From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 22 June 24 >

June 23

Category:Scottish peoples

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. MER-C 11:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT], just one article and one subcategory. The article is already in Category:Ethnic groups in Scotland; the subcategory is already in Category:Ancient Scotland, so a merge is probably not needed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tig Notaro

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. MER-C 09:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Not enough content for an eponymous category. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 09:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the category contains 7 articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Hey everyone, it's "Jett Reno"! What a star!
Keep per Marcocapelle. – Fayenatic London 22:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Poker companies

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Makes the content clearer. All the companies seem to be primarily online Rathfelder ( talk) 09:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as is. Don't understand the nomination. Companies have b&m and online presences, the rename would be inaccurate and necessitate recreating the category for those companies that exist offline. 2005 ( talk) 00:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
C'mon, Caesars Entertainment Corporation‎ and Churchill Downs own numerous b&m entities, including the World Series of Poker currently underway. The World Poker Tour and Pokerstars run b&m tournaments all over the world. Also, some of these companies also are just strategy/teaching sites. They teach poker, wherever you play it. Your criticism actually seems to be that more companies could be added into the category, which just means it should be populated more. 2005 ( talk) 21:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
B & m seems to be 'brick & mortar' in the poker community. Create and populate a subcat Category:Online poker companies would be my suggestion. Oculi ( talk) 11:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Religion in the Arab world by city

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. MER-C 11:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: delete, as it is largely overlapping with Category:Religion in the Middle East by city. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, considering many of the countries of the Arab world aren't in the Middle East. It has suitable parent categories. Sionk ( talk) 07:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • A few aren't. Does it make sense to have a duplicate categorization system for many Arab countries in the Middle East? Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Category:Arab world, but imo that category tree should be for Arab topics only, not for every any random topic like (in this case) religion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I count nine countries out of 22 which are in North Africa, which I wouldn't consider to be in the Middle East. I don't see why Category:Religion in the Middle East by city is being singled out for deletion. 'Arab world' also overlaps with 'North Africa' and 'Horn of Africa', but you surely wouldn't argue to delete one and keep another. Sionk ( talk) 23:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

St. Louis Commissioner of Police

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 and rename per option F ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply
Option A: Category:St. Louis Police Department chiefs (like some other cities)
Option B: Category:Commissioners of the St. Louis Police Department (like some other cities)
Option C: Category:St. Louis Commissioners of Police (original Speedy nomination)
Option D: Category:Police Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police Department, City of St. Louis (to match lead article Police Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Department, City of St. Louis)
Option E: Category:Commissioners of Police of the Metropolitan Police Department, City of St. Louis (to match alternative article name Commissioner of Police of the Metropolitan Police Department, City of St. Louis at which Tysports ( talk · contribs) had recently pasted a copy of the article.)
Option F: Category:Commissioners of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department. This is option B with "Metropolitan" added in the dept name, to avoid ambiguity with St. Louis County Police Department. (Added 23 May)
Nominator's rationale: This started as a procedural nomination following an opposed Speedy, but became more complicated when I found that Tysports had been making multiple copy-and-paste moves of the lead article, and also duplicated the category.
The first nominated category is the older one. The second one is a duplicate created last month by Tysports, excluding Lawrence M. O'Toole who was Acting Commissioner for most of 2017.
The official website http://www.slmpd.org/chief_of_police.shtml is headed "Police Commissioner", but also mentions "35th Chief of Police".
There is no consistent naming convention within Category:American municipal police chiefs. Most are either "[City] Police Department chiefs" or "Commissioners of the [City] Police Department". – Fayenatic London 20:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Copy of discussion on Speedy page
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 ( talk) 08:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:U.S. Army installations named for Confederate soldiers

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. – Fayenatic London 09:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SHAREDNAME
This category groups U.S. military bases like Fort Bragg and Fort Hood by how they are named. Most military base articles discuss who they are named after and the this article discussed the Confederate naming controversy and lists the contents of the category. Nonetheless, grouping major military installations by how they were named doesn't seem defining. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Clarification @ Rogerd: This nomination is just about the category; I have no issue with the list article. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ RevelationDirect: I chose my words poorly, there actually isn't a list, per se, if someone wants to see these installations, just this category. -- rogerd ( talk) 13:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Its a useful category. Creuzbourg ( talk) 19:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support per WP:SHAREDNAME, without objection against listification. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Rogerd. While normally this kind of classification would not be helpful, this particular naming scheme is notable for its hot controversy to the point of being a defining characteristic. (I dunno about "current" though, in the unlikely event Fort A. P. Hill changes its name, I'd think it would still fall under this category since it was true in the past.) SnowFire ( talk) 01:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I think a category is fine and merited too. We can have both in this case. SnowFire ( talk) 01:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 ( talk) 08:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep. It’s important due to present controversies. It’s important for historical reasons (failure of reconstruction; reconciliation after the ACW; US Army naming policy). Definitely keep! It’s not like one category is excluding other categories for the same article. Creuzbourg ( talk) 14:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • The topic may be important, but the name of an installation is not defining for an article about an installation. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Yes it is, when the naming praxis in itself is controversial or of historical importance. Generally, I find it very peculiar that categories can be contentious and time being spent on discussing categories instead of improving articles. A category is just a means for a reader to reach the articles that are interesting. As already said, it’s not like one category is excluding other categories for the same article. Are there ulterior motives for wanting to remove this category? Political correctness perhaps? Creuzbourg ( talk) 15:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • The main motive is consistency of categorization; we don't generally categorize things by the origin of their name. Here's an example of an earlier CFD for similar categorization - do you think that was for (the same) "ulterior motives"? An article such as Fort Bragg contains thousands of facts; the origin of the name may be the fact that most interests you, but someone else might find another fact interesting. If we don't limit categorization then editors could get sucked into adding more and more category tags to articles ... DexDor (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Three Maryland congressmen have introduced a resolution calling for the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue from Antietam National Battlefield because it "memorializes leaders of the pro-slavery, traitorous Confederate South". Can't you see that "named for Confederate soldiers" is a relevant category given the present political discourse? It’s not like the trivia from popular culture you are referring to. Furthermore, per WP:SHAREDNAME: a category for unrelated people who happen to be named "Jackson" is not useful. However, a category may be useful if the people, objects, or places are directly related—for example, a category grouping subarticles directly related to a specific Jackson family. It is my opinion, based on facts and logic, that "named for Confederate soldiers" in this case corresponds to "the Jackson family." In addition, I do not see overcategorization as an especially pertinent problem. I find it more disturbing that a stubborn attachment to general principles is overriding the specific circumstances of an individual case. Creuzbourg ( talk) 11:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Creuzbourg: Thank you, that is what my motivation was. To shine a little bit of a light on this issue. -- rogerd ( talk) 20:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Robert Bloch

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 per WP:OCEPON. Where there are many articles for works but they are all in sub-categories for works, this does not justify an eponymous category, but rather means that it is not needed, if there are no other biography-related articles. – Fayenatic London 09:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON -- wooden superman 08:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, Keep, because this categories for people are very important and necessary. They significantly improve the navigation in the field of speculative fiction and play a unifying role for all topics related to these writers.-- Yasnodark ( talk) 12:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:OCEPON. The works are already categorised appropriately. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC) reply
    • The category contains 2 subcategories and one article, in my opinion this is quite enough and the reader can see them together in this category.-- Yasnodark ( talk) 13:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC) reply
      • This is not enough to satisfy WP:OCEPON, which states "even most notable people lack enough directly related articles or subcategories to populate eponymous categories effectively". -- wooden superman 13:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: if this is deleted, then "see also" links should be added between the two sub-categories Films based on works by Robert Bloch, Works by Robert Bloch. (Links now exist between each of those and the main article.) – Fayenatic London 14:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I think having nearly forty articles and six categories is enough to have a category for the person. I think this meets the nebulous threshold established by WP:OCEPON. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - it would help if the nominator could concentrate on bringing (and bundling) similar eponymous categories from Category:Wikipedia categories named after American writers. I can see many with just 1 subcat, yet this has 2. How are these being chosen? WP:OCEPON does not bear upon this one as there are plenty of 'directly related articles', held in appropriately named subcats. Oculi ( talk) 20:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Fully Support Deletion - There is ZERO need for this category. I am going to repeat word for word what I just posted below regarding Category:William Goldman:
Even the "other" subcat, Category:Films based on works by Robert Bloch, belongs quite properly in Category:Works by Robert Bloch, which I have just added as a parent. Ordinarily, I would have gone ahead and finished the job by removing the redundant parent, Category:Robert Bloch, but I left it there purely out of consideration for this discussion. The bottom line is, Category:Works by Robert Bloch is absolutely all that is needed to provide a home for all of the subcategories. Keeping *this* category would fly in the face of The.Most.Basic. of all criteria for creation of valid categories, eponymous or otherwise. Anomalous+0 ( talk)
  • These films can very well be a subcategory since they are based on these works. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Really? I'm not sure that's good categorization. DexDor (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not enough content about the individual besides the already present works subcategory. Place Clichy ( talk) 13:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 ( talk) 08:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I agree with Yasnodark. More than enough content to populate category. Dimadick ( talk) 06:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
    • This is not enough to satisfy WP:OCEPON, which states "even most notable people lack enough directly related articles or subcategories to populate eponymous categories effectively". -- wooden superman 15:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. the Works-by and Films-based-on-works-by group together the relevant articles and are interlinked. Those articles don't need categorizing in Category:American male writers. DexDor (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Putting "Films based on works by X" within "works by X" will always be debatable. I have replaced the parenting with "related category" links in both directions. – Fayenatic London 18:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:William Goldman

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. Although some editors want to keep it, policy supports deletion. It is sufficient for navigation that William Goldman, Category:Works by William Goldman and Category:Films based on works by William Goldman are interlinked; there is no other content. – Fayenatic London 10:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON -- wooden superman 08:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Per WP:CAT#T, {{ William Goldman}} should 100% NOT be included. Categories are also not for articles which have not been written yet. -- wooden superman 12:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • These films can very well be a subcategory since they are based on these works. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not enough content about the individual besides the already present works subcategory. Place Clichy ( talk) 13:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 ( talk) 08:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per Yasnodark's argument. Dimadick ( talk) 06:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
    • This is not enough to satisfy WP:OCEPON, which states "even most notable people lack enough directly related articles or subcategories to populate eponymous categories effectively". -- wooden superman 15:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • There appear to be plenty of subcats (as a sub-sub-cat is a subcat). Oculi ( talk) 13:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC) reply
That's not how it works. The "Works by" category should be the parent cat. WP:OCEPON discourages eponymous categories when other options are available. The "Works by" tree is the established convention here. -- wooden superman 11:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Organizations based in East Timor

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 per option A. MER-C 08:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming under one of the following options:
Option A - "Organisations" to "Organizations" (Rename 8)
  1. Merge Category:Organisations based in East Timor to Category:Organizations based in East Timor
  2. Rename Category:Music organisations based in East Timor to Category:Music organizations based in East Timor
  3. Rename Category:Sports organisations of East Timor to Category:Sports organizations of East Timor
  4. Rename Category:Women's organisations based in East Timor to Category:Women's organizations based in East Timor
  5. Rename Category:Lists of organisations based in East Timor to Category:Lists of organizations based in East Timor
  6. Rename Category:Political organisations based in East Timor to Category:Political organizations based in East Timor
  7. Rename Category:Transport organisations based in East Timor to Category:Transport organizations based in East Timor
  8. Rename Category:Medical and health organisations based in East Timor to Category:Medical and health organizations based in East Timor
User:Od Mishehu launched a series of cfds on this topic in 2017, the premise being that a given country should use either 'z' or 's' (but not a mixture thereof); eg France, Brazil, Bolivia, Iran, Angola, Greece, Poland, Israel, Puerto Rico, Turkey.
Here both Category:Organisations based in East Timor and Category:Organizations based in East Timor exist, the former being older and better populated. Oculi ( talk) 12:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - the status quo would be Option B. On the other hand I am not aware of any pressing need for East Timor to use 'organisation' rather than the more widely accepted 'organization'. Oculi ( talk) 12:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support Option A. Consistency is important, and the Z spelling should be used. Z is the std form in American English, and one of two acceptable form in British English. The case for using the "S"-spelling is very weak even in UK-related topics, and for a country such as East Timor with minimal links to the UK it is non-existent. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Use 'z' Timor-Leste isn't English-speaking and doesn't have any strong colonial or cultural ties to the anglo world but uses USD for currency and probably has more US connections than UK ones. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • RFC. I have opened an RFC about whether to standardise on the "Z" spelling in descriptive category names, i.e. to use "Organization" in all cases. I estimate that this affects the naming of about ten thousand categories.
See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC:_spelling_of_"organisation"/"organization"_in_descriptive_category_names. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Support the zed (or zee) option. As a bit of a traditional Brit, I support Oxford spelling which prescribes -ize endings and hence avoids transatlantic conflict. Greenshed ( talk) 19:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural close until this RFC is closed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I have reopened this discussion as the RFC was closed inconclusively; the summary suggested that we should "embrace our differences… in a more formal way and make this explicit to categories". As I read the discussion (in which I was a participant), there was only a strong move to continue using -s- spellings in Australia and New Zealand. – Fayenatic London 07:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 07:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support option A - use z - support Oxford spelling, minimize conflict, maximize convenience, optimize categorization. Moreover this will harmonize local usage with Category:Organizations based in Indonesia. Oculi ( talk) 08:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support option A - use z English is not a native language here, so local usage does not apply. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support option B. Fewer changes to make and per the original Category:Organisations based in East Timor. Not an English-speaking country, so we should go with the commonest usage thus far. Commonwealth countries (including Australia, with which East Timor has close links) mostly favour the 's' spelling; US-influenced countries favour the 'z' spelling. Contrary to some claims, the 's' spelling has long been the norm in Britain and other countries; even Oxford University now prefers it, despite the OED's continued insistence on the 'z' version. The 'z' form is acceptable, of course, but they are certainly not on an equal footing. Claims that the 'z' form is more widely accepted are Americanocentric. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Joanna of Castile

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. MER-C 08:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:OCEPON, and apart from the eponymous article and her son, this category only contains cultural depictions. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Agree with the renaming - OK for me. -- Fadesga ( talk) 13:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Twin people from the United States

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 13#Category:Twin people from the United States

