Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 20

< March 19	March 21 >

March 20

Category:Beast Wars video games

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Beast Wars video games to Category:Transformers: Beast Wars

Nominator's rationale: Seems like an instance of especially specific categorizing. Izno (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Transformers: Beast Wars. Salvidrim! 01:09, 22 March 2012 (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.

US Xth Amendment case law

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 remove "Xth Amendment", and add "Clause" and caps per article names, but to leave "United States" in place. So target names: Category:United States Double Jeopardy Clause case law and Category:United States Citizenship Clause case law. Closing both of these together as many of the concerns concerned both categories. - jc37 01:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Fifth Amendment double jeopardy case law

Propose renaming Category:United States Fifth Amendment double jeopardy case law to Category:Double Jeopardy Clause case law

Nominator's rationale: Rename. All these cases concern the Double Jeopardy Clause. If that name is sufficiently unambiguous in the article space, it is even more so in the category space where brevity is at a premium. See Category:Clauses of the United States Constitution and Category:United States constitutional case law by clause. Savidan 18:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support More succint and follows existing format for US Constitutional clauses. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This is about US case law and should say so. The double jeopardy rule applies generally in all common law jurisdictions. It might become Category:United States double jeopardy clause case law. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a pretty straight-forward nomination to rename the category from the general Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution to the more specific Double Jeopardy Clause. It sounds like your concern is with the underlying article name rather than the category nomination per se. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Much simpler. Neutrality^talk 00:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose the concept of a "double jeopardy" applies inmany different jurisdictions, and the proposed rename creates massive ambiguity.
The nominator is wrong to say that category titles are more tolerant of ambiguity than articles; the reverse is true, because a) ambiguous category names lead to miscategorised articles, which can be hard to monitor; b) the category title is displayed at the bottom of an article or in its parent category without any explanation or clarification, and often without context. A category name needs to do exactly what it says on the tin ... and while the current categ name does just that, the proposed new name doesn't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other jurisdictions have "double jeopardy" but not a "Double Jeopardy Clause" necessarily. Just as they have the concept of separation of church and state, but not an "Establishment Clause." Or privileges and/or immunities but not the Privileges and Immunities Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Google Scholar search for "Double Jeopardy Clause" confirms. Savidan 22:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legally, every single one of these cases falls under the Double Jeopardy Clause specifically not the Amendment in general so the proposed name is more precise. I understand the conern that the broadly used naming convention in a well established tree follows the names of articles that you think should be renamed. Normally the horse (main article) leads the cart (category) though. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this category needs to clearly indicate that it is about US case law, the proposed rename does not do that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Fourteenth Amendment citizenship case law

Propose renaming Category:United States Fourteenth Amendment citizenship case law to Category:Citizenship Clause case law

Nominator's rationale: Rename. All these cases concern the Citizenship Clause. If that name is sufficiently unambiguous in the article space, it is even more so in the category space where brevity is at a premium. See Category:Clauses of the United States Constitution and Category:United States constitutional case law by clause. Savidan 18:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support More succint and follows existing format for US Constitutional clauses. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Category:United States Citizenship Clause case law might be appropriate: There are at least 190 separate citizenships in the world. If sibling categories do not include US, they should be renamed to do so. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a pretty straight-forward nomination to rename the category from the general Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to the more specific Citizenship Clause. It sounds like your concern is with the underlying article name rather than the category nomination per se. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the rename makes the category massively less specific. It removes any explicit connection the the United States, let alone to the 14th amendment.

The article will retain that name unless and until it needs to be disambiguated wrt other article(s), but the category needs to clarify its purpose to avoid miscategorisation of pages related to citizenship in other jurisdictions. Generic terms without disambiguation may work as article names, but they are a disaster in category names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Much simpler. Neutrality^talk 00:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose the concept of a "citizenship clause" could be applied to many different jurisdictions, and the proposed rename creates massive ambiguity. I can think of several legal provisions in both Ireland and UK which could be described as a "citizenship clause".
The nominator is wrong to say that category titles are more tolerant of ambiguity than articles; the reverse is true, because a) ambiguous category names lead to miscategorised articles, which can be hard to monitor; b) the category title is displayed at the bottom of an article or in its parent category without any explanation or clarification, and often without context. A category name needs to do exactly what it says on the tin ... and while the current categ name does just that, the proposed new name doesn't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please be more specific about the competing candidates for "Citizenship Clause"? I am not familiar with any, and a Google Scholar search for "Citizenship Clause" reveals none. Savidan 00:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Citizenship clause" is a generic term which can be applied to any legislative or constitutional provision in any jurisdiction that distinguishes between citizens and non-citizens. This category is specifically for case law relating to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and it should be named to explicitly reflect that. As Peterkingiron points out, there are at least 190 different citizenships in the world, and it is bizarre to assume that the term "citizenship clause" would be used for only one of them.
This search throws up examples of its non-US usage, such as "Citizenship clause & statelessness" from Nepal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even under your search (the first link), which excludes the term "United States," the majority of the results are about the clause of the U.S. 14th Amendment; many of the others are jibberish. Hence the weakness of a google search vs. a google scholar search. Your second link contains "Citizenship clause" (note the lower case) in the title but does not contain this phrase, or even the word "clause," anywhere else in the article. This seems more like a typo than anything else. Can you be specific about what, other than the clause of the 14th Amendment, is referred to as the "Citizenship Clause"? While any jurisdiction could have a "Citizenship Clause," the relevant question is whether any non-US jurisdiction does. Savidan 22:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good question in article space, but with a category the relevant question is whether the term is sufficiently unambiguous to convey it purpose to readers and editors, and thereby avoids miscategorisation. See for example CfD 2008 February 17, where the closer note he consensus that "Naming should always be based on clarity for the readers". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Miscategorization is extremely unlikely given that there is no other Citizenship Clause. Savidan 12:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of other citizenship clauses. It's just that wikipedia does not have standalone articles about them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please name a single other one and provide some evidence that it is referred to as the "Citizenship Clause." I won't even attempt to hold you to your claim of "plenty." Savidan 17:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name If there are other Citizenship Clauses, the article name is vague and should be changed. I think it would be more productive to propose renaming the entire tree than opposing valid additions to the topic area on an ad hoc basis. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Savidan. First example is the Nepali issue linked above; a discussion around whether there should be a citizenship clause in a new constitution.

Second example is Irish land ownership law, which before we joined the EU restricted the right of non-citzens to own land.

But the real issue here is simple. Are you really, seriously trying to claim that the concept of a "citizenship clause" arises only in the context of the US constitution?? Really? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finally figured out a search which would give some useful results: "A citizenship clause". 47 hits on Google Scholar, and 17 hits on Google News and 717 hits on Google Books. Some of those results do relate to the 14th Amendment, but most of them are about the generic concept of "a citizenship clause".

Some examples:
Proposal to add a citizenship clause for newspaper ownership in India

citizenship clause in the new constitution in Zambia

Post-communist restitution and the rule of law: the use of a citizenship clause in relation to property restitution claims in the formerly communist states in Europe

Canadian Welfare legislation does not always include a citizenship clause

consideration of adding a citizenship clause to the Australian constitution

The Woman Citizen: "IN South Dakota where the suffrage clause is combined with a citizenship clause, a vote for the citizenship amendment will be ..."

A Texas suffragist: diaries and writings of Jane Y. McCallum "In addition to the provision permitting women to vote, the suffrage amendment included a citizenship clause proposing that the filing of "first papers""

Former Hawkeye Hansen Anxious For Jazz Return: "The Jazz contend Kofoed violated a citizenship clause in his contract"

1910 Washington notes in relation to Puerto Rico: "The bill, it Is understood, contains a citizenship clause giving to the people of the Island much the same advantages as now enjoyed by the Hawaiians"

Sense and nonsense in Australian history: "The progressive liberals tried and failed to write a citizenship clause into the new federal constitution"

Plenty more examples if you want them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These examples pretty borderline. While they are citizenship clauses in the abstract sense (and you have managed to find a single source that puts the words in that order: "citizenship clause"), none refers to itself as "Citizenship Clause" (capitalized). I.e. none is prominently known by this name, or even referred to by this name alone. Contrast this with the 1000+ articles on google scholar which refer to the citizenship language of the 14th amendment as the "Citizenship Clause." The prospect that there would be a category about case law interpreting these articles seems extremely remote. To wit, there is not a single article about a single case interpreting any of these "clauses." These would not suffice to require Citizenship Clause to yield in the article space, and in my view the argument is no better in the category space. Others can judge for themselves. Savidan 17:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation alone will not reduce ambiguity. The question of whether or not the US 14th amnt is the primary topic in article space has not yet been tested, because nobody has yet written an article on the generic concept of a citizenship clause or AFAIK on other such clauses ... but the fact that "citizenship clause" is demonstrably a generic concept will lead to miscategorisation if it is used unqualified as the name of a category relating the US constitution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this category is about US law, the proposed new name does not make this clear. Category:Citizenship clause case law of the United States might work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2012 (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.

