Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 June 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 8 June 10 >

June 9[edit]

Category:Pitchshifter[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The only articles for this group are for its albums and a discography, all of which are already more appropriately categorized in Category:Pitchshifter albums. WP:OC#Eponymous. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:14, 9 June 2013 (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.

Kategori:Milletlerine göre tarih dolaşım şablonları[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: speedied. Bearcat (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting [[Kategori:Milletlerine göre tarih dolaşım şablonları{{{2}}}]] ([{{fullurl:Kategori:Milletlerine göre tarih dolaşım şablonları{{{2}}}|action=edit}} edit] | [[{{{3}}}:{{{2}}}|{{{4}}}]] | [{{fullurl:Kategori:Milletlerine göre tarih dolaşım şablonları{{{2}}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere/Kategori:Milletlerine göre tarih dolaşım şablonları{{{2}}}}} links] | [{{fullurl:Kategori:Milletlerine göre tarih dolaşım şablonları{{{2}}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs)
Nominator's rationale:This non English category is now empty and not usable in English WP. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Debate not necessary. Consider it speedied. Bearcat (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2013 (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 associated with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki[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, with Category:Manhattan Project people as a "see also". Orlady (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Far too vague, amorphous and ill-defined. There is already a category for bombing victims (Hibakusha), so who does that leave? Every member of the Manhattan Project? Harry Truman and every politician who signed off on the bombings? Even most Manhattan Project people are not listed, and I only just added J. Robert Oppenheimer, who was the father of the atomic bomb. This category should be deleted or renamed to encompass only air crews of Hiroshima and and Nagasaki atomic bombing flights, as they are the only people who don't fit into any existing categories. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment also included are the various [Japanese] photographers and authors of the results of the bombings--not all of which are in other categories associated with the bombings. Where do they go? Hmains (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere, if we can't come up with a better title that does not require arbitrary judgments by Wikipedia editors. The world won't end. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment There are some journalists still in the category - John Hersey, Joe O'Donnell (photojournalist) and Wayne F. Miller. Japanese journalists include Keiji Nakazawa and Ken Domon. I removed Robert Oppenheimer, as I have other scientists in the past. I agree with the nominator that there is already categories for Category:Hibakusha (which should not be a subcategory of this category) and Category:Manhattan Project people, so I had weeded it down to just people who participated in the bombings or their preparations, either in the air or on Tinian. I removed the politicians (except Harry Truman, because I didn't want to make a fuss, but I have removed him now) and the scientists except those who were actually present on Tinian. Except for the latter, there is then no overlap with Category:Manhattan Project people. I propose that the category be restricted to:
    1. Members of the 509th Composite Group present on Tinian (Tibbets, Lewis, Bock etc)
    2. Members of Project Alberta present on Tinian (Parsons, Agnew, Alvarez etc)
    3. Senior officers present on Tinian who were actually involved in the coordination of the bombings (Farrell, Purnell, etc)
    4. British observers on Tinian who participated in the Nagasaki bombing as observers (Penney and Cheshire)
  • I have no objection to the category being renamed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wouldn't object to a renaming, if a proper category name can be conjured up. I'm not sure that's possible without making it overbroad. Right now we have Leslie Groves and Robert Serber but not J. Robert Oppenheimer, which is just plain arbitrary. That's not an oversight as I added him and he was just removed and Serber was just added. If Oppenheimer, the "father of the atomic bomb," wasn't "associated with" the bombing I don't know who is. That's like saying Barnes Wallis wasn't associated with Operation Chastise. My feeling is that if we can't come up with a proper category title it should be deleted. The world won't end if Hersey isn't in a Hiroshima-related category. He's already famous for his Hiroshima book without us putting him in a Hiroshima category. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed Groves. Serber belongs there, as part of Project Alberta on Tinian (and he would have been on the Nagasaki mission if he hadn't forgotten his parachute). The point, as you say, is that "associated with" is too broad, and would redundantly include all the Category:Manhattan Project people. I propose:
That's an improvement, but we still would have no place for people like Hersey. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's already in twenty categories! We could create a special category for the journalists I suppose. I deliberately excluded them because I didn't want to extend the category to people who went to Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the bombings. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with excluding the journalists. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as is no suitable alternative has been agreed upon that will avoid losing various people--all just for the sake of making the name 'nice' Hmains (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, "niceness" is not the objective here. What's needed is a rational category that isn't duplicative of the Manhattan Project category and overly all-inclusive. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the title but use as a container category. The Hibakusha category should be in some english name container like this and there could be another pointer to the category of those working on the atomic bombs, another for the politicians and military closely associated with the bombing another for any people associate with the aftermath medicine and restoration, and then perhaps you can have any newspapermen writers artists etc reporting on it in their own category. Dmcq (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and clear Keep - I do want to thank User:Figureofnine for extending the courtesy of notifying me of this CFD. However, as someone who put a great deal of thought and work into its creation, I could not disagree more strongly with this nomination and with the alternate proposal that has been offered. First of all, I have already gone ahead and restored Category:Hibakusha as an integral sub-category; I find it utterly incomprehensible that anybody could seriously argue that the Hibakusha are/were not "People associated with the atomic bombings". (I do agree that Category:Manhattan Project people should be linked horizontally, and not included as a subcategory.)
Second, I am absolutely floored by the cavalier attitude that comes across in comments like "The world won't end" if there is no category for the various individuals who are without question very closely associated with the atomic bombings. You could just as well say that "The world won't end" if all of Wikipedia were to disappear. I have already gone ahead and restored a handful of crucially important individuals who were unceremoniously removed from the category. Yes, they DO need to have a category -- NOT for "them", so to speak, but because readers using the category should be able to find those people in the category. That is, after all, why categories exist in the first place. A modicum of common sense would go a long way here. I have no particular problem with removing, on a case by case basis, people whose connection with the bombings was not of substantial significance in their individual biographies. That sort of weeding is entirely normal and happens regularly with Wikipedia categories. But the wholesale removal of everybody save for the flight crews, etc. is flatly unacceptable. I don't think a compelling case has been made for either deletion or severe restriction of the category.
Lastly, if I seem overly vehement, it is to be sure because I feel very strongly about this; it may also be in part because I'm having some rather nasty dental pain as I write this. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Topic too broad. No consensus on what it should contain. No use to readers. Feeds POV misconceptions about the Manhattan Project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong strong keep I can see the objection that this is not easy to define, but as a teacher I find the category is useful. "Useful" is much more important than anything else. As it was, I could go to the category page or send a student and find a bunch of articles that spoke to each other, even though (or precisely because) they were linked (like real life) only around these events. It told a story. It set up challenging thoughts. It did what a category is supposed to do, which is different from a list: it drew things to our attention that we wouldn't and couldn't think of ourselves. I respect Hawkeye's concern about POV misconceptions, but I don't understand how this category feeds them.
