Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 25

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< January 24 January 26 >

January 25

Category:Postal history by country

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge and redirect. This appears to have been partially set up and then abandoned in favour of the fuller topic. Most sub-cats have only one member and are already nominated for upmerging to all parents. Many more articles "Postage stamps and postal history of Foo" are already in Category:Philately by country. I suggest we leave a category redirect to guide future editors against re-creating this cat. – Fayenatic London 17:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The two are separate topics. Postal history is about the history of the postal service which was in existence long before the the first postage stamp (of 1840). It should be a reverse merge with 'Postal history' being the main topic. Having said that I have looked at the UK tree and that is just a jumble so probably best just to merge unless anyone wants to properly separate the two topics. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If not, reverse merge -- Philately is about the study of stamps. The hisotry of the organisation of the postal system is a larger subject. Several countries had postal systems long before the invention of the first stamp in 1840. It may be that some articles need moving from philately to postal history. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with the nominator's suggestion. The major article for each country is already titled "Postage stamps and postal history of X" so postal history is hardly being ignored. Some of those articles have detailed treatment of the pre-stamp postal history of the relevant country. In addition, philately, as understood by major philatelic organisations today, embraces postage stamps, postal history and aspects that have nothing to do with the postal system at all such as revenue stamps and savings stamps so philately by country is clearly a valid upper category. I support the retention of separate postal history categories under "Philately by country" where there are sufficient articles to justify them but a large category structure purely for postal history is not warranted by the number of postal history articles created so far. In the meantime the Philately by Country structure is the most usable one and enables more effective cross linking of articles by allowing users to see everything philatelic relating to one country in one place. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge "Postal history" is a more clear name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to our article on philately, it is "the study of stamps and postal history and other related items", in other words, postal history is a component of philately, not the other way round. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My copy of The Concise Oxford Dictionary has 'Philately: Collection and study of postage stamps', that suggests the article needs rewording. The two are closely related so possibly best to reverse merge to Postal history by country. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:08, 5 February 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.

Metro Vancouver

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, and overturn rename of Category:Greater Vancouver.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article of these categories is
Metro Vancouver and the main category of this entity is Category:Metro Vancouver. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
copy of discussion from
WP:CFDS
Oppose
Metro Vancouver lead starts "is the brand name[3] of the political body", whereas Greater Vancouver lead is a geographic region "roughly coterminous" with GVRD, which is one of the "corporate entities" composing Metro vancouver. It is not clear to me that a brand name for a local governing body, is appropriate as a name for geography or 'in' or 'people from' categories. Also quoting the Metro article: "The name of the physical area governed by the organization remains the Greater Vancouver Regional District." --Qetuth (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • KEEP and Strongly oppose renaming. As noted by others, Metro Vancouver refers to the governing body (and isn't even the name of the actual regional district; BC Names has resisted pressure from the board). Many, many companies and organizations have "Greater Vancouver" in their name, it's not just the property of the GVRD board aka Metro Vancouver. Greater Vancouver Parks and Recreation also retains that name; Metro Vancouver is only in use by the board, and by the media who advertorially use it as the GVRD is one of their largest ad contracts. Wikipedia should not be used for rebranding efforts; Category:Greater Vancouver is also part of a a separate Category:Geographic regions of British Columbia category and series of region-articles, which are entirely different than regional district articles/categories. This category is about the REGION, not the regional district government and its various sub-bodies...and it's even MORE wrong to try and align the electoral district articles by regional district, anywhere, completely different part of how BC is governed/subdivided.....see Talk:Greater Vancouver for the parallel discussion where I dug up the googlenumbers; "Greater Vancouver" far outweighs "Metro Vancouver". Enough with the rebranding campaign OK?Skookum1 (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apparently Category:Greater Van couver was deleted without my noticing, in 2006 when I was still active....by a one-man decision - like the CFS for Category:Greater Vancouver Regional District (now a 'soft redirect' page, not advisable and ill-considered/ill-informed and should be restored forthwith, for all the reasons above by me and most others.Skookum1 (talk) 08:01, 12 February 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:Important Plant Areas in the United 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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That an organisation thinks an area is important is not a
WP:DEFINING characteristic of that area. This could be listified to the article at Important Plant Areas, but there may be little point as the linked EL has the full list. DexDor (talk) 07:15, 25 January 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:Electronics terminology

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, but purge of articles which are not actually about terminology, even if this leads to the category being emptied. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is currently under
poorly worded lead, but very few, if any, of the articles in the category are about a subject with language as a defining characteristic. In effect the category is being used as a miscellaneous category for articles whose titles are terms used in electronics (the category has recently been renamed from "Electronics terms"). I've previously removed several articles (whose titles are terms used in electronics and other areas) from this category as electronics wasn't a defining characteristic. Similar subjects (Category:Optics, Category:Hydraulics etc) don't have a terms/terminology/miscellaneous category (there is Category:Computing terminology, but I think there may be a few articles in that category that are about language). Note: After the upmerge any redundant "Category:Electronics" tags should be removed. DexDor (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
If
miscellaneous category. DexDor (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Are there actually any terminology articles in this category ? There are no articles whose title indicates that they're about terminology (e.g. by ending in "(term)") and many that are obviously not about language (
miscellaneous categories and are used instead of creating new subject-based categories. I examined every one of the 600+ articles in the "Aviation terminology" category and didn't find any about language. DexDor (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
My random checking of articles before I voted found at least one I thought would qualify as a terminology article, and several borderline cases. But no idea what it was now. I'll go through tonight now a bit more thorough (and actually write down what I find this time), but another issue of course is that there is no clearly defined metric for what is and isn't a terminology article, at least not that I've seen people agree on. --Qetuth (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, quickly checking some browser history indicates the source of my "some terminology articles exist" claim were likely
Dropout (electronics). TRIA and Upright position (electronics) could qualify as well, but the articles don't say enough to be clear either way. Rereading these now and checking more, I think it is obvious that a more restrictive definition of what is terminology would eliminate all, and also that articles with any argument to being terminology articles are a distinct minority. Considering the tendency of terminology categories to collect misc junk, I am striking my keep unless someone can demonstrate that there are a reasonable number of articles that are unambiguously "Electronics terminology" or that there is a reliable and sensible definition of what articles do and do not fit --Qetuth (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I've tidied up the TRIA article - it's now at Transmit and receive integrated assembly and not in this category. Some of the others in your list may need similar treatment. DexDor (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The problem isn't the category, the problem is that people have put things that shouldn't be in the category in it. Fix that and you're fine.
    Wha? 18:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The "terminology" category could be removed manually from all the (approx 190) articles in the category that aren't about language and then when that's done (and the category has approx 0 articles) submit another CFD. That will take time - especially if there is resistance from an editor who thinks it is wrong to empty a category without going through CfD (e.g. "Please do not remove any more. You will pretty nearly empty the category if you carry on...", possibly based on an interpretation of "do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision" and "out of process deletions" at
miscellaneous category as the articles "don't belong at that level of prominence". Some terminology categories have many hundreds of articles in them and it would take much longer to manually edit every article than to check a large enough sample to be pretty sure that there are very few (if any) language articles in the category. Doing it the slow way may mean that these categories are created faster than we can kill them - for example the "Aviation terminology" category was cleaned out circa January 2012, recreated and deleted in November 2012, recreated and deleted in January 2013
.
Even if there are a few articles that could legitimately be in the "Electronics terminology" category I'm still in favour of deleting the category because it's such a magnet for articles being categorized by article authors who don't understand categories (and sometimes even by categorizers who don't seem to read beyond a badly worded lead like "Foo is a term used in electronics. It refers to ..."). Hence, (IMO) this (and many other terminology categories) is a "generally bad idea" (a term used in
WP:CFD) mainly because of articles being placed in it instead of in the appropriate category. DexDor (talk) 19:55, 5 February 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:Aviation terminology

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 delete
WP:SALT this time as suggested at the previous CFD. I have checked the contents that were recently added by the the editor who re-created the category,[1] and they are are all otherwise categorised within Aviation. – Fayenatic London 18:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: (this category is currently empty) While there are many articles about aviation whose title is a term I've never yet seen an article about a subject that is at the intersection of aviation and language. This category has previously been deleted. DexDor (talk) 06:42, 25 January 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:Snooker venues

