The result of the debate was Delete (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 01:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Category has been moved to Category:Popular fronts. -- Domino theory 09:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 21:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Only contains vehicles.-- Mike Selinker 00:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename all. Syrthiss 21:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
standardisation, Visor 21:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 01:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Naming seems like it is a perjorative. Might appear like an enemies list of sorts. waffle iron talk 22:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 01:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Hope I'm listing this correctly... this was nominated for AfD as a duplicate of content at Master Data Management. As this is a category, I'm moving it here instead. Category has no articles in it... not even the main Master Data Management article.-- Isotope23 18:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename all. Syrthiss 21:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The naming convention at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) for political parties by country categories is to use "in country". The following Youth wings of political parties by country categories should follow the same convention, as they are of the political parties in question. Currently however the youth wing categories all follow the wording "Nationality x". For consistency and to match the established naming convention policy, they are all therefore proposed for renaming as follows:
-- Kurieeto 18:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 01:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Both cats have no articles and no future. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 16:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 21:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The following are empty, duplicate categories:
-- Kurieeto 16:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 21:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Overly generic category name, only contains one article -- Interiot 15:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 21:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This category is simply not all that helpful...three members of the class and the school's main article. A general, overarching categoy (similar to Category:Phillips Academy alumni would serve the purpose far better. I'll be happy to do the remaning legwork - tagging all the other notable alumni - if rename is voted upon. Rename. 82.82.176.188 15:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merges (not to be confused with merge). Syrthiss 21:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The blurb at the top of Category:Swords states Category grouping articles on types of swords, and individual swords. Articles related to the sword in general go to Category:Sword. I don't think that this is a useful distinction - at the moment, the only contents of Category:Sword are Category:Swords and Category:Swordsmiths. Either the articles need to be split further between the categories (e.g. move types of sword into Category:Sword), or they need to be merged. SeventyThree( Talk) 05:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 01:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Category has been moved to Category:Popular fronts. -- Domino theory 09:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 21:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Only contains vehicles.-- Mike Selinker 00:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename all. Syrthiss 21:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
standardisation, Visor 21:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 01:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Naming seems like it is a perjorative. Might appear like an enemies list of sorts. waffle iron talk 22:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 01:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Hope I'm listing this correctly... this was nominated for AfD as a duplicate of content at Master Data Management. As this is a category, I'm moving it here instead. Category has no articles in it... not even the main Master Data Management article.-- Isotope23 18:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename all. Syrthiss 21:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The naming convention at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) for political parties by country categories is to use "in country". The following Youth wings of political parties by country categories should follow the same convention, as they are of the political parties in question. Currently however the youth wing categories all follow the wording "Nationality x". For consistency and to match the established naming convention policy, they are all therefore proposed for renaming as follows:
-- Kurieeto 18:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 01:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Both cats have no articles and no future. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 16:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 21:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The following are empty, duplicate categories:
-- Kurieeto 16:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 21:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Overly generic category name, only contains one article -- Interiot 15:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 21:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This category is simply not all that helpful...three members of the class and the school's main article. A general, overarching categoy (similar to Category:Phillips Academy alumni would serve the purpose far better. I'll be happy to do the remaning legwork - tagging all the other notable alumni - if rename is voted upon. Rename. 82.82.176.188 15:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merges (not to be confused with merge). Syrthiss 21:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The blurb at the top of Category:Swords states Category grouping articles on types of swords, and individual swords. Articles related to the sword in general go to Category:Sword. I don't think that this is a useful distinction - at the moment, the only contents of Category:Sword are Category:Swords and Category:Swordsmiths. Either the articles need to be split further between the categories (e.g. move types of sword into Category:Sword), or they need to be merged. SeventyThree( Talk) 05:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply