Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 24 October 26 >

October 25[edit]

Category:3 albums[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: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming: Category:3 albums to Category:3 (band) albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disambiguate and match parent article, 3 (band). — ξxplicit 23:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

&Rename per nomiantor. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2009 (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:World Music Awards winners[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: Keep. --Xdamrtalk 20:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for further discussion from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 15#Category:World Music Awards winners. --Xdamrtalk 21:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:World Music Awards winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The winners of these awards are already listified by year in Category:Lists of World Music Award winners. (However, the lists only start with year 13 of the award; I don't see anyone in this category who did not win an award in the 2001–2008 lists.) With all but a few awards, the regular practice set out by the guidelines is to create lists. If anyone can identify any further listification that needs to occur from the category, that should be done. Otherwise, just a straight delete will lead to no data loss. See older related discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check again, Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston did not win in the present years. In fact from 2001-2008, years 2002 and 2006 are missing. GreekStar12 (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Check again", brother. 2006 is not missing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a defining characteristic won by the individuals involved. "No data loss", the claim that as long as the information exists in one form it is unneeded elsewhere, would justify deletion of every category in Wikipedia, with no particular relevance to this one, nor does it explain why the list should be kept and the category deleted and not the category retained and the list deleted. In fact WP:CLN argues for the synergistic retention of both the category AND the list, allowing both to exist as an aid to navigation and and as a means of building each one from the other. Alansohn (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've misunderstood his statement re: "no data loss." No one believes that all information should only exist in one form on Wikipedia, nor could that fairly be extrapolated from the nom's comment. What you've instead inexplicably done is criticize the nom's concern that information not be lost.
    • Re: the applicability of WP:CLN, as has been explained before, it doesn't argue that both categories and lists should always be retained, it just says that the existence of one does not, in and of itself, warrant deletion of the other. WP:CLN expressly acknowledges that there are instances in which only a list should be maintained, or only a category, and that the criteria for determining whether either should exist is specific to those individual forms (i.e., lists are deleted or kept according to guidelines for lists, and categories are deleted or kept according to guidelines for categories). No one else reads WP:CLN as you do. Postdlf (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, "no data loss" was not a rationale for deletion. CLN is a guideline, but so is Wikipedia:OCAT#Award recipients. They are not in conflict if interpreted in the way Postdlf sets out, which as far as I have experienced is the way almost every other editor interprets it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I understand WP:OCAT re: awards, the concern is that as notable people tend to win many awards throughout their lives, categorizing all of them will just result in a flood of category tags, so these should be limited to the most significant awards in their particular field. What I don't know is how we determine the limit. Why shouldn't World Music Awards eligible for the exception? I don't have a conclusion yet, just trying to focus the discussion. Postdlf (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pertaining to Category:Lists of World Music Awards winners, that category is actually the one that should be considered for any kind of deletion of altering, b/c it is incorrectly named. Really what it is is "World Music Awards by year". There are cats for Grammy award winners and BRIT award winners as well as MTV Europe Music Awards winners. The World Music Awards are amongst the most important music awards that there are (far more important than MTV EMAs) – infact, for non-American/British singers it is usually the most significant award an artist can be eligible to win and worldwide they are regarded as the most important music awards. Apart from their universality, they are probably the only awards show that awards based on merit (due to actual sales). Besides, there are only a few pages by year that exist; looking at this, people potentially would never know that ie Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston have won WMAs, b/c the current existing years to not include them. That is why the cat is needed, and we should try to expand it by adding recipients that are not shown on the current individual year pages. GreekStar12 (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your input...I see from your user page that you work on a lot of music-related articles. So do you think that the MTV EMA category should be listified, or any others pruned, or do you think that there aren't too many music award categories at present? Is there any consensus for a standard among any of the relevant Wikiprojects as to which music awards might merit categories? Postdlf (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GreekStar and AlanSohn.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and consider revising the guideline OCAT so it is consistent with general practice--I think that the general consensus would be that lists and categories should co-exist in almost all cases, and I do not see why awards should be any different. That an article may be in many categories is not a problem--we're NOT PAPER. In the meantime, we can interpret the different guidelines however we agree on, in individual cases. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Luckily there's no such general consensus, which would be a really bad idea in practice, both for article content and the category structure. WP:NOTPAPER is about the number and amount of articles and topics Wikipedia can cover; it certainly doesn't provide support for flooding articles with an unlimited number of category tags. Really, one for every list? An article can be linked to from 500 lists and the article itself is unaffected and unburdened. But 500 category tags would be longer than many articles, and hide the useful category tags amidst the trivial. postdlf (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2009 (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:English people of African-American descent[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: Keep. besides the concerns below, one of the problems with the rename is that Category:British people by ethnic or national origin is a parent category to Category:English people by ethnic or national origin. So an upmerge of Category:English people of African-American descent to Category:British people of American descent would be inappropriate unless the whole structure was upmerged. - jc37 10:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:English people of African-American descent to Category:British people of African American descent
