Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 14



Category:Soul-jazz musicians

 * 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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Soul-jazz musicians to Category:Soul jazz musicians, along with subcategories:
 * Category:Soul-jazz musicians by instrument to Category:Soul jazz musicians by instrument
 * Category:Soul-jazz drummers to Category:Soul jazz drummers
 * Category:Soul-jazz flautists to Category:Soul jazz flautists
 * Category:Soul-jazz guitarists to Category:Soul jazz guitarists
 * Category:Soul-jazz keyboardists to Category:Soul jazz keyboardists
 * Category:Soul-jazz organists to Category:Soul jazz organists
 * Category:Soul-jazz pianists to Category:Soul jazz pianists
 * Category:Soul-jazz saxophonists to Category:Soul jazz saxophonists
 * Category:Soul-jazz trombonists to Category:Soul jazz trombonists
 * Category:Soul-jazz trumpeters to Category:Soul jazz trumpeters
 * Category:Soul-jazz vocalists to Category:Soul jazz vocalists
 * Nominator's rationale: New name would simply be consistent with the main article's name, soul jazz (though the sources for that article use either "soul jazz" or "soul-jazz" (or both)). Gyrofrog (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Per principles of English grammar, "soul jazz" (unhyphenated) is appropriate when the term is a noun, but when it is used as an adject "soul-jazz FOO" (hyphenated) is appropriate, because "soul-jazz" is a compound adjective. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, for what it's worth, most of the other categories under Category:Jazz musicians by genre omit the hyphen. Same with those within Category:Jazz fusion musicians. There are certainly exceptions throughout, like "folk-jazz," "post-bop" and "jazz-rock." As I mentioned, I've seen "soul jazz" rendered either way, but I have rarely, if ever, seen "Latin-jazz", "Cool-jazz", "free-jazz" etc. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Similarly, we have "Progressive rock musicians", "Punk rock musicians", "Southern rock fiddlers" etc. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Documentaries about psychology

 * 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 Category:Documentary films about mental illness to Category:Documentary films about mental health, no consensus for others. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Documentaries about psychology to Category:Documentaries about mental health


 * Category:Documentary films about psychology to Category:Documentary films about mental health
 * Category:Documentary films about mental illness to Category:Documentary films about mental health
 * Nominator's rationale: I came across this top-level category for all documentaries about psychology -- that is, documentary films, documentary television one-offs and series, radio documentaries and web documentaries -- and added two sub-cats of my own: Category:Documentary films about psychology and my pre-existing Category:Documentary films about mental illness. I can see I'm making things worse and not better with this split. Suggest renaming and simplifying the branch to "Foo about mental health," which removes the subjective question of whether it's a film about "psychology" or "mental illness." I don't see the need to add Category:Films about psychiatry -- which I added as a parent -- to the deal, but maybe others do. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment At least Discovering Psychology is about psychology in general and not only mental health, so I don't think "metal health" would be the correct name if you want to merge the categories. —Ruud 19:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There probably won't be too many documentaries of any type about the profession of psychology but you're right, any that do exist wouldn't fit. Category:Mental health is a subcat of Category:Psychology so I suppose we could rename to Category:Documentaries about psychology and a sole subcat Category:Documentary films about psychology. Or do nothing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm very confused. I'm not convinced that the renaming is the best course of action. Surely there are films about psychology and they would typically be quite different than films about mental illness or mentally ill people. For the latter, it would be more precise to describe them as films about psychiatry. Pichpich (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose renaming of Category:Documentary films about psychology as psychology and mental health are not synonymous. See Pichpich's comment above. At best I would see Category:Documentary films about mental health as a subset of ... about psychology. On the other hand, I support renaming Category:Documentary films about mental illness to Category:Documentary films about mental health for the reason stated by the proposer, it is less judgmental. --Bejnar (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) by county

 * 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: Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) by county to Category:Historic parliamentary constituencies in Ireland by county
 * Nominator's rationale: There are few parliamentary constituencies in Ireland that were (A) created since the declaration of the Republic in 1949 and (B) abolished since that time. Most articles in the parent category refer to constituencies in the states before the declaration of the Republic (e.g. UK, Kingdom of Ireland etc). Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support A no-brainer. Which, given this is Wikipedia, means the proposal will likely fail. Sarah777 (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposed name. Parent cat is Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Ireland (historic), it should be Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Ireland (historic) by county. Also other cats at the same level have historic in brackets at end. Also, I don't understand why the nominator is proposing to move the category to an article! Snappy (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * England offers a precedent - Category:Historic parliamentary constituencies in England. There are many more regional examples of this form. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to move the word "historic" to the start if the title, do it for all such categories rather than just for one ... and don't try changing the scope of the category at the same time. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. The nominator misunderstands many aspects of this category and of the wider structure within which it fits, so my reply is unavoidably lengthy.
 * As Snappy points out, name of this categ follows the format of its parent categs
 * Republic of Ireland is used in this context as a geographical unit, rather than a contemporary political one: it refers to the 26 counties which have been independent of British rule since 1922, and the use of "Republic of Ireland" to designate this territory in category names is consistent throughout the category tree under Category:Republic of Ireland. In 2009, there was a lengthy discussion of this at WT:IECOLL which lasted for a year and settle the issue under late 2011, with arbcom approval. This is not the place to reopen that issue, and renaming the categ to "Ireland" woud widen its scope to include Northern Ireland
 * This a container category, which includes only sub-categs by county. This categ name is not applied to any article.
 * The scope of this categ can be simply described as "historic parliamentary constituencies in that of Ireland current described in law as the Republic of Ireland, including all parliaments in which these areas were represented". The current name reflects that better than the proposal
 * -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The Republic of Ireland as a unit of geography is, in a narrow sense, equivalent to the geographical units of England, cited by me above. The dissimilarities, however, warrent a name change. This is because politics is not conducted in a geograpical context but in a political context: one would never speak of "Parliamentary constituencies of the Rhine Valley". The crucial difference is that in all of the English examples, the constituencies relate to a political entity, a state that is related to the geographical unit - the Westminster Parliament of England. By contrast, in the Republic of Irelnad examples, none of the constituencies relates to a political entity, a state of the geographical unit - Dail Eireann. They instead relate to a political entity that never had any conection to the Republic - the Westminster Parliament of England. It comes down to common sense - would a reasonable reader expect that the constituencies relate to political entities of the Republic? IMHO, the answer is yes, so the name needs substantial amendment to disabuse readers of that reasonable misapprehension. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Laurel, your analogy is nonsense, because The "Westminster Parliament of England" was abolished in 1707.
 * England has not elected its own Parliament for more than 300 years, but there have been Parliamentary constituencies in England through that time: first for the Parliament of Great Britain, and since then for the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Since 1979 England has also had constituencies of the European Parliament.  All of those constituencies form part of the political history of England, just as much as the pre-1707 constituencies of the Parliament of England.
 * In the case of the category under discussion, you seem to have completely failed to understand what it is for. It is a container category, and it contains sub-categories for constituencies in each county of the Republic of Ireland.  If you want to argue, for example, that Carlow County (UK Parliament constituency) has no relation to the political history of County Carlow, then you are free to open a new nomination to delete Category:Historic constituencies in County Carlow, Category:Historic constituencies in County Cork etc ... but unless and until those categories are deleted, they form part of the political history of the area which is now the Republic of Ireland.
 * That political history did not start in 1948, nor in 1922, nor in 1919; it stretches right back to the elections to the pre-union Parliament of Ireland. What we have now is a category system which allows the reader to find historic constituencies down two sets of category trees.
 * We already have a container category equivalent to the one you want to rename this to: Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Ireland (historic), which covers the 32 counties. However, the scope of this category is narrower, consisting of only the 26 counties. What you are effectively proposing is a merger which would remove these categories and these constituencies from the political history of the Republic of Ireland.  That would be a historical nonsense: the First Dail was elected on Westminster constituencies, and most of its members went on to serve in Dail Eireann after independence, and whether or nor not members changed, the electoral history of the area should not be cut off at an arbitrary date. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Note. I have now created a parallel categ for Northern Ireland: Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland (historic) by county. Like this categ, it is a subcat of Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Ireland (historic) by county. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I just love the phrase "historic parliamentary constituencies in that of Ireland current described in law as the Republic of Ireland, including all parliaments in which these areas were represented". What really makes me snort in my coffee is the introductory "simply described". What a hoot! 25 words to describe something simply! Is BHG trying for a Wiki record? The mere fact that the category probably does need such a lengthy description just goes to prove how woefully inadequate the current name is. The suggested one is an improvement, but is probably inadequate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact of Ireland's partition inevitably leads to a full description being somewhat verbose. The description offered here is somewhat longer than others for the benefit of LL, who seems unable to understand that the history of the area which now forms the RoI extends back before 1948. Other readers do not find the concept so problematic, and for them a terser description will suffice.
 * If LL genuinely thinks that the suggested name is an improvement, then LL still has not understood the difference between and its subcat, and remains oblivious to the fact that his proposed new name would change the scope of the category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Impossible. How can it be "a container category, and it contains sub-categories for constituencies in each county of the Republic of Ireland." when none of these constituencies was part of the political entity now known as the Republic of Ireland? They returned members to the political entity then known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Perhaps a more accurate re-name might be Category:Historic parliamentary constituencies in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland by county which could then report to its true parent of Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies (historic). Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Laurel, it is a container category for historic constituencies. You clearly don't understand what that word "historic" means, so please consult a dictionary.
 * Cork County (UK Parliament constituency) and Cork County (Parliament of Ireland constituency) are part of the history of County Cork and thereby of the state in which County Cork is currently located. I'm sorry that you find this hard to understand; maybe another editor will succeed in explaining to you how the history of an area does not begin at the point at which it became part of the most recent state to hold jurisdiction.
 * I don't know whether this is a deliberate wind-up, or whether you are just posting any old nonsense to amuse yourself, but your latest suggestion for renaming is even more daft than the others. If you had bothered to pay even a little attention before posting, you might have noticed that the sub-categories of the category under discussion include constituencies of Dáil Éireann and the Parliament of Ireland, neither of which are or were political entities of the United Kingdom.
 * There are of course specific categories for constituencies of each of these Parliaments, including Category:Westminster constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic), which explicitly says in its intro "This is for former constituencies from the area which is now the Republic of Ireland". It is a sub-category of Category:Historic Westminster constituencies in Ireland ... and that is in turn a subcat of Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies (historic). As you have already noted, the scope of the category under discussion is wider, and the effect of your latest suggestion would be to place constituencies such as Dublin Clontarf (Dáil Éireann constituency) as a constituency of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Please can you stop being silly? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with Cork County (UK Parliament constituency) and Cork County (Parliament of Ireland constituency). They are correctly categorised under Category:Historic constituencies in County Cork and Category:Westminster constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic). County Cork has belonged to many states over the centuries. The area now under the jurisdiction of Cork County Council has had even more states within its borders over the millennia. None of these categories makes any state claims for the historic constituencies. However, the parent category - the issue of the current discussion - does make such erroneous claims. It blurs the distinction and may mislead readers into believing that the constituencies of the historic entity known as County Cork have always been part of the current state. That is not the case. While Westminster constituencies in the Republic of Ireland contains the name RoI in its title, it also included Westminster so readers will know that they are talking about a parliament in a different state. The current title fails to make this clear. A 25 word simplification title accomplishes that task but I wouldn't recommend it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Laurel, neither category makes any state claim for the constituencies. They are historic constituencies in the RoI, not necessarily of the ROI. (Even a list of current constituencies in the RoI includes some which are not of the ROI: the European parliament constituencies). This is all a re-run of the disruptive game you played with respect to counties, where you were also unable or unwilling to comprehend the difference between a county (a geographical area) and a county council (an administrative body). In that discussion you even claimed that a county did not exist unless it had a county council; but in fact counties were created in Ireland hundreds of years before the first county council.
 * A same problem applies here, since you refuse to comprehend the difference between the state and its territory. Category:Republic of Ireland contains many other sub-categories which do not relate to the state: e.g. Category:Football in the Republic of Ireland and Category:Christianity in the Republic of Ireland, neither of which are organs of the state. Note that Category:Military of the Republic of Ireland, which is an organ of the uses the word "of" rather than "in", as do many other similar categs: e.g. Category:Law enforcement agencies of the Republic of Ireland, Category:National symbols of the Republic of Ireland,  Category:Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland,  Category:National parks of the Republic of Ireland.
 * Since you cannot suggest a better name than the current name, why not simply withdraw the nomination and stop wasting people's time?
 * (The nomination for a rename to Category:Historic parliamentary constituencies in Ireland by county is unworkable, because it would change the scope of the category, making it a duplicate of Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Ireland (historic) by county. Deleting the category would remove the by-county categories from the historic constituencies tree).,
 * BTW, Cork County Council does not have any jurisdiction of anything, and never has had any jurisdiction; like all local authorities in Ireland, it is an administrative body, not a court. In any case, the category does not refer to area administered by of Cork County Council; it also includes Cork City. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Cork County Council does have jurisdiction in its area. The Law says so. Check out Local Government Act 2001 part Pt.2 S.11 paragraph 6(a) "'a county council has jurisdiction throughout its administrative area',". But as this is just a primary source, feel free to disregard it and my interpretation of it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose – the nom needs to start with Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) rather than suggesting a partial rename of some subcats. Also quite a few of Laurel Lodged's proposals seem rather pointy. Occuli (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Withdraw proposal. I agree with user Occuli above. It has become apparent that the whole tree is contaminated. The solution needs to start at the root before moving out to the stems and branches. I will start at the root. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wherever you start, it would be helpful if you first took some time to understand the category tree. That would help to avoid proposals such as this one which would have changed the scope of a category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Mexican–American War

 * 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: do not rename, for now. After reading all of the arguments on the two article talk pages, this strikes me as one of the least civil arguments I've seen on Wikipedia, all for a content-neutral mark of punctuation. When you guys settle your battle, come back here and we'll talk about renaming the category. Till then, it stays as is.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Mexican–American War to Category:Mexican-American War
 * Nominator's rationale: From dash to hyphen, to fit the renaming of the main page of the category after two requests for move one two. A previous request to move all war articles from dash to hyphen was rejected here, and the move was denied, but months later someone else moved it anyways via speedy rename . Sorry, that speedy was correct because the main article of the category had been renamed over a year ago.

Also rename the subcats:


 * Category:Mexican–American_War_ships_of_the_United_States --> Category:Mexican-American_War_ships_of_the_United_States
 * Category:Battles_of_the_Mexican–American_War --> Category:Battles_of_the_Mexican-American_War
 * Category:Sieges of the Mexican-American War --> Category:Sieges of the Mexican-American War
 * Category:Naval battles of the Mexican–American War Category:Naval battles of the Mexican-American War


 * Category:Indiana in the Mexican–American War Category:Indiana in the Mexican-American War
 * Category:People from Indiana in the Mexican–American War Category:People from Indiana in the Mexican-American War


 * Category:People of the Mexican–American War Category:People of the Mexican-American War
 * Category:American people of the Mexican–American War Category:American people of the Mexican-American War
 * Category:American military personnel of the Mexican–American War Category:American military personnel of the Mexican-American War
 * Category:American military personnel killed in the Mexican–American War Category:American military personnel killed in the Mexican-American War
 * Category:United States Navy personnel of the Mexican–American War Category:United States Navy personnel of the Mexican-American War
 * Category:Mexican people of the Mexican–American War Category: Mexican people of the Mexican-American War
 * Category:Mexican military personnel of the Mexican–American War Category:Mexican military personnel of the Mexican-American War
 * Category:Mexican military personnel killed in the Mexican–American War Category:Mexican military personnel killed in the Mexican-American War
 * Category:Military personnel of the Mexican–American War Category:Military personnel of the Mexican-American War
 * Category:Mexican–American War prisoners of war Category:Mexican-American War prisoners of war

Enric Naval (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Treaties of the Mexican–American War Category:Treaties of the Mexican-American War
 * Category:Military units and formations of the Mexican–American War Category:Military units and formations of the Mexican-American War


