< January 16	January 18 >

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. MER-C 09:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Language isolate countries and territories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, while language isolates have something in common with each other, countries where entirely different language isolates are spoken have nothing in common with each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support languages != territory.--Calthinus (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, only a small number out of all the Language isolates have a category here for their territory. – Fayenatic London 15:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Without a main article, it is very difficult to know what this is about. What about the Welsh colony in Patagonia? Would that qualify? Or New Guinea with 500, even 1000 languages, some of which are probably unrelated. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion per nom. The silliest of all categories which Marcocapelle has dug up so far. FWIW the only thing language isolates have in common is a negative criterion. And even this criterion is fluid (some language isolates are considered small families, with member languages which others consider to be merely dialects of a single—thus isolate—language; for other language isolates, external classification proposals exist, but are still controversial). –Austronesier (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2020 (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: delete. MER-C 09:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Countries by language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, the much bigger Category:Administrative territorial entities by language has the same scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support not a very meaningful category overall.--Calthinus (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, duplicates better-organized Category:Administrative territorial entities by language . Most content does not actually refer to countries, e.g. Category:Catalan Countries. Place Clichy (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not useful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Place Clichy. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2020 (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: delete, emptying manually while considering recategorisation. MER-C 09:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Ents to Category:The Lord of the Rings characters

Nominator's rationale: It is doubtful that this category can be expanded beyond three articles. Furthermore, one of those articles will be deleted soon. Ent is the only one that cannot be moved to the suggested target. Instead, it should be placed in Category:Middle-earth races. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blow the whole category up. Move the redirects into Category:Middle-earth redirects per WP:RCAT, move Ent into Category:Middle-earth races, Treebeard is already in Category:The Lord of the Rings characters, and Entish is already in Category:Middle-earth languages, where it belongs until its likely deletion. Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small with no potential for growth is a strong reason why this shouldn't be a category, and since the individual components would be best suited in different categories, I say delete and scatter to the four winds of the earth. Hog Farm (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Selective merge per Hog Farm. Place Clichy (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Distribute and delete as suggested. We have three articles and four redirects to one of them. This is not enough for a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2020 (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: delete. MER-C 09:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Administrative territorial entities by language family
Propose deleting Category:Austroasiatic countries and territories‎
Propose deleting Category:Bantu countries and territories
Propose deleting Category:Finno-Ugric countries and territories‎
Propose deleting Category:Indo-European-speaking countries and territories‎
Propose deleting Category:Germanic-speaking countries and territories‎
Propose deleting Category:Indo-Iranian-speaking countries and territories
Propose deleting Category:Italic-speaking countries and territories‎
Propose deleting Category:Slavic-speaking countries and territories‎
Propose deleting Category:Northeast Caucasian-speaking countries and territories
Propose deleting Category:Chechen-Ingush-speaking countries and territories‎
Propose deleting Category:Northwest Caucasian-speaking countries and territories
Propose deleting Category:Sino-Tibetan countries and territories‎
Propose deleting Category:Turkic countries and territories‎

Nominator's rationale: the previous discussion, while formally closed as delete, actually resulted in a rename according to nomination. The reason for that is that the proposed renamed categories were created and populated during the discussion by the main opposer in the discussion. However, from that previous discussion I got the impression that there was consensus to delete countries and territories by language family altogether, because language family is not defining for any of these countries or territories. So that is what the current nomination is about.

