< October 1	October 3 >

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Valley-Dynamo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. OC small with limited growth potential. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Palestinian refugees to Category:NEW CATEGORY

Nominator's rationale: Rename to a to-be-determined name. We need to differntiate between the Palestinian refugees themselves and the articles relating to them. Given that 80% of Palestinians are refugees, I want to populate the correct category with the articles related to the refugees themselves. TM 14:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless you can suggest a definite target. If the object is to split the people from articles relating to them generally, I would suggest creating something like Category:Palestinian refugee issues and then populating it, leaving the people here. However a number of those articles will already be in other Palestinian categories, so that perhaps the answer is merely to delete all the non-people articles, except somethign as a main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 18:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, no clear rationale for renaming. Creating another cat along the suggestion of Peterkingiron is ok, but doesn't make this category less usefull for categorization of individuals. --Soman (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2010 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Category is a content fork since Cork City Foras Co-op is the temporary name under which Cork City Football Club are competing. The players are present in Category:Cork City F.C. players. --Hsetne (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Cork City F.C. players per above. The club's website still has them as Cork City FC. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:37, 4 October 2010 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Battles of the Al-Aqsa Intifada to Category:Battles of the Second Intifada

Nominator's rationale: Rename. per Second Intifada and consistency with other articles. TM 18:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Al-Aqsa Intifada to Category:Second Intifada

Category:Israeli casualties during the Al-Aqsa Intifada to Category:Israeli casualties in the Second Intifada

---

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: Relisting, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 13. Dana boomer (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Category is populated with WP:SPAM sites with no notability, all self-referencing. All WP:PR.

Student7 (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Most of the articles in this category should qualify for speedy deletion under G-11 (promotional). The only sources are to the venues' websites or to adds in local papers. (note: I prodded them, but the prods have all been denied... which means these will have to go through AfD). Blueboar (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The category is populated with notable articles. Note that attempts by the nominator to speedy the article were declined. Perfectly acceptable category. Also, out of interest, what does WP:PR have to do with this? You seem to be throwing it around quite a bit! Jeni ^(talk) 10:40, 6 October 2010 (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/no consensus. Dana boomer (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tasmania law to Category:Tasmanian law

Nominator's rationale: This term as is is unused - it is always possessive - 'Tasmanian law' SatuSuro 23:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Aaroncrick ^TALK 23:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The other subcategories of Category:Australian law by jurisdiction don't use the possessive format—Category:Western Australia law, eg, rather than Category:Western Australian law. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to bring inconsistency into the category tree or not. Whatever is done, a category redirect should appear on the other version. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I believe the usage in Australia is possibly that they dont like an open 'a' as an ending for these items SatuSuro 12:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Ugh, what a mess - keep as is for now in lieu of a broader discussion of naming conventions for law by country and sub-national division. No reason to make this inconsistent. Other English-speaking countries that have the equivalent of state-level categories use "Foo law" rather than "Fooian law" although there is diversity among the country-level cats. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 06:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAzGaA 01:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Law of Tasmania 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 06:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The current name is consistent with those for in Category:Australian law by jurisdiction, Category:Canadian law by province or territory and Category:State law in the United States. Cjc13 (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2010 (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: result. Dana boomer (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Igbo fiction writers to Category:Igbo novelists

Nominator's rationale: Category:Igbo fiction writers has two subcategories, each of which has a single member -- and it's the same article both times. Category:Igbo novelists has numerous pages. I suggest eliminating the two subcategories of Category:Igbo fiction writers and putting their one article in the merged category, where it fits just fine, but -- forgive me -- I'm a little new to these protocols, I don't quite know how. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge – this will make the 2 subcats into subcats of Category:Igbo novelists, but will not 'eliminate' them. I think 'novelist' and 'fiction writer' are the same thing. Occuli (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - do not merge - I almost skipped over this one, but it's a good thing I came back and took a look. I've added both a new parent cat and a new sub-category, and I think it should now be apparent why this proposal should not be carried out. Cgingold (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 06:25, 2 October 2010 (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/no consensus. Dana boomer (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:British royal houses to Category:British royal families

Propose renaming Category:English royal houses to Category:English royal families

Propose renaming Category:Scottish royal houses to Category:Scottish royal families

Propose renaming Category:Belgian royal houses to Category:Belgian royal families

Propose renaming Category:Bulgarian royal houses to Category:Bulgarian royal families

Propose renaming Category:Hawaiian royal houses to Category:Hawaiian royal families

Propose renaming Category:Houses descended from the Chakri Dynasty to Category:Royal families descended from the Chakri Dynasty

Propose renaming Category:Royal Houses of Caucasian Albania to Category:Royal families of Caucasian Albania

Nominator's rationale: Rename. A followup change from this recent rename which switched "noble houses" to "noble families". Per the subcategories of Category:Royal families, this appears to be primarily a European affectation. I don't know enough about Albania to know whether that one should just be Category:Albanian royal families or not.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• comment why then are most subcats of Category:European royal families still named 'houses'. They are not included in this nom either. If we are going to have both 'houses' and 'familities' in the category names, someone is going to have write up whatever it is that distinguishes one from the other. Hmains (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm interested in seeing consistency between the "royal families"/"royal houses" categories for now. If this passes, we can talk about the many subcategories of these categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep At least for England/Scotland/British. The House of Stuart consisted of the reigning monarchs of that dynasty. Royal family includes non-reigning relatives. Category:European royal families needs renaming back to Category:Royal Houses in Europe or something like that. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh? The House of Stuart category contains squads of people, including bastards. By your logic you should be insisting on the rename. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If so, it needs to be pruned and the punings placed in a separate category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 06:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question... My instinct is to Keep... but is there a possibility that someone might think this category refers to royal buildings... castles and palaces etc.? Blueboar (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not rename. This usage of "house" is different, more special, than "family". It carries an implication of continuity of power/influence/wealth that is not implied by family. Go Back, as per Peterkingiron. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. House is a wider term than family and may not be associated with more than one surname, eg House of York, House of Lancasterand House of Plantagenet. Cjc13 (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As the original nominator of the categories, I just noticed that I nominated Category:Welsh royal houses in the last nomination. I don't think I meant to do that. Regardless, Category:Welsh royal families should be returned to Category:Welsh royal houses if this doesn't pass.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Less-lethal weapons to Category:Non-lethal weapons

Nominator's rationale: Non-lethal is the more common name and the article is currently named as such. Marcus Qwertyus 05:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: previous CFD on this proposal ended in "no consensus". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've seen the rise of the term "less-than-lethal weapon" so perhaps that should be the form used? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:commonname dictates that non-lethal be used even if it is not accurate. Marcus Qwertyus 05:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, to match parent article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to match parent article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:52, 4 October 2010 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Swedenborgian Artist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is only one artist currently listed in this category, and it is unlikely anymore will be listed, because Swedenborgianism is not a style of art, it is a philosophy. That an artist happened to be Swedenborgian is not a helpful way of categorizing his art. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Swedenborgianism and art really only come together in a meaningful way in William Blake, and he was hardly a doctrinaire illustrator of Swedenborgian tenets as the category would seem to suggest. You may want to look at Category:Christian artists for the reasons you bring up in your rationale. Lithoderm 05:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is it empty? -- How can we discuss a category if its contents are removed out of process? I probably would have suggested upmerge on the basis that this is a NN intersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The category had one entry. Upon reading the Hiram Powers article, I found no justification for the categorization---the article makes no claim as to the individual being associated with Swedenborgianism---so I removed the category and explained my reasoning on the talk page. I do not believe that this was an inappropriate course of action. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:46, 3 October 2010 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Internet history to Category:History of the Internet

Nominator's rationale: Better grammar and to follow convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. -Classicfilms (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the current name is perfectly good, grammatically speaking. 121a0012 (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the rename for consistency with many other "History of ____" categories. 121a0012 (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "Internet History" might also be history on the Internet, or even History in the sense used by WP for older versions of articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to pass in the "History of ..." muster. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:38, 4 October 2010 (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.