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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Universal Music Latin albums to Category:Universal Music Latin Entertainment albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Full proper name of group. Will also hinder future Latin-related albums from being dumped into an ambiguous 'latin albums' category, instead of being assigned to their proper record label categories (Universal Music Latino albums, Fonovisa Records albums, Machete Music albums, Universal Music Spain albums, etc.) Imperatore (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2012 (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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Trees (structure) to Category:Trees (data structures)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. —Ruud 21:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support there are physical structures that are trees. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as tree (data structure) is the main article. Mangoe (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2012 (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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Heaps (structure) to Category:Heaps (data structures)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. —Ruud 21:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support there are physical structures that are heaps. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as heap (data structure) is the main article. Mangoe (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support based on main article. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Military history of the United States (1900–1999) to Category:20th-century military history of the United States

Nominator's rationale: take a guess... -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename C2C - and I'd rather not guess, I'd rather nominators took the 30 seconds to actually say why they're nominating a category. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously?? It is such an obvious name change that it does not need spelling out. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These are not the same. The 20th century began on Jan 1, 1901, and ended on Dec. 31, 2000. True, there would be a very limited chanrge in the content (although it might move the US-Filipino war out, and put the intervention in Kosovo more clearly in). The new name may be better, but they are not the same thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is splitting hairs, but the point about some of the content is valid. WP uses the time interval of centuries rather than random time periods such as 99 within a century. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Renames per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:National Public Radio to Category:NPR

Nominator's rationale: Organization has been renamed; this is even indicated at the top of the category page at Category:National Public Radio. In addition, propose renaming of the subcategories similarly, to wit:

• Category:National Public Radio member networks
• Category:National Public Radio personalities
• Category:National Public Radio programs
• Category:National Public Radio member stations
• Category:National Public Radio by state templates

 Frank  |  talk  19:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename C2D - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - I'm prepared to rename these categories as seemingly uncontroversial, but...is there a bot that will clean up all the redirects, or a way to make the move so they'll be cleaned up at the same time? That's actually the reason I put this here; I figured there's a "better way" than I would do manually and I certainly don't want to change all the affected pages manually.  Frank  |  talk  15:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment Do not speedy. An attempt to rename this was rejected a couple of months ago & rejected. Nominator should refer back to that debate & contact those participants and let them participate in this discussion. Ephebi (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to that discussion?  Frank  |  talk  00:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the previous discussion and notified all participants.  Frank  |  talk  01:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I was involved in the previous debate and my opinion hasn't changed, so let me repeat it. I'm ok though not thrilled by the renaming. NPR (disambiguation) makes it clear that the chance of confusion with other NPR initials is small. If we decide to disambiguate, Category:NPR (radio) is my preferred option. Pichpich (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't believe that anything has changed since the last discussion to make the category any less ambiguous. Categories are different then articles when the name is ambiguous since it is possible to have erroneous entries when editors assume, rightly so in many cases, that they know what the category should mean. In the end, changing this would add confusion and does not fix anything. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  None of the other pages listed at NPR (disambiguation) has a category associated with it, so I don't see where the ambiguity you refer to arises. In addition, the existing category name is actually meaningless, since National Public Radio no longer exists as an entity.  Frank  |  talk  01:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  In Vegaswikian's defense, the fact that other pages listed on the disambiguation page have no associated categories is irrelevant. What we need to figure out is whether a user can erroneously assume that such a category exists. For instance, there's a (perhaps now closed) debate about Category:Fans started by an editor who mistakenly used it as a parent category for Category:Science fiction fans. That being said, I think one can make the argument that no sensible editor would expect Category:NPR to be any of the other possibilities in the dab page. Pichpich (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's simpler than that; we need not divine what a sensible editor (nor a sensible reader) would expect; we need only observe what no editor has yet done, which is to create any category that would require disambiguation in response to the proposed creation of Category:NPR.  Frank  |  talk  01:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if it is decided not to change the name of the main Category, I think the sub-cats can be safely renamed without any confusion with other topics, e.g. NPR member stations, NPR personalities, etc. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename I still think that article and category names should match virtually all the time--applying divergent editorial standards is confusing and arbitrary (i.e. unprofessional.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I see the point about people inadvertently adding wrong pages to the category, but don't really consider that argument any more compelling than the fact that people can accidentally create wikilinks to the wrong article (which doesn't prevent us from using ambiguous titles in article space when there is a clear primary target for the term). In case there's no consensus to move to NPR, at least rename to Category:NPR (radio) to reflect the name change and naming of the parent article. Jafeluv (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Btw, the categories should be tagged. Jafeluv (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Done.  Frank  |  talk  14:02, 17 January 2012 (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: Listify. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convert Category:Australian electorates contested at every election to article List of Australian electorates contested at every election

