October 25
Category:Chutiya kingdom
- 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; merge contents to Category:History of Assam. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Category with only 5 articles, linked to long term abuse ( WP:CHUTIYA). Guy ( Help!) 23:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep or upmerge to Category:History of Assam. Plain deletion will remove the articles from the tree of Category:History of Assam which does not make sense. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- Upmerge: Agree with Marcocapelle should be merged in to the History of Assam section. Not a needed category; the larger category serves the purpose. Gotitbro ( talk) 03:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Organizations based in Sweden
- 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 to option A.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
00:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Organizations based in Sweden to Category:Organisations based in Sweden
- Nominator's rationale: Harmonize spelling of organisation within category. There are 52 categories within Category:Organizations based in Sweden including the word 'organiszation', roughly equal numbers using organisation/organization. I propose that a decision be made on this matter: Option A or Option B. Oculi ( talk) 23:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Support option A - the present spelling has been stable since before 2006, when it was moved at cfd from ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Swedish organizations. Since then editors should have used 'organizations based in' when creating subcats. Take note @ Rathfelder: who has created most of this structure, using 's' or 'z', 'in' or 'based in' seemingly at random. Oculi ( talk) 08:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Why exactly do we want to impose uniformity of spelling in countries which do not use the English language? Rathfelder ( talk) 08:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Because of WP:C2C " Consistency with established category tree name. Bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree". The established convention, decided by consensus at cfd in 2006, is Category:Organizations based in Sweden. The way to change the convention is to establish a new consensus at cfd, which is what I am endeavouring to do. Oculi ( talk) 11:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- This creation a few days ago of Category:Swedish propaganda organisations by Rathfelder is taking anarchy to new extremes, using a convention 'Fooish' abandoned in 2006, as well as using 's'. Oculi ( talk) 11:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Propaganda organisations are often, for obvious reasons, not based in the country of origin. I'm following that hierarchy. I'm not sure I'd regard either of the articles in the category as properly described as propaganda organisations. Rathfelder ( talk) 18:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Two of the three articles are about websites. They may not be based in Sweden, but they aren't an organisation either (at least not described as such). I would suggest to move them to Category:Propaganda in Sweden. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- Will do. NB I didn't create this 'Fooish' usage - it was already there. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Why does the country hierarchy take preference over the subject hierarchy in countries where there is no local usage to consider? Rathfelder ( talk) 18:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- By long-standing consensus routinely ignored by Rathfelder. Oculi ( talk) 14:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Option B -- According to my Swedish dictionary the Swedish word is "organisation". Furthermore, Sweden is in EU, one of whose official languages is English - British English. This will continue to be the case after Brexit as Republic of Ireland will still be in EU. We should not be blindly following what the creator of the parent chose. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- Option A -It seems to be, that as there are more editors from the United States, as a result of the sheer size of the country, it would be best to keep it as 'organizations'. In this way, the chances for something of the sort reappearing again in the future when someone makes a category with the other spelling are reduced, as the spelling for A is accepted in both nations, but B is only used in the UK. We should standardize articles in such a way that we are less likely to have to go back to this again. SuperChris ( talk) 18:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- I would like to discuss this "long-standing consensus". It means that we have uniformity in country categories, but in the subject categories we have an unhelpful mixture of organisations and organizations. In countries where there is local usage to consider I can see some sense in it, but I doubt if any Swedish people care how we spell it. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- There cannot be uniformity in the subject categories as the UK (with many others) uses 's' and the US (with many others) uses 'z'. There can and should be uniformity in each country category. I am perfectly content with either 'z' or 's' (but not a mixture) in any country subcat. Oculi ( talk) 23:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- According to the Oxford English Dictionary spelling with a z is perfectly acceptable in British English. Rathfelder ( talk) 12:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- I dont see why uniformity in country subcats should take preference over uniformity in subject subcats. When was that decided? Rathfelder ( talk) 12:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- As I have just stated above, uniformity in subject subcats is impossible; there is no chance whatever of getting consensus for 's' over 'z' or vice versa - we have 3 different positions from 4 editors for Sweden above. Uniformity in country subcats is possible. If you are supporting 'z' then Option A is the way to go for Sweden. I agree that 'z' is acceptable in the UK: see Oxford English. Oculi ( talk) 13:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- Just to note a common misunderstanding that just because Oxford uses "z" the rest of the UK would think it is wrong or an Americanism. MilborneOne ( talk) 14:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- I dont regard uniformity in country subcats as an objective worth the effort. It just leaves the other subcats in a mess. The only desirable objective is to achieve consensus on spelling "organizations". Rathfelder ( talk) 12:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- The editor who has introduced nearly all the 'organisations' into these intersecting 'organization' trees is one Rathfelder: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Perhaps Rathfelder could back 'organizations' (ie Option A) in this single category as a small step towards 'z' throughout (and use 'z' in future, rather than scattering s and z at random). Oculi ( talk) 22:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- I will happily do that if we are going to have a proper discussion about using 'z' throughout. The reason I dont always conform to the country usage is that I am generally working from the subject heirarchy and for countries like Sweden there is no obvious way of telling which spelling is used. The point I want to make is that there is no gain in imposing uniformity by country if it leads to the opposite in subject heirarchies. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- Option A, use z. Even though I use s in my personal writing, I would favour Wikipedia categories moving to use z throughout, for predictable consistency. Until that is agreed, we should only use s where there is a very strong national case for doing so. – Fayenatic London 11:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Happy to go with Fayenatic. How do we raise the wider issue? Although its probably true that s in more used in British English z is clearly acceptable. For countries where English is not the main language I cant see why the spelling would be an issue. Our case is that inconsistency in spelling organisation is unhelpful - there is no perfect answer - but agreement on organization would be better than what we have now. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Hindu saints
- 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: do not merge.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
00:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Hindu saints to Category:Hindu religious leaders
- Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, these are religious leaders no more and no less than those who are Category:Hindu religious leaders. The use of "saint" is ambiguous in this case because that term usually applies to people who are venerated after they died. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - see Hindu saint. Such a person may or may not have been a religious leader. Oculi ( talk) 09:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- I am also okay with a reverse merge if the use of "Hindu saint" terminology is preferred. The fact remains that the type of articles does not differ between the two categories. In theory saints may not need to be religious leaders, but in practice they are at least perceived as religious leaders by their followers. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Religious leaders are not all saints and vice versa. Neither is a subcat of the other. No merge will work. Oculi ( talk) 18:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- For example, what is the difference between Sathya Sai Baba, an Indian guru, spiritual leader and philanthropist in Category:Hindu saints and Udiya Baba, a Hindu saint and guru in Category:Hindu religious leaders? Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Some will be both, of course. The 2 sets are not disjoint. Oculi ( talk) 23:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- You probably missed my point. The so-called saint has been put in the religious leaders category, while the so-called religious leader has been put in the saints category. In Hindu context the overlap is so big that we merely confuse editors by keeping two separate categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep E.g. Sai Baba of Shirdi was a Muslim, whom a Hindu group has chosen to worship, creating a widespread popular cult. He was not a leader of Hindus, and I suspect not engaged in syncretism between Islam and Hinduism. I would not oppose a rename if someone can come up with a more authentic term. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep A saint is not a religious leader. The main article on saints mentions rishi as the equivalent concept in Hinduism. Inspired poets, seers, and sages. Dimadick ( talk) 15:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hindu saints provides the following synonyms: gurus, sadhus, rishis, swamis. I would be okay with any of these terms in the category name, just want to stress that articles in both Category:Hindu saints and in Category:Hindu religious leaders are exactly about these type of people. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.