Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 7

1551:. However even this seems like something that would be much more useful in a chart. Thus we could list the decision, whether it overruled the court from which it was appealed to, and how it effected other lower court decisions if any existed in the case (normally the US Supreme Court is at least the third court to hear the case, at times even th fourth). Also, how do we deal with the difference between an outright overturning of a lower court decision, the type of ruling you get in the Housana Tabor school case, where the court overturns the lower court decision, and reacts against the Justice Department's argument that the lower court was wrong in recognizing a potential right of the religious school to fire minesterial opponants. Then there are rulings where the Supreme Court remands the case to the lower court, where the same outcome could be reached, as long as the reasoning changes. Is this an overruling or not. Also, what about a case where the court agrees with the lower courts in the case, but overrules its own precedents? This is too amorphous a thing to categorize by. It would be great to make a list that explains this complexed issue, but it lakes a clear "yes/no" issue that is what we need in forming categorizes. 2672:

anywhere who is at all interested in the cultural heritage of their community can point you to something that's on a nationally recognized level of heritage, even if it means an hour's drive or something like that. The problem is that these people have no clue as far as actual designation (so which register something is on). A castle, for example, can be on an architectural, archeological, or natural landmark list (not always the same listholder, and not always the same level of importance, so may locally highly important as a park where you can walk your dog, but nationally highly important as a landmark tower, etc). Does this help? The idea of "National Heritage" is meant here as being something between "World Heritage" and "County Heritage". I have been recently having discussions on whether "County Heritage Site" has encyclopedic value yes or no.

2044:

as long as their is a secular purpose and they are actually applied to everyone. Smith overturned Yoder, and they made up things as having been said in Yoder that were not there to made it look like they did not. Then the court largely overturned Smith in Church of the Babalu Aye, or whatever it was exactly, but pretended they were staying with Smith when in fact if they had stayed with Smith they would have come out the exact opposite. The very fact that we are disagreeing about whether Smith overturned Yoder shows that this is a category that cannot be easily defined as yes or no for inclusion. It is a bad name for a category, it is a bad idea.

3232:

emigrating to Israel becomes "of Polish origin" but is "of Polish descent" if he chooses to emigrate to any other country. A separate problem which was brought up in the CfD is that the exception only makes sense if one assumes that every Israeli citizen of xyz descent/origin is Jewish. Davshul argued that this is not a problem since "Polish origin" implicitly includes "Polish descent" but I'm not really convinced by that argument. Finally, from a purely pragmatic point of view, exceptions like this make it harder for readers to find what they're looking for. (for instance, this is how I ended up creating

1918:

Yoder" would either be exaggerating for emphasis (since a departure from precedent is often a point of criticism) or completely wrong. This category is only for explicit overrules, not decisions which are merely perceived by some to be in conflict with prior cases. The distinction between an overruling and a distinguishing is important and notable, not the least of which because the Supreme Court has repeatedly admonished lower courts to follow its cases until they are explicitly overruled.

3223:(and obviously undo the previous CfD) I think the Israeli exception is a mistake. I'll let people re-read the full rationale of Davshul but I hope I'm not caricaturing if I sum it up as follows: Polish Jews (for example) are not ethnic Poles and therefore shouldn't be considered as people of Polish descent but simply of Polish origin. I think this is based on an very narrow view of ethnicity which doesn't correspond to our category system. We don't restrict 2059:

sort you advance (i.e. whether the reasoning of different Supreme Court decisions is consistent in the abstract sense) is the type of analysis that should be placed in articles about cases and cited to secondary sources rather than listed or categorized. In contrast, Wikipedians are more than capable of determining whether a Supreme Court decision uses a magic word like "overrule."

1675:; in fact, it is much more valuable as a list than as a category, because explanations can be made, and linkages between the ruling, and what overruled it. I think the question is, is this defining - e.g. when people talk about a ruling, do they usually say "X vs. Y was a supreme court ruling that overruled xxx"; is this an important way to sort rulings? -- 1917:

example at the DRV page. Smith did not overrule Yoder and should not be so categorized. Legal scholars may rightly remark on the tension between the two decisions, but any reasonable legal scholar would have to concede that there was no explicit overrule. Any legal writer who claimed "Smith overruled

1689:

I certainly have nothing negative to say about the list, but I do not think it fully replaces the usefulness of the category. As for the value of explanation, any halfway decent article about a Supreme Court case that overrules would need to mention the old decision that was overruled. Decisions that

2043:

if Smith did not overrule Yoder than no case has ever been overruled. Yoder says the government cannot use neutrally applicable laws to force people to go against their religion unless it has a compelling interest. Smith says the government can use laws to force people to go against there religion

3403:

perceptions when most of the time they would be better off by doing something else instead that's more constructive rather than play word games. By the way, what is the difference between "descent" and "origin" besides that some dude decides to do massive changes one day to categories and then that

2058:

The Supreme Court can change the governing legal standard (which no one doubts that Smith did) without overruling. Even your comment concedes that the Smith did not say it was overruling Yoder, and in fact said that it was not overruling Yoder. This is all that is being categorized. Analysis of the

1975:

Given the nature of an overrule (i.e. that it must come explicitly from the horse's mouth), we must go with the opinions and not the law reviews. Perhaps law reviews can help in exceptionally rare cases of doubt, but I do not anticipate any cases that should be categorized that do not use the magic

1847:

Neutrality's rename will lead us to an impossible case. Does Employment Division v. Smith overturn the Yoder decision. Well, Justice Scalia insisted he was not overturning Yoder, but most legal scholars disagree with him on that matter. Who do we accept, the author of the decision or later legal

227:

Yet another split of an "LGBT occupation" category into individual subcats for lesbians, gay men and transsexual/transgender people (interestingly, however, not bisexuals yet). As always, this is pretty pointless and unnecessary diffusion for the sake of diffusion, which is not consistent with the

2671:

Thanks for your work on this. The short answer to your question is "It's complicated". If you look at Germany, depending on which of the 16 states it's in, you can ask this question at the local town hall and they will all give a different answer. Basically, at the local level, pretty much anyone

2013:

in some form. Renaming is a wise idea. Having clear inclusion criteria is a must and relying on the opinions themselves is the clearest way. Anything else depends on turning to legal scholarship to determine whether a decision that eviscerates some past precedent can fairly be said to overturn it

2073:

per above. The arguments at the DRV request show that there's a very specific objective definition of "overturn" that is used to populate the category, but as it is named now, it leads to the vagueness that likely led to the original deletion. Clarity in both category name and description would

1565:

As I explained at DRV, the "all decisions overrule something" claim is a total fallacy. "Overrule" refers to discarding prior authority by the same court doing the overruling. The proposed renaming is completely inaccurate because this category is for Supreme Court decisions that overrule prior

2627:

I have now done the splitting by setting up sub-cats using English "Heritage registers of Foo" as intermediate categories for the foreign-language ones. Just merging the nominated category will do, now. Some sub-cats that are named in other English words e.g. "Cultural heritage" could be made

3665:

the article itself says "The term does not describe a conscious movement as much as a loose band of film makers who produce very low-budget films heavily focused on naturalistic dialog." This does not lead me to think we can definitevly place films in or out of this category. We do not need

3231:

is Polish. Many Jews actually fought for a Polish state in the early 20th century. If anything, classifying Polish Jews as not quite Polish enough to be of Polish descent is offensive. Moreover, the Israeli exception creates a bizarre inconsistency in our category system whereby a Polish Jew

3445:

Are people coming from Portugal to Israel tryly analogous to those coming from Iraq, Russia and Germany. I would probably support a change there to, but to assume that different countries of origin must all be described the same ignores the real differences in various immigration

1722:

Sigh. I wrote a lengthy response to the above comment at the DRV, linked above. Suffice it to say that nothing could be further from the truth: overrules are a rare bird. Perhaps only once or twice a year does the Supreme Court explicitly disavow one of its prior holdings.

1690:

overrule are subject to much academic and popular interest, because they represent an acknowledged, avulsive change in the law. Thus, the category is helpful to readers who are on the article about one overruling decision and would like to navigate to other such decisions.

2391:

Actually some people have expressed opposition to alumni being used at all, insisting it is just not a truly English word. They also have said that ending use of alumni would get us past the alumni of foo/foo alumni differences. It might not be many people, but it has

2119: 1935: 1875: 1832: 1594: 1405: 2649:

The term "Heritage register" implies (to me) that the members of the category are statutory organisations. "National Heritage Site", despite the capitals, doesn't imply that (to me) so strongly. To make this clear either way, is it sensible to edit the cat page for

750:

Once again, no clear reason for separate sub-cats. There are many other ways to categorize physicians; needing to separate gender and sexuality beyond LGBT is debateable. I did not nominate TS/TG physicians at this point, but would welcome thoughts on that as well.

3747:. There is no accepted definition for this term, so categorization is too easily left up to the whim of editors. Better that there is a list of films in an article about the term, with said listed films sourced to a reliable source that uses the term. --- 1637:

I don't mean to deny that a trial judge can "overrule" an exception. But the Supreme Court hears so few decisions in original jurisdiction that it hardly seems worth the effort. Especially since no one would think to categorize those kinds of overrules.

3426:

I don't know what the intended difference is—that's kind of my point in starting the nomination. If we can all agree that the difference is not signficant, then it would make a lot of sense to change the Israeli ones back to meet the general standard.

3304:

for consistency with overall 'wording format', but the other sub-cats for the Israeli category need to be changed to the standard, as follow up. However at some point, I say, the overall wording format should be reconsidered; probably it needs to be

3398:

I must say Good Ol, after all these years, with all these types of debates going back and forth and with all the "changes for the better" I can truly say that the situation is now at it worst, with various users constantly trying to impose

2028:

I agree with those inclusion criteria and think the list should follow the same inclusion criteria. Anything less than an explicit overrule may be noted in the articles about the cases, but are not usefully collected in a list.

1619:

Definitely true, though I just remembered that "overrule" is also used by the Supreme Court in a very different context/meaning: in original jurisdictions, they can "overrule" exceptions to the special master's report, like in

376:

trans category. While gay/lesbian/bisexual people and trans people do share some issues, making LGBT a useful and encyclopedic container cat, trans is not a sexual orientation and merging away all distinction is not helpful.

2654:

to say it's intended for statutory organisations only? I haven't made the edit because (a) I don't know if the implication is intended and (b) I don't know how much the status of statutory registers varies around the world.

3095:. However, I've re-read the nomination where "descent" was changed to "origin", and I confress that I'm at a bit of a loss to explain why the Israeli ones should be different and why "origin" is preferable to "descent". 1592:

You can't repudiate every possible misconception, least of all in a category name. In theory, I would be fine with a rename, but everyone that has been proposed so far is a clear disimprovement. Perhaps something like

3091:, the "Israeli people of FOOian descent" categories were renamed to "Israeli people of FOOian origin". The original speedy nomination of this category was to bring this one in line with the other subcategories in 3388:

One way or another, something is broken. Either this category needs to be renamed or all the other "Israeli people of FOOian origin" categories need to be renamed. I assume you would support the latter change?

3326:

personally I think all should be put to descent. Descent when connected with a nationality implies having ancestors who were citizens of that nation, it does not mean that ancestors were ethnically of that

1938:. We do not accept primary sources which would be an opinion of one of the Justices, who may not realize the results of what they doing. We do accept secondary sources, such a 'later legal scholars'. 3771:

Oooh, retroactively applied genres. If this were a music category it'd have been speedied by now. An article suffices, even if said article consists primarily of extracts from tabloid culture columns.