 * Recommend a speedy close for this. I believe this is being done prematurely and completely without community consensus, see Talk:Mexican-American War. -- Avanu (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What are the chances that we will ever come to more of a consensus than right now? There are no pending move discussions, it seems like the perfect time to rename categories after the main article. –CWenger (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I figure as long as people are interested in continuing the discussion, it is a valid discussion. I'm not aware of a time limit for reaching consensus, so it takes as a long as it takes.  Personally, I find 99% of the reasoning to be silly, but that very recent argument made by Dicklyon (i hate that username) was actually very logical and made a great rationale for why a dash is a better option, whereas I was previously ambivalent about it.  If someone had arbitrarily closed discussion because they got sick of discussing before then, I wouldn't have come to a decision.  To me, pushing for artificial timelines on long gone subjects makes no sense, because the Mexican/American War isn't going anywhere. -- Avanu (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You hate my username? Does that mean you hate my real name, too?  Of the lack of capitalization of the L?  If I recall right, I entered it all lowercase like in my various other accounts, but wikimedia gave me a capital D for free. Dicklyon (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't hate or dislike anything else related to you. I'm sorry I brought it up, and I hadn't intended for it to become a distraction. -- Avanu (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Avanu: Whatever Dicklyon makes of your gratuitous remark about his username, I take offence at it here on a page where we are transacting serious business for the Project. I ask that you delete it, preferably with an apology. If you are late coming to an understanding of the basic points he has had to raise yet again, for those who are slow to understand how modern punctuation works, think carefully before you compound a situation that is already tense. When you have fixed that, others might do similarly, and erase this distracting side issue from the discussion. N oetica Tea? 10:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with you about keeping the discussion open as long as necessary. But what I don't agree with is having blatant inconsistencies while that discussion plays out, as is the case right now. Everything related to the Mexican~American War (including these categories) should have been renamed along with the main article, but they weren't due to administrative oversight. It should be trivial to rectify that but instead those who opposed the original move are fighting for every inch. –CWenger (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see your point there. Well, whatever way it ends up, I won't be too worried. I just hope people can continue to stay civil and work together.  I think Noetica is probably willing to do so, and I'm kind of thinking Enric is being a bit pushy at the moment, but maybe things will be fine. -- Avanu (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Avanu: don't patronise me, especially after your own incivility that I mention above. I have worked for more than one full-time week, on several fronts, to repair the damage from recent actions by Enric Naval and PMAnderson. It is not for you to judge or perhaps even to grasp what you are dealing with here. Your support is useful; but try for an understanding of the bigger picture. When you done have your homework, your more considered comments will be welcome. N oetica Tea? 10:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose – that's an awful lot of moving to do for dislike of the "damned dashes" as Enric puts it. The category is already named to match most of its articles, and self-consistency and MOS-consistency could be restored easily by moving back the one that got moved without consensus.  Nominator is objecting to the move of the category to match the main article in 2009, when the main article had been stable at en dash for over a year, yet he wants to use that reason to move a whole lot of stuff now, shortly after a hotly-contested move.  Is he serious?  Dicklyon (talk) 04:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hum, you are right, I am striking that part. If the main article of a category is renamed, then the usual thing is to rename the category. I'm happy that we are in agreement on that. Yes, I would have waited a bit longer, but one editor was using the mismatch in the category name as an argument to edit-war in the article . --Enric Naval (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose: This is not a time to be upsetting the intricate fabric of categories underlying millions of articles. First, despite what CWenger says above ("There are no pending move discussions"), there IS a pending move discussion at Talk:Battles of the Mexican–American War. Note the en dash. Second, no matter how that RM ends, the huge majority of related categories and articles (with the general form "X~Y War") have an en dash. Third, that style is in accord with WP:MOS: Wikipedia's Manual of Style, which is our central resource for recommendations about punctuation. No other guideline or policy rules on punctuation for cases like these. Choice of name is one thing, directed by policy at WP:TITLE; punctuation for a name once it has been chosen is quite separate. WP:TITLE falls silent on punctuation, and WP:MOS takes up the story. If anyone disputes these facts, those disputes should be taken to larger arenas than this one. In the meantime, no decision in favour of anomalous changes to our categories is warranted. Please: let's be patient; let's work systematically with larger issues before petty ones; and above all, let's work together. N oetica Tea? 10:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hummmm, you are right, that RM is in the middle of this CfD. I have asked in AN for an uninvolved admin willing to close it. SeeAdministrators'_noticeboard. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong support. This is the spelling that reliable sources actually use; I've searched down Google Books' list of books and failed to find any that don't hyphenate. (There is one where Google's OCR has changed it to a space, but the actual scan is clear.) Categories (because category redirects don't work perfectly) should be especially careful to use the spelling that almost every reader will expect; not that used by a handful of careless or eccentric books and insisted on by two or three editors against usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's odd. I didn't have any trouble finding several in Google books that use the en dash (you have to actually look, since the OCR converts them to hyphens usually).  Nobody would use an en dash from carelessness.  Some use spaces, too.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to challenge the result of the RM, this is not the place for doing it. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was challenging it here, just pointing out that PMAnderson may not know what he's talking about. Dicklyon (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * By what authors? I checked about thirty, and found none, but the search results may have changed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support whatever the main article uses: Main articles, related articles, and categories should all use the same naming conventions. Right now the main article uses a hyphen so the categories should too. Any future move requests should mention it is applicable to all related titles and closing admins should ensure this is carried out, even asking for help to make sure they didn't miss anything for big jobs like this. –CWenger (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A sensible rule; it is unlikely that any of the factors which should be balanced change from the article to the category. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose—the category and all of its article titles have been stable since 2008. The dash adheres with the explicit rules at the style guide, and with many authorities. It does not particularly matter that many sources use a hyphen; many sources use bad grammar and sloppy, inconsistent English, too. WP's practice WRT the dash is well-established, and WP:TITLE explicitly says not to move from one "controversial" form to another. Stability is clearly a better option when there is so much disagreement about the single change that was made (without proper consensus, in my view). The matter, also, needs to be discussed centrally at the style guide talk page, where such issues have been debated and resolved for years. Tony   (talk)  15:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The category was stable at a hyphen from its creation June 2004 to the move in October 2009. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:TITLECHANGES? Controversial rename shouldn't be done until you have reached consensus via a RM. In this case, two RMs were made. The second RM failed to get consensus to get back to the dash. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the first RM failed to get consensus for the move to the hyphen. Dicklyon (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the closing admin thought that were was consensus for the move, and he closed accordingly. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The RM discussion was, after all, 8-2, with no substantive arguments from the two. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also zero substantive arguments in favor. It seems to me that Tony's argument against was pretty substantive (and mine would have been, if I had known this was going on).  Dicklyon (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's see: this post counts unproven (and false) declarations on the motives of the nominator as substantive. It is not a substantive argument to present evidence that the usage being defended is not customary, indeed barely findable; nor is it substantive to consider, as Avanu did, the wording of guidelines and policies. Right: to some people words mean whatever they want them to mean. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.