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. Courcelles (talk) 08:34, 5 July 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:speedy delete under G7. — ξxplicit 23:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete per large precedent. Category does not meet WP:USERCAT criteria as it does not facilitate coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia. — ξxplicit 23:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not "facilitate coordination, blah blah blah..." The only page in the category is a guideline for the user that happens to be incorrect (contrary to WP:GHITS) —mono 23:31, 26 June 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 all. — ξxplicit 00:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to expand abbreviations and match main article names. - Darwinek (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. Abbreviations are certainly the exception, not the rule for WP cat naming. Mayumashu (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:35, 27 June 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. — ξxplicit 00:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the current name certainly has a level of ambiguity. Road Wizard (talk) 20:15, 29 June 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 both. — ξxplicit 00:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename to match head article Labour Party (Ireland). The party is not called the "Irish Labour Party", its is just called the "Labour Party". BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support We should definitely go with the official name and then add disambiguate as per convention or what should be the standard. Mayumashu (talk) 01:57, 27 June 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. — ξxplicit 00:11, 4 July 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:Vandals (tribe). In a perfect world, the nomination would work as is, but in a perfect world we wouldn't have any modern vandals.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
05:44, 26 June 2010 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) deleted "Category talk:Vandal history" (now in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 26) — there was such a page. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the concept. However Category:Vandals (people) would be totally ambiguous since anyone who is a modern vandal will wind up in there. Now, how many modern vandals do we have with articles? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 3 July 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. — ξxplicit 00:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (speedy?), per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:36, 27 June 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.