3257:

and the national origin is Portugueuse. It took months of cfds to stabilise at 'of Fooian descent' and I see no advantage in changing 'descent' to 'origin'. (The usage 'of origin' is futile anyway as

1548: 3463:. I'm not sure why this discussion remains open still. The consensus seems clear on what needs to be done. I don't mind doing it—if this discussion ever closes in the way I think it will be closed. 1874:, etc. When a later decision merely calls into question whether the early decision "survives" the later one, it has not been "overruled." If we want absolute clarity, then maybe a name such as 2692:

states that it refers to sites "registered by a governmental agency", so I think this satisfies the point, although the term is not sourced. BTW I am proposing a merger of that article into

3172:. I don't see why we would treat the Portuguese one differently. I agree that I don't see why the Israeli ones need special treatment, but that can't be resolved in this speedy section. 1668: 1527: 1321: 3169: 3088: 2567:

or better still, split to new national sub-cats of the target category named "Category:Heritage registers in Foo" (especially as many of the members are named in foreign languages)

42: 37: 1891:

Lawrence overruled Hardwick, not the other way around. I think the word expressly correctly describes the inclusion criteria but is too repetitive/wordy for the category name.

1671:

for deletion as well. My mind is not yet made up, but I do note the existence of this list, which I think is valuable and may obviate the need for a category in this case.

857:, nominator has it right. However, based on a cursory search, I believe that LGBT physicians meets the test at WP:OC#EGRS, and therefore should, in my view, remain. -- 2416: 2301: 3345: 3412:

that others then feel they must change every last thing in its train. Often times it just feels like "monkey see, monkey do" and it's oh so tiring, don't you think?

1269:

is the main article, I guess, and it makes it clear that the term is more or less synonymous with terms like "tycoons" and "moguls," none of which are cats, either.

3099:: Should this outlier be named to match the other Israeli categories or should there be a more general nomination to reverse the change of the other Israeli ones? 2304:... I think university alumni categories all use 'alumni' and some countries are standardised to 'Alumni of foo' (eg UK), other countries to 'Foo alumni' (eg US). 402:. I don't see the benefit of dividing these into L, G, B, or T. They can be divided into other L, G, B, or T categories; no need for another intersection of them. 2717:

confirms my suspicion that the inclusion criteria of the categories discussed above will be slightly fuzzy, but I guess that's OK as long as we recognise that. --

1672: 1507: 1409: 3233: 3147: 3122: 3072: 2221: 2445:

I have no objection to anyone's extending this to a group nomination, nor, indeed, to whatever outcome happens here. I am content to let it run to conclusion.

2233:

This category needs to be brought within the accepted naming convention for alumni categories. I am not wedded to the comma in the proposed new category name.

3642:

I appreciate your point of view, however I feel that mumblecore is it's own definitive genre. And grouping appropriate movies into this category is a benefit

1989: 1446: 1782:

the clock on this new discussion should not be started until the category is re-populated with its contents. We need to see contents to properly discuss.

1230: 1511: 1467: 521: 21: 1438: 1797: 3306: 2366: 513: 1988:

captures my original concern very well. Folks who don't know it's a magic word assume its a verb, but read as a verb it makes no sense. How about

1429: 2651: 2570: 2554: 504: 336: 17: 3542: 3151: 2431: 2225: 2138: 2954: 2274:

If that is the case, and I see no reason to doubt it, is there not a naming convention there that this needs to be brought into line with?

3254: 3143: 3092: 2322:

Possibly time that this was given airspace (again?), then. I'll let it stand as a nomination and allow the wisdom of crowds to take over.

207: 2204:

do not rename, without prejudice to a broader proposal in the future to change the format for categories of alumni of Indian universities

199: 2475: 2436: 2369:) of 'People educated at', and no-one has expressed any objection to 'alumni' being used for University alumni. And this is a subcat of 2356: 2265: 2242: 2210: 1485: 1329: 3262: 1647:

Agree with Savidan here - since original jx cases are so rare, I don't think they'll be any mistake in meaning for the category here.

3997: 190: 3139: 3126: 3076: 2550: 2419:

is to use "Foo alumni". Any change to that convention should be done by a group nomination, not by creating a lone exception. --

3869: 3258: 1751: 549: 386: 332: 276:

specifically relevent to their acts eg with Bethany Black and Ian Harvie where being trans is very prominent in their material.

