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

• Propose merging Category:Postal history by country to Category:Philately by country

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 L ondon 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
    • Comment. Unfortunately, many dictionaries still use this old definition that does not reflect what philately is about currently and has been for the last fifty years. This is certainly not a definition that any major philatelic organisation would accept, though it was probably accurate about 100 years ago. The major organisation in the UK is the Royal Philatelic Society and in the US the American Philatelic Society, neither title themselves Postal History societies though the activities of both include as much, if not more, postal history as stamp collecting. I don't think it is safe to rely on outdated dictionary definitions. Possibly also there is some confusion between postal history by which I think the creators of those categories meant the history of postal routes, rates and methods, and the history of the postal system from an economic history perspective. In any case, few articles have been written so far about either postal history or the history of the postal system, assuming you can distinguish them. Philafrenzy ( talk) 10:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC) reply
      • We use "common names" not technically correct terms in wikipedia. If the dictionaries generally define the term in this narrow way, than this is probably the "common" understanding of the term, and we should probably reverse merge to reflect how the words are used by the masses. We do not bow to specific jargon in wikipedia and generally avoid it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
        • It is not the "common" understanding of the term amongst anyone who is involved in the area. The understanding amongst active stamp collectors, postal history enthusiasts and the like is that postal history is a part of philately. The term is not a piece of jargon, it is a normal English word that simply has a definition in most dictionaries that is about 50 years behind current practice in the area. Philafrenzy ( talk) 23:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
          • However common name means we do not bow to "experts" in a field. If dictionaries hold to a certain meaning of the term, than that is the common name. By being limited to a group of experts it is in fact jargon. That is exactly what jargon is. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:12, 9 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.

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

• Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Greater Vancouver to Category:Buildings and structures in Metro Vancouver
• Propose renaming Category:Electoral districts in Greater Vancouver and the Fraser Valley to Category:Electoral districts in Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley
• Propose renaming Category:Member municipalities of the Greater Vancouver Regional District to Category:Member municipalities of Metro Vancouver
• Propose renaming Category:People from Greater Vancouver to Category:People from Metro Vancouver
• Propose renaming Category:Populated places in Greater Vancouver to Category:Populated places in Metro Vancouver
• Propose renaming Category:Transport in Greater Vancouver to Category:Transport in Metro Vancouver
• Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in Greater Vancouver to Category:Universities and colleges in Metro Vancouver
• Propose renaming Category:Greater Vancouver stubs to Category:Metro Vancouver stubs
• Propose renaming Category:Greater Vancouver geography stubs to Category:Metro Vancouver geography stubs
• Propose renaming Category:Greater Vancouver school stubs to Category:Metro Vancouver school stubs