In the meantime, until this discussion is finished, please do not unilaterally remove the category from existing articles -- this is not neighborly, especially, as with the case of John Hersey, with no editorial explanation that you personally object to the category and thereby unfairly hide from others this discussion. I only came across it by unaccustomed perseverance (And my dental state is good!) ch (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, User ch, for raising this point about the unilateral, out-of-process removal of articles from the category. Not only has User:Hawkeye7 once again removed the handful of articles that I re-added to the category, it turns out that 2 weeks ago he carried out a unilateral mass removal of perhaps 20 articles that didn't happen to meet his personal criteria (as outlined in his alternative proposal and specified in the set of restrictions he posted on the category page). All such unilateral actions taken in the middle of an ongoing CFD discussion are completely contrary to the collaborative effort we are supposed to be engaged in here at CFD. In fact, they preempt the entire process by presuming the outcome of the discussion before it has run its course. I am therefore making a formal request that User:Hawkeye7 immediately revert all of the category deletions that he carried out and restore all of those articles to the category pending the outcome of this discussion. Cgingold (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At no time should this category lump together people who had radically different vantage points, such as bombing victims, laboratory scientists or technicians, battlefield participants, journalists and historians, and politicians. Yet the category should be kept. Binksternet (talk) 03:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then how do you suggest that we manage that issue? I think it's inevitable given the broad wording of the name. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to Hawkeye7 for striking out his "Delete." I understand, however, the objections, but on balance, the category is (again) useful, as is this discussion. To me, the usefulness comes from connecting the people who were involved a turning point event in order to show that the military, political, and personal should all be considered (pardon me for choosing "connecting" as a better sounding word than "lumping"). Cheers. ch (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is because someone found the category useful. It is still yet to be determined what the category should contain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hawkeye7, would you kindly advise us as to when you will be restoring the articles you removed from the category, as I requested above? While I phrased it as a "request", it really isn't optional -- it's standard CFD procedure, as it is not possible for editors to fully and properly consider the array of issues involved in the absence of those articles. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    AFAIK, you put them all back. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I only put a handful of articles back in the category. According to your edit history, you removed quite a few more than that -- about 15-20 articles -- back on June 11. Cgingold (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2013 (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:Organizations based in Bangkok[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: Reserve merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per parent Category:Organisations based in Thailand Tim! (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2013 (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:Organizations based in in the United Arab Emirates[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per parent Category:Organisations based in the United Arab Emirates by emirate Tim! (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2013 (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:Organisations based in Kiev city[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Appears to be a duplicate category Tim! (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2013 (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:Anti-Muslim organizations from Sri Lanka[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per spelling of parent Category:Organisations based in Sri Lanka Tim! (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2013 (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:Article Feedback 5 Additional Articles[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category exactly duplicates the purpose of the other. Maybe there is a point to that, but if so, I haven't been able to find it.  Sandstein  10:57, 9 June 2013 (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.

Organizations based in Serbia[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. The point was made in other discussions that it is acceptable to us either the 'z' spelling or the 's' spelling in UK English. In this discussion there was no mention of that instead just arguing to use the UK spelling. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per spelling of parent Category:Organizations based in Serbia Tim! (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2013 (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.

Organizations based in Romania[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. The point was made in other discussions that it is acceptable to us either the 'z' spelling or the 's' spelling in UK English. In this discussion there was no mention of that instead just arguing to use the UK spelling. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per spelling of parent Category:Organizations based in Romania Tim! (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2013 (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:Lists of organisations based in Russia[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. The point was made in other discussions that it is acceptable to us either the 'z' spelling or the 's' spelling in UK English. In this discussion there was no mention of that instead just arguing to use the UK spelling. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per spelling of parent Category:Organizations based in Russia Tim! (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2013 (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.

Organizations based in Poland[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. The point was made in other discussions that it is acceptable to us either the 'z' spelling or the 's' spelling in UK English. In this discussion there was no mention of that instead just arguing to use the UK spelling. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per spelling of Category:Organizations based in Poland Tim! (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - pointless, for reasons given in related nominations. It was once suggested, some years ago, that all articles relating to any country in the EU should use UK spellings, as UK English is an official language of EU. Let's revisit that. It would be good to have a proper standard - "first version" is entirely arbitrary.Jsmith1000 (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2013 (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.

