Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 23

< June 22	June 24 >

June 23

Category:Scottish peoples

Propose deleting Category:Scottish peoples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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]

Category:Tig Notaro

Propose deleting Category:Tig Notaro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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]

Category:Poker companies

Propose renaming Category:Poker companies to Category:Online poker companies

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]

what is b&m? Rathfelder (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I cant see any mention of offline poker in any of the articles. Rathfelder (talk) 07:30, 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]

Are the brick & mortar operations not adequately characterised as casinos? None of them seem to offer poker exclusively in the way that many of the online companies appear to do? Rathfelder (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion, create Category:Online poker companies under Category:Poker companies and check what is left in the parent category after manually populating the new subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religion in the Arab world by city

Propose deleting Category:Religion in the Arab world by city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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]

It is the other way around, Category:Religion in the Arab world by city is nominated for deletion, not Category:Religion in the Middle East by city. WP:OCLOCATION is the guideline that typically applies here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 27 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]

Merge (leaving cat-redirect) to Category:Religion in the Middle East by city, which is in practice covering exactly the same ground. IN theory north Africa is also part of the Arab World, but there are no articles in the subject which do not go in target. In fact all are already there, so that I could have said REdirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis Commissioner of Police

Propose renaming Category:St. Louis Police Department Chiefs to ???? (see options below)
Propose merging Category:St. Louis Commissioner of Police

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

Category:St. Louis Commissioner of Police to Category:St. Louis Commissioners of Police – C2A, cats are plurals Le Deluge (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Le Deluge Comment The main article of the category is Commissioner of Police of the Metropolitan Police Department, City of St. Louis, so this should probably be renamed to Category:Commissioners of Police of the Metropolitan Police Department, City of St. Louis. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging both to Category:St. Louis Metropolitan Police Commissioner. Category names are better for brevity. I have included "metropolitan" in this as it appears to be part of the title. I see no reason why an Acting Commissioner should not be included. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe Metropolitan Police Commissioner is a London/UK title; I haven't come across it in US articles. Even if it's right, did you mean to use singular rather than plural? – Fayenatic London 08:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peterkingiron: I believe US police only use "Metropolitan", if at all, as part of the name of the dept, "Metropolitan Police Department", not in the title of the chief. If we are going to use the full dept name when naming an article/category for the chief, then IMHO we should not repeat the word "Police"; cf. usage in the current Boston chief's article, "William G. Gross is the current and 42nd Commissioner of the Boston Police Department", even though he too has the title "Police Commissioner".[1] Therefore I have added Option F.
I now support Option F. – Fayenatic London 11:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Option D is the default option, because it matches the main article. I haven't seen any good reasons why we should deviate from that. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Marcocapelle: User:Tysports has repeatedly re-created this article at least four times at various names by copying-and-pasting the content. I merged the page history of four versions last month at the current name, but could have settled on a different name. Other past pages include Commissioners of the St. Louis Police Department & List of St. Louis Police Department Commissioners which apparently duplicated Template:SLMPD Police Commissioner and Template:SLMPD chief of police and were deleted per Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_1#Template:SLMPD_Police_Commissioner. So I don't think the current article name has much force in this instance. It is unnecessarily long, and therefore so is Option D. The article can be moved to match the final category name, e.g. List of Commissioners of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department. – Fayenatic London 09:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - With that information, I withdraw from the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 11 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]

@Tysports: are you going to help us choose one? – Fayenatic London 15:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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]

Keep In light of Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials and List of monument and memorial controversies in the United States, I think it is important to have a list of current military installations of the US military where the namesakes were high ranking officers of the confederacy.--rogerd (talk) 02:12, 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]

Then listification is the better option. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:34, 28 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]

Delete (possibly listify) as generally non-defining, not a good way to categorize (it's better to categorize e.g. by ___location) and per ample precedent e.g. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_15#Category:Colleges_and_universities_named_after_people. DexDor^(talk) 19:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Robert Bloch

Propose deleting Category:Robert Bloch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

Delete, after Anomalous+0's previous addition, the Works subcategory appears to be sufficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category Category:Films based on works by Robert Bloch cannot be placed in Category:Works by Robert Bloch category because the first one is about films and the second one is about literary works. These are parallel categories and they should be united by the category Category:Robert Bloch. Films cann`t be in the category of books.--Yasnodark (talk) 15:43, 15 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]

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]

Category:William Goldman

Propose deleting Category:William Goldman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --wooden superman 08:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The category probably should include Template:William Goldman and a subject this highly accomplished could very easily be the subject of an article List of awards and nominations received by William Goldman. I see the category having a useful future.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:07, 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]

Delete per WP:OCEPON. The works are already categorised appropriately. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category probably should include 1 article & 2 subcategoties, in my opinion this is quite enough and the reader can see them together in this category.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:25, 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]
Keep. I think having well over fifty articles and at least 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! 17:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nihonjoe above. Oculi (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fully Support Deletion - There is ZERO need for this category. Even the "other" subcat, Category:Films based on works by William Goldman, belongs quite properly in Category:Works by William Goldman, which I have just added as a parent. Ordinarily, I would have gone ahead and finished the job by removing the redundant parent, Category:William Goldman, but I left it there purely out of consideration for this discussion. The bottom line is, Category:Works by William Goldman 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) 10:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, after Anomalous+0's previous addition, the Works subcategory appears to be sufficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category Category:Films based on works by William Goldman cannot be placed in Category:Works by William Goldman category because the first one is about films and the second one is about literary works. These are parallel categories and they should be united by the category Category:William Goldman. Films cann`t be in the category of books.--Yasnodark (talk) 15:42, 15 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]

Organizations based in East Timor

Propose renaming under one of the following options:

Option A - "Organisations" to "Organizations" (Rename 8)

Option B - "Organizations" to "Organisations" (Rename 3)
Merge Category:Organizations based in East Timor to Category:Organisations based in East Timor Rename Category:Defunct organizations based in East Timor to Category:Defunct organisations based in East Timor Rename Category:Religious organizations based in East Timor to Category:Religious organisations 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]

Category:Joanna of Castile

Propose renaming Category:Joanna of Castile to Category:Cultural depictions of Joanna of Castile

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]

Category:Twin people from the United States

Propose merging Category:Twin people from the United States to Category:American twins

Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, the two categories have an overlapping scope. I have tagged both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Organisations based in Haiti

Propose renaming under one of the following options:

Option A - "Organisations" to "Organizations" (rename 16 categories)

Option B - "Organizations" to "Organisations" (rename 8 categories)

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]