@Krakkos, Calthinus, Grutness, Place Clichy, Carlossuarez46, Buidhe, Rathfelder, Calthinus, Dimadick, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Oliszydlowski, Samotny Wędrowiec, SharabSalam, Austronesier, Sadko, and Calthinus: pinging participants of previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcocapelle why not also include Category:Administrative_territorial_entities_by_language_family or if not that then the remaining subcat Category:Language_isolate_countries_and_territories?--Calthinus (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add the former, thx for the suggestion. Probably the latter requires a separate discussion, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' all per previous disscussion. Language family is not a defining characteristic. b uidhe 17:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Countries dont speak. The people living in them speak a variety of languages. Rathfelder (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all. These ones because the categories are meaningful only in linguistics (and in many cases complicated further by colonialism -- do Jamaica and Singapore share a "Germanic" identity? No.): Austroasiatic, Finno-Ugric, Indo-European, Germanic, Indo-Iranian, Italic (basically equals Romance, huge issues there already discussed), Northeast Caucasian, Sino-Tibetan. Delete also Bantu as many if not most are multiethnic/multilingual anyways and we are not asserting the supremacy of Bantus over Khoisan/Cushitic/Ubangian/etc speakers when the countries' constitutions do not say so. Vainakh would be meaningful (history, geography i.e. like Baltic, Scandinavian) but a category with two members is pointless. Would be neutral on Turkic as also has non-linguistic meaning too as it pertains to foreign policy (i.e. Turkic Council -- i.e. akin to Arab League)... but we already have a category for "Modern Turkic states". Pan-Slavism was and remains very real in some "Slavic" countries (more in the east as religiously defined i.e. Russia/Serbia/etc) but for consistency with my past vote on "Celtic" I don't think we should be having our categories take one side in political disputes. --Calthinus (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Rename: Thanks to what Calthinus has posted, I now agree that these categories should not be kept in their current shape. However, what about changing them (for example) from Category:Turkic countries and territories‎ to Category:Countries with an official Turkic language? It could definitely be worded differently, as I feel I've butchered that, but something like this would help to move away from any potentially dodgy suggestions that language has to define your ethnicity, while still keeping a purely encyclopedic categorisation of territories where a tongue from each tree is officially recognised.--Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we go that direction, I would rather suggest Category:Member states of the Turkic Council, similar to Category:Member states of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Marcocapelle. I would add that Slavic and Turkic are a bit less ridiculous categories to have than "Indo-Iranian/European", "Uralic", "Austroasiatic", etc, though I still would not support them in their present forms.--Calthinus (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see information on language families as defining for countries. Dimadick (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A personal opinion. A valid one, but NPOV matters, and even the political elite of many of such countries demonstrate ignorance (or willful obfuscation) of what language family their country's "national" language actually belongs to including with regards to membership in these "ethnoclubs". Case in point, Hungary's aspirations to join the Turkic Council.--Calthinus (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom and previous discussion. Language families alone do not form a common denominator for nations and territories. Such categories make sense if there is a culturally significant common denominator (other than language family) that unites the dominant ethnic groups of these nations and territories. Agree with Calthinus that this only holds for the trivial Category:Chechen-Ingush-speaking countries and territories‎. The countries that self-identify as Turkic are better covered by a category that matches the real political entity Turkic Council, while a "pan-Slavic" identity is ideology-laden, thus hardly an appropriate characteristic to define a category. –Austronesier (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Also hopelessly ambiguous: What would make a country x-ian speaking? Official national language, plurality language, official minority language, locally dominant language... Quite an arena for POV-pushing! --T*U (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, non-defining feature for a country. Wikipedia articles on the language families and the countries themselves are usually clear which countries and territories they are associated with, this is a more efficient way to present information. These categories seem to be used as proxy for ethnicity and related POV-pushing. Place Clichy (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively keep -- The basis of this is countries and territories where a language of a linguistic group is indigenous. A category for Finno-Ugaric and one for Turkic are certainly useful, because they are unrelated to Indo-European and Semetic (Arabic) languages in adjacent areas. Similarly many of the languages of eastern Europe are related (Slavic). I would suggest that Italic should be downmerged to Romance; and I see no reason for not keeping Germanic, as a major division of Indo-European (which should mainly be a container). I do not know enough of Indo-Iranian languages to comment. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron fyi -- "indigenous" can be a confusing definition, but let me remind everyone that Turkic expanded within relatively recent history such that every single "Turkic country" is not part of the Turkic urheimat -- which is further east/north. Likewise, Romance under the "indigenous" marker for recorded history ends up limited to a (subset of) Italy. Ditto, Slavic, 6th century expansion from Volhynia. If we keep Germanic, you will have to find some argument for why we have England and presumably not Jamaica or Singapore (what do we do about the USA/Canada/Australia/New Zealand by the way??), let alone coming up with policies to distinguish the different relations of Germanic to countries like Ireland, France, etc. Germanic is not indigenous to Britain, its expansion into the isles is assigned a well-known dating in relatively recent history. You can say we set some boundary but whatever boundary we set is going to inevitably reflect someone's POV about the incredibly controversial idea of what it means to be "indigenous". --Calthinus (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all not everyone in each place speaks the language assigned to them and likely to change over time. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The official or widely-spoken native languages of a country are defining. The language families are not. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2020 (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: G7 deleted - as the creator, I requested speedy deletion. (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia Loves X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This 2019 category is a duplication of a more used 2014 category, Category:Wiki Loves X. I changed the 3 use instances of this category to become that other category. As an unpopulated duplicate this one should be deleted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion as duplicative; as the author, I requested speedy deletion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as duplicate. -Yupik (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2020 (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: keep. MER-C 09:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Native American women academics
Nominator's rationale This is a non-diffusing category, and one of its parents Category:Native American women is a container category that is not to contain any actual biographical articles. This is the only ethnic specific sub-cat of Category:American women academics. I challenge that we can write a non-list article on Native American women academics with enough reliable sources to preserve it. This is a triple intercept, and I do not think it is distinct enough from Native American academics to justify its existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as category creator. The nominator obviously did not even look at the category edit history because, to pre-empt this exact action, my very first edit to it listed five reliably-published articles specifically about Native American women academics, showing it to be a notable intersection of categories. For easy reference, they are:

Elliott, Barbara A.; Dorscher, Joy; Wirta, Anna; Hill, Doris Leal (April 2010), "Staying Connected: Native American Women Faculty Members on Experiencing Success", Academic Medicine, 85 (4): 675–679, doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e3181d28101
Waterman, Stephanie J.; Lindley, Lorinda S. (January 2013), "Cultural Strengths to Persevere: Native American Women in Higher Education", NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education, 6 (2), doi:10.1515/njawhe-2013-0011
Trucks-Bordeaux, Tammy (2003), "Academic Massacres: The Story of Two American Indian Women and Their Struggle to Survive Academia", The American Indian Quarterly, 27 (1): 416–419, doi:10.1353/aiq.2004.0057
Fox, Mary Jo Tippeconnic (January 2009), "American Indian Women in Academia: The Joys and Challenges", NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education, 1 (1), doi:10.2202/1940-7890.1011
Fox, Mary Jo Tippeconnic (2013), "American Indian/Alaska Native Women: The Path to the Doctorate", Journal of American Indian Education, 52 (1): 26–44, JSTOR 43608645

(Looking at the history would also have been a necessary step in providing a courtesy notice to me that this deletion discussion was happening, something the nominator also did not do.) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS I just noticed that the nomination is also factually incorrect. It is a diffusing subcategory of Category:Native American women. It is only a non-diffusing subcategory of its other two parent categories (as we do in general for subcategories that distinguish people by gender or ethnicity). The nominator appears to mistakenly believe that whether a category is diffusing depends only on the category itself; it also depends on which parent one looks at. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources above indicate that this is a wiki-notable intersection of categories. XOR'easter (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above & in addition by reason of the gender requirement, is distinct enough from Native American academics. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Epstein, seems there is really no valid reason to delete this at all.--Calthinus (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the category will assist in identifying participants (already 47), compiling lists, and encouraging the creation of biographies. We have had Category:Indigenous Australian women academics since 2014 and I can see opportunities for creating similar categories in connection with Canada, New Zealand, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons given above. -Yupik (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Native Americans have become a downtrodden minority in their own country. It is thoroughly appropriate to have an ethnic category for those who have risen to became academics. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2020 (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: rename. MER-C 09:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Jackass to Category:Jackass task force
Propose renaming Category:WikiProject CSI franchise to Category:CSI task force
Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Red Dwarf to Category:Red Dwarf task force (overwriting new category page)
Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Red Dwarf articles to Category:Red Dwarf task force articles (overwriting new category page)
Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Firefly articles to Category:Firefly task force articles (overwriting new category page)
Propose renaming Category:WikiProject 24 members to Category:24 task force members (overwriting new category page)