Organizations based in Slovenia[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. The point was made in other discussions that it is acceptable to us either the 'z' spelling or the 's' spelling in UK English. In this discussion there was no mention of that instead just arguing to use the UK spelling. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per parent Category:Organizations based in Slovenia and Slovenian word Organizacije Tim! (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Slovene word is completely irrelevant. --Eleassar my talk 19:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As Eleassar points out, the Slovene word is irrelevant. Neutralitytalk 23:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. UK English predominates in Europe, so we should use the UKanian spelling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 21 June 2013 (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:Organizations based in Greenland[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. This one does need to be rediscussed since both categories do exist. I'm not relisting since this discussion is so old. Maybe more of a reason on the nomination would help. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category Tim! (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge use "z", Greenland is part of North America, and has a NORAD base, so use North American English; ethnically, the Inuit-Eskimo are related to populations found in Canada and Alaska, therefore "z" would be more common amongst the ethnic group. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge as nominated; the target category was first in time. As a (generally) non-English-speaking place, I don't think there's a convincing case to be made that either form is preferred in Greenland. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In sections below, it was proposed that European "organisation" categories use "s" because European categories should use British English. So why shouldn't North American categories use North American English? -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't buy either argument. Two wrongs don't make a right. If it's a non-English-speaking country and there are no strong ties to a particular English-speaking country, then first in time should prevail. I don't think Greenland has strong ties to any English-speaking country. Anyway, it's more closely tied to Denmark than it is to North American countries. Many UN and other international organizations that divide the world into continental sub-bodies deem Greenland to be part of Europe for precisely that reason. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, the French Guiana is part of Europe and not South America, Israel is part of Europe and not Asia, Siberia is part of Europe and not Asia... they are not geographic divisions. Culturally, Greenland is not part of Europe, it is part of North America, since the culture of Greenland is that found in the Canadian Arctic and Alaska. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Geographically, no. But from a practical standpoint—yes, some UN and other international bodies often make divisions like that when it makes sense to do so. A purely cultural organization may not choose to do so, whereas one that is focused more on internal political considerations would probably find it helpful. FIBA Europe includes Israel, partly because the Middle Eastern Asian countries don't want it in FIBA Asia. So there are many factors that can affect such groupings. Anyway, my point was just that Greenland has a far stronger connection to Denmark than to any of the North American countries, and I don't see the point of spreading "North American English" beyond its natural boundaries based largely on geographical considerations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge many things in Greenland are operated by the US, there is clear reason to use organizations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2013 (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:Organizations based in Sweden[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. The point was made in other discussions that it is acceptable to us either the 'z' spelling or the 's' spelling in UK English. In this discussion there was no mention of that instead just arguing to use the UK spelling. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subcategories use both spellings, the Swedish word is Organisationer [1] Tim! (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Swedish-language spelling of a word is irrelevant to the spelling of the English word, and our general policy is to retain the existing version. Less importantly, but still of note, is that if one searches the English version of the Swedish government's website, sweden.se/eng, you get 150 hits for "organization" and 62 hits for "organization." If I search the website of Lund University, I get 6,370 hits for "organization" and 5,420 for "organisation." There is no overwhelming use one way or the other. Neutralitytalk 03:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. UK English predominates in Europe, so we should use the UKanian spelling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is no compelling reason to make this change, doing so would endorse British usage as preferred, which violates ENGVAR rules. In fact, it has been pointed out that in general organization is more acceptable in British usage than organization in American.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2013 (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:Organizations based in Denmark[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. The point was made in other discussions that it is acceptable to us either the 'z' spelling or the 's' spelling in UK English. In this discussion there was no mention of that instead just arguing to use the UK spelling. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subcategories use both spellings, in Danish the word is Organisationer [2] Tim! (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this as well - Danish word is irrelevant. Neutralitytalk 23:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. UK English predominates in Europe, so we should use the UKanian spelling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Danish spelling is not relevant in an English encyclopedia. No compelling reason to change. The attempts to impose British usage throughout Europe are not the general ENGVAR method.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2013 (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:Organizations based in France[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Some of the subcategories use z-spelling such as Category:LGBT organizations in France and some use s eg Category:Scientific organisations based in France. The French word is organisation [3] so makes sense to use the s variant over the z variant. Tim! (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - why does what letter a non-English word uses matters? Neutralitytalk
We have to have some kind of test to determine which spelling, "organization" or "organisation", is more appropriate in any particular country — because without that it's just a completely arbitrary decision between two completely valid English spellings. How the word is spelled in that country's own primary language may not be the only way that could be determined, but it is a way — and it's as good as any unless you've got a better one to propose. Bearcat (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our policy has always been to use the regional variant for English-speaking countries - but for countries that are non-Anglophone, and for which consequently there really isn't a single English variety to use, the practice has been "first in time, first in right." That is, when both are equally valid, keep the preexisting variant and avoid arbitrarily switching from one English variety to another. This is the most sensible way to decide these things - and has avoided conflict well, I think. Neutralitytalk 03:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"First in line, first in right" applies to the body text of articles, certainly — but it has never been how the naming format of categories has been decided. And anyway, the fact that this very category, even examined completely in isolation from any other consideration, has both "organization" and "organisation" subcategories certainly falls within my definition of "conflict" — those have to be made consistent with each other on one spelling or the other — so it's not true that it's "avoided conflict well", either. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant conflict in the sense of harmony between users, rather than as in harmony in usage. I'm somewhat willing to allow stylistic inconsistencies on matters of pure form if it means avoiding lots of English-variety-related fights. Neutralitytalk 03:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Plus if you search within the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs' English website, diplomatie.gouv.fr/en, a Google search reveals ~1,010 results for "organisation" and ~1,410 for "organization." And searching within the English website of the National Assembly of France, assemblee-nationale.fr/english, I get just 7 results of "organisation" and 59 hits for "organization." If you search the English website of the Louvre, louvre.fr/en, you get just two hits for "organisation" and 2,220 hits for "organization." All these are just more reasons to keep things as they are. Neutralitytalk 03:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AFAIK, both organisation and organization are valid in British English. Only organization is valid in American English. WP:COMMONALITY recommends using spellings that are common to both. That would seem to suggest organization should be preferred. (This would appliy to all related discussions as well.) I'm not familiar enough with the country-specific issue to !vote. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • use "organisation" as similar to the Frnech word. The "s" spelling is preferred in British English, though English disctionaries recognise the American one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The engvar rules basically mean we should leave things as is unless there is compelling reason to change, and I see no presentation of a compelling reason to change this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. UK English predominates in Europe, so we should use the UKanian spelling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 21 June 2013 (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:Organizations based in Lithuania[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. The point was made in other discussions that it is acceptable to us either the 'z' spelling or the 's' spelling in UK English. In this discussion there was no mention of that instead just arguing to use the UK spelling. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The subcategories use different variations: Category:Organisations based in Lithuania by city, Category:Organizations based in Lithuania by subject, Category:Lists of organisations based in Lithuania, Category:Defunct organizations of Lithuania, Category:Jewish organizations based in Lithuania, Category:Non-governmental organizations based in Lithuania‎, Category:Non-profit organisations based in Lithuania‎. One variant should be chosen though which should be chosen as the fellow Baltic states differ Category:Organizations based in Estonia‎ and Category:Organisations based in Latvia. Tim! (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Lithuanian word is organizacijos, so maybe we should pick Z as the preferred spelling. Tim! (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Lithuanian word is not relevant. There is no overwhelming English-language variant in Lithuania, so retain the existing viariant. Neutralitytalk 17:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. UK English predominates in Europe, so we should use the UKanian spelling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the top category is Category:Organizations so leave things alone please. There is enough chaos in categories without this constant churn. Just my $.02 XOttawahitech (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Category:Organizations is the top category, sub-cats should follow that lead unless a compelling reason exists to change. Making it look like British English is used almost everywhere but the US is not a compelling reason to change.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2013 (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:Organizations based in Vilnius[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. The point was made in other discussions that it is acceptable to us either the 'z' spelling or the 's' spelling in UK English. In this discussion there was no mention of that instead just arguing to use the UK spelling. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Spelling/English variant per parent Category:Organisations based in Lithuania by city Tim! (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2013 (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.

1971 establishments in the Democratic Republic of the Congo[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the 1980s category was not nominated. This can be removed when all of the subcategories are moved per this discussion, leaving that category empty, as a G6 speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2013 (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/2013_June_9&oldid=1138398267"