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 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.
Oppose: These do belong separately though clarification on each page would be helpful. Looking at the relevant articles:
National liberation movements: Wars of national liberation are conflicts fought by indigenous military groups against an imperial power in the name of self-determination, thus attempting to remove that power's influence, in particular during the decolonization period.
A category of Independence movements might include national liberation (anticolonialist) movements, but mostly it includes movements to withdraw from a long standing indigenous political entity, movements to overthrow leaders perceived as being puppets of some other government or movements for Partition (politics), like Czechoslovakia agreeing to part into Czech and Slovak republics. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2009 (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.
Oppose, these seem to be two different things; secession and independence describe them differently and they are apparently distinct topics in political science. Independence movements want freedom from external control (one nation wanting to end subjugation by another), while secession movements want to break away from or completely dissolve an independent country (one internal faction or region wanting separate governance). Contrast the American Revolution with the American Civil War. I'm open to arguments that the line is too blurry to be meaningful, but without seeing such an explanation I don't see a reason here to presume that's the case. postdlf (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose::These do belong separately though clarification on each page would be helpful. Looking at the relevant articles:
Independence movements may include national liberation (anti-colonial) movements, movements to withdraw from a long standing indigenous political entity, movements to overthrow leaders perceived as being puppets of some other government or movements seeking Partition (politics), like Czechoslovakia agreeing to part into Czech and Slovak repubics. It is not necessarily secession per se.
oppose Reading the definitions provided in the relevant articles shows that they are quite different with no valid reason to combine them. Hmains (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2009 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Found this nomination tagged with a merge template. I'd oppose this, since both categories are quite large already. Debresser (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Dumfries and Galloway consists of several former counties. There is no reason not to have a category for each old county, as well as one for the town of Dumfries. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2009 (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.
Support nom. I am in favour of 'Fooian people' across the board, for any ethnic group or nationality, as being slightly less ambiguous (just as we already do exclusively for modern sovereign nation-state nationalities) Mayumashu (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2009 (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.
That's hardly the point; this was clearly a procedural nom, not advocacy by Debresser one way or the other. It's up to us to evaluate whether it's a good thing to do or not. postdlf (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was noting that whoever left the merge template on the category did not offer any reason why a merge should be accomplished. Hmains (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2009 (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 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 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 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.
Agree: The second category was made using a name in accordance to the vast majority of the other relative categories, see categories here. If I could, I would have just moved the first category into the second, as a renaming. - Sthenel (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2009 (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 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 to Category:Cycle racing executives as suggested by lil2mas. This is a good at least interim solution to the ambiguity. The other cycling categories could be nominated to confirm that this is the way we want to go with these. Any consensus that develops with the other categories should also be applied to this one. Good Ol’factory(talk)21:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It matches the other subcategories of Category:Sports executives and administrators, and deleting it doesn't really avoid the problem; if Category:Cycling executives is ambiguous, then so is Category:Cycling people. The underlying problem is that the name of the sport is also the verb for doing it. So if that's too ambiguous, we should come up with a rename for all cycling people categories that meaningfully allows them to be identified as connected with the sport without suggesting that they are just people who cycle. Another issue is that the article cycling is actually about the generic activity of riding a human-powered wheeled vehicle, while bicycle racing is about the sport. I've asked for input here from WP:CYCLING members. postdlf (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly a red herring, and not wanting to hijack this thread, but as someone has raised the issue of the breadth of Category:Cycling people, others might like to look at a discussion about whether a person who had been a promising amateur before an accident as an 18 year old, but subsequently became noteworthy in a very different field, should be in a cyclists cat. Returning to the present thread, cycling is not unique in being both competitive sport and recreational activity, but is perhaps more prone than most to allowing confusion of the two in unspecified talk/writing. Consistency is good, but clarity is more important in an encyclopaedia, so maybe we should move the article to something less ambiguous:Category:Executives of competitive cycling? Category:Cycling (sport) executives? Kevin McE (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2009 (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 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. We don't categorize people by their current or former status. The first category just contains the 2 subcategories and so should be deleted. Tassedethe (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2009 (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:Crystal Palace F.C. Player of the Year award winners
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 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 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.
Oppose every instance in the article, except the title uses "Super Star". Even then, this naming is highly ambiguous, especially considering it's not even an English language title, but a translation of an Arabic title, so will not represent a concept well known in the English language world. It should be renamed Categotry:Super Star (Lebanese Idol) or something. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2009 (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:Intercollegiate athletics in the United States, sub-cats
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.
Comment – My first reaction would be to oppose renaming to "Intercollegiate..." per Debresser. However, what about the current category names appended with "in the United States"? Football vs. soccer is not an issue because most of the world considers "soccer" to be an Americanism despite its British origin, and "in the United States" would mitigate the American-Canadian football dichotomy (though SFU might be a conundrum per Kevtar, especially since SFU is now in the process of joining NCAA Division II). — Dale Arnett (talk) 04:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. With the exception of football/soccer, which I agree deserves a greater debate, I think these names are precise enough. "College" is a better-known word than "intercollegiate", and I see no reason Canadian or French basketball teams can't have rivalries or trophies or whatever in these categories. I say leave it alone, but please, let's fix the capital S in Category:College Sports in California.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2009 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete, empty and unneeded. "Towns in [U.S. state]" categories are exclusively for municipalities designated as towns, of which Iowa does not have any. Because "town" means something more precise in many U.S. states, we use "settlement" as the generic term. So this will never be populated. It was instead being used just to house Category:Ghost towns in Iowa, which has been moved to the more accurate Category:Former settlements in Iowa. postdlf (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2009 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete, redundant to Category:Former settlements in Maryland and misleading as named. As towns are a type of municipality in Maryland, one would expect this to contain disincorporated communities, but instead it was using "town" generically to mean any "settlement," and "defunct" to mean "former." Its contents have already been merged into the Maryland categories for former settlements, ghost towns, and unincorporated communities (for those places where the name is still in use though it's just an area or neighborhood within a municipality). postdlf (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2009 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. The terms child rearing and parenting are basically equivalent. The article Child rearing redirects to Parenting. This category contains a few valuable items which are otherwise rather lost to readers focusing on Category:Parenting. So I would simply merge these into that category. Rixs (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2009 (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 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename to conform to its contents. Every included article is an unincorporated community, which belong in the state-specific subcategories of Category:Unincorporated communities in the United States. Because many U.S. states use "town" as a designation for municipalities, we don't use "town" in its generic sense of a populated, named place, but instead use "settlement"). postdlf (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question First of all, who is the "we" you are talking about? Are you from Hawai? Secondly, could you please explain yourself more at length, because I didn't understand you. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"We" meaning Wikipedia, and how its categorization scheme for settlements in the U.S. by state have always worked since categories were implemented. I don't understand what you don't understand, so I'll just try and explain the whole system. Every state in the U.S. has municipalities (also called municipal corporations in old-timey speak), which are incorporated communities/settlements that have local governments. Every state has their own particular designations for these, which is reflected in the municipality's official name and charter (City of Foo or Village of Foo) and census data. The particular designation of the municipality often has legal consequences beyond just naming differences (a city in a given state may have greater local legislative power than a village, and/or the designation may depend upon the municipality's population reaching a certain number). Accordingly, all municipalities are categorized by their class of municipality (e.g., Category:Cities in Ohio, Category:Towns in Nevada). And because the terms "city," "village," and "town" mean particular classes of municipalities from state to state, we do not use those terms colloquially or interchangeably (like "village" could just mean small community), but instead categorize them purely based on local government structures.
Agree then. To a non-American like me, all of this is completely unfamiliar. Taking myself as an example of an intelligent, well-educated, non-American. Debresser (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. To expand on Postdif's rationale, the only incorporated urban entity in Hawaii is the City and County of Honolulu, which is a consolidated city-county government that covers the entire island of Oahu. All other municipal government in the state is conducted at the county level. Also, all communities in Hawaii recognized by the United States Census Bureau are census-designated places, even Honolulu (which, by Census Bureau definition, is only a part of the City and County). — Dale Arnett (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, I've always found this situation somewhat awkward, because as you note, all other states' communities are classified by their precise municipal status or as unincorporated communites. The only other parts of the country where a name other than "unincorporated community" is used for the category name is New York and parts of New England, because the official New York term for these settlements is "hamlet" and the official term in much of New England is "village". Because there's no official term for these communities in Hawaii, we need to go with the default name, which is alerady used by most of the country. Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2009 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge, duplicate. "Towns" are municipalities in California, but based on its contents this category seems to use it in the generic sense, as it includes cities, towns, and unincorporated communities. Which makes it the same as "settlements." postdlf (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2009 (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 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I am not necessarily proposing deletion if the child categories placed in this can be better defined. Half the artists' categories I would not consider adult contemporary, even though individual songs by these artists have been adult contemporary hits. But I find it hard to call their albums "adult contemporary", which is what being placed in this category suggests. Also, the genre (and I'm not sure it really can be called a genre, rather a radio format) changes over time more than most. What wouldn't be played 10 years ago on AC may be a staple today. The point is AC seems to be more song based and cannot be defined to any particular album or artist for this to exist as is being utilized. Wolfer68 (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: Note that there is no category for adult contemporary songs, although songs can be better defined as AC than albums. Also, in the U.S., Billboard magazine has only an AC songs chart, not an AC albums chart. --Wolfer68 (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete. I essentially agree with what Wolfer68 has written about this not being an album genre as such, or even a very viable one for songs since "contemporary" is constantly changing. I remember that on a self-proclaimed "adult contemporary" radio station I once heard a Gun N' Roses ballad, so ... Good Ol’factory(talk)01:41, 28 October 2009 (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.
Oppose for the most part, but we can probably figure it out. Category:Equal protection cases should not be renamed as nom suggests because equal protection case law is more broad than just what arises under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. SCOTUS has read equal protection guarantees into the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (which applies to the federal gov't; the 14th only applies to the states), and most/all U.S. state constitutions have the same or similar guarantees patterned after the federal constitutional provision.
Otherwise...I agree with standardizing to "case law", but the proposed names are awkward in many cases, to the point of adding confusion rather than clarifying; "United States Article Five" is a meaningless phrase. And the disambiguation is unnecessary for categories that have no equivalent in other countries, such as Commerce Clause, Dormant Commerce Clause, substantive due process...even equal protection, I believe. Let's work on better names. postdlf (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all ears for better suggestions. But what we have now is unacceptable. Many other countries have law on substantive due process, a constitutional "Article Three", etc. The equal protection one is well-taken, and I've adjusted the nom. We could insert "Constitution" after "United States" on the ones that refer to clauses if you think that reads better. "United States Article Five" may be meaningless, but "Article Five case law" is not, and "United States" modifies that phrase, but I can see why it could be confusing. Good Ol’factory(talk)05:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Canada came quite close to adopting the distinction in interpreting its Charter Article 7, and there are Canadian cases discussing it in depth, but it backed away from it. I would be a bit surprised if no other jurisdiction had adopted the traditional American approach (though I admit I haven't researched this and don't have an in-depth knowledge of how it's been treated outside of the U.S.—I was overstating when I assumed "many" countries had this). Incidentally, how are the Article rename suggestions any different from the existing ones for Amendments, e.g., Category:United States Fourteenth Amendment case law? Or are the Amendment ones badly-named too? And there is Category:United States procedural due process case law, so that one seems to match nicely. Good Ol’factory(talk)06:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Speaking from the UK point of view: we have 'case law' so the categories need to be clarified with the US prefix. I am happy with the proposed renames - it makes it crystal clear that they have no relevance to me. I accept that some of them are a bit of a mouthful - how about Category:United States case law (Article Five). Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the bottom six, although I'm also OK with standardizing from "cases" to "case law". Each is essentially a US only area of law, so geographic disambiguation is not necessary. Commerce Clause, Contract Clause, Dormant Commerce Clause, Treaty Clause, Equal Protection Clause (equal protection redirects there), and Substantive due process are all articles without hatnotes to disambiguation or pages at similar topics, indicating that they are probably particular to the US. The only example of something similar that's been proffered so far is substantive due process. But it seems to me we would classify this as either fundamental justice clause case law or simply "Canadian substantive due process" case law. Category:English case law by topic contains generic case law like "criminal", "tort", and "trusts", so I don't think it follows that uniquely American topics need geographic identification. How would one find these categories except through one of their parent categories or a member article (invariably American cases)?--Chaser2 (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As to the others, the top four, I'm ambivalent. Looking at the disambiguation pages for Articles Two, Three, Four, and Five, the only links to other articles are European Convention on Human RightsArticles 3 and 4. I don't know whether the Court has a developed body of law in this area. Although there are not significant articles for Two and Five, there are still reference to various national and American state constitutions, so there's also some potential case law here. However, even if there could be other Article X case law, it's not unreasonable to ask whether there will ever be articles about those cases or whether confusion is likely. All these cats have reference to the U.S. in the lead and are in U.S. parent categories (with the exception of Treaty Clause, whose parent is the Article Two cat).--Chaser2 (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What percentage of non-American readers would instantly know that Category:Article Two case law is a U.S. case law category? To assume that it's anywhere near what we need to be is not safe, I don't think. It also makes little sense to have the Amendment categories use the "United States" format but not the Article ones. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your second point convinced me, Good Ol'factory. The question remains of what to rename them to. United States First Amendment has a bit more meaning than "United States Article Five". Do they have to be consistent? Or can we leave the Amendment one's alone and switch to "United States Constitution Article Five case law"?--Chaser2 (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with the latter—"United States Constitution Article Five case law" is probably better, in fact. They don't necessarily have to be consistent, though I assumed that would be desired, but it's not necessary from my viewpoint. I'm open to any sort of clarification, however it can be worded. (Changing the Clause ones are less necessary, in my opinion, but I would still prefer to add "United States" or "United States Constitution" to those; however, I can understand the hesitance in doing this because of the names of the articles for those clauses.) Good Ol’factory(talk)03:23, 28 October 2009 (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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 5#Category:Buildings and structures in Greater St. Louis. postdlf (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)