161: 3371: 1732:

This is simply wrong, and here too Savidan is precisely correct It is just not true that "all decisions overrule something."

1241:. It is not clearly defined who is a 'magnate' in this context. Also, businesspeople is more neutral and more standard term. 328: 3877: 3666:

categories for every possible grouping of films there is. A list on the article on the subject would be sufficient for now.

2253: 3860: 2105: 1610:

Savidan is absolutely correct here. "Overruling" is entirely different from "reversing" or "vacating," and far more rare.

3624:

being used but if it's not being used in a fairly well-defined and consistent way, then it's a bad basis for a category.

2370: 229: 3758: 2807: 1566:

Supreme Court decisions. This category has nothing to do with reversing, vacating, or abrogating lower court decisions.

1104: 4071: 3961: 3933: 3828: 3800: 3515: 3487: 3041: 3013: 2918: 2890: 2778: 2750: 2523: 2495: 2191: 2163: 1623:. So disambiguation and rename is likely a good idea, even if we are sticking to the strictly legal sense of the word. 1389: 1361: 1325: 1194: 1166: 928: 900: 682: 654: 471: 443: 78: 4023: 2984: 2122:

for clarity. The word "overrule" has a specific legal meaning in this context which is much narrower than its general

1274: 976: 622: 123: 3981: 2950: 2938: 2850: 2798: 2706: 2693: 2638: 2583: 1819: 1747: 1628: 1214: 702: 491: 152: 2963: 1549:

Category:United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule the ruling of the court from which they were appealed

738: 3671: 3562: 3538: 3451: 3332: 2427: 2397: 2352: 2134: 2049: 1853: 1556: 1308: 1056: 967: 845: 714: 580: 419: 4051: 4032: 3985: 3913: 3849: 3780: 3766: 3735: 3718: 3692: 3675: 3651: 3633: 3612: 3590: 3547: 3467: 3455: 3431: 3421: 3393: 3383: 3359: 3336: 3318: 3292: 3274: 3245: 3213: 3204: 3176: 3163: 3133: 3103: 3062: 2993: 2942: 2870: 2853: 2832: 2816: 2802: 2726: 2709: 2681: 2664: 2641: 2622: 2605: 2586: 2542: 2454: 2401: 2382: 2331: 2313: 2291: 2143: 2110: 2086: 2063: 2053: 2033: 2023: 2001: 1980: 1970: 1961: 1947: 1922: 1904: 1895: 1886: 1857: 1839: 1823: 1804: 1791: 1774: 1755: 1736: 1727: 1717: 1694: 1684: 1651: 1642: 1632: 1614: 1601: 1587: 1570: 1560: 1539: 1518: 1492: 1418: 1341: 1312: 1295: 1278: 1250: 1218: 1146: 1129: 1112: 1077: 1060: 1041: 1020: 984: 958: 880: 863: 849: 817: 796: 777: 760: 706: 634: 613: 601: 584: 565: 495: 423: 406: 390: 367: 348: 319: 302: 285: 268: 249: 103: 3993: 3558: 2282:? A counter proposal if so would be perfectly acceptable. I am aiming for standardisation, not to be divisive. 2094:

as per Neutrality and Hmains above. The category is both valid and useful but should be renamed for clarity.

952: 829: 742: 730: 718: 361: 169: 2014:

when the instant opinion does not say so directly. That's too nuanced for this category, but fine in a list.--

3600: 726: 4027: 3750: 2988: 2722: 2660: 1997: 1478: 1096: 399: 237: 94: 1226: 3224: 2689: 1270: 131: 114: 3702: 4067: 3977: 3957: 3929: 3824: 3796: 3776: 3688: 3647: 3608: 3511: 3483: 3037: 3009: 2934: 2914: 2886: 2841: 2794: 2774: 2746: 2697: 2629: 2574: 2519: 2491: 2187: 2159: 1815: 1713: 1624: 1583: 1535: 1385: 1357: 1210: 1190: 1162: 1073: 924: 896: 825:

including parent cat. Sexuality is not relevant in the case of physicians. I guess maybe I should say