Nominator's rationale: Rename Category is incorrect and already underpopulated. Jakeb (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename per nom. Reference to "English" clearly incorrect. Davshul (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:British people of American descent (and possibly Category:British people of African descent). This is too specific; and these people are British (with British passports, presumably) rather than English. Occuli (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming. English is too specific. There should be a category for British African Americans before there is one for English African Americans. 174.18.4.14 (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to British. Oppose Upmerge -- African-Americans self-identify as an ethnic group, disticnt from British people of West Indian (or Jamaican, Barbadoes, etc) descent. They are also different from British people of African descent (Ghanan, Nigerian, Kenyan, etc), who (or whose ancestors) usually came direct from former colonies since WWII. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case the parent categories are wrong. Occuli (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2009 (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:War members[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: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:War members to Category:War (band) members
Nominator's rationale: Should be changed to Category:War (band) members to match Category:War (band) albums and Category:War (band) songs. Cosprings (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. To disambiguate and match other categories. — ξxplicit 20:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Definitely needs disambiguation added. --Wolfer68 (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. Urgently. Is very confusing now. Debresser (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2009 (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:English Nobel laureates[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: Merge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:English Nobel laureates to Category:British Nobel laureates
Nominator's rationale: Until recently, Nobel laureates from the UK populated, on a totally arbitrary basis, either of these two categories (and those with an affinity to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland appeared in addition, or instead, as “Scottish Nobel laureates”, etc., as the case may be). With the intention of adding some consistency, I removed the few individuals appearing in the "British Nobel laureates" category to the "English Nobel laureates" (which was somewhat more populated than the British) or, in a few instances, to the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland categories, where appropriate. I also added several dozen UK laureates that had not previously appeared in any of the categories. The British Nobel laureates category thus became solely a parent category for the subcategories of the four constituent parts of the UK (and a parentcat notice was added). However, on reflection, I believe that the correct approach should be, subject to discussion and consensus, for all UK Nobel laureates to be categorized as British Nobel laureates, and that those with an affinity to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to appear, in addition, in subcategories for "Scottish Nobel laureates", "Welsh Nobel laureates" or "Nobel laureates from Northern Ireland".
My primary reasons for proposing the merger are:
  • All British Nobel laureates will appear in a single category (just like the citizens of any other country), without the same being subdivided, to some extent, on the basis of ethnicity.
  • One will see, at a glance, by the number of British laureates (over 100), the contribution of the UK (second only the USA in terms of number of laureates).
  • A number of those listed as “English” (by far the majority with 89 laureates) appear there almost by default, in light of having no particular connection to either Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. In addition, many of such laureates, while considering themselves fully “British” (and having British citizenship), may well not consider themselves “English”, for example, a West Indian laureate living in London, or a wartime refugees from Nazi Germany, or a British subject who had lived most of his or her life abroad. The category English Nobel laureates is, accordingly, somewhat misleading.
  • that a separate English Nobel laureates category is inappropriate in that, even in those cases were the laureate is clearly English, he will still probably consider himself first and foremost British, which may not be the case for, say, a Scottish laureate. (Sport is probably the only area where the English look first to England!)
I therefore propose:
  • that these two categories be merged under the name “British Nobel laureates”:
  • that the parentcap notice be removed from the “British Nobel laureates”:
  • that any user subsequently wishing to create an “English Nobel laureates” category be notified that such category was deleted and is directed to this discussion: and
  • that the categories “Scottish Nobel laureates”, “Welsh Nobel laureates” and “Nobel laureates from Northern Ireland” remain subcategories of British Nobel laureates, and the laureates currently appearing in such categories (currently numbering 9, 3 and 5, respectively), also appear in the British Nobel laureates category.
Davshul (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I'll go with this here, as it is a relatively limited category. These UK people cats are a nonsense, but arouse strong feelings. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, provided the other British ethicities are also merged. 100 is not too many for a single category. The number of new Nobel laureates is not so great that this would be a problem. The Nobel Prize is such a notable award, that categorisation both as Welsh and as British might be acceptable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and Johnbod's comments. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2009 (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.

School ships of the United States Navy[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: Merge:
--Xdamrtalk 20:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:United States Navy training ships and Category:United States Navy school ships to Category:School ships of the United States Navy
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These two categories are essentially the same. The proposed target category name better matches the ultimate parent, Category:School ships, and reflects the naming style of "[Ship types] of the [navy name]" that has been affirmed in many recent CFDs. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2009 (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:The Banana Wars ships[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: Rename Category:The Banana Wars ships to Category:Banana Wars ships. --Xdamrtalk 20:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:The Banana Wars ships to Category:Banana Wars ships
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the main article at Banana Wars. No other era- or conflict-related ship categories use the definite article. (For example, its Category:Victorian era ships and not Category:The Victorian Era ships.) — Bellhalla (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per both arguments of nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2009 (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.

USCG, NOAA, and predecessors' ships[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: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Category:United States Coast Guard ships to Category:Ships of the United States Coast Guard
Category:United States Revenue Cutter Service ships to Category:Ships of the United States Revenue Cutter Service
Category:National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ships to Category:Ships of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Category:United States Coast Survey ships to Category:Ships of the United States Coast Survey
Category:United States Coast and Geodetic Survey ships to Category:Ships of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per precedent, the consensus styling of Category:Ships by navy (navy used here loosely) is the format "Ships of the [entity]". — Bellhalla (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match format used in parent categories. Alansohn (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2009 (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:People's Army of Vietnam Navy[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: Rename Category:People's Army of Vietnam Navy to Category:Vietnamese People's Navy. --Xdamrtalk 20:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People's Army of Vietnam Navy to Category:Vietnamese People's Navy
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article at Vietnamese People's Navy. (I have no other opinion on which name is "correct".) — Bellhalla (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2009 (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:Robin Hood episodes[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: Rename:
--Xdamrtalk 20:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Robin Hood episodes to Category:Robin Hood (2006 TV series) episodes
Propose renaming Category:Robin Hood series 1 episodes to Category:Robin Hood (2006 TV series) series 1 episodes
Propose renaming Category:Robin Hood series 2 episodes to Category:Robin Hood (2006 TV series) series 2 episodes
Nominator's rationale: There are several different series about Robin Hood (see Category:Robin Hood television series) and the series article is at Robin Hood (2006 TV series). The categories should use the same name for clarity. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming would be nice, however... Since there is already a list article that serves as a nav hub. it may be better to convert the series specific cats into navboxes and fet ridd of all 3 cats. - J Greb (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2009 (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:Articles needing more editors[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: Delete. --Xdamrtalk 19:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Articles needing more editors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unused maintenance category, redundant to WP:Third opinion which better serves this purpose. Ϫ 07:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If properly populated, would include most of WP on a literal reading. Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unused. Debresser (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2009 (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:African American rappers[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: keep. — ξxplicit 00:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:African American rappers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete this Category. Categories specific to ethnic groups are usually only needed when the ethnic group does not make up the vast majority of the non-ethnic equivalent of that category. Now you might say "There is a American country singers category, and they make up over 80% of all country singers", but please remember that ethnicity and nationality are not the same thing. Is there a need for a White country singers subcategory for Category:Country singers? Of course not; it's already implied that the country singer is most likely white. Also, please take a look at the discussion page, this issue has been raised before, but no action was ever taken (the previous CFD was made to propose renaming the category; not to propose deleting it)174.18.4.14 (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2009 (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:Theatres 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: No Consensus. I'll add that given the history of nominations, it is likely that this will continue to come up. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Theatres in the United States to Category:Theaters in the United States and all according daughter articles
Nominator's rationale: As per WP:ENGVAR, names of categories related to the United States need to match the preferred vocabulary in American English. Reliable sources state that, in terms of common nouns "theater" is preferred over "theatre." "Theatre" is only preferred when it is the name of a particular theatre, i.e. a "proper noun." As a common noun "theater" is preferred.
The Oxford American Dictionary lists "theater" first, before "theatre"
I used the New Oxford American Dictionary, ISBN 0-19-511227-X - "Theater" is listed first in page 1757 - In page 1973 it says "American English often has more regular spellings, for example the user of -er and --re in words such as theater (Brit. theatre)," - It unambiguously paints "theater" as American usage and "theatre" as British usage. EDIT: The Oxford American Dictionary that I used states that the first word is the preferred form on page xx - the text reads "The main form of each word given in the New Oxford American Dictionary is always the standard American spelling. If there is a standard variant, e.g., a standard British spelling variant, this is indicated at the top of the entry and is cross-referred if its alphabetical position is more than five entries distant from the main entry."
Merriam-Webster lists "theater" first, with "theatre" being a variant: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theater - EDIT: Redacted, as per below
The University of Texas style guide says: http://www.utexas.edu./visualguidelines/tricky.html
"theater/theatre The preferred word in the United States is “theater,” unless the British spelling is part of a proper name, as in “B. Iden Payne Theatre” or “Lab Theatre.”"
SUNY New Paltz says: http://www.newpaltz.edu./styleguide/editorial/t.html
"theater The spelling for all generic references to auditoriums and the theatrical arts. Use the spelling "Theatre" only if part of proper name of a performing arts facility or company – as is the case with all SUNY New Paltz theatres: Julien J. Studley Theatre, McKenna Theatre, Parker Theatre, Summer Repertory Theatre, as well as the Department of Theatre Arts."
Buffalo State says: http://www.buffalostate.edu./collegerelations/x593.xml
"theater—Not theatre, unless part of the official name of an organization: Studio Arena Theatre."
Without any other sources that explicitly conclude that "theater" and "theatre" are equally valid, I come to the conclusion that, as per WP:ENGVAR, Category:Theatres in the United States and the related daughter categories need to be moved.
This is the third nomination so far of this family of articles.
I need to reiterate that people opposing this move should not mention names of particular theaters as "proof" that "theatre" and "theater" are equally valid, as the university style guides make clear that "theatre" is preferred if it is the name of a particular place or thing, including whether it is a theater facility or a department of a university - A category name should reflect the regular common noun usage, so the category name ought to use the preferred "theater."
EDIT: Yes, specific venues (such as "Anytown Theatre") will retain their names - This change only affects "Theatres in ...." categories using the common nouns. EDIT 2: For instance, "The Anytown Theatre is a theater in Anytown, USA" is preferred.