Nominator's rationale: Convert. This does not seem to be a defining characteristic for a category, partly because electorate boundaries change over the years. The most notable thing is the long-lasting names, and the current policy of trying to maintain the remaining ones. I would think being one of the original electorates may be defining but that should probably be a list too. Qetuth (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert per nom - Agreed with the nominator's contentions. Swan used to be a rural seat and is now an inner suburban seat, for example. Additionally, the number is fairly small, and likely to remain static as uncontested elections in Australia are historical, so it's ideally suited to a list, which can also provide referenced information about each in summary form. Orderinchaos 13:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Articlise/listify -- I presume there is a satisfactory procedure for finding electoral divisions via a category tree covering all categories. Accordingly, this has little merit as a navigation aid, which is the objectm of categories. A list has singificnat advantages in that the articles can be arranged by state, and further collumns can be provided in a table. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• listify The category has no meaning without the block of text at the top. I think also that an article might allow a more informative means of presentation (e.g. information about when electorates were established, etc.). Mangoe (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:56, 20 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User pas-N (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. "This user is a native Pascal programmer" - "Native" programming speaker categories have all been deleted here as joke categories that don't help the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pointless. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Not only pointless, but probably not true. I do not believe any one writes or speaks a programming language without being taught it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as a pointless joke category which does not assist collaboration. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It's cute, but it's a clear case of a joke user category which does not faciltiate collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:16, 14 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User Encourages Messi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Linked to a userbox that says "This user thinks that Messi is the best player in the world." Does not foster collaboration. "Wikipedians by individual person" category, which have unanimous precedent for deletion. Also has improper grammar and an improper naming convention for a user category. VegaDark (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- pointless. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Does not assist collaboration. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This user category reflects a characteristic that is overly narrow (limited to expressing fondness for just one individual) and implies no particular interest or ability that would be relevant to the encyclopedia (an irrelelvant 'like', if you will). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete many more of these categories should be deleted. Even those which survive because we pretend that they were designed for collaboration are typically designed to simply express one's love for sports team X and tv show Y. Hurray for Category:WikiProject Doctor Who members. Nay for Category:Wikipedians who like Doctor Who. Pichpich (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2012 (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'd. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Imposter Verification Team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Appears to be linked to the recently deleted Wikipedia:Imposter Verification Team to categorize users who have been "identified" by the team as impostors. At the very least this needs a rename to indicate it is a user category, but I see no use for this category if the entire project has been deleted, and even if the project is restored (looking at the page history it appears as the reason for the G7 deletion was that it "wasn't ready for project space yet", else I would have simply speedy deleted this as a page dependent on a deleted page, I'd rather not see this crop back up) I see no function that this would have that our sockpuppet categories can't accomplish. VegaDark (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- WE need an article/project before we can have a category for it. If kept, make it a user category. I can see a purpose for the category. We do not encourage autobiography, but there was a case where a pop star's article included lots of "facts" that were really journalistic inventions. He sought to edit these out and found he was being reverted, because unreliable content of the music press was regarded by WP as reliable sources. I believe the sensible outcome was that the subject's edits were allowed to stand. However, the situation could arise where a user called Joebloggs had edited the article on Joe Bloggs (or Joseph Bloggs), but that user was not in fact Joe Bloggs the subject of the article. It might be useful to have a project devoted to verifying identities, and requiring suhc impostors to adopt a more suitable name. This is different from the sockpuppet problem, though similar. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was the creator of the project and as you already know, it has been self-requested to be speedy deleted by me. I was going through the process of speedy deleting all the pages related to the project, and I must have forgotten this page. I have since nominated the page for speedy delete under G7. Whenaxis talk contribs 02:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin - While the category has been speedy deleted, it has not yet been emptied, so that process needs to be done at close. VegaDark (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will do that myself right now. Thanks, Whenaxis about talk contribs 00:28, 14 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia pages named with diacritics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: As a result of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 18#Template:Foreign character, it would seem to make sense to delete this maintenance category too. Jared Preston (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – It's empty now. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete categories are not about characteristics of words.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete common name category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think it's necessary but in any case a category formerly populated by a now deleted template has to be deleted as well. Pichpich (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is almost as bad as the bands with an umlaut (or however you spell that word) category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Incarceration by country to Category:Penal systems by country