Category:United States Jehovah's Witnesses case law

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:United States cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States Jehovah's Witnesses case law to Category:United States cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There is no "law of Jehovah's Witnesses." These cases involved Jehovah's Witnesses as parties, and that it perhaps worth categorizing, but it is misleading to categorize this as a kind of substantive law. Savidan 18:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge (and Support) This is really a legal party by religion category which I don't think is a viable legal category and these should be moved to Category:Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses. (The counter-argument would be that JW's have been specifically targetted for legal harassment in the US.) If kept, I support the rename. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per above. Neutrality^talk 00:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2012 (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.

Category:Native American Victories

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category poses problems because, in many of the battles in this category, multiple tribes were fighting each other, independently or allied with non-native peoples. Secondly, many tribes during the Indian wars were split into opposing factions, so a military victory for one faction might mean a political defeat for a pacifist faction of the same tribe. Thirdly, the category name is ambiguous - how about legal battles or sports victories? And finally, the capitalization is wrong. Uyvsdi (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Comment. As an example of the first point, Battle of the Little Bighorn is categorized here; however, it's not just a matter of Natives fight non-Natives. Arikara and Crow fought on the side of the United States. This is a common phenomenon -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Delete - Agreed with the comments above. The title is indeed unfixed, and needs logical category victories for every native tribe. Such category war victories are used, for example, this example.--GoShow (...............) 19:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest rename and repurpose to Category:Native American Victories against United States forces. It may be necessary to split out Category:Native American Victories against colonial forces. Inter-tribal conflicts would need to be purged. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't believe that we categorise battles by victor, nor should we. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Bushranger. Categorisation by victor is a gross over-simplification of the often complex outcomes of a military engagement, and should be discouraged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete The whole category name is built around falsely characterizing various conflicts as race based. It also creates a false sense of a "Native American" polity at war with forces of colonialism, which is totally an anachronistic and false reading of the issues involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2012 (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.

Category:United States free exercise of religion case law

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: No Consensus - jc37 01:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States free exercise of religion case law to Category:Free Exercise Clause case law

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category contains only cases interpreting the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. If there are any disagreements with the name of that article, a move should be proposed there. But, it is in no way unusual. See Category:Clauses of the United States Constitution and Category:United States constitutional case law by clause. Savidan 17:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support More succint and follows existing format for US Constitutional clauses. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This is a US issue. There may well be case law from other countries on equivalent provisions, which may need its own category, so that US should be retained in the title. "Free exercise" is obscure, unless "religion" appears. If other US constitutional case law categories have lost US, then US needs to be restored/added. US is only one of about 190 nations and considerably more jurisdictions, and should not arrogate to itself any apparent worldwide right. The extra-territorial operation if US law is bad enough as it is. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment within the American context, the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause are frequently referenced by politicians so it's widely known outside of legal circles that they both relate to religion but maybe that lacks a global perspective. Currently "United States" isn't included in the Category:United States constitutional case law by clause tree but I'm not opposed to renaming the underlying articles if there is ambiguity. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does lack a global perspective. That's one of the reasons why I oppose the rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peterkingiron. The title should retain the words "United States" to reflect its national scope, and should include the word "religion" to avoid ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If any of the opposers can point to another country with a "Free Exercise Clause," I will support this disambiguation. Otherwise, I think it creates unnecessary category clutter. Savidan 01:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - And if they can, fine, rename the underlying Free Exercise Clause article and I'll favor havign the category match.RevelationDirect (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yuck! The proposed rename, while matching the article is totally without context. Is this really the common name for this? I'll bet that most US citizens would not know what this category was for based on the name. So I'm not in the camp that is supporting the move. However, I not opposed in this case to having the category match the main article. I think this should be closed while someone looks into a rename of the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a common name. Google Scholar search for "Free Exercise Clause". Perhaps many people wouldn't know this if it was given to them without any context at all. If it was found at the bottom of an article about a U.S. Supreme Court case interpreting the Free Exercise Clause, it would not be very ambiguous at all. Savidan 22:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike most constitutional items, the Free Exercise Clause (Republicans) and Establishment Clause (Democrats) come up a lot in political discourse about the role of churches in the US Government or government funding of religious institutions. It's not necessarilly an enlightening discussion (usually only one of the two competing clauses is mentioned). I can certainly see how it would be confusing internationally though and am not opposed to renaming the underliying article. All of the clause articles should probably be looked at and have "United States" added somewhere like the amendment articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other countries have a "First Amendment." No other countries have a "Free Exercise Clause." Savidan 04:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is about US law. This fact should be explicitly stated in the category name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2012 (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.