WhisperToMe (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT 2: Here are additional sources which support the usage of "theater" as primary American English usage:
Wilson, Kenneth G. Columbia Guide to Standard American English. Columbia University Press, 1993. Page 435:
"theater, theatre (n.) Americans spell it theater except sometimes in proper names, where, in imitation of the British spelling, theatre can occur"
Middlebury College: http://www.middlebury.edu/administration/communications/info/spelling.htm
"theater (for all uses except for proper names using alternate spelling)
theatre (This is the second spelling in Webster’s and a Middlebury department/ major.); Department of Theatre; Hepburn Zoo Theatre; Wright Memorial Theatre."
WhisperToMe (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT 3: I have sinced checked out the print version of Merriam-Webster and that dictionary says that "theater" and "theatre" are of equal status, while Random House Webster's says that "theater" is a more common spelling. This seems to be more complicated than I originally thought. I will have to revise my argument. I removed Merriam-Webster from the source list. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT 4: The AP Style Book and Briefing on Media Law has "theater" as primary usage. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT 5: The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times style books also support "primary" usage. Even though Merriam-Webster grants "theater" and "theatre" equal status, I still support "theater" as the preferable/primary U.S. usage because of the preference in the media style books. Specific citations for the three media guide books are at the posts at 23:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC) and 23:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree solidly but... hum. This is more complicated than it appears. By examples given and conventional wisdom of variants in English (including what many programs use as an "American English" spellcheck set versus British or others), Theater as the base name for an article listing venues in the United States would seem 100% correct and appropraite. Within the subcategories, specific venues would retain their names as they're listed. The main article directing users to that list is already named Theater in the United States, so this change has probably been due for awhile. The pitfall of this change would be needing to have the spelling in every subcategory changed to match the parent category's spelling. Under that, many states have a sub-sub category with -re for certain cities. I assume that alone wouldn't be terribly hard, but since I don't know how parent-child naming conventions play out I have no idea how many edits that would need to be done automatically on so many individual articles, or if you admins have more envied black magic on Wikipedia to make a lot automated.
This might sound unappealing to some because of possible manual work involved, but it is something where consistency would be useful, and so that Wikipedia doesn't further confuse the average American about which way to go with it :) I have no idea why this issue stuck out at me when I saw it mentioned here[1], but this sounds like something fun to claim I'll fight to the death for! I'm allergic to most fish so please don't use your trout on me. Datheisen (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Yes, specific venues (such as "Anytown Theatre") will retain their names - This change only affects "Theatres in ...." categories using the common nouns. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – this has been at cfd several times and DRV once. (2005 October 8, 2006 June 7, 2006 July 9, 2007 April 3, 2008 September 24, 2008 December 27, DRV 2009 January 11, usually brought by WhisperToMe.) Also most sub and sub-sub categories are not tagged. It seems to me rather odd to wish to change Category:Former theatres of Manhattan (say) when 24 of the articles use 'theatre' and just one uses 'theater'. (It is 24 October where I am.) Occuli (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Occuli said: "Also most sub and sub-sub categories are not tagged." - I have requested for help at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Category:Theatres_in_the_United_States to have categories tagged, and the people who read the talk page where I placed the request have the obligation to complete the tagging. I have tagged some of the daughter categories myself and I plan to tag a few more. Anyway, by requesting for help on the talk page I have satisfactorily completed the requirement to have daughter categories tagged; there are too many for me to tag alone, so by requesting for help I have completed the requirement to have daughter categories tagged
    • Occuli said: "It seems to me rather odd to wish to change Category:Former theatres of Manhattan (say) when 24 of the articles use 'theatre' and just one uses 'theater'" - This aspect is clearly addressed by the sources that I have used. The proper name of a theatrical company or place may use "theatre," but a "common" noun like "a theater" or "the theater" would use "theater"
    • The users in the previous discussions did not present sources discussing American English that explicitly said that "theater" and "theatre" were equally valid. The Oxford English Dictionary, for instance, is British; its American counterpart expressly says that "theater" is American English
    • It may seem odd, but those are the American English grammatical preferences and Wikipedia is obligated to follow them. The sources above essentially say that this is correct and preferred: The Anytown Theatre is a theater in Anytown, USA
    • It is valid to bring up that there have been made attempts before. Having said that, Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change says that consensus can change: past decisions can be challenged
    • WhisperToMe (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as is. If anyone would actually read the contents of the categories, they would find that nearly every relevant article has 'theatre', not 'theater' in its name. If anyone paid attention to American cultural trends, they would also know that such organizations have been renaming themselves from 'theater' to 'theatre' for some years now. Hmains (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmains said: "If anyone paid attention to American cultural trends, they would also know that such organizations have been renaming themselves from 'theater' to 'theatre' for some years now." - This nomination has no bearing on the names of individual institutions. The nomination ONLY affects "Theaters in XX" categories. Also the names of institutions have zero bearing on this nomination. You need a reliable source which explicitly says "'theatre' is equally valid with 'theater' in American English"
    • The sources above essentially say that this is correct and preferred: The Anytown Theatre is a theater in Anytown, USA
    • Hmains said: "If anyone would actually read the contents of the categories, they would find that nearly every relevant article has 'theatre', not 'theater' in its name. " - My nomination clearly addresses this point above. Names of institutions may use "theatre," but common nouns such as "theaters in XXX" must use "theater" - And all "theaters in XXX" categories are affected by this nomination. Just because theaters are getting names with "theatre" doesn't mean that "theater" is the preferred English word. Just because 65% of the shops in Anytown, USA use "shoppe" doesn't make "shoppe" the preferred English word.
    • WP:ENGVAR clearly states that American articles and names have to follow U.S. conventions
    • As per the reliable source use of theater has been clearly established as proper U.S. convention for commons nouns. I.E. The Place is a theater in Anytown, USA.
    • If you want to oppose the renaming, you need a reliable source which explicitly says "theatre" and "theater" are equally valid in U.S. English
    • WhisperToMe (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to do no such thing. The articles say 'theatre' and so therefore the categories should say 'theatre'. It is very simple: WP categories are to reflect their article content, and not to be playthings of some editor or another pushing an agenda--in this case a spelling agenda. The articles and categories are correctly matched up now. If you want to change something, you have to justify why the categories should be changed to disagree with the articles. Hmains (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "If you want to change something, you have to justify why the categories should be changed to disagree with the articles. " - My justification has been posted at 01:10, 24 October 2009. Yes, the "Nominator's rationale" - the very first post, has all of the justification. Reliable sources clearly established that the move is justified and that it ought to happen. In order to oppose this move, you have to consider my entire nomination post and provide evidence to the contrary.
    • "I have to do no such thing." - You do have to do such a thing, because your points would otherwise be Wikipedia:Original research, which is strictly prohibited. I have provided proof that "theater" is the preferred spelling. You have to provide proof to the contrary.
    • WP:ENGVAR is very simple. It states that the names of articles and other things (such as category names) have to reflect the language of the country of the subject. There is no policy or guideline that states "WP categories are to reflect their article content" - The preferred word for American English is "theater," and reliable sources have established it as such.
    • Think about it this way: What if all of the shops in Anytown USA spelled "shop" as "shoppe" - Would this justify having the category name as "shoppes of Anytown USA?" No, it would not.
    • "The articles and categories are correctly matched up now." - They have not been matched up with WP:ENGVAR for years. It is time to change them now. Your concept of categories having to match the names of the articles within them is not Wikipedia policy, nor is it a Wikipedia guideline. So there is no need to match them up with your concept. I must also add that the categories do not match to Theater in the United States, nor do they match to Commons:Category:Theaters in the United States.
    • "and not to be playthings of some editor or another pushing an agenda--in this case a spelling agenda." - WP:ENGVAR's agenda? The agenda of the Oxford American Dictionary? The agenda of the websites of the University of Texas at Austin and the two SUNY universities? No, I have no "spelling agenda" - My agenda is to put this category family in compliance with WP:ENGVAR.
    • WhisperToMe (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WhisperToMe is right, but Hmains is even more right. That is to say, his argument is the more relevant one. Debresser (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not understand how this is the case. Which argument of Hmains are you referring to? Why? When making a response, it would be very helpful to include supporting evidence to one's point.
    • WhisperToMe (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In other words, one who would read Debresser's post would ask: Which arguments? Why would Hmains's argument be more relevant than WhisperToMe's argument? WhisperToMe (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reading all of the arguments above, I come down in favor of the American English spelling "theater" for this article. I think that is the mainstream spelling in the American context, and that "theatre" remains a slightly affected and intellectualized spelling in the United States. That could evolve over time, but that is my 2009 opinion. Jim Heaphy (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Theaters in the United States. Nominator's rationale makes perfect sense. Why are so many people opposing? As the nominator pointed out, the naming conventions for categories like this one are clearly and simply stated in the manual of style. No one else is making any sense. 174.18.4.14 (talk) 05:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename Theatre is a valid American spelling, as shown by the Merriam-Webster link. I would point out that theater comes before theatre alphabetically and shouldn't be taken to mean that the dictionary is implying that theater is the preferred American spelling. Compare with a genuine U.S./British spelling difference like color. No mention is made of the variant colour, which has a completely separate entry at colour: "chiefly British variant of color". Or sulfur which has an explicit statement about usage: "The spelling sulfur predominates in United States technical usage, while both sulfur and sulphur are common in general usage. British usage tends to favor sulphur for all applications." Tassedethe (talk) 05:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is totally implying theater is the preferred spelling! It says Main Entry: Theater; Variant: Theatre. If the main entry is determined by the alphabetic order of the words, then why is doughnut the main entry here and not donut? 174.18.4.14 (talk) 06:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. It is not explicitly stating that theater is the preferred spelling. It makes no comment on the U.S. vs British usage. Which is my main point - "Theatre is a valid American spelling". Tassedethe (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tassedethe: My point is that theater is the preferred or default spelling, and therefore it should be used. Even if you could explain the Merriam-Webster link, how would one explain the other sources, such as the Oxford American Dictionary, which clearly paint "theatre" as British and "theater" as American? Your reply looks at one of my points, but it needs to address everything else in order to destroy my case. Until then, it has been established that "theater" is the preferred American spelling and ought to be used. When using national varieties, the preferred/primary version is used, rather than the secondary. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename. The category is a subcategory of Category:Theatres by country and all the other subcategories even in foreign countries use the term theatre, so it seems reasonable to be consistent, especially as the spelling theatre is used within the USA itself and is easily understood in the USA. Cjc13 (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, Category:Neighborhoods is the main category, but there is Category:Neighbourhoods by country, and in the United Kingdom the category is Category:Neighbourhoods in the United Kingdom, while in the United States the category is Category:Neighborhoods in the United States - So the standard for categories is to follow ENGVAR, not to have their spellings necessarily match one another
    • WP:ENGVAR is a Wikipedia:Guideline, and so generally the community is obligated to follow it. "all the other subcategories even in foreign countries use the term theatre" - ENGVAR doesn't apply to those foreign countries because they are non-English speaking; as for the other English-speaking countries, their theatre categories use "theatre" because their varieties of English do support "theatre" as the primary spelling - Because of the status of ENGVAR, the obligation to follow it is supreme to the desire to make these categories the same names as those of other countries. Guidelines may not be followed if one can find a good reason not to follow them, but I do not feel that the con side will be able to find a good reason not to follow ENGVAR in this debate.
    • "especially as the spelling theatre is used within the USA itself and is easily understood in the USA." - But the spelling "theatre," according to reliable academic sources, is not the preferred American spelling. Because the preferred/primary U.S. spelling is "theater," Wikipedia is obligated to have this category use "theater."
    • WhisperToMe (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match standard US English spelling. Alansohn (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. While many particular theaters are named "theatre" this seems to be for image or marketing purposes. It does not change the correct standard spelling. Carlaude:Talk 09:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly movie theaters, as in cinemas, in America use the "er" spelling but theatres intended for live drama oerformances, i.e. plays, seem to use the "re" spelling. Cjc13 (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the last few times. Whisper's arguments that the proper & collective names for "playhouse"/ live drama houses are treated differently have not been found persuasive in the past, & there is nothing new here. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is something new here. In the previous discussion User:DionysosProteus argued that the original British Oxford English Dictionary did not support "Theater" as being the primary US usage based on the text within that book, since the book does not explicitly state that "theater" is American usage. With the Oxford American Dictionary citation (Oxford English Dictionary's American cousin), that is all settled. - Yes, there is something new here - Undeniable proof that the Oxford English Dictionary family (Oxford Press publishes both the American and English dictionaries) supports the move. I do not believe that there will be any reliable sources one can find that will undermine my point. If there are any, the opposing side should present them as evidence. With the Oxford English Dictionary family on my side, there is a clear, undeniable consensus to move.
    • Users in the past several nominations indeed found my rationale persuasive. The previous nomination ended in a "no consensus" -This time there will be a consensus, unless new evidence is submitted which contradicts my argument - Closing administrators are required to examine the arguments in the case. Without any arguments that damage my case, the move is clearly supported by WP:Manual of Style and reliable sources, and therefore has the consensus from the wider community.
    • "Whisper's arguments that the proper & collective names for "playhouse"/ live drama houses are treated differently have not been found persuasive in the past, & there is nothing new here."
      • 1. Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change
      • 2. Wikipedia:Reliable sources clearly and unambiguously back my argument that "Theater" is to be treated as the primary, preferred US spelling. Unless you submit reliable sources that argue otherwise, a single "Whisper's arguments ... nothing new here." is an insufficient argument.
      • 3.Wikipedia:Manual of Style is a Wikipedia guideline, so generally it should be followed unless one makes a compelling argument for why it should not be followed. None of the "Keep"/"Do not move" posts have attempted to say why the MOS should not be followed in this case.
      • 4. Wikipedia:Consensus says "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority." - My argument is clearly based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. As of writing none of the "Keep"/"Do not move" posts sufficiently address my nomination, nor do they give a good reason why WP:ENGVAR should be ignored. Without any new nominations, I will claim consensus and ask the closing administrator to close it in favor of a move. A "no consensus" decision will undermine the important role that Wikipedia guidelines play in the community.
    • The post above does not explain why Johnbod does not find my argument persuasive, nor does it express any rationale attacking my argument. The post above does not present any evidence attacking my points, nor does it present any evidence explicitly stating that "theater" and "theatre" are equally valid. A "Keep" post needs to, point-by-point, attack all of my rationale, or submit evidence that explicitly states that "Theater" and "Theatre" are equally preferred words
    • WhisperToMe (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are still quoting in your nom examples that demonstrate the opposite usage: SUNY New Paltz [2], Middlebury College Department of Theatre; and so on. If this were movie "theaters" it would be different. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get this straight:
Common noun: [3] - a theater, that theater, those theaters - Used when describing no particular thing, object, or person
Proper noun: [4] - Anytown Theatre, The New York Showbiz Theater, Sunnytown Theatre, Theatre of the Willows... - In other words, the name of a particular thing or object
The SUNY New Paltz, Middlebury, etc. are saying that in a common noun context, the writer should use "theater" - In a proper noun context, it would be whatever the institution calls itself, whether it is "Theater" or "Theatre"
SUNY New Paltz: "Use the spelling "Theatre" only if part of proper name of a performing arts facility or company"
Middlebury: "theater (for all uses except for proper names using alternate spelling)"
The categories affected by this nomination only consist of "common noun" ones, such as Theaters in New York, Theaters in California, etc. No "proper noun" articles or names are affected.
