Category talk:Labour relations organisations

Contested deletion

This category should not be speedy deleted as being unpopulated, because... (it takes into account organisations that exist in countries that do not use American spelling. There is no consensus to use "labor" over "labour". Even the international spelling is "Labour" (e.g. International Labour Organisation) --Bookscale (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the point. Global categories such as Category:Labor are never duplicated with categories using alternative spellings; Category:Labour is a redirect. A local Australian subcat (if any) would correctly use 'Labour' eg Category:Labour in Australia, Category:Organisations based in Australia. The (global) category is Category:Labor relations organizations (following Category:Labor and Category:Organizations, organization). Category:Labour relations organisations has to be a redirect if it exists (but you blanked it for some reason). You could take Category:Labor relations organizations to cfd and suggest a rename, but there is little chance it would succeed. Oculi (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why? it's inconsistent with the international spelling! Bookscale (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because of Category:Labor and Category:Organizations and consistency of spelling of category names at the global level. Australian articles will not necessarily have categories with Australian spelling, cf Tim Cahill. US articles will not necessarily have categories with US spelling; eg Ohio River Bridges Project is in the global Category:Transport controversies whereas US uses transportation. Oculi (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was a cfd proposal to change Category:Labor to Category:Labour back in 2013 which I see I supported, in vain. Oculi (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]