< March 21	March 23 >

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) 02:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:High schools in Monterey County to Category:High schools in Monterey County, California

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match parent, Category:Education in Monterey County, California. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, and per head article Monterey County, California. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:59, 24 March 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) 02:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Image deletion template shortcuts to Category:File deletion template shortcuts

Nominator's rationale: To match parent category Category:File deletion templates, which was renamed after CFD & because they aren't solely for deleting image files, but might also be used on a .ogg or .pdf file. The Evil IP address (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match the parent. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:49, 29 March 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: Closed. Appears to be a split of the article and the discussion should be moved there. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Category Building Category:Diamond Grinding of pavement] building on as own page.

Nominator's Rationale This current category on the Category:Diamond Blade page could be expanded to include many articles, findings and resources for readers as one page entitled Diamond Grinding. I have a list of articles that discuss this technique for diamond grinding of pavement that can expand upon this topic. Currently, if you look up diamond grinding, it takes you to the Diamond Blade page with just a category for Diamond grinding of pavement - there is so much more to the topic than this two paragraph section. Please consider the building off of this category to it's own page. Wendyfables, 16:11 22, March 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.172.221.186 (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – this seems to be a request to split an article Diamond grinding of pavements out of the corresponding section in Diamond blade (and not category-related). Or to create an article Diamond grinding. The answer to either is - go ahead. Occuli (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite right that this doesn't belong here. Can I move this discussion to the talk page of diamond blade or do we have to leave it here for the duration? Wizard191 (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feel free to move it. I'll close it based on what has been said. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:26, 22 March 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: split into Category:Hole making and Category:Threading (manufacturing). I am listing the task at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual for now and will implement the split tomorrow (unless someone is willing to do it sooner), but help from someone with expertise in or knowledge of the subject would be highly appreciated, primarily regarding the question of whether any articles should be placed in both categories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Drilling and threading to something

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Drilling, which is different then Category:Drilling technology which applies to big holes in the ground, and threading are two different things. Threads are added to holes or can be added while a hole is created. I'm not sure if a rename or a split is needed. The parent categories are also interesting. I don't see these are being cutting tools, accepting that a drill bit does cut, so including the category in Category:Cutting tools seems like over categorization. Then the only other parent is Category:Metalworking which might be appropriate but there may be better choices and some of these tools also are used on wood. Maybe Category:Metal cutting tools would work? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – many of these such as Buttress thread are not tools of any sort so including the category in Category:Cutting tools is mis-categorization. There could be a subcat Category:Drilling and threading tools to contain the tools ... but one does wish to exclude oil drilling from this in some way. There is also Category:Metalworking tools. Occuli (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe there is some need to reorganization. Buttress thread is not about metalworking directly, it is more about thread design. Don't know if we have a better category for those articles unless it is Category:Screws. I suspect that if Buttress thread stays in this category, it should also be in Category:Drilling technology based on the contents of the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I would support a split of the category to category:Hole making and Category:Threading (manufacturing). The main article for the threading category is threading (manufacturing). I realize that "hole making" is not the most unambiguous title, but naming the category "drilling" or "boring" is technically mutually exclusive to the other. As a guideline, my Degarmo book groups the processes together as "hole making processes". If someone else has a better idea I'm all ears.

  As for the parent cats, I don't see what's wrong with the current ones, other than a woodworking parent cat could be added. The category shouldn't be exclusively tools or processes, as both are applicable.

  Finally, category:drilling technology is very ambiguous and I think to resolve that it should be moved to category:Boring (earth), which would match the related articles name. Wizard191 (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well Boring (earth) covers both vertical and horizontal shafts. I think that Category:drilling technology is more focused on shafts that generally begin as vertical. It is interesting to note that the main article of Category:drilling technology is Drilling engineering which as we see in this discussion is ambiguous. Category:Hole making and Category:Threading (manufacturing) are a good option for splitting, lets see what others have to say. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Not that earth boring is my specialty, but does there really need to be two cats for vertical and horizontal earth boring? Wizard191 (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't know. But the above suggestions would at least start to better organize this area. If we don't get it perfect on the first pass I can live with that. But clearly the current situation needs changing. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, absolutely. Do we at least agree on what to do with the drilling and threading cat? Wizard191 (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a split into category:Hole making and Category:Threading (manufacturing) would be a good start. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:00, 30 March 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 to Category:Fabrication (metal). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Metalworking fabrication to Category:Fabrication (metal)

