Category talk:Colour

It seems very strange that there has been a systematic renaming of this category from color to colour. It seems like it should breach Wikipedia policy, which is designed to avoid variation-of-English-wars. Was there a discussion?

The Category merge/rename discussion can be found here. The crux of it was Radiant's comment: "The only objective criterion we have is using the spelling that happened to be used first. Category:Colour dates August 21, 2004 [1], Category:Color dates September 12, 2004 [2]." --Interiot 15:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But what about the phrase The result of the debate was Merge into color, as colour only had one article in it. Isn't that the result that is supposed to be followed? Or is there a higher authority debating these things elsewhere? Notinasnaid 15:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about "higher authority" or whoever did the rename, but colour had significantly more articles in it until User:DreamGuy moved a bunch out while the CFR was going on. The majority was for Cat:Colour. - SoM 17:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, what should I understand by The result of the debate was? Is this just for information? I assumed it would be what was done. Notinasnaid 17:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's not exactly clear why User:AllyUnion had Category:Color changed to Category:Colour, since the recorded outcome of the only discussion that I know about seems to imply that the move shouldn't have happened. (per SoM, some of the things that happened before that are also unclear, but I'd like to sort out the latest issue first) --Interiot 18:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per AllyUnion, the discussion continues on CfD. --Interiot 15:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]