Organisations based in Haiti

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 using z (option A). – Fayenatic London 10:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Category:Organisations based in Haiti ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose renaming under one of the following options:
Option A, use 'z' - "Organisations" to "Organizations" (rename 16 categories)
  1. Category:Organisations based in Haiti to Category:Organizations based in Haiti
  2. Category:Business organisations based in Haiti to Category:Business organizations based in Haiti
  3. Category:Child-related organisations in Haiti to Category:Child-related organizations in Haiti
  4. Category:Cultural organisations based in Haiti to Category:Cultural organizations based in Haiti
  5. Category:Defunct organisations based in Haiti to Category:Defunct organizations based in Haiti
  6. Category:Disability organisations based in Haiti to Category:Disability organizations based in Haiti
  7. Category:Environmental organisations based in Haiti to Category:Environmental organizations based in Haiti
  8. Category:Lists of organisations based in Haiti to Category:Lists of organizations based in Haiti
  9. Category:Medical and health organisations based in Haiti to Category:Medical and health organizations based in Haiti
  10. Category:Music organisations based in Haiti to Category:Music organizations based in Haiti
  11. Category:Non-profit organisations based in Haiti to Category:Non-profit organizations based in Haiti
  12. Category:Paramilitary organisations based in Haiti to Category:Paramilitary organizations based in Haiti
  13. Category:Political organisations based in Haiti to Category:Political organizations based in Haiti
  14. Category:Sports organisations of Haiti to Category:Sports organizations of Haiti
  15. Category:Transport organisations based in Haiti to Category:Transport organizations based in Haiti
  16. Category:Youth organisations based in Haiti to Category:Youth organizations based in Haiti
Option B, use 's' - "Organizations" to "Organisations" (rename 8 categories)
  1. Category:Educational organizations based in Haiti to Category:Educational organisations based in Haiti
  2. Category:Feminist organizations in Haiti to Category:Feminist organisations in Haiti
  3. Category:Film organizations in Haiti to Category:Film organisations in Haiti
  4. Category:Human rights organizations based in Haiti to Category:Human rights organisations based in Haiti
  5. Category:Organizations based in Haiti by city to Category:Organisations based in Haiti by city
  6. Category:Organizations based in Haiti by subject to Category:Organisations based in Haiti by subject
  7. Category:Organizations based in Port-au-Prince to Category:Organisations based in Port-au-Prince
  8. Category:Religious organizations based in Haiti to Category:Religious organisations based in Haiti
User:Od Mishehu launched a series of cfds on this topic in 2017, the premise being that a given country should use either 'z' or 's' (but not a mixture thereof); eg France, Brazil, Bolivia, Iran, Angola, Greece, Poland, Israel, Puerto Rico, Turkey. Oculi ( talk) 00:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support A, use z - the status quo would be Option B, following Category:Organisations based in Haiti. However, English is not an official language of Haiti, and so there is no compelling reason to use 's'. Oculi ( talk) 00:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support either, prefer z, since z is acceptable in both British English and American English. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support option B. Fewer changes to make and per Category:Organisations based in Haiti. Not an English-speaking country, so we should go with the commonest usage thus far. Commonwealth countries (including the English-speaking Caribbean) mostly favour the 's' spelling; US-influenced countries favour the 'z' spelling. Contrary to some claims, the 's' spelling has long been the norm in Britain and other countries; even Oxford University now prefers it, despite the OED's continued insistence on the 'z' version. The 'z' form is acceptable, of course, but they are certainly not on an equal footing. Claims that the 'z' form is more widely accepted are Americanocentric. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Why depart from the spelling of Category:Organizations to use 'organisation', which is definitely not acceptable in the US and Canada? The Haitian Times has 1160 hits for 'organization' and 19 for 'organisation', a more than equal footing, possibly due to the US occupation of Haiti from 1915-1934, or the more recent intervention from 1994-1995. (I expect Shakespeare would be surprised to be considered 'Americanocentric'.) Oculi ( talk) 16:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I don't know if you're aware, but Shakespeare died four hundred years ago! English has changed a lot since his day. Modern Commonwealth English overwhelmingly uses the 's' form. Your argument based on Category:Organizations seems to be saying we should use the 'z' spelling in all such categories, which is definitely not in the spirit of Wikipedia's non-insistence on any one variety of English. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Use 'z' until it becomes wrong (or not considered acceptable by the RfC or Cfd audience) at the country level. I am in the UK (well to the north of Oxford); 'z' was taught as correct (greatly preferable if one wished to be thought literate) in the 1950s and no doubt this is no longer the case. This gives a good summary. Anyway, why should Haiti use 'ise' which is definitely British English, rather than 'ize', which is an accepted variety of British English, with its own template {{ Use British English Oxford spelling}} with 1300 transclusions, and also correct US English? Oculi ( talk) 13:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I went to (public) school in the 1970s and 1980s, well to the south of Oxford, and I can't recall anyone telling me either spelling was right or wrong or being patronising enough to inform me that the 'Oxford' spelling was "greatly preferable if one wished to be thought literate". However, a look at the media will show that the 's' spelling is now greatly preferred in the UK and most other Commonwealth countries (with the notable exception of Canada, of course, but including those in the Caribbean adjacent to Haiti). Nobody is saying that the 'z' spelling is not an accepted variety of British English; however, hopefully nobody is saying that the 's' spelling isn't either or is arrogant enough to allege that the 'z' spelling is somehow the only correct one and those who don't use it are not fully literate. Given Haiti is not an English-speaking country I fail to see why either spelling should be preferred for articles about it. We should therefore go with the one that has been used most and especially with the one already used in the top-level category for that country. Otherwise we are in danger of being seen to claim either that the 'z' spelling is "correct" and the 's' spelling "incorrect" or that because America uses the 'z' spelling that should be the default on Wikipedia, neither of which are acceptable viewpoints on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Option A, use 'z' If there is an issue about local language variation it is about usage in Haiti. The idea that the Commonwealth has any influence over local spelling practice is a delusion. But, as I understand it, English is not much spoken in Haiti, so we should follow the top level category: Organization, because there is no local reason not to. Rathfelder ( talk) 12:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_June_23&oldid=912543269"