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

• Comment we have different articles at Greater Vancouver and Metro Vancouver, shouldn't this use "Greater Vancouver" instead of "Metro Vancouver"? It seems that the "main" category of "Category:Metro Vacnouver" should be a subcategory of Category:Greater Vancouver instead, with most subcategories and several topics moved to "Category:Greater Vancouver". (or you could just rename "Category:Metro Vancouver" into "Category:Greater Vancouver". -- 70.24.246.233 ( talk) 14:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Actually Category:Metro Vancouver is not properly named to start with, the legal name of the RD remains the Greater Vancouver Regional District and that should be the category (and main article) name, i.e. Category:Greater Vancouver Regional District with the Metro Vancouver article restricted to governance and subsidiary institutions and bodies; however WP:COMMONNAME-based decisions decided that the lead article would sport "Metro Vancouver" as its title; but if that were the case then equivalency should mean "Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Board" should be a category; but should only have articles in it related to organizations and objects under their governance, and not for geographic items (as with all RD categories/articles).
• Comment "C2C" would seem to recommend renaming the top category to become Category:Greater Vancouver, the opposite of the CFDS proposal presented in the collapsed section. (consistency with the hierachy would mean that it should be consistent with the preponderance of categories, which seem to be called "Greater Vancouver") -- 70.24.246.233 ( talk) 14:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment Investigating further, it appears that the parent category was renamed from Category:Greater Vancouver Regional District with little discussion at this June 2010 CfD, then reverted at this December 2010 cfd with more thorough discussion, and then earlier this week speedily renamed to match its 'main' article. Unless I am misunderstanding, this seems a bit like renaming/merging the category about the city of London into Category:Greater London Authority to follow the article on such. -- Qetuth ( talk) 07:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the speedy rename was faulty then. If there was a CFD on the naming of the category, then the CFDS should never have gone through without a new discussion -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 05:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep Greater Vancouver is a geographic area. Metro Vancouver is a governing body. To re-align certain categories such as People from Metro Vancouver would be incorrect. It would be like saying 'People from the Provincial Government of British Columbia' instead of 'People from the province of British Columbia'. Mkdw ^talk 19:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep all per Mkdw. The article on the area is Greater Vancouver, and the categories should follow that title. As others noted above, the parent categories also need attention: Category:Metro Vancouver should be a subcategory of Category:Greater Vancouver. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment very much agreed. and NB the Metro Vancouver category is where many of its insitutions go also, though some have no cats nor many articles yet Category:Regional parks in the Greater Vancouver Regional District of Category: Greater Vancouver Regional Parks as examples should not be Category:Regional parks in Metro Vancouver especially with the preposition "of".....and NB geographic categories e.g. "Lake in", "Mountains in" etc should be in the geographic category; I had quite the fight a while ago with someone from the US who was wanting to impose RD cats across the board for lakes, mountains and such (which are not governed by regional district boards unless part of regional parks); he'd assumed RDs were counties which are used as geographic entities in US categories. Skookum1 ( talk) 07:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep so it matches the parent article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:12, 2 February 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
  • • • • Stats reposting what I put on the Greater Vancouver talk page per WP:COMMONNAME "For statistical purposes, a google for "Greater Vancouver", has c. 5,950,000 hits, for "Metro Vancouver" has 2,180,000 hits. subracting "metro Vancouver" hits from the first google, that figure remains way higher, 6,280,000 hits, and includes many organizations using the "Greater Vancouver" name, from charities to companies and institutions......"metro vancouver" is a government/media creation and kinda "world-class city hype", clearly the term "Greater Vancouver" remains in greater use, and not just for references to the conurbation itself....." Skookum1 ( talk) 09:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Comment schools should be categorized by school boards, obvious enough....and they're not governed by the GVRD but under a separate system of governance.... Skookum1 ( talk) 07:51, 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.

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

• Propose deleting Category:Important Plant Areas in the United Kingdom ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Important Plant Areas in England
• Propose deleting Category:Important Plant Areas in Northern Ireland
• Propose deleting Category:Important Plant Areas in Scotland
• Propose deleting Category:Important Plant Areas in Wales

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

• Delete - nom's rationale seems reasonable and I am not convinced that the article "Important Plant Areas" is notable either. Ben Mac Dui 18:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- This seems to be based on the opinion of the charity Plantlife. This is essentially a POV category. Its reserves should be in a nature reserves category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete this is categorization based on one organizations arguments. We generally avoid such preferential treatment of specific organizations ideas. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:41, 30 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.

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

• Propose merging Category:Electronics terminology to Category:Electronics

Nominator's rationale: This category is currently under Category:Language, but the articles in it are not about language - they're about electronic components, electronic circuit theory etc. Some of the articles may include a bit of etymology or have a 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

• Split apart to Category:Electronics components (generic components), Category:Electronics parts (commercial parts, commercial discrete components), Category:Electronics concepts (inductor, capacitor, etc), Category:Electronics products -- 70.24.246.233 ( talk) 06:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment -- If the solution is to split, then the perso proposing that needs to add the new categories to the articles, as subcategories of the presetn one. When that has been done, it would be appropriate to eliminate this category by merging it with a parent, but you cannot expect the closing admin to so this. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• The most strongest oppose that I can muster for any merging and splitting. As with any topic area there is a set of terms that are used. Electronics is no different. Merging Category:Electronics terminology and Category:Electronics will also create a messy overpopulated category with a mishmash of pages. Have a look at the heirarcy or article in the two categories. They deserve separate categories. As for splitting there is room for a Category:Electronics components but note that there is a Category:Electrical components. There is a need to cull the two categories to a small degree. I will embark on that little task forthwith. Lastly, I agree that the electronics cat should not be in Category:Language. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 21:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply

If Category:Electronics terminology isn't for articles that are about subjects at the intersection of electronics and language (if there are any such articles) then what is the category for ? It looks rather like a miscellaneous category. DexDor ( talk) 23:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep / Clean up It looks like over half of the articles here are not terminology articles, but at least some terminology articles exist. A lot of others are likely in here because there isn't yet any better fitting category. I think there is something to IP suggestion of creating some new categories that better cover the contents and re-examining down the track, but this is probably better discussed at the category talk page or on appropriate projects. -- Qetuth ( talk) 22:29, 31 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 ( Quarter-wave impedance transformer for example). In my experience, "terminology" categories tend to become de facto 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 Magic smoke, Quasi-peak, 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. Sven Manguard 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 WP:CFD), an editor for whom the existence of the category makes them think that articles should be in it ("Terminology categories are used for terms associated with any particular topic. Reverting your edits ..." - i.e. not understanding the use-mention distinction) or an editor who objects to moving articles up from a de facto 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.

