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• :Thanks again for writing it! That's a good point. :Category:Swedish women (another parent) probably doesn't really apply, because she obviously didn't have "Swedish nationality" thousands of years before Sweden existed as a state/country. "European" describes geography so that's fine, but "ancient" is restricted to recorded history, so unfortunately, it doesn't really apply either.
• :Perhaps we should try and create a new category (tree) within :Category:Human remains (archaeological)? I don't see any precedents for this, and we should be wary of WP:NONDEFINING. Human remains are often misidentified as male or female (Barum Woman herself was originally misidentified as a male), or sometimes it is just not clear, it may be difficult to think of gender/sex as a defining characteristic. But I am tentatively in favour of this if "women" or "female human remains" or something is found to be defining.
• :As a Mesolithic woman, Barum Woman would fit in :Category:Mesolithic Homo sapiens fossils, along with Magdalenian Girl. If we go one step higher we find Lady of the Forum and Mungo Woman. Sibling category :Category:Upper Paleolithic Homo sapiens fossils contains Red Lady of El Mirón, Red Lady of Paviland, Zlatý kůň woman, and Peștera Muierilor (where remains of at least one woman were found). Subcategory :Category:Oldest human remains in the Americas includes Angeles Mesa skeletons (at least 3 females), Buhl Woman, La Brea Woman, Leanderthal Lady, Luzia Woman, Minnesota Woman, Eve of Naharon, Naia (skeleton), Peñon woman, and Upward Sun River site (two female infants). Grouping them all together would be sufficient to create something like :Category:Female homo sapiens fossils if we wanted to. But as said, I would be cautious with creating this category. There may be people who think "female" is not a defining characteristic of early human fossils/remains. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
• No objection to merging these two. – Fayenatic London 13:52, 21 July 2023 (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 to :Category:Veo cómo cantas (Spanish game show). (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Veo cómo cantas to :Category:Veo cómo cantas (Spanish game show)

:Nominator's rationale: Per form of parent :Category:International versions of I Can See Your Voice.

::Note: In May 2023, TelevisaUnivision has formally named Veo cómo cantas as the Mexican counterpart of I Can See Your Voice{{cite web|title=TelevisaUnivision presenta sus grandes apuestas para el 2023-2024|url=https://www.univision.com/noticias/estados-unidos/televisaunivision-upfront-productos-2023-2024|work=Univision|publisher=TelevisaUnivision|language=es|date=16 May 2023|accessdate=17 May 2023}}{{cite press release|title=TelevisaUnivision Reinforces Its Position as Home of Hispanic America at 2023-24 Upfront Presentation|url=https://corporate.televisaunivision.com/articles/2023/05/16/televisaunivision-reinforces-its-position-as-home-of-hispanic-america-at-2023-24-upfront-presentation/?|work=Univision|publisher=TelevisaUnivision|date=16 May 2023|accessdate=17 May 2023}} that originated from the Spanish counterpart of the same name.{{cite web|title=Así es 'Veo cómo cantas', el formato de Antena 3 de los creadores de 'Mask singer'|url=https://www.elespanol.com/bluper/20210120/veo-cantas-formato-antena-creadores-mask-singer/552695950_0.amp.html|work=El Español|language=es|date=20 January 2021|access-date=28 February 2021}}

{{reflist-talk}} Saisønisse (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep Main article is Veo cómo cantas - the category should match the article. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: {{Pinging|Pppery|EggRoll97|ClydeFranklin|SilverLocust}}: I've recently sought on this discussion (Talk: Veo cómo cantas (Spanish game show)#Requested move 21 June 2023) that the renaming from Veo cómo cantas to Veo cómo cantas (Spanish game show) was actually happened. Before you explain whether it would be apply to category, please proceed and review this discussion, thank you. Saisønisse (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support in light of the page move to Veo cómo cantas (Spanish game show). Pppery's reasoning would now indicate renaming, so I do not believe there is any current lack of consensus here. {{replyto|SilverLocust}} (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. WP:C2D. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 17:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• {{ping|Saisønisse}}: You have not tagged the category page yet, see WP:CFD for instructions. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• {{Pinging|Pppery|EggRoll97|ClydeFranklin|SilverLocust|Marcocapelle}}: Hey Marco, here you go. I forgot to put the {{Cfr full}} template on this category (:Category:Veo cómo cantas). Saisønisse (talk) 07:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Category has just been tagged, so it should be open for another 7 days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Rename now that the article has been moved. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:21, 20 July 2023 (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: speedy delete per WP:G5. Besides the consensus in the discussion, these categories were created by a sock puppet evading his block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|A-Class Johnny Depp articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|B-Class Johnny Depp articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|C-Class Johnny Depp articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|FA-Class Johnny Depp articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|GA-Class Johnny Depp articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Start-Class Johnny Depp articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Stub-Class Johnny Depp articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Unassessed Johnny Depp articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Top-importance Johnny Depp articles}}

:Nominator's rationale: Cluster of badly-formatted class-rating categories for a Wikiproject, none of which have any articles filed in them at all -- instead, they were curating lists of talk pages as text, which is not at all how this is done. Categories such as this must be transcluded by the use of class and quality assessment code in the Wikiproject template, not by listing talk pages on the category page in text format or by directly adding the category to the talk page itself -- but the newly created {{tl|WikiProject Johnny Depp}} features no such category-generating code at all.
The categories, further, were listing a lot of extremely wrongheaded pages that wouldn't be appropriate for inclusion in Johnny Depp project categories even if they were properly formatted: for instance, the list in the GA-Class category included the likes of Talk:Aerosmith, Talk:Al Pacino, Talk:Benedict Cumberbatch, Talk:Bob Marley, Talk:Keith Richards, Talk:Michelle Pfeiffer and Talk:Patti Smith, and the C-Class category listed things like Talk:Alfred Molina and Talk:Cannes Film Festival -- i.e. anybody or anything that has any tenuous or tangential connection to Johnny Depp at all, regardless of whether that connection does or doesn't have any importance to the other topic's article whatsoever. But that's not how WikiProject categories work either: Bob Marley doesn't belong in a Johnny Depp category just because Johnny Depp once owned a portrait of Bob Marley; Benedict Cumberbatch doesn't belong in a Johnny Depp category just because they were once castmates in a movie, and on and so forth. (Can you even imagine if we tagged every actor's biographical article as being under the auspices of a dedicated WikiProject for every other actor they had ever been in a film with, and every film festival as being under the auspices of a dedicated WikiProject for every individual actor who ever attended it because he was in a film screening there? No, just absolute no.) So I can't justify adding the appropriate code to the project template to properly populate these categories either, because the overwhelming majority of the pages in the lists wouldn't even warrant the template anyway.
It's questionable whether a WikiProject Johnny Depp (itself newly created within the past two days by somebody who clearly didn't know what they were doing, and didn't go through the proper process for launching new WikiProjects to get any guidance on how to do any of it correctly either) is even necessary at all, if it needs to commandeer Bob Marley and Benedict Cumberbatch and Keith Richards just to have articles to oversee, but that's a question for a different forum than CFD -- but even if it is maintained, project categories should only be created by people who actually know how to do that properly, and how to correctly assess what articles belong in the tree. Bearcat (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. There is now also :Category:Top-importance Johnny Depp articles.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

::I've added that to this batch. Thanks for the catch! Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. Not even sure if this WikiProject is at all necessary in the first place. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Delete all as per nomination. Sorry, but Johnny Depp is not special enough to have a WikiProject. I do not think any individual should be. Peaceray (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2023 (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: split. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose splitting :Category:Cham Albanians to :Category:Cham Albanian people and :Category:Cham Albanian organizations

:Nominator's rationale: Current description suggests the category is only meant for people. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Presumably the content can be diffused to two subcategories without deletion of the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Split per nom. Organisations and people by ethnicity are very different trees so I think nom is right. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2023 (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 all. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Things named after Mustafa Kemal Atatürk}}

