Category:Business organisations based in France[edit]
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:reverse merge. --Tavix(talk) 19:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Query – has the nom consulted the creator and sole editor of this recent and apparently superfluous category? Oculi (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom The rest of the subcategories of use the format "organizations in", not "organizations based in". Dimadick (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge -- I would expect France to use British orthography. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge as the parent uses "based in". The sub-categories can then be speedily renamed as per WP:C2C. ~ Rob13Talk 16:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"based in" a place doesn't always work. Sometimes what is needed in the category is a presence in a place. I've gone to some trouble to set up Category:Charities operating in another country but I don't think it is feasible to do the same for all kinds of organisations. Rathfelder (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2016 (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.
Category:Industry trade groups based in the United States[edit]
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:reverse merge. --Tavix(talk) 19:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Combine The outcome of this nomination should match the one above, whether I agree with it or not. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite happy with the reverse merger.Rathfelder (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2016 (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:no consensus. We're not going to keep moving categories back and forth as editors move around the main article. Achieve a stable article title at WP:RM and then renominate as necessary. ~ Rob13Talk 06:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To correspond with article and rest of category tree. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per both WP:C2C and WP:C2D. Clearly overlaps and probably created in error not realizing the tree already existed under the opposite name.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that the previous CFD was made solely based on the title of an article, and didn't take into account the names of all the subcategories, or the associated stub tag for comedy-horror films. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if we could settle on a single title at horror comedy/comedy horror and this category. "horror comedy" is good enough. Doing a Google search at Fangoria, there are 1120 hits for "horror comedy" and 62 for "comedy horror". At Variety, there are 912 for "horror comedy" and 107 for "comedy horror". And, at Starburst, there are 158 hits for "horror comedy" and 61 for "comedy horror". The subcats should probably all be renamed to fit this scheme, and the main article should be moved back (and move protected). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for Now/Wrong Venue/Favor RM I have no opinion on the main article name that the nominator boldly moved. I think a form RM on the article will involve more editors and, regardless of whether that happens, give us a formal decision to standardize naming. The categories should blindly match the main article name in my view, but if that article name is in flux the categories will keep moving back and forth. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2016 (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: this appears to be at least somewhat resolved, and there's no consensus on any further action at this time. --Tavix(talk) 17:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping. No obvious differentiation. Could split out scientific, commercial and sport organisations more usefully. Rathfelder (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Updated Nom Per above discussion. (Note that Ocuuli was commenting on the original delete nomination.) RevelationDirect (talk) 03:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom The organizations' activity and the category scope becomes clearer with the new name. Dimadick (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Supercategory, includes fisheries conservation organizations, fisheries agencies, and fisheries research organizations. All are focused on fisheries, but with different objectives (management, conservation, research). Keep category name as is. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What are we doing with subcategories? They aren't necessarily management organizations, especially the research institutes. I'm leaning oppose unless we have a clear plan for those subcategories. This sounds like rescoping rather than just renaming. ~ Rob13Talk 05:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this can be closed. We have worked out a solution.Rathfelder (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as originally nominated. The distinction between the two categories remains unclear, even if renamed. I wouldn't mind creating subcategories for companies and trade associations though. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2016 (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:relistedhere. ~ Rob13Talk 05:54, 10 July 2016 (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.
Category:National opposition cabinets of New Zealand[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename - the term "shadow cabinet" is widely used in New Zealand rather than "opposition cabinet". The current name has problems for other reasons. Firstly, there is no opposition/shadow cabinet other than in the national parliament, so the first word is redundant; secondly, one of the country's two main political parties is the National Party, so the current name is decidedly ambiguous. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
further note: The whole of the parent Category:Shadow cabinets is in need of some serious work, by the looks of it - the key article is capitalised as Shadow Cabinet, and the articles seem to be a mix'n'match of capitalised and uncapitalised. The subcategory Category:National opposition cabinets also seems redundant (and confused, since it also contains regional cabinets). Grutness...wha? 02:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would second this. I find the term shadow cabinet is the most commonly used (example here) despite not being official parliamentary positions. The point of disambiguation with the name "National" is also worthy of changing this in itself.Kiwichris (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support strongly under both heads. The current contents are entirely from the Labour party when it was the main party in opposition to a National-led government. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- but this needs to be followed up by merging Category:National opposition cabinets to Category:Shadow cabinets: the majority of the content of this uses the form "shadow", not "opposition". Nevertheless, no shadow cabinet is feasible except in countries where one party dominates the opposition. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- with merging/changing other "National opposition" categories to "shadow cabinet"; some are regional (not national) in provinces or states (eg Quebec). Hugo999 (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2016 (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.
