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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Every subcategory of Category:Photography organizations is of blah-blah organizations, with a zed. There is no "color"/"colour"-style spelling contrast here: while "organisation" is indeed not used in the US (or used there only rarely), "organization" is correct and common in Blighty. A change in this context from "organization" to "organisation" is totally unnecessary and smacks of a underinformed attempt to liberate "British English" (itself a slightly odd concept) from a fantasized US influence. -- Hoary (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that User:Hoary is the creator of this category. With one exception every other sub-category of Category:Organisations based in the United Kingdom uses "organisations"; many of those categories were adjusted from "organizations" when a single spelling was rolled out for tall countries. The same renames have been applied to numerous other countries whose top category uses "organisations". There's nothing to indicate why photography should be an exception to WP:ENGVAR. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm proud to say that I created this category (and spelled it sensibly too). Two questions. First, do you claim that the spelling of "organization" with a "Z" is somehow un-British? If so, how do you square this with the choices made by the OED (as well as other British dictionaries)? Secondly, why should consistency with other British "organisations" (as Wikipedia rather quaintly spells them) be more important than consistency with other photographic organizations? -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. I have read this section of MoS. I believe that I have understood it, too. I also have some idea of "British spelling". Look, "organisation" is a British and only rarely a US spelling. "Organization" is also a British spelling, and incidentally the US spelling too. WP:ENGVAR says nothing about which of "organization" and "organisation" is preferable. Given the choice between the unexplained preference of some group of WP editors and the preference of the (unassailably British) OED, etc, I'll take the latter. -- Hoary (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I read it OED can be equated to "Old English", and not commonly used today. That leaves "isa" as the preferred use. In other words, if you are a British photographer and are looking at the cat you are likely to think it is spelled strangely if it is not changed. Apteva (talk) 03:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, OED = Oxford English Dictionary, not Old English dictionary. The OED doesn't leave "isa" as the preferred use. And the majority of the readers of WP are not British photographers. I suspect that British photographers (or anyway those whose photos are worth looking at) have more important things to worry about than the choice between two perfectly acceptable spelling alternatives. -- Hoary (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- "organisation" is the standard British spelling, and the appropriate one for a British category. "Oxford English Dictionary" is a work of perhaps 20 volumes and is the standard reference dictionary on the English langague in UK. It has gone through several editions since first produced in 19th century. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's British, it's S.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the main area where the OED stubbornly sticks to etymology over actual use but the predominant spelling in British English is ~ise. All the other British organisation categories use it and the longstanding convention of Category:Organizations by country is that consistency by country takes precedence over consistency by topic. There is no reason for photography to be an exception to this. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with much of what Timrollpickering says. And anyway, it's clear that he knows what he's talking about. ¶ As for some of the other comments above, they're extraordinary: "organisation" is the standard British spelling: British spelling of course has no legislated standards, but if we're talking about standards in the loose sense (whereby the standard way in which things were screwed in was clockwise, long before standards organizations wrote anything about the matter), then "organisation" is a standard spelling, "organization" another. ¶ It's British, it's S. Huh? (If this is an egghead's argument, what can a lowbrow argument look like?) ¶ Well, if everything British must be spelled the "standard" British way, and if the "standard" British way of spelling must be the British majority way (or, as I suspect, the British way that contrasts with the American way), then sure, go ahead. -- Hoary (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Think my view said all there is to say (see WP:ENGVAR) but sometimes people use a thousand words when just a few will do (see above)!!!--Egghead06 (talk) 08:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out above, I'd already read and digested WP:ENGVAR. Incidentally, the very next subsection is WP:COMMONALITY, which I recommend. It's about vocabulary (whilst, gotten, etc), but it could just as well apply to orthography (cf gaol vs jail). -- Hoary (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2012 (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:Royal Collection of the United Kingdom[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shows WP:Systematic bias, since other countries have Royal Collections. And there's a golf manufacturer by the name "Royal Collection" as well. So it's better where it is now. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The UK is not the only monarchy. It is likely that other kingdoms may also have a Royal Collection. Noth the Netherlands and Denmark, possibly also Sweden, have Royal Libraries. However Category:Royal Collection (United Kingdom) would be better. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
oppose. The main article is Royal Collection, but the category needs more disambiguating than the article. The current name, however, works just fine. - The BushrangerOne ping only 07:00, 30 August 2012 (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:Ambassadors of France to European countries[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as proposed. Exactly where do the USSR and Russia fit into this? Yeah, there are a lot of countries, but breaking them out by continent doesn't seem helpful to me. Mangoe (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is that they are categorized both as Asian and European countries. One of the downsides of categorizing national subcategories by continent is precisely that the bi-continental countries tend to be categorized in only one of the two categories and therefore harder to find. I can see an argument for breaking down by continent once the number of categories exceeds 200 but until then I see only advantages to keeping a single parent category. Pichpich (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge this is an unneccesary level of categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. Cleanup can be conducted through normal editing as needed. The BushrangerOne ping only 00:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While "Tourism" is a legitimate category denoting a facet of economy, "visitor attraction" is a WP:SPAM-like category, requiring subjective decision-making and is therefore WP:OR. An encyclopedia should not contain categories that are almanac-like or are promotional. Student7 (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – there is no point whatever in deleting this one in isolation. Has the nom not noticed that the phrase 'Visitor attractions' occurs throughout the subtrees? Oculi (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the problems cited can be fixed and it makes sense to have a category with this scope. The OR problems are overstated since the category functions mostly as a parent category. It's hard to argue against the idea that beaches, museums, entertainment districts, national parks, etc. are visitor attractions. Similarly, the national subcategories are also mostly containers for subcategories for which membership is trivial to determine objectively. Pichpich (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- not all visitors to attractions are necessarily engaged in a tour. They may be day-trippers. While I am not fond of the term "Visitor attraction", it is widely used and there are numerous "Visitor attractions in foo" subcategories, which need an ultimate parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I can't see deleting this per the discussion above, I do think we need to look at the contents. Generally a parent category should only be added if it applies to most of what is contained in the child category. So one could ask, does Category:Restaurants belong? Are most of the articles there really visitor attractions? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, subcategories should be looked at. In the case of restaurants, it all depends on one's understanding of "most"... Restaurants that have Wikipedia articles are typically either high-end restaurants or places of some historical or cultural significance. Arguably, all these are visitor attractions to a reasonable extent. Pichpich (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the general idea was to get rid of the pov parent and then rename the kids npov! Once we've done the former, the latter becomes a lot easier! Student7 (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename to Category:Tourist attractions. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:speedy merge. Non-controvesial cleanup of cut-and-paste category move per standards (same team with different name, latest name used). WP:NOTBURO. The BushrangerOne ping only 02:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. The Kansas City Wizards association football team rebranded to Sporting Kansas City in 2010. The article was duly moved that same year. Unfortunately, instead of moving the Wizards category, a new Sporting category was created, and the two co-existed. Since they are one continuous "franchise" and not two separate teams (it is worth noting that there is only one article for the three names the franchise has had), I see no reason why there should be two categories. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 14:36, 28 August 2012 (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.