773: 698: 678: 650: 597: 487: 467: 439: 281: 74: 625:, which only has 21 articles currently. This distinction is overly specific for such a small category. 3684: 3643: 3604: 1547:

virtually all Supreme Court Decisions overrule something. This might be acceptable if it was renamed

3744: 3731: 3727: 3667: 3531: 3447: 3328: 2420: 2393: 2348: 2127: 2045: 1952:

That's baffling. The Justices know exactly what they are doing when they overturn a prior decision.--

1849: 1680: 1552: 1304: 1120:

as blatant vandalism. I've removed the only article in the category since this is complete nonsense.

1052: 861: 841: 833: 756: 576: 415: 264: 545: 3464: 3428: 3390: 3314: 3210: 3173: 3130: 3100: 2539: 2207: 1408:. Repopulate at editorial discretion. (For example, possibly drawing from the right side column of 1037: 948: 837: 403: 382: 357: 3227:

to white Catholics who have been speaking Polish exclusively for three generations. For instance,

1746:. Category, as explained, is sensible/useful. The current name, however, is vague and misleading. 1090: 1029: 1008: 944: 4047: 3909: 3629: 3586: 3241: 3200: 3159: 2718: 2656: 2618: 2601: 2471: 2450: 2327: 2287: 2238: 1993: 1471: 1291: 1142: 1125: 813: 792: 315: 298: 805: 4066:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3928:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3795:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3714: 3482:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3008:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2885:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2866: 2745:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2677: 2490:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2158:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1356:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1337: 1161:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

895:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

876: 649:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

630: 553: 438:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

344: 245: 3956:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3823:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3510:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3036:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2913:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2840:; this is one of the last categories with "by time period" in its name, and is not needed. – 2773:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2518:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2186:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1384:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1189:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

923:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

677:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

466:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

73:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3772: 2019: 1957: 1943: 1787: 1709: 1579: 1531: 1266: 1246: 1069: 769: 593: 277: 2628:

sub-cats of further "Heritage registers" or perhaps renamed if that is more appropriate. –

2120:

Category:United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule a prior Supreme Court decision

1936:

Category:United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule a prior Supreme Court decision

1833:

Category:United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule a prior Supreme Court decision

1595:

Category:United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule a prior Supreme Court decision

1406:

Category:United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule a prior Supreme Court decision

4019: 3288: 3270: 2980: 2378: 2309: 2261: 2082: 1967: 1901: 1883: 1836: 1733: 1676: 1648: 1611: 858: 752: 610: 260: 1621: 1262: 3168:

I don't understand the need for the Israeli exception either, but it was established in

3417: 3405: 3379: 3355: 3310: 1086: 1033: 1016: 378: 4043: 3905: 3625: 3582: 3409: 3237: 3196: 3195:

people who participated in the original CfD discussion should probably be contacted.

3155: 2614: 2597: 2467: 2446: 2323: 2283: 2234: 2123: 1770: 1287: 1138: 1121: 1011:. The term "Neutropian fiction" gets zero Google hits other than this category page. 809: 788: 311: 294: 3680:

John i find your comments really elitist, and somewhat demeaning to my intelligence.

3707: 2862: 2714: 2673: 2096: 2060: 2030: 1977: 1919: 1892: 1801: 1724: 1691: 1639: 1598: 1567: 1515: 1333: 872: 626: 340: 241: 1800:. Everything in the right hand column with a bluelink would be in this category. 3228: 2015: 1953: 1939: 1783: 1242: 2596:

slight preference for a country-specific split but a merge would also be fine.

1506:

because the category has yet to be repopulated; for a list of its members, see

4006: 3578: 3284: 3266: 2967: 2374: 2347:

per nom. As I have said, I will support any renaming to "people educated at".

2305: 2257: 2075: 3845: 3413: 3375: 3351: 3058: 2828: 2812: 1414: 1012: 99: 3950: