Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 6

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log

April 6

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:English palaeontologists --Kbdank71 17:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:English paleontologists

edit

Voting results:

"Rename to Category:English palaeontologists" (7): Dunc, Instantnood, Mel Etitis, VivaEmilyDavies, Iota, Guettarda, Grutness

"Keep" (1): Gene Nygaard

Consensus is to rename to Category:English palaeontologists.

palaeontology has 2 "a"'s i it. Same for the Scottish ones. One for a bot. Dunc|☺ 21:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So you think it should be moved to Category:English palaeontologists?
And, as 26,700 Google hits on "paleontology" in domain ".uk" tell you, that spelling is also used in the UK. So what's your point?
Futhermore, your emotional United States-bashing argument is based on facts not in evidence; a false assumption that this spelling is limited only to the United States. In Google, while the paleontology/palaeontology hits are only in a ratio of 1:2.5, for domain .ca (Canada) the ratio is the opposite direction at 4.1:1 in favor of paleontology, for example. On .nz, it's about an even split. Do we really need to survey each country, for their in print usage as well as their web site usage?
Overall Google ratio is 2,660,000 for paleontology vs. 314,000 for palaeontology, or 8.5 to 1 for the version with only one a. Gene Nygaard 20:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Er, sorry? Where did I become emotional, or 'bash' the U.S.? If you want to conduct the discussion at that level, I'll leave you to it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You most certainly implied, and intended to claim and for others to believe, a uniform, universal usage outside the United States and Liberia and whatever other English-speaking areas you would exclude from your definition of "Commonwealth." Do you still stand by your claim of "always used in the U.K."? Gene Nygaard 21:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
So who do you propose to do the research on "local usage" for all the various English-speaking countries? Are you going to take Belize? Does India count? How are we going to verify the accuracy of that determination by whomever? KISS! Otherwise it's all a bunch of nonsense, worthless as a finding aid if we have to guess whatever someone might have determined as the prevalent usage of each little precinct where English might be spoken. What would you guess for the Trinidad and Tobago Republic? For Ireland? --Gene Nygaard 18:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Or for Scotland, for that matter. Why should we presume that you are an expert on that, and just take your word for it? Gene Nygaard 18:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I might be mistaken, but I think palaeontologist is the Commonwealth spelling, while paleontologist is the US spelling. Does that simplify things? --Azkar 18:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's pretty easy to figure out how to spell these things. Americans use American English spellings. Most of the rest of the English-speaking world uses English English spellings. If there were any Trinidad and Tobago palaeontologists, they would spell it according the standard English spelling. The only real variant in spelling is American (although "z" is used for "s" in many cases where otherwise English spellings are used. See International English. Guettarda 18:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
With Google limited to "site:.uk" we get about 26,700 hits for paleontology and 66,200 hits for palaeontology, and only a few for palæontology. That's certainly room enough for there to exist regional variations within the U.K. itself, let alone some vague notion of a fictional "Commonwealth" standard. Let's see you prove that usage is not different in Wales from what it is in Scotland, for example. Then you can tackle Canada (a Commonwealth country) and the like. Gene Nygaard 19:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Gene, you forgot to add, "I'm right and you're wrong, nya nya." :) -Kbdank71 19:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If anybody is interested, the Oxford English Dictionary (which tries to establish the locality of different usages) mentions "paleo-" merely as the U.S. variant. Of course, U.S. variants then wind up being used in the UK (and elsewhere) too, but it's a matter of taste, not geography. Does anybody else smell a fish in the following logic: "Wales is part of the U.K. - however that doesn't mean that their regional usage of English is the same as British English. Since you haven't proven that it is the same in this instance, the obvious thing to do is assume they use U.S. English". :) I am going to warn you that there are a fair number of Brits who really dislike "paleo-", just like "encyclopedia" (in fact many Brits still haven't come to terms with "-paedia"...). Here's a suggestion: keep things as they are until someone complains. So rather than delve into a Canadian dictionary, lets leave Canada until somebody, probably Canadian, kicks up a stink. However, somebody has spotted that the UK usage is not being used for a UK category, and has complained that it is jarring. Fair enough, so why not move it? VivaEmilyDavies 20:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And the only one which still uses the encyclopædia spelling is a United States encyclopedia! That probably irks more than anything else. -- Gene Nygaard 20:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: See also the previous poll on transport and transportation. — Instantnood 15:19, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move: based on local usage. Iota 15:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Move (see my reply above). Guettarda 18:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I notice a lot of people are making the argument that since it's about English pal(pick your spelling of choice)ontologists, we should spell it like the English would. That would hold water if the only people who were going to view that category lived in England. We shouldn't get to spell something a certain way just because "they would spell it that way there". Unfortunately, aside from a redirect, I don't have an answer to this category. I'm personally ok with either spelling. And that's another thing we should consider. Is anyone going to be confused with either spelling? Not are they going to get their knickers in a twist, but will they be confused? If not, then the spelling shouldn't matter. -Kbdank71 20:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In a time of transition, there are often age-based differences as well. Old fogeys in the United States, as anywhere else, are more likely to use the palaeontology spelling than the younger generation are. The trend is toward dropping it. Gene Nygaard 20:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Move. UK category => UK (and other parts of the commonwealth) spelling. Grutness|hello?   02:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Thinking a bit more about it, I abstain and strike my comments above, as this whole discussion is idiotic. Unless there is some ambition towards consistency in either direction, I don't see the point. I would support moving all categories if such a proposal is made. / Uppland 06:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It is consistent now, or was when I looked at it, except for one duplicate in both spellings. Gene Nygaard 09:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Sure, that is why I don't really support moving one category (or just a few). / Uppland 09:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_April_6&oldid=1121861699"