SUNY New Paltz clarifies that "theater" is used as "The spelling for all generic references to auditoriums and the theatrical arts." - So one would use theater for a performance art theater as well as a movie theater
Therefore the "preferred" sentence would be "The Anytown Theatre is a theater in Anytown, USA"
WhisperToMe (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that's your position - how many dozen times have you spelt it out in full, FFS? But SUNY then immediately say "as is the case with all SUNY New Paltz theatres" - busting their own rule!! This has been pointed out to you before. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, by "as is the case with all SUNY New Paltz theatres" it meant that all SUNY theaters use "Theatre" in their names. That's it. It is not excusing or exempting or sabotaging its own style guidelines in its way. Look, those style guidelines clearly and unambiguously say that "theater" is to be used in a common noun sense.
Exactly, just like the Defunct Broadway category here. SUNY are clearly using it as a common noun. Don't try to wiggle out of it. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you are making reference to "as is the case with all SUNY New Paltz theatres" - I get it now. The writer could be referring to a specific group of theaters, which could make the "theatre" a proper noun, or it could be a typo on the writer's part. The writer is not trying to say that "theatre" is an equally acceptable common noun with "theater." It seems like your argument is trying to defeat the spirit of the rule of the source that is clearly established by the source by trying to use a specific aspect of it. The spirit of the rule of the SUNY New Paltz source is very clear. One cannot wiggle out of the "spirit of the rule" of the particular source. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go look at the other links posted below and take a look at them. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further to my oppose comment The use of style guides to prove usage is fraught with problems. Style guides are as much about consistency as accuracy. This is shown by a number of U.S. university and college style guides which recommend the use of theatre in all cases, except where Theater is part of a proper name.
DePaul University: "Use theatre in all DePaul publications."
Mount Holyoke College: "According to Webster’s, this word may be spelled theater or theatre. But to be consistent with the spelling of our Department of Theatre Arts, use theatre."
Illinois Wesleyan: "Use “theatre” in all cases, unless referring to a movie theater or as part of a proper name."
Theatre is clearly an acceptable U.S. spelling. Tassedethe (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The question is whether "theatre" is equally preferable to "theater" as U.S. spelling. My nomination said that "theater" is the preferable/primary U.S. spelling.
You made a very valid point by showing that university style guidelines differ, and that some do say that "theatre" is the default preferable spelling against "theater." I am glad that you have done this.
However it seems like the usage of "theatre" over "theater" is a preference made by the universities themselves, as opposed to a preference that stems from existing English language source materials, dictionaries, and guidebooks.
For instance DePaul University's page says "These guidelines are based on The Associated Press (AP) Stylebook used by journalists throughout the world and are supported as a secondary source by the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary." - The nominator's rationale shows that Merriam-Webster's online dictionary lists "theater" first and has "theatre" as the variant spelling. Anyway...
DePaul's entry says: "Use theatre in all DePaul publications. This is an exception to The Associated Press Stylebook: “Theatre students and alumni gathered on opening night at the Merle Reskin Theatre.” “His storied theatre career started when he was just 9 years old.” Use theater when it is part of the proper name of a performing arts company or venue: Chicago Shakespeare Theater." (I added the underline myself) - Apparently the Associated Press Stylebook does not support the university's decision to use "theatre" as opposed to "theater" - I will check out the Associated Press Stylebook myself when I get the chance to.
Mount Holyoke's makes a reference to Webster's, but the decision to use "theatre" is entirely the university's decision. Merriam-Webster's online dictionary lists "theater" as the primary spelling.
Illinois Wesleyan makes no further comment about its decision to use "theatre."
I am going to check out the AP Style Guidebook and I will accordingly review my argument.
WhisperToMe (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Parts redacted, as per below. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my latest Comment. I examined both Merriam-Webster and the AP Style Book, which were used as sources by the university style guidelines that you referred to. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Tony awards use "theatre", as do the organisers of the awards the Broadway League and the American Theatre Wing. There is also the American Theatre Critics Association which uses "theatre" in its name. I also note that the Denver Center Theatre Company uses the er spelling for center but the re spelling for theatre. These examples illustrate the wide use of the spelling "theatre" in America. Cjc13 (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • American Theatre Critics Association, American Theatre Wing, and Denver Center Theatre Company are all names of particular organizations that have "Theatre" in their name. Those are proper nouns. These categories use common nouns (as in "a theater," "the theater," "those theaters"), and the sources indicated in the nominator's rationale indicate that "theater" is preferable in a "common noun" sense. Those organizations may use the spelling "theatre" to refer to a "theater" in their own writings, but that does not negate the fact that the American English sources above say that "theater" is the preferred US English spelling. Any organization can consciously decide to use "theatre" in its own writings, but that does not mean that "theatre" is suddenly at the same level as "theater." What is needed to sink my rationale is an academic/reliable source that explicitly says that "theater" and "theatre" are equally acceptable. As of writing I am going to check Tassedethe's post to see if he found a source that does just that. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • EDIT: Tassedethe makes a valid point in that there are U.S. university style guidelines that prefer "theatre" over "theater" - So I am going to do some further research and then shift my argument. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Broadway League and American Theatre Wing are important organisations within theater/theatre in America. Their use of the spelling "theatre", both in titles and in their websites, suggests a general acceptance of the use of that spelling within the the industry itself, as illustrated by its use in the Tony Awards, the main awards for stage productions. Cjc13 (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • They are important organizations that support the theater arts, but they do not set English-language trends. This discussion is a question on what is the best American English usage. The Broadway League and the American Theatre Wing can use whatever spellings they like, but one shouldn't use one or more theatrical organization's/s preference(s) to say "that is the best/most often preferred spelling" - It's original research. It would be like if a prominent league of shops used "shoppes" (yes, "shoppes" appears in Merriam-Webster).