:Nominator's rationale: delete, prime example of WP:SHAREDNAME. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Delete Textbook WP:SHAREDNAME of grouping things by what they're called instead of what defines them. If you look at the parent category {{ping|Marcocapelle}}, :Category:Things named after people, this is not the only problematic subcategory. (:Category:Lists of things named after people is the only one I'd keep.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Good point! Below the nomination for the parent category and sibling categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting :Category:Things named after people

:* Propose deleting :Category:Things named after Víctor Jara

:* Propose deleting :Category:Things named after Pelé‎

:* Propose deleting :Category:Things named after Alberto Santos-Dumont

:* Propose deleting :Category:Things named after Ayrton Senna

:* Propose deleting :Category:Things named after Jean Sibelius

:* Propose deleting :Category:Species named after Greta Thunberg

::: Support the expansion. (This is a clarification of my earlier !vote, not a 2nd one.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Question WP:SHAREDNAME says {{tq|a category may be useful if the people, objects, or places are directly related}}. Since things are named after the specific person, there is a direct relationship between them and the names are not coincidental. But does it even count as WP:NONDEFINING in such cases? I haven't participated in a lot sharedname CfDs yet, so I'm somewhat unfamiliar with how it applies in practice. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

:*: {{Re|Nederlandse Leeuw}} I think that this means the objects and places should be directly related among themselves. E.g. movies called The Three Musketeers that are all adapted from the same novel would be related, but the many movies called Victoria that tell completely different stories often unrelated to e.g. Queen Victoria as a character are not. Cities founded by Alexander the Great and called Alexandria are related, but Alessandria in Piemonte, Italy, is not. The twelve Battles of the Isonzo that were fought consecutively by Austria and Italy between 1915 and 1917 are related, but the various Battles of the Nile fought at centuries of distance between different opponents are not. Place Clichy (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

:*::@Place Clichy That makes a lot of sense, thanks! :Category:Cities founded by Alexander the Great are named after him by himself (arrogant, perhaps, but certainly defining), while species named :Category:Species named after Greta Thunberg were not named after her by the same person or research team in every case, and these species aren't closely related ( Craspedotropis gretathunbergae is a land snail and Opacuincola gretathunbergae is a freshwater snail.). I do note, however, that about half the references in each of these four articles has "new species named after climate activist Greta Thunberg" or something like that in the title, so she does appear to be the reason why these species get a lot of their (initial) media coverage, without which they might not even meet WP:SIGCOV.

:*::As @RevelationDirect said above, we probably want to Keep child :Category:Lists of things named after people. This has articles such as List of organisms named after famous people (born 1950–present), which incidentally mentions "Greta Thunberg" 14 times, including 3 of the 4 species in the category (only not Opacuincola gretathunbergae). Clear case of Listify then, just add that one to the list and delete the category.

:*::Should we Listify the other 6 nominees as well? You (Place Clichy) said below {{xt|This stuff is good for a list article}}, so we three seem to agree already. What does nom @Marcocapelle think? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

:*:::Comment If we do go for Listify, not everything in :Category:Monuments and memorials to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk officially carries the name "(Mustafa Kemal) Atatürk", e.g. Zafer Square is dedicated to him but not named after him, so we would have to exclude it. On the other hand, Statue of Honor has "Atatürk Monument" as an WP:ALTNAME so I think we would have to include it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Delete. This stuff is good for a list article or a disambiguation page, not a category. Place Clichy (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Listification of the categories is in principle a good idea and just copying and pasting the content of a category to plain text is easy enough. But the question is if someone is going to take the effort to turn them into proper medium-quality list articles. Unless someone wants to volunteer for making proper list articles right now, my suggestion would be to add a list, without any additions, on every of the six talk pages of the respective biography articles for anyone interested in the topic to elaborate it to an acceptable list article. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Should the categories be listified?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