Nominator's rationale: The current name is grammatically incorrect; metalworking is not fabricated, metal is fabricated. In order to match the article name I propose it should be moved to category:fabrication (metal); plus the work is usually just regarded as "fabrication work". Wizard191 (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match parent article. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:50, 29 March 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: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Chess films to Category:Films about chess

Nominator's rationale: Merge. There is only one entry in this category and this subject is also covered by the Category:Films about chess. Cjc13 (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom as duplicate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 22 March 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 to Category:War on Terror orders of battle, with no prejudice against another nomination to consider upmerging to the two parent categories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:War on Terrorism orders of battle to Category:War on Terror orders of battle

Nominator's rationale: Rename as per War on Terror. (Or delete if the category is deemed unnecessary). JokerXtreme (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match main article. As this is a ongoing event it will be best to Keep for the moment. That can be reconsidered after we have had the opportunity to look back and see whether it is relevant. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand why we should keep this for now. Can you elaborate? --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a current event and we are really too close to make a proper decision on whether to keep or delete. At present it seems to be worthy of keeping; but I would prefer to wait until we have the benefit of hindsight and see where it fits into the greater picture. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well we can rename for now and decide over its deletion later. Or just decide if we should delete now. I was wondering whether it should be deleted myself; it only has 4 articles. --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match main article. If not renamed it should be upmerged to its 2 parents, both of which are quite large. Occuli (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match main article, and keep it for now. This is one of these subjects that will need to be revisited when we have reached a historical distance from the events- so my grandchildren will argue this one day!- but dividing these orders of battle by war seems fairly logical. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:54, 29 March 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 to Category:Books about the War on Terror. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Books about the War on Terrorism to Category:Books about the War on Terror

Nominator's rationale: Rename as per War on Terror. JokerXtreme (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match main article. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:55, 29 March 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 to Category:War on Terror. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:War on Terrorism to Category:War on Terror

Nominator's rationale: Rename it as per the main article: War on Terror. JokerXtreme (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match main article. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:04, 22 March 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 as empty (I retargeted MGPUs to GeForce#mGPUs for consistency, which left the category empty); no prejudice against creating Category:Graphics processing units, if it is needed. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:GeForce series mGPUs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category only includes two redirects that both happen to direct to the category itself, i.e., this is actually a loophole. uKER (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - the category does indeed contain at present 2 redirects as described. However GeForce_8-series_chipsets was once in it (or was intended for it but the editor, having created the category, has misspelt its name for the article). (The name needs to be expanded. mGPU seems to be 'motherboard graphics processing unit'. First there should be Category:GPUs or Category:Graphics processing units.) Occuli (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I just redirected MGPU to GeForce#mGPUs, so that'd be covered. Also, there's no reason to have the GeForce 8 series listed as mGPUs since although the line includes mGPUs, they aren't all mGPUs. --uKER (talk) 16:34, 22 March 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) 02:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User categories for discussion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:User categories for discussion templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Old category no longer in use, user categories are now discussed through the CfD process and are categorized in Category:Categories for discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as housekeeping / empty. Bencherlite^Talk 07:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete both as housekeeping per WP:CSD#G6 or as empty per WP:CSD#C1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 22 March 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 and do not rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sick Wid It Records albums to Category:Sick wid It Records albums

Nominator's rationale: WP:CAPS and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) (I also moved Sick wid It Records.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose All mentions I've found of this record label capitalize their name as Sick Wid It Records, including their MySpace page. Gobonobo ^{T C} 06:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I am surprised to hear that WP:CAPS addresses the capitalisation of 'wid'. Occuli (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The first rule of MoS(tm) says to capitalize trademarks as proper names. I would think that means capitalize all words, as is done with proper names. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 12:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and consider putting the article back where it was unless/until sourcing is given to back up this capitalisation. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:58, 29 March 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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SNK versus-series video games to Category:Capcom Vs. Series