          • The way to determine the best spelling, like when determining the best way to write professional English, is to look at dictionaries and American English-language stylebooks, which set standards for American English. Merriam-Webster considers "theater" and "theatre" to be equal spellings, while the Oxford American Dictionary and Random House Webster's gives some form of advantage to "theater." So far, of the three American English stylebooks I reviewed, all prefer "theater." To get a better picture I will look through more stylebooks and see if there is a consensus among the stylebooks that "ter" is the preferred spelling. It would also help to look at more dictionaries too.
          • Some American universities set their style guides to prefer "theater," while others set their style guides to prefer "theatre" - The ones that prefer "theater" do so in compliance with the Associated Press Stylebook, as the University of Alabama at Birmingham indicates here: [5] - Ones that prefer "theatre," like DePaul University, go against the Associated Press Stylebook [6]. The NYT and Wall Street Journal Stylebooks also prefer "theater"
          • WhisperToMe (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The problem with dictionaries, and possibly style guides, is that they include all uses of the word, such as movie theaters and operating theaters, so are more likely to give preferrence to theater. We are only considering the use of the name as related specifically to stage productions, where it is less clear, so we also need to look at specific usage in that environment, such as the Tony awards. Cjc13 (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • They deliberately include all uses of the word; in determining whether preference is for "theater" or "theatre," they do not make a distinction between a movie theater and other performance theaters. If they had the intention to consider treating stage theaters differently from movie theaters, they probably would have mentioned this in their notes. As a note, of the university style guides Tassedethe presented above, the only one to make the distinction is Illinois Wesleyan University, which says here [7] "Use “theatre” in all cases, unless referring to a movie theater or as part of a proper name." The page does not indicate the sources used by the university in determining its style guide; other guides I read typically indicate dictionaries and/or style guides. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
    • Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition, 2003: ISBN 0-87779-807-9
      • 11a: Explanatory Notes: "When a main entry is followed by the word or and another spelling, the two spellings occur with equal or nearly equal frequency and can be considered to be equal variants. Both are standard, and either one may be used according to personal inclination"
      • pg. 1295: "theater or theatre"
    • Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 2000: ISBN 0-375-42560-8
      • Using this Dictionary: Variant forms of the Entry Words: "When a variant, usually preceded by "or" or "also" is shown near the main entry, you may infer that the alternative form occurs in English with almost equal frequency although the more common spelling is given first"
      • Pg. 1355: "theater or theatre"
  • Therefore while the Oxford American Dictionary and the Random House Webster's College Dictionary consider "theater" to be the main word, the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary considers "theater" and "theatre" to be of equal status.
  • I will proceed to check the AP Style Guide Book to see what it says.
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Associated Press Style Book and Briefing on Media Law - June 2002. ISBN 0-7382-0740-3
    • Pg. 246 "Theater - Use this spelling unless the proper name is theatre: Shubert Theatre
  • Hence that one university style guideline said that it was not following the AP Style Book.
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two more media style books support usage of "theater" over "theatre":
    • Siegal, Allan M and William G. Connoly. The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage Revised and Expanded Edition. Times Books, 1999. ISBN 0-8129-6388-1
      • Page 330: "Theater, theatergoer. Capitalize Theater in names: the Shubert Theater. For a consistent appearance in the news columns, where numerous theater names occur side by side daily, use the er spelling of theater uniformly."
    • Martin, Paul R. The Wall Street Journal Guide to Business Style and Usage. Simon & Schuster, 2002 (copyrighted by Dow Jones & Company, Inc.). ISBN 0-7432-1295-9
      • Page 230: "Theater - Use this spelling except where the formal name of a theater or company is spelled theatre."
      • Same page: "Theatergoer"
  • Even though Merriam-Webster supports "theater" and "theatre" equally, the style guides of the Associated Press, The New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal have chosen to use "theater" - That, and the preference of "theater" in the Oxford English Dictionary and Random House Webster's College Dictionary make "theater" the better choice for the category name. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not rename. Last time this was proposed I supported such a change. I'm not convinced it's necessary, and while I could still personally acquiesce to this change, I can't support the proposal it in the face of the opposition expressed above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_25&oldid=1144514137"