Category:Mayors of Lakewood, New Jersey

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mayors of Lakewood, New Jersey to Category:Mayors of Lakewood Township, New Jersey

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match title of parent article Lakewood Township, New Jersey and parent Category:People from Lakewood Township, New Jersey. Alansohn (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What is the WP:COMMONNAME for the community? If it is Lakewood as I suspect, it is the article that should be moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
rename NJ divides up into townships which are generally the smallest governmental unit. The census has a CDP which is smaller (if you look on the map, the township includes rural areas and possibly more than one "town"), and we have an article on that (which in my opinion is questionable, given the somewhat capricious delineation of CDPs). In any case the name of the parent article is correct and the mayoralty category ought to match it. Mangoe (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename C2C/C2D - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I would point out that Mangoe's explanation of New Jersey is not accurate. Only some of New Jersey is in townships, there are also cities and boroughs, which are distinct from townships and not in any of them. New Jersey has a truly confusing set of lowest level municipalities, and its number of townships at one point increased significantly in an attempt to get federal funds only for townships. New Jersey Townships are very different from Indiana and Illinois townships, and they are less regular in boundaries than Ohio and Michigan townships, and less stable in their borders than Connecticut and Massachusetts towns.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2012 (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.

Category:Coolhawks88 Books

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also a previous nomination.

Nominator's rationale: Delete. User books are not categorised by authors. If an author wants a list of books they created, they can use Special:PrefixIndex/User:USERNAME/Books instead. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Consensus has been against personal userspace categories in general for quite some time. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:30, 20 March 2012 (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.

Category:Old Girls of Rye

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: Clear consensus to rename to Category:People educated at Rye St Antony School. The Helpful One 14:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Old Girls of Rye to Category:People educated at Rye St Antony School

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) which incorporates the title of the head article Rye St Antony School. This clarifies the purpose of the category to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity. The proposed name follows the "People educated at Foo" convention of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom.

Per WP:CAT#Overview, "The central goal of the category system is to provide links to all Wikipedia articles in a hierarchy of categories which readers can browse, knowing essential, defining characteristics of a topic, and quickly find sets of articles on topics that are defined by those characteristics". Finding those sets of articles is best assisted by having category names which are clear and unambiguous, and require the minimum of specialist knowledge. Like the Ronseal advert, a category should do exactly what it says on the tin.

However, this category gives the reader no idea what is inside the tin. Even if the reader knows that "Old Girls" is not a euphemism for "old women", and that it should be read as "female former pupils", the word "Rye" gives no useful pointer as to the category's intended purpose. Even a reader used to the quirks of English alumni terminology would guess that it refers to a school in place called Rye.

It seems that the only such place in England is Rye, East Sussex. So the well-informed reader would assume that this probably refers to a school in Rye, East Sussex .. and indeed the only secondary school in that town is Rye College. That must be it, mustn't it?

Wrong. The school in question is Rye St Antony School, which is about 150 miles away in Oxford.

Reliable sources won't help either. "Old Girls of Rye" gets no hits on Google News, and no hits on Google Scholar. The lone hit in Google Books is a mention in a book described as a "contemporary masterpiece of fantasy". Indeed.

Please let's stop putting readers through this sort of guessing game. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. This one is far too removed for easy navigation. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. FYI, here in the colonies, "Old Girl" is a term that a man is only safe using to refer to a horse. Maybe not even then.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename not about blue-haired ladies who like whiskey, or female senior citizens from various Rye (disambiguation). 70.24.248.7 (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- The terms "Old Boys" and "Old Girls" are frequently used in UK for school alumni, but if the OG usage were to be retained here, a much longer description would be needed. However, since this is a girls school, should it not be Category:Women educated at Rye St Antony School. There will of course be no equivalent "men" category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Women are people too! :)

...so there is no inaccuracy in "people educated at". Using "Women educated at" would also be accurate, but the extra precision required is not necessary for the navigational purposes for which categories exist, and it would breaks the consistency of the naming format. A lot of work has gone on over the last few years in reducing the number of dift naming formats for this sort of category, and I think it would be a step backwards to create a new one.

A further problem with using "women educated at" (or "men educated at") is that it makes categorisation harder by requiring editors and readers to know whether a school is single-sex or co-educational. Things get complicated even further by the fact that many former-single-sex schools later became co-ed, so even the sources say that "Jane was educated at the all-girls Foo Academy", that doesn't mean that "Foo Academy is still a girls-only school. It would require a huge degree of editorial effort to keep track of all these issues across the ~1000 people-by-school categories in the UK alone, and for similar reasons the use of "alumnae" has largely been dropped in favour of "alumni". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to the logical, clear, consistent, nonambiguous, (also non-sexist and non-ageist!) title. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename there is no reason to not use the "people" form. There is no reason to create "women" categories, unless the fact that the people are women is what is being focused on, and that is not the case here. Anyway, the school could become coeducational, so we are better off just using the neautral term "people".John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Snappy (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2012 (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.

