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: Renamed. I requested the rename to 'Snooker organizations' via speedy a few days ago. As this has now been opposed I am reverting myself. Oculi (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Snooker organizations to Category:Snooker organisations

Nominator's rationale: Item was moved per speedy - however it's not a spelling correction. I maintain that the sport is still mostly British, and should use Brit English. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - United States Snooker Association would suggest otherwise. In any case, 'z' is perfectly good UK English; we have entire articles written using ((British English Oxford spelling)). (Oxford spelling - "The suffix -ize has been in use in the UK since the 15th century,[9] and is the spelling variation used in North American English. The belief that -ize is an exclusively North American variant is incorrect.[9]"; "In both the King James Bible and the works of Shakespeare, -ize endings are used throughout.") It is the British who have strayed from the classical English of Shakespeare. Oculi (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing to a governing body in America as a reason not to use British English is beyond me. Wikipedia already has plenty of instances of keeping tone of articles as to how they are created, and in this case it has been moved away against speedy guidelines. World snooker even uses British spelling in almost all cases, specifically with the wording of rules for game, using "colour" over colour. This would meet ((use British English)) if it were an article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would also meet ((Use British English Oxford spelling)); depends who starts it. Oculi (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Seems logical to use the -ise form in this case. The sport is dominated by British English. Nigej (talk) 09:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the speedy criterion was WP:C2C, ie follow the standard (almost 100%) in Category:Organizations until one reaches the country level. If all the articles were using 's' (eg Category:Rugby league organisations) then I would agree with 's'. As I brought this to speedy I am quite happy to regard this as a belated oppose and revert myself to Category:Snooker organisations (which I have done). Oculi (talk)

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: rename or merge as indicated. MER-C 09:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:6th-century Visigothic people‎ to Category:6th-century people of the Visigothic Kingdom
• Propose renaming Category:7th-century Visigothic people‎ to Category:7th-century people of the Visigothic Kingdom
• Propose merging Category:6th-century Spanish people‎ to Category:6th-century people of the Visigothic Kingdom
• Propose merging Category:7th-century Spanish people‎ to Category:7th-century people of the Visigothic Kingdom
• Propose merging Category:6th-century Spanish women‎ to Category:6th-century people of the Visigothic Kingdom and Category:6th-century women
• Propose merging Category:7th-century Spanish women‎ to Category:7th-century people of the Visigothic Kingdom and Category:7th-century women

Nominator's rationale: rename/merge, unnecessary fork, Spain did not exist in the 6th and 7th century, it was fully incorporated in the Visigothic Kingdom (apart from Galicia in the 6th century but there are no Galician people in the Spanish categories). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Query Would any of the 6th-century people need to be moved to the Kingdom of the Suebi? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No, neither the one article directly in this category nor the two articles in the women subcategory have any connection with the Suebi. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- This format will work; compare Ottoman and Abbasid categories. The Visigoths constituted an elite, like the Franks in France and Germany, so that many of the people will not have been Visigoths. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Peterkingiron's argument. Dimadick (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per clarification and per Peterkingiron 18:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

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: speedy keep. Withdrawn. Randykitty (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People of the Revolt of the Comuneros to Category:16th-century Spanish people

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles are defined by the topic. Note that Joanna of Castile does not need to go into the merge target because she is already in Category:16th-century Spanish monarchs. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (as category creator). Apologies, but apparently I forgot to fill this out eons ago, or more articles have been made since? There's quite a number of people whose sole notability comes from this rebellion that I've since added to the category. Take another look? I've added a few of the more notable ones. SnowFire (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2019 (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: merge but do not rename. MER-C 09:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Islamic userboxes to Category:Muslim user templates
• Propose renaming Category:Muslim user templates to Category:Islam user templates

Nominator's rationale: I propose to merge Category:Islamic userboxes (created in 2013) into Category:Muslim user templates (2012), and rename the result of the merge to Category:Islam user templates (redirect created in 2015). Rationale:

1. Merge two related categories to be more consistent with other categories in Category:Religion user templates. There is one direct subcategory for agnosticism, anti-religion, atheism, Christianity, Eastern philosophy, etc.
2. For the result of the merge
   1. Have "Islam" in the category name, as it would be more broad than the term "Muslim", which is defined in Wikipedia article as people who follow or practice Islam.
   2. "user templates"—because currently most of the category tree under Category:Userboxes uses more general term "user templates" rather than just "userboxes", so it would be more consistent with current naming approach.

—⁠andrybak (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree merging, disagree renaming. The other religion user templates don't follow that naming convention; cf. Christian:Christianity, Jewish:Judaism. The name retained should follow this format, ie. Muslim:Islam. We could change them all and be consistent that way, but why? 🖖 ChristTrekker 🗣 18:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the "why?" question: having name of the religion rather than the name for its disciples would allow, for example, to have ((User interested in Christianity)) in the Category:Christianity user templates. About other subcategories of Category:Religion user templates: I did consider starting a discussion for other categories too, but decided to start with just a discussion for Category:Islam user templates because the proposed end-goal category already exists as a redirect. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see how broadening the category with the rename could be useful. I suppose that a strict reading, right now, would put the "interested in X" templates in the religious user template cat, instead of dispersing to subcats. I can accept that renaming, as long as it's all-or-none for consistency. 🖖 ChristTrekker 🗣 22:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge per nom; procedural oppose to rename, if needed we should rename this category in conjunction with its sibling categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2019 (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.