Talk:Constitutional Court ruling on the 2006 Catalan Statute of Autonomy

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the article to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. In addition, there is agreement that the original title under which the article was created, 2006 Constitutional Court Ruling on the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia, is incorrect, so that precludes moving the article back to the previous title. While there is no strong consensus in favor of one particular formulation, the result under WP:OTHEROPTIONS is therefore to move the page to Constitutional Court ruling on the 2006 Catalan Statute of Autonomy at this time, with no prejudice against future requests. Dekimasuよ! 05:25, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Spanish Constitutional Court Ruling on the 2006 Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia → STC 31/2010 of 28 June – WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE, a more proper WP:COMMONNAME, and also per MOS:LEGAL (particularly Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal#Article titles; "Articles on cases that are primarily notable for the legal precedent they set, or are primarily discussed within legal scholarship, should be titled according to the legal citation convention for the jurisdiction that handled the case"). The current title is problematic in that it is not precise enough (there were multiple rulings by the Spanish Constitutional Court Ruling (in 2010) on the 2006 Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia; for example, SSTC 46/2010, 47/2010, 48/2010, 49/2010, 137/2010 or 138/2010), it is not concise, and it is not really a "common name" but more a generic sentence to refer to the subject.

General use in Wikipedia is to title articles on court cases by having the party names separated by "v" or "v.", but legal citation conventions in Spain are very different: court cases are identified by an official combination that includes the ruling identificator ("S" for rulings with a judgement and a verdict), the judicial body ("TC" for the Constitutional Court), the sentence number with the year ([Number]/[Year]), and the date. The ruling that is the subject of this article pertains to the STC 31/2010 of 28 June, which aside of being more precise, also happens to be way more concise than the current title. Impru20^talk 13:12, 22 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Squawk7700 (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 03:13, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is emphatically not an "article on cases that are primarily notable for the legal precedent they set, or are primarily discussed within legal scholarship". It is primarily notable for its political ramifications (not to mention its political origins), and none of the 38 refs, as far as I can tell, could be described as legal scholarship. MOS:LEGAL therefore doesn't apply. Turning instead to WP:Article titles, the proposed title completely fails Recognizability and Naturalness. The current title, while clunky, is concise insofar as it is not longer than necessary to identify the article's subject, and though, as you say, it lacks precision, it is consistent with the pattern used in the titles of similar articles, e.g. 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State (not "Law of 9 December 1905"). The intro can easily be edited to say that the article covers STC 31/2010 of 28 June, and the article body can include a summary of the rulings in SSTC 46/2010, 47/2010, 48/2010, 49/2010, 137/2010 and 138/2010. Scolaire (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

As the author of the current title (you were the one who moved the article to its current location) I can understand why you may feel so strong-hearted about it.

First and foremost, this article covers a legal topic, even if it has political ramifications (it is not incompatible; on the contrary, it is quite common, check SCOTUS court rulings, such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization). The article itself fully commits at describing the ruling. Of course MOS:LEGAL fully applies, per the first sentence of the MOS itself.

Sadly, the title you enforced is not "consistent with the pattern used in the titles of similar articles". Roe v. Wade, Plessy v. Ferguson, Tuckiar v The King, etc. as other examples on court rulings, are named very differently. What you cite as an example is a specific law, but note that there were no other "1905 French laws on the Separation of the Churches and the State", so that is precise enough. There are multiple "Spanish Constitutional Court rulings on the 2006 Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia", at least six others in 2010 (and we could find more throughout the years, most particularly because the title does not even clarify what part of the 2006 Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia is covered in the ruling, i.e. it could also refer to any Constitutional Court ruling discussing the 2006 Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia even if tangentially). The current title is not descriptive enough, so "The current title, while clunky, is concise insofar as it is not longer than necessary to identify the article's subject" is not a true statement. The title is clunky, it is not precise, it is obviously not concise and does not identify the article's subject. "STC 31/2010 of 28 June" does, at least, identify the specific ruling made by the Constitutional Court, while being much more concise.

It is your own remark "as you say, it lacks precision" that debunks the rest of your own comment. The current title is not accurate, and you at least partially agree to it. I may understand that you may not like my proposal: then propose another one. So far, I see you are basically opposing the move from your preferred title for the sake of it, not for any sensible reason pertaining the subject.

"The intro can easily be edited to say that the article covers STC 31/2010 of 28 June" This is a must, really, not a possibility, but that should also be reflected in the title rather than leaving an incorrect one. Impru20^talk 16:02, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Also note that I have not even entered into discussing the capitalization of "ruling" in the title, which is not allowed per WP:NCCAPS (the title is not the subject's proper name). But that is a minor (even if additional) problem compared to the others that I have raised. Impru20^talk 16:16, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

And an additional note on "none of the 38 refs, as far as I can tell, could be described as legal scholarship": 1) MOS:LEGAL does not require "legal scholarship" references for a topic to be considered legal (are you really intent at discussing whether a court ruling is a legal topic?); 2) since when the present number or quality of references in an article does influence its title?; and 3) please, just check out there and find lots of legal commentaries to the ruling ( ... just to put a couple of them). Of course the topic is mostly known by its political consequences, but these are directly related to the legal implications of the ruling, which this article does cover (even if it could be further expanded). Impru20^talk 16:34, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I moved the article because it was created as "2006 Constitutional Court Ruling...", which was clearly wrong. I do not "feel strong-hearted" about it, and I am not opposing "for the sake of it". If someone can come up with a more concise and precise title (but one that is intelligible to readers of English Wikipedia), I will be delighted. As to whether you or I are right with regard to MOS:LEGAL, I will leave that to other contributors and/or the closer. Scolaire (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

