Category:Public relations companies of South Korea
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:Merge. Timrollpickering 13:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. No merge needed to the other parent Category:Media companies of South Korea, since the one article is already in its child category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: isn't there a possibility of growth? – FayenaticLondon 07:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have some 40 articles about PR companies across the world save UK and US so it's a really small industry. Within that industry, it seems very unlikely that South Korea would get an exceptional rate of PR companies. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there is another in the target category - Communications Korea. I think I would be happier if there was some breakout by country/continent or something. Lumping the world into just the one category doesn't seem helpful. Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If companies are split into smaller and smaller industry categories it becomes unavoidable, at some point, that we can no longer fully intersect with country. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to both parents (or possibly a different South Korean company target). We ought to be keeping a national category too. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for Now Until this gets up to 5 or so articles, I don't see a navigational benefit. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:12, 27 November 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:Marketing companies of Pakistan
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:Merge. Timrollpickering 13:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: isn't there a possibility of growth? – FayenaticLondon 07:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In theory yes but within the tree of Marketing companies, Category:Advertising agencies by country is the only category that has a more elaborate split by country and Pakistan does not even occur here, so I guess we'd have to be very patient to wait for growth. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for Now Until this gets up to 5 or so articles, I don't see a navigational benefit. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:12, 27 November 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:Public relations companies of Morocco
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:Merge/delete. Timrollpickering 13:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Public relations companies of Morocco to Category:Public relations companies and Category:Media companies of Morocco
Propose deleting Category:Marketing companies of Morocco
Nominator's rationale:merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: isn't there a possibility of growth? – FayenaticLondon 07:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have some 40 articles about PR companies across the world save UK and US so it's a really small industry. Within that industry, it seems very unlikely that Morocco would get an exceptional rate of PR companies. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for Now Until this gets up to 5 or so articles, I don't see a navigational benefit. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:12, 27 November 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.
Courts in the United Kingdom
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 naming pattern "Courts of Foo" was agreed at CFD 2016 June 20. The parent "court systems by country" was renamed to Judiciaries by country at CFD 2016 May 21, but the UK already has Category:Judiciaries of the United Kingdom, E&W, NI, Scotland; however, it lacks sub-cats named per Courthouses. I acknowledge that all these nominations will need manual follow-up to recategorise contents, and I am happy to commit to that. – FayenaticLondon 15:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support this. Clears up a rather messy situation.Rathfelder (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the Courthouse bits. In the UK we do not use the term courthouse - it seems to be a legitimate UK/US variation. Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Twiceuponatime:: "courthouse" seems to be OK for Northern Ireland, see Armagh Courthouse, Crumlin Road Courthouse & Lisburn Courthouse. For England, Wales & Scotland I see your point, but it would be confusing to keep "Courts in" categories as well as (under or alongside) "Courts of". To avoid ambiguity, how about "Court buildings in England" etc? – FayenaticLondon 16:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I am not against a restructure of this tree, but I do not think this is the right one. England and Wales have a single judicial system and should not be split. "Courthouse" is not usual in England and Wales, and I suspect not in Scotland. The term court is used both for the judicial meeting and the building. The matter is further complicated by some court being held in buildings or rooms used for other purposes. I attended a trial in Hereford County Court, where the venue was the council chamber of Herefordshire County Council. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: can you please propose a better solution? The proposed new name for the court system category in England & Wales would match the article Courts in England and Wales. I have not proposed any more splitting between England and Wales categories than exists already, which is essentially for court buildings; and I have now amended the nomination (except NI) to use "court buildings" instead of courthouses. Local courts with no building of their own such as Hereford County Court do not appear to have articles. As for the ambiguous use of "court" in England, Wales and Scotland, what would you suggest instead – to merge the categories for courts as organisations and court buildings, as the ambiguous name "courts"? For other types of premises where the same issue arises, e.g. hospitals, we already have e.g. Category:Hospital buildings, so this seems a good precedent for keeping the categories separate, and using the artificially clear name "xxx buildings". – FayenaticLondon 22:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revised vote below. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A merger of English and Welsh categories can be discussed in a separate nomination, if needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support We definitely need to be rid of "Courts in Foo". I've no problem with "courthouse" - it's the most common term in Ireland. Could live with "Court buildings" though. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this will better distinct court institutions from court buildings. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
various: see at end -- Having looked at several articles, then content is a mixture of descriptions of the buildings and of the proceedings that take place within in them. We are I think never going to get articles that make the distinction between the courts and their buildings. Historically the provision of buildings was in some cases the responsibility of county authorities and in others of the government (via the Lord Chancellor). This dichotomy means that the current system (which all comes under the Justice Secretary is fuzzy. When courts are rebuilt magistrates, county and crown courts may all be housed in a single building: it depends where one starts. Merge England and Wales. Keep court systems for general articles of types of court (and central courts in London; and assize circuits when we had them). Keep the rest, allowing them to remain fuzzy as to whether they are about the court buildings or the institutions they house and their proceedings (such as lists of convictions from notable trials). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 6 November 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.