Nominator's rationale: Aside from SNK vs. Capcom: Card Fighters Clash, SNK vs. Capcom: The Match of the Millennium, and SNK vs. Capcom: SVC Chaos, none of the games in this category were developed or published by SNK; however, all of these were developed by Capcom, published by Capcom, or feature Capcom characters, so it makes more sense to include their name in the title instead. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This was all discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_4#Category:Vs._.28series.29, which closed only 28 hours ago by merging various categories to Category:SNK versus-series video games. One of the old categories was Category:VS. Capcom series, which is now the rename target ... so we are being asked to go around in a circle. AFAICS this all relates to SNK vs. Capcom (series) and Template:SNK vs. Capcom_series, which looks like the logical title for any further refinement of the names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But why would they be given the "SNK" title when SNK only developed three of them while Capcom did all the rest? That makes no sense. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Because according to SNK vs. Capcom (series), the distinguishing characteristic of these games is that they include characters from both SNK and Capcom games. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  But SNK characters are only in the ones with SNK in the title whereas all of them have Capcom characters. So why do games like Marvel vs. Capcom and Tatsunoko vs Capcom get forced into the category when SNK had nothing to do with them? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears that the scope of the category is broader than that of the template. The best solution is probably to just delete the category, since there seem to be too many permutations involved to make a neat category, and the template already provides navigation between one of the many possible groupings in this area. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per discussion above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per discussion above: this is too esoteric for a category. I have read this and the previous cfd and am scarcely the wiser, especially as there is no article SNK. ('Capcom Vs. Series' is one of the least accessible category names ever seen at cfd.) Occuli (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted due to the failure to tag the category with a notice of the original discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The template is a much more elegant and efficent solution than chasing our tails in a cycle of CFD's. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:01, 29 March 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:  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 5#Category:Fan club releases. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fan club releases to Category:???

Nominator's rationale: Fan clubs aren't just for musical groups or musicians, so it's not clear that this category strictly applies to musical releases. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest 'Fan club release albums' (as the 3rd or 4th one is described as such). This does seem to be a defining characteristic, mentioned immediately in each article. Occuli (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Alternative proposal Upmerge to Category:Self-released albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:54, 24 March 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Singles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Delete as an arbitrary grouping: it is defined as "Some of The UK's most popular and well-known singles whether it's from the past, present or future". Normally I would suggest merging to Category:British songs, but I believe all of the articles are already appropriately categorized as songs by a particular artist, and the songs by artist categories can be in Category:British songs. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; although categorising well-known British singles from the future might have commercial implications. Occuli (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom too. Coolhawks88 Coolhawks88 (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also, what about the singles that weren't released in the chart but only on the album? If that is the case, then there are going to be so many tracks that we don't know about. Minimac (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nom for deletion as well. More or less redundant to Category:British songs. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In principle Object -- A single is a record (traditionally vinyl) with one song on it - or rather one on each side. a record is not a song. Songs may be on albums, EPs, or singles, publihsed as sheet music or just sung (and disappearing into the ether). However, how we should construct an appropriate category tree covering this is beyond me, as I do not edit on this subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support commercializing the ability to identify well-known songs of the future. Only a downright awful businessperson couldn't make a fortune off that. However, until we get proof of precognition, let's Delete category. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:08, 29 March 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:  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 5#Category:Palestinian-American activists. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Palestinian-American activists to Category:American activists

Nominator's rationale: there is no precedent for catting activists by ethnic/national descent (it s the only such subcat of Category:American activists) Mayumashu (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• merge per nom, and also to Category:American people of Palestinian descent. This doesn't appear to be part of a scheme. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. don't know how/why I forgot to add this page too Mayumashu (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename (and if necessary repurpose) to Category:American activists concerning Palestine. This is not (or should not be) an ethnic category, but one concerning the subject on which they are activists. This will commonly be identical, but not necessarily. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 25 March 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.