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.
WP:SNOW. The Bushranger One ping only 01:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: per
WP:OC#VENUES. DexDor (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: Nominator did not notify Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker; I have since done so. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 19:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious keep: WP:OC#VENUES does not apply here, unlike in the Category:2018 Commonwealth Games venues, etc., cases (below) since the snooker category isn't tied to specific events but like the entire Category:Sports venues by sport tree, of thousands of articles, it is based on the purpose (or at least an overwhelmingly notable use) of the venue, consistently over time. Just because the categories have "venues" in their names doesn't mean OC#VENUES automagically applies to them; the actual logic of that guideline has be to examined as it relates to any category to which one might wish to apply it. PS: This category is bigger than it was when I last looked at it, and it's possible some more "venue by specific event" rather than "venue by long-term use/purpose" venues have been added and should be removed. I've added descriptive text to the category to hopefully forestall any additions of that sort in the future. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 10:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The problem isn't the category, the problem is how the category is used. Having a category for snooker venues is perfectly logical for the
    World Snooker Academy (where the qualifiers are held throughout the year) and South West Snooker Academy (a special purpose snooker arena); I would also say it would be acceptable for venues such as the Crucible Theatre which is best known for hosting the Snooker world championship (which it has done on an annual basis since 1977). It should perhaps be taken off articles such as Blackpool Tower, which hosts a snooker event for just two days a year, and is generally a venue that is more utilised for ballroom dancing. Betty Logan (talk) 11:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Comment The Blackpool Tower has also hosted five World Snooker Championships (1950, 1951, 1952, 1955 & 1956), the first UK Championship in 1977. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – as SMcCandlish says.
    Oculi (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep -- but it shoudl be limited to (1) dedicated snooker venues (2) other venues where events have regularly been held for a significant number of years. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SMcCandlish. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:48, 26 January 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:Commonwealth Games venues

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: relisted at CfD 2013 February 1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators rationale: per
WP:OC#VENUES. DexDor (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: It would be fair if you nominate cats in Category:Summer Olympic venues too for deletion at the same time for wider discussion. Shyamsunder (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Too late, and should be separate anyway because the scope is different (not a specific multi-day event in one year, but a seasonal series of such events for a long period of time (88 years - the Summer and Winter Olympic Games were first split in 1924). — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 19:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How scope of say Category:2012 Summer Olympic venues is different from Category:2010 Commonwealth Games venues. Can you please elaborate your reply.Shyamsunder (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say they were different. I indicated that Category:Summer Olympic venues and, to adopt your example, Category:2012 Summer Olympic venues have different scopes, the latter subject to WP:OC#VENUES clearly, the former not so clearly if at all. (I'm inclined to argue that Category:Summer Olympic venues is not subject to OC#VENUES, but it's a different argument than those, pro or con, for Category:2012 Summer Olympic venues, so it should be a separate nomination if someone wants to make it one). Now that you point out that Category:2012 Summer Olympic venues exists, it and other dated categories like it c;early violate OC#VENUES and should be deleted after upmerging to Category:Summer Olympic venues. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 13:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – again per SMcCandlish.
    Oculi (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete fails rules for categories on venues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
    WP:OC#VENUES clearly applies. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose
    WP:OC#VENUES may apply technically, but I do not think in spirit. The majority of notable Commonwealth Games venues are built, or given major renovation and expantion, specifically so they can be Commonwealth Games venues, making it defining of those venues, something which is definitely not covered by the examples given at the guideline page. Are those voting delete arguing that OC#VENUES supports the deletion of the Category:Olympic venues tree also, otherwise what distinction are they making between the two? --Qetuth (talk) 08:09, 27 January 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 with synesthesia

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: relisted at CfD 2013 February 1. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining trait for the most part. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for the time being. While the people in this category are not famous for the fact of their synaesthesia, it has in many cases certainly contributed to their art and therefore their fame. Happy to hear arguments to tip the balance. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I actually think we should get rid of all the "people with x" categories, they are just inherently problematic. What if someone develops a trait long after they were famous. It would be odd to categorize them by having something they did not have when they were notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 26 January 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:Images of Olivia Newton-John

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: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 17:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty container. (Formerly contained Category:Olivia Newton-John album covers.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I added a bunch of fair use concert and movie posters that have her image on them. They weren't very hard to find. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn Good... has fully populated the category. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯
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:Sneaky Sound System

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: relisted at CfD 2013 February 1. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two categories of content (which are interlinked) and one for non-free media--too little content for an
eponymous category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:01, 25 January 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:Indian skeptics

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. I will create Category:category redirects for the alternative spellings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. India and Pakistan generally use UK-English spellings as opposed to US-English spellings. I suggest category redirects on the US spellings to assist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Oppose Support "Indian sceptics" "sceptic"(185k)[2](18k) ; Oppose "Pakistani sceptics" "skeptic"(18k) "sceptic"(5k) -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename This is a straightforward
    WP:ENGVAR issue. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Objection to speedy: It most certainly is not an ENGVAR issue, much less one that goes the way the anon suggests, as I prove below. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 10:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: "Sceptic" is a corruption of "skeptic"; no reason to use it when the original is perfectly intelligible. Better Google stats show that the anon's conclusions above are false, and that the "k" spelling is overwhelmingly preferred in both countries! Even if this were an ENGVAR issue (it isn't), the preference in both cases would be for k not c. The fact that an extremely vague and over-broad Google search turns up results that seem to favor one spelling for one country and the other spelling for the other is one of many examples of why
    WP:GOOGLE was written - over-reliance on the output of one particular search engine without deeply understanding its limitations and vagaries leads to fallacious conclusions. If you use more specific searches, e.g. "site:.in Indian sceptic" vs. "site:.in Indian skeptic" and "site:.pk Pakistani sceptic" vs "site:.pk Pakistani skeptic", the results are the exact opposite of what the anon above reported and which Koavf then supported as if it were conclusive. Searching for "site:.in sceptical" and its variants shows that the k spelling leads by about 20% in both India and Pakistan. Swapping in the plural "skeptics" vs. "sceptics" shows about a 40% higher preference for the k version in Pakistan, while India favo[u]rs the k version by a hair short of 300%! The only narrowed case where the c spelling is preferred is "scepticism" vs. "skepticism", for unknown reasons, and it was preferred in both India and Pakistan; this skewed the anon's results – Google does substring matching). Actually I read that backwards; even in this case the k spelling leads in both .in and .pk! Finally, the implied idea that India generally simply does not recognize the k spelling is silly. All competent English speakers know both spellings. See http://www.indiansceptic.in/ (note the c), the metadata of which has it show up in Google as "Indian Skeptic" with a k and the homepage of which makes boldfaced reference to Indian Skeptic (with a k again), their print magazine. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 10:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Rename per nom. It is a straightforward
    Oculi (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Rename per nominator and Oculi. Zia Khan 02:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname per nom -- as far as I am aware Indian English normally follows British English. The pronounciation is the same. In England is si not a homonym with septic. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: See
      WP:IKNOWIT. Nominator's rationale has been shown to not be supported by the statistics anyway [nor by Good Olfactory's OED followup], and what you believe your "awareness" of Indian English to be doesn't have anything to do with this rename discussion. Also, your last sentence is not actually a sentence; if you were trying to suggest that "skeptic" and "sceptic" are different words in England, feel free to demonstrate that with citations to reliable sources (see above; I've shown that the majority of dictionaries, as cited by the online definition aggregator dictionary.reference.com, do not support such a distinction). — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 20:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Oppose its seems that the sk spelling is at least as common, it is clear there is no strong case that would make renaming imperative.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per
    MOS:ENGVAR. This is a case of Indian and Pakistani English following British English. Etymological studies (for example online, see Grammarist or English Language & Usage) make it clear that both spellings were in use prior to standardised spelling, but as spelling became standardised 'sceptic' became prefered, with Amerenglish
    breaking away to 'skeptic' around 1910.
Comparative spelling is an example where the
WP:GOOGLETEST
can be misleading. While statistics can be suggestive of one option or another, they require additional types of evidence for interpretation. For example, the Google test will oftentimes favour the American spelling, when more reliable sources (newspapers, academic papers, etc.) may not.
I think here we need to accept the evidence of etymological studies over and above the Google test. --Andrewaskew (talk) 02:45, 29 January 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_January_25&oldid=1090391063"