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 G4, and 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 L ondon 18:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Aviation terminology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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.

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

• Propose deleting Category:Snooker venues ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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.

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

• Propose deleting Category:2010 Commonwealth Games venues ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:2014 Commonwealth Games venues
• Propose deleting Category:2018 Commonwealth Games venues

Nominators rationale: per WP:OC#VENUES. DexDor ( talk) 06:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete: In these cases (not in the case of Category:Snooker venues), WP:OC#VENUES clearly does apply. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 10:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC) See below; I have changed this to delete after upmerge, as explained below after the "deletes" that agreed with my original; two later commentators gave a valid reason to keep a non-dated container category. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 13:14, 28 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

• Keep Almost all of the venues were purpose built for Commonwealth Games and are not covered by WP:OC#VENUES and even if covered the WP:OC#VENUES needs to be revisited and revised so that it excludes categories like Category:2012 Summer Olympic venues and Category:2010 Commonwealth Games venues. Shyamsunder ( talk) 23:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Clarification of my !vote: Delete separate, dated categories per OC#VENUES, but upmerge the contents to Category:Commonwealth Games venues (doesn't exist yet, but should have already been created as a obvious container category, just like Category:Summer Olympic venues, which is legit, but containing subcats like Category:2012 Summer Olympic venues, which should be deleted per OC#VENUES). A Category:Commonwealth Games venues would serve the need that Qetuth and Shyamsunder correctly observe, and which, like the snooker venues one above, would not violate OC#VENUES by being about a specific, dated event. The rationale for using and keeping Category:Commonwealth Games venues is pretty much precisely the same as that for Category:Snooker venues, and all other legit subcats of Category:Sports venues. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 13:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Listify and upmerge changing vote per SMcCandlish. The games have changed name a few times, I think it is convention that we would put all together in the category of the current name? My major concern is that a connection to other venues of the same C.Games/Olympics is something it is reasonable to think readers might be interested in. The impressive Venues of the 2010 Commonwealth Games has convinced me a list achieves this better than a category, but I think it should be done somehow. I also still do not think OC#VENUES is as clear on this issue as most others here do, and could do with revision. -- Qetuth ( talk) 07:56, 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.

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

• Propose deleting Category:People with synesthesia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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.

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 L ondon 17:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Images of Olivia Newton-John ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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.

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

• Propose deleting Category:Sneaky Sound System ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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

• Keep The category contains three subcategories, albums, album covers and songs, with 19 articles and 13 files between them, five articles: the band's article, the band's discography, a band member's article, a record label created by the group and that record label's discography and the band's template, so there is not "too little content." Three subcategories, five articles and a template should be enough to keep the category. Aspects ( talk) 06:15, 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.

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

• Propose renaming Category:Indian skeptics to Category:Indian sceptics
• Propose renaming Category:Pakistani skeptics to Category:Pakistani sceptics

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
  • I've done the searches you outline above but I'm getting totally different results than those you set out. My results are about even on both spellings in both countries except for Pakistan, where the "c" version is well ahead on some of the searches. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Good Olfactory is demonstrably not doing the searches correctly. I'll prove that with search results links I cannot falsify:
            [Numbers checked and found consistent in three different browsers as of this writing. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 12:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)] reply
      1. site:.in Indian sceptic = 2,800 results (rounded) vs. site:.in Indian skeptic = 4,800 results – that's a 1.7 to 1 ratio in favor of k, even in the basic, non-derivational form, in India, using a search string that weeds out most quotations of non-Indian sources and other stuff that doesn't clearly apply to skeptics in/of India.
      2. site:.pk Pakistani sceptic = 22,600 results, vs. site:.pk Pakistani skeptic = 8,450 results – a 2.7 to 1 ratio in favor of k in Pakistan, similarly narrowed to weed out false positives that don't actually pertain to Pakistan.
      3. site:.in sceptical = 51,800 results, vs. site:.in skeptical = 87,100 results – a 1.7 to 1 ratio in favor of k in India for a derived adjective form.
      4. site:.pk sceptical = 8,600 results, vs. site:.pk skeptical = 12,200 results – a 1.4 to 1 ratio in favor of k in Pakistan for an adjectival derivative form.
      5. site:.in sceptics = 97,300 results, vs. site:.in skeptics = 251,000 results – an overwhelming 2.6 to 1 ratio in favor of k in derived plural noun form in India.
      6. site:.pk sceptics = 4,940 results, vs. site:.pk skeptics 7,180 results = – 1.45 to 1 ratio in favor of k in derived plural noun form in Pakistan.
      7. site:.in scepticism = 13,500 results, vs. site:.in skepticism = 21,500 results – a 1.6 to 1 ratio in favor of k in another derived noun usage in India.
      8. site:.pk scepticism = 19,700 results, vs. site:.pk skepticism = 22,700 results – a 1.15 to 1 ratio in favor of k in the corresponding derived noun usage in Pakistan (and closest to what proponents of this move would incorrectly expect for India, not Pakistan!)
      9. site:.in sceptically = 4,790 results, vs. site:.in skeptically = 18,800 results – a massive 3.9 to 1 ratio in favor of k in an adverbial derivation in India!
      10. site:.pk sceptically = 407 results, vs. site:.pk skeptically = 720 results – a 1.8 to 1 ratio in favor of k in an adverbial derived usage in Pakistan, but probably not statistically significant.
      11. And so on. Same results for "unsceptically" vs. "unskeptically", and other uncommon constructions, in both .in and .pk., but probably not statistically significant.
      12. Narrowing the results even further by excluding substring matches, e.g. with "site:.in scepticism -sceptic", etc., results in the same pattern of 1 or 2 to 1 ratios in favor of the k spellings in both countries.
      13. Because a) the basic forms "sceptic" and "skeptic" are more common than derived forms like "scepticism", "unskeptical", etc., and b) the c spelling was formerly dominant in the British Raj, and c) many older documents have been digitized, it's simply a fact of basic mathematics that "sceptic" by itself turns up a lot more frequently in unqualified searches: site:.in sceptic = 154,000 results, vs. site:.in skeptic = 20,900 results, a long-term, vague and over-broad search result ratio of 7.4 to 1 in favor of c in India.
      14. However, most Raj-period records remain in India; Pakistan split away from India a new, independent nation, and consequently abandoned most of its pre-Pakistan documentary heritage to Indian archives. This is the obvious explanation for why the corresponding "wide-net" search for Pakistan gives opposite results: site:.pk sceptic 5,090 results, vs. site:.pk skeptic 18,800 – a ratio of 3.7 to one in favor of k in Pakistan, but again the search is misleadingly overbroad. At any rate, the point is that the "site:.in sceptic" search results are hopelessly, overwhelmingly polluted with obsolete data from old government and other archival documents, and period publications like newspapers, written in Raj-era British English, being increasingly digitized and made available online at .in websites.
      15. As a final point of basic math, if we add up all these stats including the misleadingly pro-c one, for India we get: (2,800 + 51,800 + 97,300 + 13,500 + 4,790 + 154,000) = 324,290 c, vs. (4,800 + 87,100 + 251,000 + 21,500 + 18,800 + 20,900) = 404,100 k – It's a ratio that is still 1.25 to 1 in favor of the k spelling of "skeptic" and its common derived words in India today, despite being falsely skewed toward c by old Raj-era data! That's the end of the argument, right there. [NB: The combined ratio for Pakistan is even more pro-k.]
    • Even if these results were about even, as Good Olfactory incorrectly suggests, this would still demand a result of "no consensus to move", since it would disprove the idea of ENGVAR being a factor! I don't care what the headcount is of kneejerk !votes from people who didn't do any research or didn't do it properly; any admin who can read will close this in favor of keeping the current names because the facts clearly demonstrate that it's not an ENGVAR issue, or perhaps even that it is one, in the opposite direction of the suggested renames! This entire nomination and its support is a case of WP:ILIKEIT, propped up by blatant original research that's been proven false for the most part, and simply improperly conducted where it hasn't been falsified. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 12:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
      • I click on the links you provide, but I don't get the numbers you claim above. For instance, on the link that you say yields 22,700 hits, I get 6,240. Similar differences on most of them. Some I get less, some I get far more. Almost none do I get close to the number you provide. I've tried this from multiple IPs based in different countries and always get different results that those above. Colo(u)r me unconvinced. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. It is a straightforward WP:ENGVAR issue, the UK spelling being sceptic. (I'm not convinced that one can successfully use google stats to discredit the use of google stats.) Oculi ( talk) 00:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment it doesn't matter how the UK spells things, since both India and Pakistan have their own English varieties, so we should go by local spelling. -- 70.24.246.233 ( talk) 06:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Further comment: And if it were, they'd both use the same spelling, since Pakistani and Indian English are equally related to British English; cf. the very first search results for "site:.pk skeptical" - it's from Defence.pk, using a c not an s in that work but favoring the k spelling of "skeptical", as I have clearly proven that a clear majority of online-accessible sources prefer in both Indian and Pakistani English. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 12:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comments – @70.24.246.233: And I've just demonstrated that the "k" spelling is preferred in both. @Oculi: You're confusing a tool with the technique used to wield it. Of course proper use of Google, as with any tool, can outperform improper use of the same tool. This is why we have licensed contractors build houses instead of small children who are old enough to swing hammers. Simply repeating "It's an ENGVAR issue", without demonstrating that it is, after I've already debunked the idea that it's an ENGVAR issue, is not a valid XfD argument (it's called WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). Since you raise the claim that "sceptic" is in fact "the" British spelling, please prove that with citations to reliable sources. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skeptic?s=t draws on many dictionaries; of all those it cites, only one (a minor one, Collins, published in Scotland) suggests that "skeptic" is a particularly American spelling; all others give them as interchangeable. This is insufficient evidence of an ENGVAR-level disagreement between varieties of English, to the extent that UK vs. US would be relevant to India vs. Pakistan to begin with, which others here have questioned. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 20:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • This is what the OED says about the spelling difference: "The spelling with sk- ... occurs in the earliest instance, and has been used occas. by later writers. It is adopted without comment or alternative in Johnson's Dictionary, but did not become general in England; in the U.S. it is the ordinary form. Now usually spelt sceptic in the U.K. and British Commonwealth and skeptic in the U.S. Similarly all the derivatives, scepticism/skepticism, etc." India is in the British Commonwealth. As far as UK English goes, it's also relevant that the entry is under "sceptic" rather than "skeptic". The OED actually has its entries for the "z" vs "s" words like "organisation"/"organisation" under the "z" spellings, even though many claim the "s" version is the true UK English form. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
      • That appears to be in error. In Canada, you do not find dominance of "c" over "k", but the entry says "British Commonwealth". Does this only refer to the colonial holdings of Britain still leftover (or recently remaining) (ie. not anything gaining independence before 1990) ? -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 05:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
        • Indeed, the OED frequently makes errors of assumption of the breadth of influence of "the Queen's English", and is often not particularly reliable for non-British usage newer than about two or three generations ago, because it is infrequently and only partially updated, and has had very little non-British editorial input, even in recent years. I also already demonstrated that with the derived forms ("skeptical", "skepticism", etc.) the k spellings are overwhelmingly preferred in both India and Pakistan! What we are seeing here is that the c spelling used to be "standard" in British English, and thus in English used in Asia; meanwhile, the influence of American media dominance, for better or worse, has had a strong shifting effect on the spelling of this an other worse outside of the UK proper; the basic usage (just "sceptic" or "skeptic") is more common than derivations (like "scepticism", "skepticism", etc.), thus multiplicatively more likely to misleadingly turn up in general search results (due to older, more strongly British-influenced sources being included in large numbers, once upon a time always favoring the c spelling including in India), but this is outdated data; and, finally, allegedly reliable sources like various dictionaries have not actually caught up to the facts. The idea that c vs. k here is a current, extant, UK vs. US ENGVAR matter, and on top of this that even if it were that it's demonstrably an India vs. Pakistan issue (when both, furthermore yet, got their English from the UK, not the US!) is a totally untenable, and unprovable, steaming pile of original research and prescriptive wishful thinking. PS: Good Olfactory's OED data actually supports what I initially said: The k spelling is the original in English, including British English, and the c version is a recent corruption of it (due to Victorian obsession with Latin as the "perfect" language, if you really want to know). Given that approximately zero British people do not know what "skeptic" with a k means, there is no reason to favo[u]r the c spelling outside UK topics, barring new evidence of an "anti-k resurgence". (Disclaimer: While I am a bi-coastal American citizen, I learned to read and write in England and have also lived for extended periods in Ireland and Canada. I am intimately familiar with multiple English dialects and am not wedded to any one of them in particular, and I regularly edit British topics in British English.) PS: The tens of thousands of cases of "skeptic" and derived forms with a k, reported above, just from India and Pakistan alone, prove that OED's claim that this spelling is only used "occas[ionally] by later writers" post-Johnson is an unadulterated falsehood. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 10:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
          • One can't win in circumstances such as these. "Provide a source". Source provided. "The source is wrong!" Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nominator and Oculi. Zia Khan 02:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I've debunked the positions of both. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 20:11, 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:PERNOM and 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.