< October 11 | October 13 > |
---|
The result of the debate was Delete. «»Who?¿?meta 07:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This category is a duplicate of Category:Bloggers and should be deleted as such. Hall Monitor 20:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. «»Who?¿?meta 07:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An overly-specific category, and misleadingly named as these people are not Irish, but Americans of Irish origin. Category:Chicagoans already exists. JW 12:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Rename. «»Who?¿?meta 07:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename principally because of the abbreviation. Note however, from Royal Society of Arts, that such is not the full name of the Society which is the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. The article says that the Society itself uses either the abbreviation or its true full name. Nevertheless, the Society is almost never known by its (archaic) full name in the UK and common usage, the Manual of Style and the existing title of the main article would dictate that we don't either. -Splashtalk 02:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Rename. Naming conventions candidate. «»Who?¿?meta 07:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Establish "Casinos in foo" as the convention for by-country subcats of Category:Casinos at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) and rename as follows (originally nominated as speedies). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Rename all with special exception to Yukon. «»Who?¿?meta 07:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merrily moving the standardization bandwagon to its next stop in the magical world of Canadian politics.
...per Foo in Bar standard used for political parties already
...again per standards, projected downwards onto subnational entities. Note the addition of the "Provincial" modifier—I think this is an important clarfying term missing from the current naming regime, as the province-specific categories in question already consciously exclude federal parties even if they're identified with only one particular province. (Bloc Québécois, for instance, is NOT presently in the Quebec political parties category, but the federal one, where it should stay) Those here who might be used to arrangements in the US/UK/Aus etc. where there are much fuzzier distinctions between national and subnational parties should note that Canada has an abberant (by the standards of most federations) divide between organizations active at various levels of government. -The Tom 01:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]