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: The name was retired, meaning it will never be used again for a hurricane. Thus, the year is not needed. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It might be true that there will be no future hurricanes named Dean, but that doesn't change the past. Wikipedia has an article on Hurricane Dean (1989). --Pinkkeith (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The category title should match the article title. I suggest either:
Knowing next to nothing about the relative "notability" of various hurricanes, I do not prefer one option over the other. — CharlotteWebb 18:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the 2007 storm was the stronger of the two. That would probably make it more notable. Having said that, notability is not the same as primary use and diminishing current usage does not out way historical significance. So I would agree with the aticle move but I'm not sure it could happen without some discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small category with little or no growth potential. The main article serves as an appropriate navigational hub for the material, which is appropriately elsewhere categorized. Otto4711 (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom This is the least drastic of the changes being reviewed. Hmains (talk) 02:24, 14 July 2008 (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:Windows IRC clients
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 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.
More NGOs to decided format
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. Finish removing the abbreviations and conversion to the standard format approved by consensus in this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - needs more thought -- I am afraid that I missed the last discussion. This raises the same problem and the Booian-Fooians discussion and Russian Ambassador to UN, recently discussed. Many NGOs are engaged in bilateral aid. They may be based in one country and operating into another. Others such as Christian Aid are based in one country operating into many, though often they are actually making grants to a locally based NGO. A friend runs a small charity raising funds in UK for development in a particular part of Uganda, the Ugandan partners being two Christian denominations. Should they not be "based in UK" and "operating in Uganda"? An operating in category is probably not appropriate for those operating into many countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Based in' works in this case. Simply include a list of the countries where the group works in the article. There this can be correctly referenced. If you were to leave this as operating in, you assume that all of these places are notable. If the organization has one person in a country they are operating there, but is that fact notable? Also, if a group operates in 150 countries using a category for tracking this would make the category list at the end of the article impossible to use. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion. There's an issue regarding spelling of the word organization/organisation. For those countries that use British English, the category names should spell the word with an 's' not a 'z'. Those will include the UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and possibly others. — Lincolnite (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did the simple expand of the acro. If someone wants to edit the nomination to deal with the UK spelling I would not object. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done just that. — Lincolnite (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. This is the best choice for now; the current names are not helpful. Hmains (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per last discussion.--Lenticel(talk) 03:12, 14 July 2008 (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:ABC News
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. Kbdank71 13:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Per extensive precedent we don't categorize broadcasters on the basis of network affiliation because they can change affiliation repeatedly through the course of a career. The category description is clear that this is for programming and the rename would make that explicit. Otto4711 (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename-per nom.--SRX 16:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - This one nearly got by me. After taking a thorough look through the television news category structure -- and in particular the contents of this and the other network news cats -- I've concluded that it is NOT appropriate to rename and convert this category to restrict it to programs. The plain fact is that there are a number of news-related articles that simply do not come under the heading of "programs" -- for instance, lawsuits like Westmoreland v. CBS, and notably in terms of this CFD, personnel-list articles. I'm afraid there's no easy solution to the problem that prompted this CFD -- perhaps a more high-profile warning on the category page would help. Cgingold (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2008 (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:Television in New Zealand
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. If the reverse is desired, please tag the other categories and open another CFD. Kbdank71 13:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. All other TV by country categories are in the form "Fooian television" (and before anyone suggests it, yes, "New Zealand" is the adjectival form, not "New Zealander"!) Grutness...wha? 06:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider New Zealian? :) Cgingold (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, there was once a word Zelanian. It never caught on :) Grutness...wha? 01:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The adjective for NZ in the 21st century: Aotearoan. You heard it on WP first. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and oppose reverse rename suggested by CharlotteWebb as no reasoning given. Tim! (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for consistency across categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I would prefer changing all the other categories to "Television in [location]". — CharlotteWebb 18:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse rename per Charlotte. Neier (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2008 (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:Overseas Vietnamese groups
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. Kbdank71 13:18, 21 July 2008 (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:Overseas Filipinos
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. Kbdank71 13:18, 21 July 2008 (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:Overseas Korean groups
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. Kbdank71 13:18, 21 July 2008 (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:Overseas Taiwanese
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. Kbdank71 13:19, 21 July 2008 (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.
Merging Category:Overseas Chinese groups with Category:Chinese diaspora
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. Kbdank71 13:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 'Overseas Chinese' are 'Chinese diaspora', Chinese em/immigrants to other countries (most but not all of whom become citizens), their children, and their descendents, and 'Fooian diaspora' is the conventional naming pattern on wikip. (as things stand) Mayumashu (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the overseas Chinese article gives a different standard for inclusion than generally used for diaspora. Even if merged, the content of overseas Chinese does not merge directly into Chinese diaspora. 70.55.85.116 (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I m not advocating and would not advocate merger the article pages - this nomination is just about the category pages Mayumashu (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For most diaspora categories, the merge/rename is appropriate, but Malaysian Chinese and Indonesian Chinese are (I think) ultimately of mixed ethnicity, resulting from emigrant Chinese marrying local Malay women to create a separate ethnic group. This is a case for avoiding "one size fits all". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
my understanding of it is that someone of descent is still part of that diaspora Mayumashu (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
create a new cat of a different name and make it a subcat of Category:Chinese diaspora. Suggestion: Category:Chinese diaspora groups. Then put the other cats/articles either into the new catgory or directly in the Chinese diaspora cat. We need such a group to fit within all the diaspora subcats where these groups should exist, but often do not. Hmains (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2008 (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.