:Would an article list with no content end up being deleted? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

::CSD A3 would definitely apply if it's standalone. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Do not make into lists – lists are an entirely different area with their own guidelines, they’re not just an easy out or compromise for category discussions. Most of these categories have only around five names in them. Really, a five item list? And where are the sources that give substantial coverage to all the listed items as a whole (a notability expectation) Aza24 (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• :Well some time ago I asked at the Lists WikiProject how many items a "list" needs to have, and if 1 item was enough to make a "list", and nobody answered me. Seems like a simple question with a quick yes or no answer? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
• ::There's at least one featured list with three items, though I do find that rather dubious. Ham II (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
• :::Hah! That's more an article than it is a "list"! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2023 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Prehistoric animal enigmatic taxa to :Category:Enigmatic prehistoric animal taxa

:* Propose renaming :Category:Vetulicolia enigmatic taxa to :Category:Enigmatic Vetulicolia taxa

:* Propose renaming :Category:Proarticulata incertae sedis to :Category:Enigmatic Proarticulata taxa

:* Propose renaming :Category:Protostome enigmatic taxa to :Category:Enigmatic protostome taxa

:* Propose renaming :Category:Arthropod enigmatic taxa to :Category:Enigmatic arthropod taxa

:* Propose renaming :Category:Chelicerata incertae sedis to :Category:Enigmatic chelicerate taxa

:* Propose renaming :Category:Insect enigmatic taxa to :Category:Enigmatic insect taxa

:* Propose renaming :Category:Formicidae incertae sedis to :Category:Enigmatic Formicidae taxa

:* Propose renaming :Category:Lepidoptera incertae sedis to :Category:Enigmatic Lepidoptera taxa

:* Propose renaming :Category:Ascomycota enigmatic taxa‎‎ to :Category:Enigmatic Ascomycota taxa

:* Propose renaming :Category:Dothideomycetes enigmatic taxa‎ to :Category:Enigmatic Dothideomycetes taxa

:* Propose renaming :Category:Sordariomycetes enigmatic taxa to :Category:Enigmatic Sordariomycetes taxa

:* Propose renaming :Category:Basidiomycota enigmatic taxa to :Category:Enigmatic Basidiomycota taxa

:* Propose renaming :Category:Agaricales enigmatic taxa to :Category:Enigmatic Agaricales taxa

:* Propose renaming :Category:Hypocreales incertae sedis to :Category:Enigmatic Hypocreales taxa

:* Propose renaming :Category:Reptilia incertae sedis to :Category:Enigmatic reptile taxa

:* Propose renaming :Category:Crocodylia incertae sedis to :Category:Enigmatic crocodilian taxa

:* Propose renaming :Category:Plesiosauria incertae sedis to :Category:Enigmatic plesiosaur taxa

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fish enigmatic taxa to :Category:Enigmatic fish taxa

:* Propose renaming :Category:Heterostraci enigmatic taxa to :Category:Enigmatic Heterostraci taxa

:* Propose renaming :Category:Placodermi enigmatic taxa to :Category:Enigmatic placoderm taxa

:* Propose renaming :Category:Arthrodira enigmatic taxa to :Category:Enigmatic arthrodire taxa

:* Propose renaming :Category:Ray-finned fish enigmatic taxa to :Category:Enigmatic ray-finned fish taxa

:* Propose renaming :Category:Bird enigmatic taxa to :Category:Enigmatic mammal taxa

:* Propose renaming :Category:Mammal enigmatic taxa to :Category:Enigmatic bird taxa

:Nominator's rationale: Fix left over ungrammatical uses of "enigmatic" in some categories, and a few "incertae sedis" categories were left that were not renamed to use "enigmatic" instead. (More to be added if I find any) See previous CfDs renaming "incertae sedis" categories to use the word "enigmatic" instead, and subsequently fixing use of the word "enigmatic" in some of them: March 2021, November 2021, Jan 2022. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

::Support per precedent. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:30, 20 July 2023 (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.