Category:Old Clongownians

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: Clear consensus to rename to Category:People educated at Clongowes Wood College. The Helpful One 14:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Old Clongownians to Category:People educated at Clongowes Wood College

Nominator's rationale: Rename to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) which incorporates the title of the head article Clongowes Wood College. This clarifies the purpose of the categories to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity. The proposed names follow the "People educated at Foo" convention of Category:People educated by school in the Republic of Ireland.

After a series of 64 separate CfDs which have renamed 242 "Old Fooian" categories from numerous countries to a descriptive format, the "Old Clongownians" are now the only remaining "Old Fooian" category of school alumni in either the Northern Ireland or Republic subcats of Category:People educated by school in Ireland.

Per WP:CAT#Overview, "The central goal of the category system is to provide links to all Wikipedia articles in a hierarchy of categories which readers can browse, knowing essential, defining characteristics of a topic, and quickly find sets of articles on topics that are defined by those characteristics". Finding those sets of articles is best assisted by having category names which are clear and unambiguous, and require the minimum of specialist knowledge. Like the Ronseal advert, a category should do exactly what it says on the tin.

Term	Google News hits
Clongowes	825
Clongowes Wood	422
Clongowes Wood College	242
Old Clongownian	2
Old ClongownianS	2

In the course of these discussions, most of these "Old Fooian" terms have been shown to have very limited usage in reliable sources, and therefore fail WP:COMMONNAME. I have assumed that the "Old Fooian" terms used by the more prominent schools might turn out to be more widely used, and I thought that might be the case here since Clongowes Wood College is a very prominent school in Ireland. It has many notable alumni: Category:Old Clongownians contains 81 biographical articles, whereas no other Irish school's past-pupils category contains more than 43 articles (i.e. Category:People educated at the Belfast Royal Academy.

To check for usage, I searched on Google News. (I chose Google News rather than a general search, because the news publications are both reliable sources and widely-read. Per WP:COMMONNAME, a general Google search is less useful in establishing the currency of a term, because it brings up unreliable sources such as self-published material and web forums, and includes results on pages with minute readerships).

The results show that all variants of the school's name are at least 100 times more widely-used in the news media than "Old Clongownian(s)", so a descriptive title which uses plain English and incorporates the school's common name will be understood by many more readers. The "Old Clongownians" category should be retained as a {{category redirect}} to assist those used to that term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Ireland has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support as creator. I support these more descriptive category renames for old school alumni. --Canley (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. A clear readable name is preferable. Snappy (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for clarity per nom, per all the other Irish categories and per past CFDs. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename..--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
REanme per much recent precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - aside from all the other arguments, it avoids the embarassing mistake of reading the title as "Old Clowns", which I did at first. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename This is another example of really hard to decipher titles. I would have assumed the proper title would have been "old clongowesians", or maybe even "old clongowes woodians", but would not have been surprised if they were just "old woodsmen".John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2012 (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.

Nobel laureates-o-rama

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: Upmerge all. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arab Muslim Women Peace Nobel Laureates (after discussion began, cat creator tagged this for speedy deletion so has consented to deletion)

Category:Arab Women Peace Nobel Laureates (after discussion began, cat creator tagged this for speedy deletion so has consented to deletion)

Category:Arab Women Nobel Laureates (after discussion began, cat creator tagged this for speedy deletion so has consented to deletion)

Category:Arab Muslim Women Nobel Laureates (after discussion began, cat creator tagged this for speedy deletion so has consented to deletion)

Category:Arab Muslim Nobel Laureates (after discussion began, cat creator tagged this for speedy deletion so has consented to deletion)

Category:Egyptian Nobel Laureates in Chemistry

Category:Egyptian Nobel Laureates in Literature

Category:Egyptian Nobel Peace Laureates

Category:Iranian Nobel Peace Laureates

Category:Iranian Women Nobel Laureates (after discussion began, cat creator tagged this for speedy deletion so has consented to deletion)

Category:Iranian Women Nobel Peace Laureates (after discussion began, cat creator tagged this for speedy deletion so has consented to deletion)

Category:Muslim Nobel Laureates in Chemistry

Category:Muslim Nobel Laureates in Literature

Category:Turkish Nobel Laureates in Literature

Category:Muslim Nobel Laureates in Physics

Category:Muslim Nobel Peace Laureates

Category:Arab Nobel Peace Laureates

Category:Muslim Women Peace Nobel Laureates (after discussion began, cat creator tagged this for speedy deletion so has consented to deletion)