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Essentially these are duplicate categories and penal systems seems the better name. Tim! (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I believe every article in the first category is somewhere in the second category structure already anyway. Mangoe (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge There does not seem to be any intended distinction between the two. Pichpich (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2012 (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'd. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs written by Dean Miller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one entry. He did write at least one other song for someone else, but it's not notable enough for an article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many thanks for the notification on my talkpage. I agree with the nominator that single entry categories should all be deleted, they act only as redirects and have no useful function. But... there are others who feel it is OK where it is part of a larger category scheme (which this is). If we could get consensus that single member categories are all deleted, that would be great. NB I try not to create single member categories, but sometimes there isn't a second entry to find. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2012 (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. The Palestine category may be renominated or purged as needed. If any expatriated clubs or other outliers end up in the wrong spot, feel free to move them.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: The prevailing standard is to use nationality (Fooian) for categories of people and socio-cultural topics, such as art and music, and to use country for organizations and non-person entities. Association football clubs fall into the latter category and, therefore, I propose that we use country instead of nationality as the identifier, in order to:

1. Adopt a standard that can apply to all countries instead of utilizing three standards: Fooian football clubs (Category:Brazilian football clubs), Foo football clubs (Category:Republic of Ireland football clubs) and Football clubs in Foo (Category:Football clubs in Georgia (country));
2. Establish consistency with Category:Sports teams by country, as well as comparable categories for baseball, basketball, cycling and ice hockey;
3. Establish consistency with the naming of lists of association football clubs by country; and
4. Avoid ambiguity concerning whether an Afghan football club, for instance, is based in Afghanistan, competes only or primarily in Afghanistan, is composed of Afghans (e.g., Kabul Soccer Club), is owned by an Afghan or is, in some other way, 'intrinsically Afghan'.

-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle but this must not be implemtned too rigorously: there is a Derry club that plays in the Republic of Ireland League; and several Welsh clubs play in the English leagues. It may be better to classify their nationality according to the league in which they play. The Welsh clubs mentioned may need both English and Welsh categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  A similar situation arises with Wellington Phoenix FC with New Zealand / Auctralia. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  And probably the rest of Category:Expatriated football clubs... -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom to remove ambiguity and create consistency, but note that some pages may need to be multiply-categorised after the rename. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree in principle But watch out for "Palestine" which is a region; there is a dispute about whether "Palestinian" means Gaza & the West Bank or "in the region known as Palestine" (see Definitions of Palestine and Definitions of Palestinian. However, this is a boundary case. The other 200+ cases are fine. (I'm a software engineer, so the first thing I look for when proposing a general rule is the exceptions; don't confuse that with being a "wet blanket"; it's a REALLY GOOD idea you've come up with, Black Falcon!) --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, and thanks for pointing out this possible issue with the Palestine category. At first glance, it appears that all but one of the clubs is based in the West Bank and plays in the West Bank Premier League (I'm not certain about Hilal Al-Quds, whose article indicates it is "based in Jerusalem" but doesn't indicate East or West); the exception is Nadi al-Jam'iyya al-Islamiyya, which is based in the Gaza Strip. So, it seems in this case that "Palestinian" is defined narrowly in reference to the Palestinian territories rather than the Palestine region or the Palestinian identity. On the whole, however, it appears that Category:Football in the Palestine territories requires some work, starting with the ambiguously titled main article Football in Palestine. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all with the caveats above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppot all, as per nom, and because clubs in principle are not national. There was already a discussion in the past where it was established that clubs are not "German" (exemple), but based in Germany. FkpCascais (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all, bringing a consistency to these categories is a change for the better. Cloudz679 14:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle but remember that there clubs in far-flung parts of the world which are Palestinian in some way or another without being in Palestine: you could take the extreme example of CD Palestina in Chile, or several football clubs in Jordan, Syria or Lebanon which are primarily Palestinian clubs. Abedwayyad (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all, as per nom, but the defunct football clubs and the women's football clubs categories should be renamed for the same reason as the men's football clubs. --Carioca (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate the reminder, especially as I wasn't aware of the 'defunct' category. I'll nominate them, perhaps even through the speedy process, after the main categories are changed. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for consistency. Pichpich (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Good spot. GiantSnowman 14:09, 19 January 2012 (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.