The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedia neurology articles ready to translate. Parent Category:Wikipedia medicine articles ready to translate was renamed here. (non-admin closure) ―Qwerfjkltalk 17:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:RTTNEURO to Category:Wikipedia neurology articles ready to translate

Nominator's rationale: See parent Category:Wikipedia medicine articles ready to translate which was renamed here. Gonnym (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:52, 18 July 2021 (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: rename. bibliomaniac15 00:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:RTTID to Category:Wikipedia infectious disease articles ready to translate

Nominator's rationale: See parent Category:Wikipedia medicine articles ready to translate which was renamed here. Gonnym (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:53, 18 July 2021 (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: rename. bibliomaniac15 00:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:RTTEM to Category:Wikipedia emergency medicine articles ready to translate

Nominator's rationale: See parent Category:Wikipedia medicine articles ready to translate which was renamed here. Gonnym (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:52, 18 July 2021 (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. bibliomaniac15 00:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Kings of Naples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, duplicate of the much better populated Category:Monarchs of Naples. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Pointless duplication. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Duh! —05:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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: merge. bibliomaniac15 00:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:1727 in English cricket to Category:1727 in England
• Propose merging Category:1732 in English cricket to Category:1732 in England
• Propose merging Category:1737 in English cricket to Category:1737 in England
• Propose merging Category:1744 in English cricket to Category:1744 in England
• Propose merging Category:1794 in English cricket to Category:1794 in England

Nominator's rationale: Amended from delete to merge. These five 18th century cricket categories will have only a single article left following this merger. The articles are: 1744 English cricket season, Articles of Agreement (cricket), Kew Cricket Club (occurs twice) and Westminster v Charterhouse, 1794 which are already members of Category:English cricket in the 18th century and so will not be impacted by the proposed upmerge. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Why have only these categories been nominated? There are many more 18th-century sibling categories with the same issue. If not kept, merge to Category:1727 in England etc. rather than delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Not actually the same issue. The siblings become empty as and when each season review article is merged and are then deleted by bot. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok let's then wait with the categories until the merge of the articles has been concluded. There is no need to rush. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no need to wait. These are exceptions which will be deleted or merged eventually so why not action them now? No one is rushing. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would be confusing if we would have a gap in 1794 while the adjacent categories still exist, even if that situation is only temporary. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, Marcocapelle, I agree to leave 1794 till I reach it (1732 is next, as it happens). See also below. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion - the merger proposal was nodded through by 2 or 3 participants, and redirects should have been left in categories. This proposal is highly defective as it takes the article out of entire trees: Category:1727 in English cricket should be upmerged to all the relevant parents, viz ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:1727 in cricket, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:1727 in English sport, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:1720s in English cricket (and these need to be nominated separately if the intention is to upmerge further). Oculi (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Oculi, I suggest you read WP:MERGE. Are you seriously suggesting we retain 130-plus categories which each contain a single redirect only? WP:PROMERGE stipulates that everything (italics in source) is replaced by the redirect notice. Everything includes categories. Nowhere does it say categories must or should be retained. The merger was proposed, discussed, amended and passed by three participants. How many people "nod through" the typical CfD? 3 or 4, perhaps? No Great Shaker (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:1727 in cricket, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:1727 in English sport, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:1720s in English cricket will after merging have the same problem as Category:1727 in English cricket, so I can understand that nominator chose not to propose merging to the immediate parent categories. But it should still be merged to Category:1727 in England. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly, it would cause confusion and inconvenience. A merger to Category:1727 in England and equivalents will be just fine so I'm changing my preference to merge (see nomination). Thank you again for your help, Marcocapelle. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For now, support amended proposal for 1727 and 1732 per discussion above. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Should I withdraw the nominations for 1737, 1744 and 1794 to be dealt with when their turn comes in the sequence? If we are agreed on merging as the solution for 1727 and 1732, then this establishes a principle that can apply to the rest in due course. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If these are being merged, shouldn't they be also merged to Category:1727 in sports/Category:1732 in sports? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, bypassing the English sport cats which will also be empty. I agree. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I also agree. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge No annual category in the 18th century has more than two articles, usually a just season article. The proposed merger is appropriate, but also merge this and all siblings to Category:Cricket in England in 18th century or something like that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron, do you mean Category:English cricket in the 18th century? I agree with your suggestion. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2021 (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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Shreveport Sports (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category for defunct baseball team that has only one entry and one subcategory. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. The sole article will not be impacted by removal of this category. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2021 (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: not renamed. bibliomaniac15 00:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Women centenarians to Category:Female centenarians
• Propose renaming Category:Men centenarians to Category:Male centenarians