Category:Muslim Nobel Scientists

Category:Pakistani Nobel Laureates in Physics

Category:Yemeni Nobel Peace Laureates

Category:Yemeni Women Nobel Peace Laureates (after discussion began, cat creator tagged this for speedy deletion so has consented to deletion)

Category:Yemeni Women Nobel Laureates (after discussion began, cat creator tagged this for speedy deletion so has consented to deletion)

Category:Bangladeshi Peace Nobel Laureates

Category:Bengali Nobel Peace Laureates

Category:Palestinian Peace Nobel Laureates

Category:Muslim Women Nobel Laureates

Category:Lists of Muslim Nobel Laureates

Nominator's rationale: Delete. User:Skashifakram has recently created an impressively confusing bunch of categories for Nobel laureates which combine religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, and specific prize in various ways, all of which are improperly capitalized. It seems that most—if not all—of these are inappropriate intersections for categorization. We have a tree for Nobel laureates by nationality, a tree for Nobel laureates by specific prize, and a category for Women Nobel laureates, but NLs are so few and far between that we don't really need to create intersections of the three trees, much less any of these that combine three or even four of the characteristics. "Arab Muslim Women Peace Nobel Laureates"?—it's just a bit much ... As for the more basic Category:Muslim Nobel Laureates, I don't think we need to categorize NLs by religion. The categories are also structured parent-to-child in a very circular manner, often making the weird implied suggestions such as that all Arabs are Muslims, or vice versa; or that all Yemeni people are women. This whole mess really needs to be deleted to untangle what has been made of the tree in a few hours of work. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing that all Arabs are Muslims but we are arguing that all Arab Nobel Laureates are Muslims by faith,for verification please refer to the relevant article-List of Muslim Nobel Laureates

I painfully agree that some of the categorisations were nonsense and should be deleted anyway,but there should be no problem in first order intersection,after all,it's a category list,not a main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skashifakram (talk • contribs)

Before you made the changes that you did, sometimes an Arab category was a subcategory of the Muslim category, or a Muslim category was a subcategory of an Arab category. In the first case, this implies that all Arabs are Muslims. In the second, it implies that all Muslims are Arabs. Both implications are untrue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some of these intersections but not all..User:Skashifakram(UTC)

- - Just because you think NL's should not be categorised by religion does not validate your logic to nominate it,In category lists,there is no problem in making lists by people's beliefs.As for your kind information there is already a Category:Lists of Nobel laureates by religion present.User:Skashifakram(UTC)

