Both “palaeontology” or “palaeontological” (British English) and “paleontology” (American English) are used in osm.
Without counting proper names, the British version is significantly more common (780 values) than the American version (10 values).
I suggest using only the British spellings “palaeontology” and “palaeontological”, adapting the wiki texts accordingly and changing the few values with American English.
For proper names and descriptions, the respective national language should of course continue to be used.
Counter-arguments, criticism or other suggestions are welcome. I will summarise the status of the discussion in about 10 days and propose a vote.
keys:
3 x palaeontological_site
values:
766 x geological=palaeontological_site
10 x natural=palaeontological_site
1 x geological=palaeontological
1 x tourism=palaeontological_site
2 x subject=palaeontology
1 x subject=geology;palaeontology
1 x museum=palaeontology
=783 (keys and values) in british english
values:
2 x historic=paleontological_site
1 x museum;paleontological;dinosaur
6 x museum=paleontology
1 x clothes=unique_tee_shirts;natural_history_designs;paleontology;marine_biology
=10 values in american english
I have not count values in keys like name, description, wikipedia, …
I became aware of this by working with museums that exhibit fossils.
Zusammenfassung:
Eine größere Diskussion wurde nicht geführt. Meinem Vorschlag und dem Beitrag von @dieterdreist folgend, sollten die 10 Ausreißer in AE-Syntax in BE korrigiert werden und weiterhin lediglich palaeontology als Wert verwendet werden. 5 Personen markierten das mit einem like, Gegenstimmen gab es nicht.
Summary:
There was no major discussion. Following my suggestion and @dieterdreist’s contribution, the 10 outliers in AE syntax should be corrected in BE and only palaeontology should continue to be used as a value. 5 people marked this with a like, there were no dissenting votes.