Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Organizations

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

While the "by country" categories are all using the American (and Oxford) spelling "organizations", the subnational and city-level categories are a mess of American and British spellings. The Universality Principle says, "The categorization structure should be as systematical and unified as possible, and local dialects and terminology should be suppressed in favour of universality if possible." The question here is whether local spellings count as "local dialects and terminology" or not. I had created {{Topic by country-gb}} as a stopgap for categories using non-American spellings, as {{Topic by country}} mostly uses American spellings. Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 16:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another question is how to deal with the categories using "organizations of" and the categories using "organizations based in". Country-level categories are using "of" and city-level categories are using "based in", while the intermediate regions are using either "of" or "based in". I have created {{Topic based in country}}, now we have to wait for @Joshbaumgartner. Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 16:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Based in" should simply be treated as a prepositional as per the template you created. Just as 'in' is a sub of 'of' structurally, so 'based in' is a sub of 'in'. I'll look into it a little more when I get a chance, but I think you made a good start. Josh (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 You are completely correct that the same spelling for organisations/organizations should be used across all localities, per the Universality Principle. Local spellings are absolutely covered by this, as realistically, spelling is the only way a dialect can be reflected in a category name. The only case where we would favor a particular local dialect (spelling) is where a topic is specific to a given locality, but the topic of organizations is universal, so whatever the parent category name is should be applied down through all uses of that term in categories. In this case, "organisations" should be replaced with "organizations". This is not illustrating a preference for any given spelling, but merely implementing universality. Of course, in any case where the spelling "organisation" is used as part of a proper noun/name, it should be retained as that is a different thing. Josh (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/11/Category:Theaters in New Zealand that several users were supporting the proposal to rename "theaters" to "theatres" for countries using British spelling. One user even claimed that local spellings don't count as "local dialects and terminology". I've pinged those users to continue the discussion here. Commons talk:Categories/Archive 4#LANGVAR in category names ? is another case of using local dialects. Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 02:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'm the "Soumya-8974" in that LANGVAR discussion. I had changed my username in 2022. Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 02:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"s" versus "z" in subdivisions

[edit]

Discuss about the spelling of "organi(s/z)ations" for subdivisions (countries, regions, cities, quarters) here. --Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 09:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a proposal (by me actually) to change policy to allow for more localization of terminology in geographically distinct categories. However, that was not adopted, and current policy is to apply the Universality Principle across all countries for topics not specific to a particular region. Organization and Organizations are universal concepts so Universality Principle applies those terms across all countries. If the parent categories were Category:Organisation and Category:Organisations then those would be the terms used across the board.
I am supportive of raising this matter again at Commons talk:Categories and soliciting as much participation from VP and other sources as possible. If a consensus can be achieved there to adopt new policy and change Commons category policies to permit localized spelling of universal topics, then that new policy should of course be applied to the nominated categories. However, adopting some version of this in the meantime, guerilla-style, is not the correct way to do things, and we should work within current Commons category policies until such a change is adopted. Josh (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale and Joshbaumgartner: — I want to hold all the CFDs related to ENGVAR for now, as I have made a proposal at Commons talk:Categories#Use of English varieties in category names. Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribsuploads) 14:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 That isn't a bad plan, we will simply carry on with the status quo until there is a resolution there, then depending on that conclusion, we can discuss any needful cases with that in mind. Josh (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"based in" versus "of" in subdivisions

[edit]

Discuss about the use of "based in" versus "of" for subdivisions (countries, regions, cities, quarters) here. --Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 09:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Of" is the current preposition used for Organizations by country, and I see no reason to change that to "based in". I also see nothing wrong with creating "Organizations based in ..." categories as sub-categories of "Organizations of ..." categories if there is a need to diffuse the "of" category based on the relationship between organizations and the given country.
As for cities and other levels that might not have an 'of' level implemented, I don't necessarily think we have to go create a bunch of 'of' categories just to build out the structure. However, as they grow, such 'of' categories can certainly be created to handle contents that 'based in' doesn't cover, such as a McDonalds in a given place. Sure the local store may be owned by a local franchisee, but McDonalds is certainly not based in every town it operates in. Thus if one wanted to populate an "organizations operating in Berlin" to hold a "McDonalds in Berlin" category, I don't see a problem with that. I don't know that is something we have the contents to support doing, but it shouldn't be a problem if we do. Essentially, I don't see a need to overhaul the city level categories as they are, but as they expand, they should fit the same hierarchy as the country categories. Josh (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner I agree with you. Let other users comment on it. Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribsuploads) 14:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 Yes, I don't think there is any way I could stop them even if I wanted to pursue such an ill-advised course. Josh (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]