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.
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:Reliefs in Hungary
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.
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)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:11th-century rulers in Al-Andalus
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..
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
We don't have any other Xth-century rulers in Al-Andalus categories either (and so we won't have any other 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)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:Musical Artists
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.
Category:Female-led UK punk bands of the 21st Century
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.
Category:Rugby union players that played in the NFL
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.
Category:Meng Huo and associates
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.
Category:Three Kingdoms nobility
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.
Category:6th-millennium BC people
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.
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.
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:Veo cómo cantas
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.
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,
Qwerfjkltalk13:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: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)reply
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 {{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)reply
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)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:Cham Albanians
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.
Category:Things named after Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
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.
QuestionWP:SHAREDNAME says 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)reply
@
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)reply
@
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)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.
Enigmatic taxa
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: 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)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.
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:Reliefs in Hungary
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.
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)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:11th-century rulers in Al-Andalus
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..
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
We don't have any other Xth-century rulers in Al-Andalus categories either (and so we won't have any other 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)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:Musical Artists
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.
Category:Female-led UK punk bands of the 21st Century
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.
Category:Rugby union players that played in the NFL
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.
Category:Meng Huo and associates
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.
Category:Three Kingdoms nobility
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.
Category:6th-millennium BC people
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.
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.
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:Veo cómo cantas
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.
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,
Qwerfjkltalk13:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: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)reply
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 {{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)reply
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)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:Cham Albanians
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.
Category:Things named after Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
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.
QuestionWP:SHAREDNAME says 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)reply
@
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)reply
@
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)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.
Enigmatic taxa
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: 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)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.