I think lists for NLs by religion might be fine. I don't think categories for NLs by religion is fine. I would draw a distinction between lists for the information and categories for the information. Categories are not lists, and it only leads to confusion to refer to "category lists". Refer to categories, or to lists, as they are different. Anyway, I don't think a NLs religion is typically a very significant factor in the reason why they are a NL. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the 3 previously existing trees are just right. The ones I looked at were either empty or their occupants had been left in the correct trees as well (Tawakel Karman is now in 7 laureate categories), so upmerge is probably not neeeded. Oculi (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the empty pages,please..User:Skashifakram(UTC)
Now, categorisation has been made in a wise way,please share your thoughts..User:Skashifakram(UTC)
- Delete the empty pages and then start arguing for non-empty pages-User:Skashifakram(UTC)
  - Apart from first order intersection,Delete all other unnecessary lists,I won't defend those anymore..User:Skashifakram(UTC)
    - I have deleted all unnecessary lists by speed deletion..User:Skashifakram
      - Please don't remove categories from the nomination. Now that they are being discussed, it only creates confusion for other editors to change the category listings part way through. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These are triple, and sometimes quadruple intersections. I have no problems with a broad category like Category:Egyptian Nobel laureates, but this thin-slicing helps no one.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How have you even a double intersection,give me an example..User:Skashifakram15:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, no problem. "Egyptian Nobel Laureates" is a double-intersection, of two things: Egyptian and Nobel Laureate. That's great. "Egyptian Peace Nobel Laureates" is a triple-intersection, of three things: Egyptian, Nobel Laureate, and the Peace Prize. We frown on those here, because they are so specific as to only a few possible members. "Egyptian women Peace Nobel Laureates" would be a quadruple-intersection: Egyptian, women, Nobel, and Peace. That would be way too specific.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No,it's not. Egyptian Nobel Laureates in Chemistry is first order intersection Intersection between two trees-Nobel Laureates by Nationality and Nobel Laureates by field,Ok!...Skashifakram (talk)(UTC)
      - It can be seen as a three-level intersection because there is a lower level than "Nobel laureates in Chemistry" called "Nobel laureates". It's a combination of nationality, Nobel laureate status, and what specific Nobel prize. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Upmerge All Nothing wrong with having one category for ethnicity and another for being a Nobel laureate. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all -- We should have categories for Nobel laureates by nationality, even where there is only one. However, "Arab" covers multiple nationalities; unless a national category is heavily populated, the particular discipline of the award is not necessary. Egyptian Nobel Laureates in Chemistry should be categorised (1) Egyptian Nobel Laureates and (2) Nobel Laureates in Chemistry. The triple intersection is unnecessary. Theser are navigation aids, not bullet points. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete all WP:OCAT by race/religion/nationality/nobel prize winning/discipline. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Finally Delete all,except very few,Thank you...Skashifakram(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.97.79 (talk)
HOLD ON'. Please folks, I agree that these categories are a huge mess, and that all of them should be removed ... but we need a little more discrimination here.
The only ones which should be simply deleted are Category:Muslim Nobel Scientists and Category:Arab Nobel Peace Laureates ... and the rest should be upmerged to their remaining parents. Simply deleting all the categories risks leaving many of the articles out of the categories they should be in. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
- Great; great logic,that's why I like wikipedians such a stimulating debate,your logic impressed me!I agree with you!Thank you!Skashifakram (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; vote modified. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did a spot-check of the categories and it looks like they were added without removing any others. Still, you're right that it would be prudent to upmerge or at least check each category before emptying it. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, I had already checked that and saw that upmerging was not necessary. As is mentioned above by Oculi, Tawakel Karman was placed in 7 Nobel laureate categories as result of these creations, so they were just being added without deleting the older ones. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should have mentioned it; I just thought my nomination was getting too long as it was as there were several issues to cover. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it Nobel Laureate or Nobel laureate; mostly the latter? The article and category names should be standardised. Hugo999 (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- there is no problem in ‘Nobel Laureate’, ok!Skashifakram (talk) 06:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we discorage categorizing people by awards recieved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2012 (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.

Vietnam by U.S. President

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: Remove years & upmerge rest to Presidency categories. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This appears to be overcategorisation as most of the contents of each category are the years such as Category:1969 in Vietnam. If those were removed there wouldn't be much left. The remaining content can be upmerged to the presideny categories e.g. Category:Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson. Tim! (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge each to the appropriate presidency category after removing the 'YEAR in Vietnam' categories. Although it may be useful to split Category:Vietnam War by period – see, for instance, the 'Eelam War' subcategories of Category:Sri Lankan Civil War – the splits should reflect distinct periods of the conflict and not U.S. presidential administrations. After all, the conflict was not primarily an American one and should not be approached mainly from the context of American political history. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge There may be room for a US foreign policy in Vietnam cat but this is essentially grouping the Vietnam by year categories by US President. Like grouping Swedish years by Spanish monarch. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Black Falcon and RevelationDirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we should not be categorizing other countries by US presidents administrations. This strikes me as the extreme of US-centricism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 27 March 2012 (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.

Heritage buildings (clubhouses & gates) in England & Wales

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: upmerge/delete/rename as nominated.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Grade I listed clubhouses in England upmerge to Category:Grade I listed clubhouses & delete Category:Grade I listed buildings in England by function
Category:Grade I listed gates in England change to Category:Grade I listed gates.

Categories for Listed buildings in England and Wales by building function/type are not seperated by country (England or Wales), see Category:Grade I listed buildings by function. They are only seperated by county and country as “Listed buildings in…” (county) though this category tree is not categorised by type, see Category:Listed buildings in England and Category:Listed buildings in Wales. The policy should not be changed even though all the present clubs or gates happen to be in England, with none in Wales. Note that Scotland and Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom have their own schemes (each different) for categorising listed buildings in their heritage registers. Hugo999 (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – categories are often part of several trees, with different naming formats. Category:Grade I listed gates in England is a subcat of Category:Gates in England and as such its name is admirable. In contrast Category:Grade I listed clubhouses does not appear to be part of a Category:Clubhouses scheme (which was deleted due to alleged emptiness). Oculi (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are these – Category:Traditional gentlemen's clubs in England – clubhouses in England? Oculi (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re Category:Grade I listed gates in England being part of a category tree, there does not seem to be a move to split other types of listed building into separate subcategories for England and Wales, and the considerable work involved in splitting the whole category tree does not seem justified to me. For churches, the largest category of building, there about 1700 articles in the three grades, eg Category:Grade I listed churches which is a subcategory of Category:Churches in the United Kingdom. Churches in London are already split out; the only type category with a subcategory for an area. NB: Clubhouses as a category is used for American buildings for Masons, Oddfellows etc see Category:Clubhouses in the United States but not elsewhere. In Britain “Traditional Gentlemens Clubs” are classed as an organisation not a building, though the Listed clubs in London etc are listed because of the age (etc) of the building not of the members! And Category:Masonic buildings in the United Kingdom are classed (dubious?) as places of worship. Perhaps both could also be classified as Clubhouses in the United Kingdom? Hugo999 (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No objection -- I have changed the redlink category to "London's gentlemen's clubs", becasue they all fall into that category. There areno equivalent categories for Wales, so that I see no purpose in limiting the category to England. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2012 (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.

Category:Wikipedians from Indian states

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedians from Indian states to Category:Indian Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: This category is problematic because it mixes two characteristics – location and ethnicity – which do not overlap all that well. The 'Tamil Wikipedians' category, for instance, is intended for users of Tamil ethnicity regardless of whether they are from the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. More generally, this category is unnecessary since the 30-or-so categories in Category:Indian Wikipedians are not at a point where they need to be split out of the main category. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:45, 20 March 2012 (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.

US sovereign immunity

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 tribal as nominated, merge Category:Local governmental immunity in the United States to Category:United States state sovereign immunity case law.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Local governmental immunity in the United States to Category:United States local governmental immunity case law

Propose renaming Category:Tribal sovereign immunity to Category:United States tribal sovereign immunity case law

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These contain only cases. I created them a while ago before understanding the conventions. Savidan 04:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename. New names are much more precise. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Upmerge/Oppose and Support: No issue with Tribal name change. Upmerge the other to Category:United States state sovereign immunity case law, since the 11th Amendment only gives it to states. Of the 4 cases in the category, 3 say local government's SI is limited to when they are acting as an agency of the state, the 4th is a fedaral jurisdiction (DC). RevelationDirect (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The local government category is not only for the application of the Eleventh Amendment to local governments. It also should contain cases applying the separate doctrine in tort law (and other areas) that municipal governments should not be liable for certain things. Note that it does not contain the word "sovereign." Savidan 01:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current Contents That tort immunity local governments are reaching for is state sovereign immunity as established under the 11th Amendment and curtailed under the 14th. Here are the current 4 articles:

Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Chatham County: Locality lacked state sovereign immunity under the 11th amendment.
Warren v. District of Columbia: Miscategorized non-local case about a Federal District under direct Congressional control.
Monroe v. Pape: Allowed the Civil Rights Act of 1871 to limit state sovereign immunity for localities under the 14th Amendment but said that was not the Congressional intent.
Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services: Allowed the Civil Rights Act of 1871 to limit state sovereign immunity for localities under the 14th Amendment but said that was actually the Congressional intent after all. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: The Helpful One 14:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Helpful One 14:39, 7 April 2012 (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.

Category:Les six

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; matching the RM on the main article. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Les six to Category:Les Six

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is the correct capitalization, in French [1] (and also in English [2] [3]). Softlavender (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really a call for deletion as much as a call for re-name - with which, incidentally, I agree whole-heartedly. Changing the "s" in Les Six" to a capital S is not a big change - in fact, it was one of those changes that will probably end up being counted as a minor change (enabling people to tick the appropriate box) - but I personally would like to see the change, as Erik Satie, Darius Milhaud and the rest were a collective group who would be referred to a "Les Six" rather than "Les six". ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I have just looked up the Wikipedia entry for Modest Mussorgsky and see that he is categorised as "The Five". For the sake of parity, therefore, should we also call this group "Les Six"? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. There is also an open discussion here about whether to rename the article Les six to Les Six. If the article is renamed, I think the category should be renamed. If the article is not renamed, I think that the category should not be renamed. It doesn't make a lot of sense to have two discussions simultaneously going on about the appropriate name, so I would suggest the main discussion about whether or not to change the capitalization should occur on the article talk page as opposed to here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion is now closed and the article moved to the "new" capitalization. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
REname - It is clearly a proper name and should be capitalised, like "The Five". The category appear to have picked up some possible extraneous entries and only have subcategories for the compostions five the the composers. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Good Olfactory. Resolve the core issue first, and then adjust the category if and only if required. Peterkingiron, I have no idea what "compostions five the the composers" means. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that it should follow the result of the article's rename. Salvidrim! 16:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since I've moved the article, does anyone object to this discussion being closed and making the category move? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2012 (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.