Nominator's rationale: Grammar fixes. I feel that to be using the labels "women" and "men" before the occupation for a majority of category pages sounds like a misuse of grammar and poorly-written English. I would actually recommend nominating every single one of these category pages for renaming. I nominated Category:Women centenarians and Category:Men centenarians just as a starter. 20SS00 (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. Firstly, there's no grammatic problem with the current names; secondly, by making them "female" and "male" means that we're extending it to include non-humans. Do we include the male Tu'i Malila and female Harriet? Grutness...wha? 09:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, women and men are used more often nowadays due to sex and gender distinction. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - this has been discussed many times before, such as 2013 April 27#Women/Men or Female/Male as an adjective. I would agree that 'men' is not usually used an an adjective, but 'women drivers' has been a common phrase for decades. Oculi (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per Grutness re non-humans. I sympathise with the nom to some extent because "men" is in no way an adjective and "women" (although widely used as in "women drivers" as the classic example) is derogatory. Perhaps Category:Centenarians (women) and Category:Centenarians (men)? No Great Shaker (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could support that, though it's not really in keeping with other gendered categories on WP. Grutness...wha? 12:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. "Women fooers" is widely used in contemporary English, and hence poses no grammatical problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete living to a certain age is trivial and non-defining.--User:Namiba 21:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so, Namiba. See Centenarian: this particular age has special cultural significance in many countries, is widely celebrated, and in many cases it is defining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being blond has special cultural significance in many countries and is widely celebrated too. As is being bald. According to WP:TRIVIALCAT, "For biographical articles, it is usual to categorize by such aspects as their career, origins, and major accomplishments. In contrast, someone's tastes in food, their favorite holiday destination, or the number of tattoos they have would be considered trivial." One's age is a physical characteristic, not part of one's career or origins. The age to which one lives is non-defining except in the most extraordinary circumstances.--User:Namiba 13:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't centenarian extraordinary? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There are many kinds of extraordinary physical characteristics, none of which we use to categorize human beings. Having hundreds of tattoos is also extraordinary. Moreover, if you look at the first four entries to Category:Men centenarians, none of them even note their centenarian status. How can something be defining if it is consistently not even mentioned in articles?--User:Namiba 11:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair point, I have checked women too and the articles do not prominently mention the centenarian status. Apparently only supercentenarians are extraordinary. Delete after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. "Women fooers" is widely used in contemporary English, and hence poses no grammatical problem. --Just N. (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Namiba and Marcocapelle. Especially, the intersection of gender and longevity seems trivial (especially for women, which form the very large majority of centenarians). Place Clichy (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose women and men are the accepted terms for adult humans. All centenarians are by definition humans so this makes sense. There are huge differences in life expactancy for men and women, and the factors that cause these differences are very much sex specific (up until about 1900 <I could be off by a few decades> women had a lower life expactancy, but this was entirely driven by deaths from child birth, a woman who lived past her child bearing age had a much higher life expectancy than a man of the same age, so it makes sense to seperate this by sex. This is by sex, since much of the effects is that men are biologically more likely to die from certain diseases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2021 (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: merge. bibliomaniac15 00:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Naval battles involving the Duchy of Gaeta to Category:Duchy of Gaeta and Category:Naval battles of the Middle Ages
• Propose merging Category:Naval battles involving the Duchy of Naples to Category:Military history of Naples and Category:Naval battles of the Middle Ages
• Propose merging Category:Battles involving the Duchy of Amalfi to Category:Duchy of Amalfi

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one or two articles in each of these categories, of which one article in all three categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2021 (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: Rename There is a weak consensus to rename these templates. Objections based off WP:ENGVAR have been noted. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Political party colour templates to Category:Political party color templates

Nominator's rationale: Consistency. Some categories, such as Category:United States political party color templates, use American English. Inconsistency prevents the use in templates. American English is preferred here as the naming scheme for the templates categorized is /meta/color, so the current naming is inconsistent with that and unexpected. It makes more sense to rename these categories than the templates (as there are far more templates than categories, and renaming the templates would have far more potential for breakage). Elli (talk | contribs) 02:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and survey (Political party colour templates)[edit]

add your comments and !votes here

• Oppose and possibly procedural keep. A real trainwreck of a nomination. Many of the countries nominated use the word colour. Others have colour because they are in Europe or Africa, where the British spelling is often used in Wikipedia. Others are in Asia and the Americas, where the non-Commonwealth speaking ones probably should have color, because we tend to use that on Wikipedia. But in all cases, unless there is a definite local usage, these were named by the creator, and Wikipedia's "first come, first spelt" rule applies. Propose these separately, and it'll be easier to yay or nay them individually, but there are too many which should have "colour" here to even begin to consider this as a batch nomination. Grutness...wha? 06:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Grutness: I'm sorry, but the point is consistency. I honestly wouldn't mind switching these all to "colour" - though I think the reasons I have laid out make it clear why "color" is preferable - but we should use the same naming for every country, regardless of what the local engvar is. These aren't content categories, they're maintenance categories - being able to programmatically generate the name is a useful property this scheme currently lacks due to inconsistency. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  They are consistent... with the local language usage. Check WP:ENGVAR. See also other cases where spelling or word use various from country to county, like ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Association football clubs by country, etc. Their usage for automatic name generation is irrelevant - and very probably easily dealt with since there are only two possible spellings. I'm pretty sure the templates in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Association football navigational boxes by country are used in that way with no problem. Grutness...wha? 09:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure you're understanding my goal here, and I'm fully aware of ENGVAR. I'd like to be able to add these categories by passing a single parameter to a template - it makes sense to name them consistently. And again, every template is named with /color. It does not make sense to have that be inconsistent. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, this is not a choice between consistent and inconsistent but rather a choice between one form of consistency (within the maintenance tree) versus another form of consistency (within every country). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, for consistency. The value being stored in these attributes in not "colour"; in every case it is "color".
  The nominator's case is poorly made: this is not about using one national variety of English. It is about naming the categories after the pages which they group, i.e. /meta/color templates, which are themselves named after the Web colors which are specified in CSS as "color".
  Note especially that these are not content categories: they hold only templates, and are not intended only for internal use by Wikipedia editors, rather than by readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. The nom insists that consistency is the point because they prefer the American spelling. I could claim that "colour" is correct because I prefer Category:United Kingdom political party colour templates (the red one, anyway). However, Grutness is right that the "first come, first spelt" rule applies and the references to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Association football clubs by country are valid in that context. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @No Great Shaker: the nom's rationale was silly to tie this to one variety of English. The reality is that because the CSS attribute is spelt "color", that is the spelling used in all but 5 of the 569 UK templates: see https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=19557585. (The 5 exceptions are Scottish series which for some reason exist despite being just transclusions of the /meta/color templates: see the 5 at https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=19557798).
    This nomination renames the categories to match the spelling of the pages they contain. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename per BrownHairedGirl. This has nothing to do with an attempt to prefer one English variety over another, but instead is making these categories' names reflect their contents, which are all "color" templates by virtue of including the word "color" in their names (even in regions that don't use American English) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename per BrownHairedGirl. --Just N. (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per No Great Shaker and Grutness Newystats (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Newystats: can you please explain why you think their rationales were convincing? These categories are named differently from the templates which they contain, all of which are spelled "color". There are categories spelled both with "color" and "colour", so if we want these to be accessibly systematically, some must be renamed. Are you opposed to these being able to be accessed systematically? Or do you think the ones named with "color" should be renamed to "colour", even though all the contained templates are spelled "color" and the underlying property is "color"? Elli (talk | contribs) 17:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because the name of the category should match the WP:ENGVAR relevant for the country of that category.Newystats (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The general principle of category names is that they should follow the names of their contents and of similar categories. Both those factors support using "color". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- This is an Engvar issue. There is no priority for American English. There is no reason why the American spelling should not be used (or retained) where it is the normal for of English (Phillippines Liberia and the Americas). This is the normal ENGVAR solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Peterkingiron: did you actually look at the categories? Every single one contains templates spelled with "color". Spelling the categories "colour" makes no sense. The property contained is "color". This is not an engvar issue but one of consistency and accuracy for something which is not reader facing but maintenance. Opposing this makes maintenance harder, not easier, for no benefit at all. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The CSS code is appropriately localised (to the appropriate ENGVAR) in the name of the category. Newystats (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth does that mean, @Newystats? In every case, the CSS attribute is "color" ... so in what way is the CSS code "localised? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 'category' is localised, which is why it is different to the CSS. Newystats (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So your statement that the CSS code is appropriately localised is in fact, complete nonsense. Thanks for clarifying that.
The CSS is spelt "color". The templates are spelt "color". Who exactly do you intend to help, and how, by using a difft name for the categories? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose As it has been pointed out above, these are maintenance categories used by editors rather than content categories used by ordinary Wikipedia readers so what's the harm in using the British spelling? Is it actually causing additional work for editors? How is it making maintenance harder?--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Obi2canibe: it makes maintenance harder in two ways:

1. by making it difficult to use templates or automated tools to populate the categories. Consistency of naming makes automation much easier.
2. by confusing editors who use the categories and/or templates: all but 5 of the templates are called "color", but some of the categories which group them are called "colour".

How on earth does that mismatch help anybody?

If the UK templates were called "colour", then there would be a good case for speling the categories the same way. But they are called "color".

And if you look for example at Category:United Kingdom political party colour templates, it it is not part of any series of UK "colour or "color" templates. So there Marcocapelle's point above about the intersection of two conventions does not actually apply: the only convention here is "color". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it actually causing additional work for editors? I don't enjoy dealing with categories - the only reason I made this nomination was because this naming inconsistency impeded my other work. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This being a maintenance category and to be maintained primarily thru automation. This is not something that a random user who clicks on the search result and lands on WP would see anyway. Not even the regular editors who edit the articles and use the talk pages would have any kind of usage of this level of maintaining category. Automation is computer code, which requires a level of consistency for easier maintenance. Surely, one can put all the cases, but that's just extra unnecessary work and uses effort in digging down all the spelling variations. The ENGVAR is supposed to help readers by using the localized language and not an adherent for maintenance, which is an internal behind-the-scenes thing. Since they categorize meta/color which is spelled to be in sync with CSS' color, which is what one has to write in computer code, and not their national variant of English; the preferred spelling for the category would be to use just that, for consistency. I couldn't answer why W3C decided to use the American variant, and not a British or the other, but we ended up with color. -- DaxServer (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as this is just an ENGVAR issue, and it really is not necessary to change the spelling to the American variant.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jackattack1597: did you review the other comments left here? This is explicitly done to make maintenance easier. The inconsistency is confusing and makes maintenance harder for absolutely no benefit to anyone. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:04, 18 August 2021 (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.