Nominator's rationale: For consistency within Category:WikiProject Television task forces. Opposed on Speedy page. – Fayenatic London 12:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of Speedy discussion
Category:WikiProject Jackass to Category:Jackass task force – C2D. Gonnym (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Oppose - I missed a batch of these before Christmas but several of these names don't work as they're ambiguous (and the pre-Christmas ones had ambiguous horrors like Category:House task force. In this case the parent article is at Jackass (franchise) and the parent category was deleted in per Cfd in 2007 and recreated as Category:Jackass (TV series) in 2014 (as an aside, it should probably be C2D'd). Either this should be renamed to Category:Jackass (franchise) task force or (better I think) Category:WikiProject Television Jackass task force - and probably all of them should be renamed to the latter format.Le Deluge (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Le Deluge is confusing parent TV series/franchise article, with the parent task force article, which is indeed at WP:WikiProject Television/Jackass task force. The "/" is not part of the title, but a sub-page divider as can be seen by the link at the top it provides back to the main article. --Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] You're wrong - in Mediawiki terms, per WP:Page name A subpagename is just a label inside its pagename, with a software-added / slash delimiter. The full name of that subpage is WP:WikiProject Television/Jackass task force. But aside from that, the new name you're proposing is ambiguous (and it's even more obvious with other ones you've made like Category:House task force ). That's the real problem.Le Deluge (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Read Wikipedia:Article titles#Article title format#Do not create subsidiary articles, and then Wikipedia:Subpages#Allowed uses and Wikipedia:Subpages#Wikipedia namespaces that do not have sub-pages and see that while the feature of creating a sub-page is enabled in a namespace, like it is in the portal one, that even if an article is considered subsidiary to another, it should be named independently, hence as I said above, the page name is in-fact "Jackass task force" and you are continuing to repeat your incorrect and false opinions. Please brush-up on policies and terminology. Also, while I'm sure your incorrect and pointless opposition will work, as I've told you on my talk page, all you'll accomplish is that 5 task forces out of the 100+ on en.wiki will use a completely different style, some of them in addition will incorrectly still be titled WikiProjects, as you are obviously not going to address the complete category tree. --Gonnym (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Category:WikiProject CSI franchise to Category:CSI task force – C2D. Gonnym (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Oppose Not a C2D - CSI is a disambiguation page, you want CSI (franchise). Per above, should be renamed to either Category:CSI (franchise) task force or Category:WikiProject Television CSI task force Le Deluge (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Le Deluge is confusing parent TV series/franchise article, with the parent task force article, which is indeed at WP:WikiProject Television/CSI task force. The "/" is not part of the title, but a sub-page divider as can be seen by the link at the top it provides back to the main article. --Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Category:WikiProject Red Dwarf to Category:Red Dwarf task force – C2D. Gonnym (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Oppose Not a C2D, as the original name already includes the original Red Dwarf article name, a C2D would be matching Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/Red_Dwarf_task_force and include WP Television in the name.Le Deluge (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Le Deluge is confusing parent TV series/franchise article, with the parent task force article, which is indeed at WP:WikiProject Television/Red Dwarf task force. The "/" is not part of the title, but a sub-page divider as can be seen by the link at the top it provides back to the main article. --Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Category:WikiProject Red Dwarf articles to Category:Red Dwarf task force articles – C2C. Gonnym (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Category:WikiProject Firefly articles to Category:Firefly task force articles – C2C. Gonnym (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Oppose - again, the parent article is Firefly (TV series) Le Deluge (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Le Deluge is confusing parent TV series/franchise article, with the parent task force article, which is indeed at WP:WikiProject Television/Firefly task force. The "/" is not part of the title, but a sub-page divider as can be seen by the link at the top it provides back to the main article. --Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Category:WikiProject 24 members to Category:24 task force members – C2D. Gonnym (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Oppose - again, the parent article is 24 (TV series) Le Deluge (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Le Deluge is confusing parent TV series/franchise article, with the parent task force article, which is indeed at WP:WikiProject Television/24 task force. The "/" is not part of the title, but a sub-page divider as can be seen by the link at the top it provides back to the main article. --Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of Speedy discussion

Category:WikiProject Jackass to Category:Jackass task force – C2D. Gonnym (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I missed a batch of these before Christmas but several of these names don't work as they're ambiguous (and the pre-Christmas ones had ambiguous horrors like Category:House task force. In this case the parent article is at Jackass (franchise) and the parent category was deleted in per Cfd in 2007 and recreated as Category:Jackass (TV series) in 2014 (as an aside, it should probably be C2D'd). Either this should be renamed to Category:Jackass (franchise) task force or (better I think) Category:WikiProject Television Jackass task force - and probably all of them should be renamed to the latter format.Le Deluge (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Le Deluge is confusing parent TV series/franchise article, with the parent task force article, which is indeed at WP:WikiProject Television/Jackass task force. The "/" is not part of the title, but a sub-page divider as can be seen by the link at the top it provides back to the main article. --Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong - in Mediawiki terms, per WP:Page name A subpagename is just a label inside its pagename, with a software-added / slash delimiter. The full name of that subpage is WP:WikiProject Television/Jackass task force. But aside from that, the new name you're proposing is ambiguous (and it's even more obvious with other ones you've made like Category:House task force ). That's the real problem.Le Deluge (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Read Wikipedia:Article titles#Article title format#Do not create subsidiary articles, and then Wikipedia:Subpages#Allowed uses and Wikipedia:Subpages#Wikipedia namespaces that do not have sub-pages and see that while the feature of creating a sub-page is enabled in a namespace, like it is in the portal one, that even if an article is considered subsidiary to another, it should be named independently, hence as I said above, the page name is in-fact "Jackass task force" and you are continuing to repeat your incorrect and false opinions. Please brush-up on policies and terminology. Also, while I'm sure your incorrect and pointless opposition will work, as I've told you on my talk page, all you'll accomplish is that 5 task forces out of the 100+ on en.wiki will use a completely different style, some of them in addition will incorrectly still be titled WikiProjects, as you are obviously not going to address the complete category tree. --Gonnym (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject CSI franchise to Category:CSI task force – C2D. Gonnym (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a C2D - CSI is a disambiguation page, you want CSI (franchise). Per above, should be renamed to either Category:CSI (franchise) task force or Category:WikiProject Television CSI task force Le Deluge (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Le Deluge is confusing parent TV series/franchise article, with the parent task force article, which is indeed at WP:WikiProject Television/CSI task force. The "/" is not part of the title, but a sub-page divider as can be seen by the link at the top it provides back to the main article. --Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Red Dwarf to Category:Red Dwarf task force – C2D. Gonnym (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a C2D, as the original name already includes the original Red Dwarf article name, a C2D would be matching Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/Red_Dwarf_task_force and include WP Television in the name.Le Deluge (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Le Deluge is confusing parent TV series/franchise article, with the parent task force article, which is indeed at WP:WikiProject Television/Red Dwarf task force. The "/" is not part of the title, but a sub-page divider as can be seen by the link at the top it provides back to the main article. --Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Red Dwarf articles to Category:Red Dwarf task force articles – C2C. Gonnym (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Firefly articles to Category:Firefly task force articles – C2C. Gonnym (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - again, the parent article is Firefly (TV series) Le Deluge (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Le Deluge is confusing parent TV series/franchise article, with the parent task force article, which is indeed at WP:WikiProject Television/Firefly task force. The "/" is not part of the title, but a sub-page divider as can be seen by the link at the top it provides back to the main article. --Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject 24 members to Category:24 task force members – C2D. Gonnym (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - again, the parent article is 24 (TV series) Le Deluge (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Le Deluge is confusing parent TV series/franchise article, with the parent task force article, which is indeed at WP:WikiProject Television/24 task force. The "/" is not part of the title, but a sub-page divider as can be seen by the link at the top it provides back to the main article. --Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming all The speedy opposer misunderstands: subject-area WikiProjects and Taskforces most definitely do NOT have to match the name of the main article; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Furry, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, many other examples. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support all. Didn't even know this discussion was happening. --Gonnym (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2020 (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: merge. MER-C 09:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Works and media about fishing to Category:Fishing

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, this is an unusual combination category of "works and media" with only few subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 17 January 2020 (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: rename. MER-C 09:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Thessaloniki during Axis occupation to Category:German occupation of Thessaloniki

Nominator's rationale: correct English, per other "German occupation of X" categories, and because Thessaloniki was occupied by the Germans throughout; the other two Axis powers present in Greece, Bulgaria and Italy, had only diplomatic presence in the city Constantine ✍ 09:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, an earlier speedy rename request was opposed, see Category talk:Thessaloniki during Axis occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearer scope. Dimadick (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Constantine's proposal, clearer Greco22 (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Precision.--Calthinus (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, more precise and overall better name. Place Clichy (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I am dubious about the category's merits and might have suggested upmerging. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2020 (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: merge. MER-C 09:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:2014 murders in Nigeria to Category:2010s murders in Nigeria and Category:2014 crimes in Nigeria and Category:2014 murders in Africa

Nominator's rationale: merge to all parents per WP:SMALLCAT. There are no other by-year categories for murders in Nigeria, because there are not enough articles: Category:2010s murders in Nigeria contains only 21 articles. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are many more articles which should be in this cat & many more which should be in C:2010s murders in Nigeria. There were a particularly high number of notable murders in Nigeria in 2014, due to it having been the peak of the Boko Haram insurgency. The vast majority of years in Nigeria don't have enough articles to justify by year cats, but 2014 does. Category:Attacks in Nigeria in 2014 has 22 articles & Category:Terrorist incidents in Nigeria in 2014 has 23 - the vast majority of the entries in those cats are murders which are thus eligible for this cat. Jim Michael (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jim Michael: a by-year categ assists navigation only if it is part of a series. it's not helpful to have a single by-year category ... and there isn't enough here to make a by-year series. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - PS categorising "terrorist incidents" as "murder" is POV, and should be avoided. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not intending to make a series of year murders in Nigeria.

Many terrorist attacks are certainly murder. Many terrorist groups & lone wolves consider themselves & their members to be armies/soldiers/volunteers/freedom fighters/patriots/martyrs/liberation movements etc. However, they're actually violent criminals who aren't legitimately in power, don't have authorisation to use violence, aren't immune from prosecution & imprisonment, often target civilians & don't even try to abide by the rules regarding war. Jim Michael (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a classic POV position. One man's "terrorist" is another's "freedom fighter". Leave the reader to make up their own mind. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boko Haram, who have carried out most of the major attacks in Nigeria since 2009, are an illegal, VNSA group who are routinely classified as terrorists by the legal system, the military, the media etc. However, the cat we are discussing doesn't have terrorist in it. If you're asserting that the killings by BH weren't murders, then that's a fringe view that's contradicted by the laws of Nigeria as well those of other countries. Jim Michael (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment, I was assuming that these categories should only contain murders of individual people - so no massacres, terrorist attacks etc., because we already have separate categories for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They routinely include all articles about murders. The murder cats that are only for biographical articles & individual murders are those such as Category:People murdered in Lagos, which is a subcat of Category:Murder in Lagos & Category:People murdered in Nigeria. Jim Michael (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This will lead to largely overlapping categories, I do not think that this is meaningful. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and keep terrorism out of murder categories. One man's "terrorist" is another's "freedom fighter".Rathfelder (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No-one but BH, their supporters & sympathisers would describe them as freedom fighters - they frequently carry out mass murders of civilians in an attempt to impose an extremely oppressive regime which most people don't want & would be the opposite of freedom. No country exempts terrorists from prosecution for murder. We & the media describe & categorise many attacks as terrorism &/or murder, but neither we nor the MSM describe them as freedom fighter successes. Jim Michael (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per SMALLCAT. Place Clichy (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does not fit the criteria of WP:SMALLCAT in both ways: a) there are over 20 articles which are eligible for it; b) it is part of a subcategory: Category:2014 murders by country. Jim Michael (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- the 2010s category is not so large as to need a split. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles which are eligible for this cat & Category:2010s murders in Nigeria aren't in it. Jim Michael (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2020 (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: rename. MER-C 09:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NASCAR Gander Outdoors Truck Series to Category:NASCAR Truck Series
Category:NASCAR Gander Outdoors Truck Series races to Category:NASCAR Truck Series races
Category:NASCAR Gander Outdoors Truck Series seasons to Category:NASCAR Truck Series seasons
With the Gander Outdoors Truck Series recently being renamed to the NASCAR Gander RV & Outdoors Truck Series, it is the third different name for the series in as many years. For the sake of simplification as many commonly and simply refer to it as the "NASCAR Truck Series" and in the event that it gets renamed yet again in the future, it's probably best to move the categories to a name that doesn't include the title sponsor. Zappa⚡Matic 02:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2020 (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: rename to Category:Hinduism-motivated violence in India. MER-C 09:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hindu terrorism to Category:Saffron terror

Nominator's rationale: rename in order to align with main article Saffron terror. An earlier rename discussion to a different target Category:Hindutva terrorism led to keep/no consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for intelligibility to a non-Indian readership & per the other discussion linked above. Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --2409:4072:6095:A72C:20C7:7F9D:D29D:48EE (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Change or Delete-- We already have Category:Religiously motivated violence in India Shadow4dark (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I participated in the previous linked discussion about this in 2010. A good reason for renaming this is that there is near academic and media consensus of practice to not use the term "Hindu terrorism". People who write and comment rarely use this term or imagine this concept, especially in comparison to the analogous topics with well-populated categories in Category:Religious terrorism. Because every other major world religion other than Hinduism seems to inspire regular acts of terrorism, but Hinduism does not, the lack of events marked as Hindu terrorism stands out as strange or an omission. When I looked at this in 2010 I thought Wikipedia was missing something. Now all this time has passed, and I have come to think that Hinduism is somehow unusual for either having less terrorism, or having less of the kind of terrorism which media can report and which can come to Wikipedia. Many of the items currently in category "Hindu terrorism" probably do not belong there because there is a lack of sourcing to confirm a Hindu terrorism label. When we have a little used, contentious, confusing category, we often delete it in Wikipedia. I support keeping this category as is in this case because it is a useful parallel with the categories for the other religions. By keeping it, we show that there is not an omission of Hinduism as a category, but that the searching that the world has done has identified a different sort of set than is in those other comparable religious terrorism categories. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Religiously motivated violence in India per Shadow4dark, see also WP:TERRORIST.--Calthinus (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(as nom) If alignment with the main article is beyond feasibility I would not oppose an alternative rename using "violence" instead of "terror". However, I do oppose the proposed merge, since that will remove the content from the Hindu category tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair. Category:Hinduism-motivated violence in India?--Calthinus (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds very reasonable. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hinduism-motivated violence in India is a good alternative Shadow4dark (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

alt rename to Category:Hinduism-motivated violence in India per Calthinus, Marcocapelle and Shadow4dark. Place Clichy (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - until we discuss the whole set of category:nationalist terrorism cats.GreyShark (dibra) 13:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is not necessarily one solution for all, e.g. this Hindu category has a main article with terror in the title while the Zionst category has not. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2020 (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: no consensus. MER-C 09:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Palestinian terrorism to Category:Palestinian political violence

Nominator's rationale: rename in order to align with main article Palestinian political violence. An earlier delete discussion led to no consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not opposed. I created the category. I am not opposed to the renaming. Whether it is a good idea or not, I don't know. Terrorism is such a nebulous name. The terrorism categories were created as a practical matter. The last discussion was in 2008. As a longtime editor of Casualties of the Iraq War I would have no problem now in calling many of the military activities of the US and its allies as terrorism and war crimes. The indiscriminate bombings, torture, death squads, etc. of the US and its allies. -- Timeshifter (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I created Category:Zionist terrorism on Nov 3, 2008, the same day as the Palestinian terrorism category. Then and now I didn't think the terrorism categories would be eliminated, though they probably should be. So the best that could be hoped for then, and probably now, is more balance and less systemic bias. See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Some American terrorism has since been categorized as such. For example; the Phoenix Program in Vietnam. The Contras in Latin America. What is missing are the lies the Bush administration and the UK used to start the Iraq War. That could be called terrorism on a massive scale. See: Rationale for the Iraq War and Downing Street memo. -- Timeshifter (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Terrorism and political violence are two different things.--Darwinek (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per NPOV Shadow4dark (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Pretty simple, NPOV, also WP:TERRORIST. --Calthinus (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose for now. I acknowledge the nominator's arguments, but Palestinian terrorism, especially the 1970s version, clearly is a thing, and probably one of the few well-known movements most explicitly known as terrorism, even a few where the term is not derogatory. The Palestinian movements listed in the category openly resorted to terrorism as a means of action. Renaming the category to Palestinian political violence would broaden its scope to many other types of violence linked to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I don't think that would be an improvement, as the category is currently pretty well sorted out. Place Clichy (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support should not be treated as an exception among other nationalities--Sakiv (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurs the difference between political violence targeting Israeli forces, Palestinian in-fighting, and violence that clearly has no justification under international law (the Munich Olympics, for example), which are routinely said to be terrorism. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to Palestinian militant groups Shadow4dark (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- erm, regardless of personal opinions... Palestinians slaughtering other Palestinians or Israelis or whoever is just that. Substitute any other group including Israelis for either side of the equation and I hope you'd say the same thing. Political violence regardless of who does it does not become less violent or "terroristic" merely because wiki editors think intl law "justifies" it.--Calthinus (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Calthinus freedom/resistance VS terrorist is npov dispute — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.179.9.127 (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - for now, because we have a bunch of Category:Nationalist terrorism cats: category:Armenian terrorism, category:Sikh terrorism, category:Zionist terrorism, category:Hindu terrorism, etc. All those should be discussed altogether, rather than making Palestinian nationalist terrorism an exclusion.GreyShark (dibra) 13:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is not necessarily one solution for all, e.g. the Hindu category has a main article with terror in the title (see nomination above) while the Zionst category has not. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2020 (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: delete. MER-C 09:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:MMR vaccine controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:MMR vaccine and autism - main article has been stable at MMR vaccine and autism since Feb 2019. Guy (help!) 13:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Category has a clear purpose and scope. if it overlaps with another existing category, that is still not a reason to delete it. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't "overlap", it is entirely redundant to the other category. The main article was renamed, all the articles that were in this category have been added to the new one as well. That's was due to NPOV concerns. This category is now redundant and effectively a POV fork. Guy (help!) 09:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:SMALLCAT. It would have been a different issue if there were lots of articles about other controversies than the autism controversy, but that is not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge by overwriting the newer page Category:MMR vaccine and autism and combining the parent categories of both pages. The nominated category page has longer history and should be kept – it should have been nominated for renaming, rather than user:JzG starting a new category. – Fayenatic London 08:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: so do you mean merge back to the older category and rename the older category to Category:MMR vaccine and autism? Just checking if I understand this correctly. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: yes, if you like; that would be a mechanism to achieve the same outcome. – Fayenatic London 21:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support, to line this back up with the MMR vaccine and autism article. – bradv🍁 15:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The category is empty apart from a main article on the vaccine, which should already be in the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2020 (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.

January 17

Category:Wikipedia help overviews

Category:Language isolate countries and territories

Category:Countries by language

Category:Ents

Countries and territories by language family

Category:Wikipedia Loves X

Native American women academics

Television task forces

Category:Fishing television channels

Category:Works and media about fishing

Category:Thessaloniki during Axis occupation

Category:2014 murders in Nigeria

Category:User-created templates

NASCAR Truck Series categories

Category:Hindu terrorism

Category:Palestinian terrorism

Category:MMR vaccine controversy