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/split as nominated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: (i) "Muslim" rather than "Islamic" is the usual adjective for persons. (ii) The Muslim creationists have proper sub-cats by nationality. However, Category:American creationists and Category:British creationists have been placed by Skeptic from Britain (talk ·contribs) directly under Category:Christian creationists, and the same editor then moved some biography pages out of Category:Christian creationists because they were categorised as e.g. Category:20th-century British creationists; this is currently accurate in practice, but wrong in principle, as there could be e.g. some notable British Muslim creationists. – FayenaticLondon 22:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have combined these proposals in one nomination, so that editors could easily propose a coherent alternative, e.g. to reject the three-way intersections of religion, nationality and creationist view, and upmerge the existing intersection categories. In that scenario, I suggest that the American & British should still be separated from the Christian hierarchy, and the latter repopulated.
Please also consider whether it would be useful to create intersection categories by religion & century, e.g. Category:20th-century Christian creationists. – FayenaticLondon 22:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. In addition there is not much merit in subcategorizing by century because creationism is a modern term anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also support upmerge of the three small Muslim creationist by nationality categories to Category:Muslim creationists, per Peterkingiron below. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: in that case you probably don't support the "splitting" part of the nom, but only the renaming of the first one? – FayenaticLondon 11:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support all, i.e. primarily split by religion and secondarily split by British and American nationality since there is enough content for these nationalities. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all the Muslim categories to Category:Muslim creationists, adding a national category where necessary. There are no enough articles to need splitting. I was surprised to find the British and American categories had been split by century. The century categories are potentially large enough to keep, but the unsplit parent would not be so large that it needed splitting. I doubt we are going to get many non-Christian British or American creationists, so that I do not see the point in adding "Christian". This is unnecessary fragmentation of categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2018 (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.
Organisation to organization
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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recent consensus. The view at the recent cfd for Sweden was that 'organisation' should only be used when there is a strong national reason to do so. In all those listed here, the country category already uses 'z' and there appears to be no 'strong national reason' to deviate in the subcategories. Moreover Category:Organizations by subject uses 'z' in nearly all cases, so the categories listed are nearly all intersections of trees which use 'z'. (Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Laos, Libya, Lithuania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Panama, Honduras, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Czech Republic, Uruguay, Venezuela.) Oculi (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[Of the 206 listed here using 'organisations', 84 were created by user:Rathfelder]
There is a companion tripartite discussion 'ize' to 'ise' intended merely to remove a few stray 'zee's from 'ess' trees at cfd on 5 Nov. Editors might note WP:ISE and MOS:IZE.Oculi (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I appreciate the good intention, but this is the wrong way to go about it. This nom basically seeks a policy change on the long-term stable WP:ENGVAR-derived position to follow the usage of the top-level country cat's creator. I see no broad consensus to do so.
AFAICS, there are basically four possible solutions to the curse of the organisations/organizations spelling variation:
Standardise on one form for any given country (the status quo)
Standardise on one form for any given country, but choose the default on some basis other than choice of first creator (this proposal)
Standardise on one form or the other for all categories
This nomination seems to either a) presuppose that the decision at the Swedish CFD is some sort of precedent for renaming the rest, or b) marks the start of a step-by-stop process to an overall goal which lacks a clear consensus.
We need an RFC on this to make the broad decision. I oppose this particular nom not just because of the procedural issue of the salami-slicing, but because it still leaves us with inconsistency in the category types I use most: "Nationalityish Orgtype". I don't think that displacing the problem helps. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No change to the usage of s/z in the top-level country cat is being proposed. The Swedish one was following the existing 'z'. If BHG can produce an example I will gladly withdraw it. The intention is to follow "1. Standardise on one form for any given country (the status quo)" I will do the 'organizations to 'organisations' next. I have no wish to depart from "the long-term stable WP:ENGVAR-derived position to follow the usage of the top-level country cat's creator" (which is not enshrined anywhere within category naming policy, unfortunately). Oculi (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: sorry, I misunderstood the proposal, but I still oppose. This is just more shuffling with the wider problem of inconsistency and lack of redirects. I think it's time to stop doing this piecemeal, and have an RFC. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem with the status quo, to which I am merely endeavouring to return. No objection to leaving redirects. Oculi (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I might likewise have suggested going about it another way but, now that the work has been put in to make this nomination, "make it so". Note 1: I am a Brit who uses the "s" spelling in my personal writing, but I favour the use of "z" in Wikipedia for predictability. Note 2: This proposal is not global, but covers countries where there is no national usage to justify the current use of "s" in Wikipedia. Note 3: I agree that redirects should be left (as mentioned in my recent essay Wikipedia:Category redirects that should be kept). – FayenaticLondon 22:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I too am a Brit who used 'z' in the 50s (following the advice of my teachers, who would deduct a mark for 's') and am now equally at ease with either. I would oppose 2, 3 and 4 of BHG's options above. Oculi (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with BrownHairedGirl. I would like this mess sorted out, but I would like a very clear all embracing policy. I dont see that the WP:ENGVAR determines the question, because either spelling in acceptable in British English. The policy says "using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable." Is there any variation of English where "organization" is not acceptable? I object to a policy which imposes uniformity by country - especially in respect of countries where English is not a native language - at the expense of inconsistency in all the other heirarchies.
And speaking as a qualified teacher of English I think Oculi was done wrong to. Rathfelder (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for a mess. 'z' should be used at the global level ("follow the usage" of Category:Organizations). 's' or 'z' should be used at the local level as already happens ("follow the usage of the top-level country cat's creator"). Editors creating subcats of 'Organizations based in Foo' should use 'z' unless there is a special reason to vary (eg Hong Kong and China). Editors creating subcats of 'Organisations based in Foo' should use 's'. Where is the problem? Anyone unhappy with the particular 's' or 'z' can take the whole country category to cfd. There is IMO no chance of getting 'z' used in UK categories as we are no longer in the 1950s. And less chance of getting 's' in the US. Oculi (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the possibility for consistency in the heirarchies (or hierarchies) which use 'z' almost exclusively has been scuppered by a younger version of Rathfelder whose creation of no less than 84 of the above has littered 'organisations' throughout all 'organization' trees, in the gleeful haste of creation. Oculi (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, consistently having 'z' in non-English speaking countries makes category names more predictable. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly the previous argument goes against WP:ENGVAR. Nevertheless the nomination still deserves support as it merely proposes aligning the category names to the top category in each country, wholly in line with WP:ENGVAR and in the spirit of WP:C2C. This should be uncontroversial. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this Americanisation of good English -- The "z" spelling is known in British English, because the Americans use it. It is however not the preferred spelling. Furthermore, I cannot see how a change in Swedish categories can be correct when "organisation" is the Swedish language spelling of the word. If that CFD has been closed with a change we need to reverse it! Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that this is Americanisation is a delusion. The 1963 Shorter Oxford Dictionary gives organization as the preferred spelling. John Locke and George Eliot are quoted as spelling with a z. The current edition makes it plain that both spellings are acceptable. I would oppose any scheme which prioritises consistency in countries over consistency in subjects. How can that be justified? Spelling in other languages is completely irrelevent. That is an issue for the Wikipedia in that language. One consistent spelling would have practical benefits. Anything else is hardly better than the mess we have now.Rathfelder (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per nom. Some of the opposers seem to not have read his proposal completely. Oculi is not proposing any change to any naming convention, just to fix category names which don't match that same country's country-category name. --Gonnym (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TROUT to anyone who changes the spelling in an existing article to the "other" spelling. We created ENGVAR precisely to avoid these endless arguments. Unless there is a clear ENGVAR attached to the article topic, our policy is that we keep the spelling from the first major edit. That means we keep consistency within an article, but allow inconsistency between articles. Blueboar (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Blueboar. Editors could and would argue English spellings all day, were it not for the 'enforced truce' of ENGVAR, based on established first use in the absence of ties to any variety. Making a mass change to US spelling, through personal preference, even if supported by a majority, is contrary to the spirit of established policy. MapReader (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Blueboar and Mapreader as a complete timesink and recipe for dramah. · · · Peter (Southwood)(talk): 07:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its a nuisance as an editor to have the two spellings, but unless we can agree on a global change there is nothing to be gained by securing consistency in the country hierarchy as that just creates inconsistency in all the other hierarchies. I doubt whether any users of the encyclopedia care at all, but if we are going for consistency we should go for z. But so long as inconsistency remains I object to people threatening me with sanctions for being inconsistent.Rathfelder (talk) 10:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I see no reason why we should use a spelling that is primarily North American English in articles for non-English-speaking countries. This is English Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia. ENGVAR should stand. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, especially over the broken rationale. WP:RETAIN applies in all cases where there are no strong national WP:TIES—none of the countries listed are English-speaking countries, and there is no consensus that Wikipedia prefer -zation to -sation (or any ENGVAR to any other—there is no default ENGVAR). Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 06:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RETAIN is a sensible policy for articles. I don't see why it should apply to category hierarchies. I realise that there have been precedents for applying it to articles, but none so strong that the MOS has been edited to state that it applies to category hierarchies. We therefore have the freedom here to establish consensus about whether to apply WP:RETAIN. – FayenaticLondon 09:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not true that "ize" is purely American. See Spelling differences: -ise, -ize. I don't see any point in insisting on consistency within country categories when this just leaves inconsistencies in all the other heirarchies. There are no articles corresponding to most of the affected categories. There is no problem of people misunderstanding because the varied spelling. I suggest we should be bold and make a clear policy that as far as categories are concerned we follow the policy laid out in ENGVAR:"For an international encyclopaedia, using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable." There dont appear to be any countries where spelling with a z is unacceptable - it's just more common in some places than others. And my guess is that most people who learn English as a second language learn American English. Standardizing this spelling will save editors time and grief. If we don't do that my vote would be for a free-for all. I object to being threatened with sanctions for misspelling organization in respect of a country where English is not spoken.Rathfelder (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2018 (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.