The proposal is a more concise and precise title, and it is an improvement over the current one both in concision, precision and naming. I do not understand what you mean with "intelligible to readers of English Wikipedia": we have Decision 2026-911 (France), Decree 374/2026, Texas SB 2420 (2025), Executive Order 14224, Ohio House Bill 96, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2803... and many others. Are these not "intelligible to readers of English Wikipedia"? We could maybe use "STC 31/2010 of 28 June (Spain)" instead, but I do not think the disambiguator is necessary here since there are no other "STC 31/2010 of 28 June" elsewhere in the world. Impru20^talk 17:01, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support as nom, with further clarifications added in my initial response to Scolaire above. Impru20^talk 16:03, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

  Please see WP:Requested moves#Nom – Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Unfortunately there is no English language sources cited. So I took the liberty to look for English articles on the subject. None of them refer to it as "STC 31/2010 of 28 June". Most give no citation at all, just a description. A few might give a precise citation, but it is in a wide variety of forms (e.g. "Constitutional Court judgment No.31 (2010)" or "Judgment 31/2010 of the Constitutional Court"), but all embodied in a sentence that effectively conveys that it is a Spanish Constitutional Court 2010 decision on the 2006 Autonomy statute. The descriptive title is best for WP:RECOGNIZABILITY by English readers of the general public.

That said, I am not sure if the current tile is the best descriptive title, since the decision is from 2010 and the 2006 date confuses a little. Frankly 2006 is unnecessary, and I'd leave it out. I would prefer something along the lines of "Spanish Constitutional Court judgment of 2010 on the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia". Or even, as a compromise, "Spanish Constitutional Court judgment No.31/2010 on the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia". Walrasiad (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@Walrasiad: Spanish Constitutional Court judgment of 2010 on the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia has the same problems as above: there were seven 2010 TC rulings on the Catalan Statute of Autonomy. And "Spanish Constitutional Court judgment No.31/2010 on the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia" is basically the same as "STC 31/2010 of 28 June", just way longer. Perhaps "June 2010 Constitutional Court ruling on the Catalan Statute of Autonomy" ("Spanish" and "2006" can be dropped in this context); still unbearably long and clunky, but the only other solution I can think of (barred "STC 31/2010 of 28 June") that does not meet with PRECISE problems. I would also prefer "ruling" since it also prevents an unnecessary debate on whether the American or English spelling of "judgement/judgment" should be used (while also being slightly more concise). Impru20^talk 09:55, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I would support June 2010 Constitutional Court ruling on the Catalan Statute of Autonomy. It gets around the precision problem and is as concise as we're ever going to manage. Scolaire (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Note that I think it would still be against MOS:LEGAL and CONSISTENT, but it would be a better proposal than the current title and I could support it if it can be seen as a compromise solution. Impru20^talk 14:00, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd cut out "June". You say there are other decisions that year, but are there articles covering them? Are they notable at all? Or can they be more neatly covered in the introduction to this article? Again, the English references I've seen don't mention June, but might mention No.31, so its not really adding to recognizability. It seems unnecessary disambiguation, as this decision is clearly primary topic for 2010. So I'd keep it simply 2010 Constitutional Court ruling on the Catalan Statute of Autonomy. If there is some article in the future about other decisions that year, then we can revisit with more precise disambiguation. Walrasiad (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

"are there articles covering them?" The topics do exist, that they do not have articles is not relevant to this discussion. This articles covers the June 2010 ruling, not other 2010 rulings; the month is so important that it is stated in the very first sentence.

"the English references I've seen don't mention June, but might mention No.31" If that is your criterion, the my proposal (STC 31/2010 of 28 June) covers it better, as it is both more concise and precise, and compliant with the legal citation convention for the jurisdiction that handled the case. What I do not understand is why you support a numbering scheme for the title that, at the same time, makes it incredibly clunky. If you do use the legal numbering, then the current RM proposal is more concise AND in accordance to MOS:LEGAL. If you want to highlight the topic in the title for the sake of recognizability (i.e. the Catalan Statute of Autonomy) then you do need the month because there were multiple other rulings in 2010 on that same topic. Also, note that framing it as "Spanish Constitutional Court judgment No.31/2010 on the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia" would make it look like there were 30 other previous rulings in 2010 on the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia, which is not true either (again, an enormous failure at PRECISE).

I can support either STC 31/2010 of 28 June or June 2010 Constitutional Court ruling on the Catalan Statute of Autonomy. Anything else is massively failing to adequately describe the article's subject. Impru20^talk 20:47, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Spain, WikiProject Law, and WikiProject Catalonia have been notified of this discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Editors are coalescing around a number of possible alternatives but I see no clear agreement. In addition to the WikiProjects notified, I have listed the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Style discussions elsewhere in consideration of the applecation of MOS:LEGAL. Note that this article was recently created (21 August 2026) at the title 2006 Constitutional Court Ruling on the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia and was moved the following day without discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Intertranswiki/OKA has been notified of this discussion. —RMCD bot 23:14, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Catalonia has been notified of this discussion. —RMCD bot 23:14, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose for WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. Personally, I know straight away what "Spanish Constitutional Court Ruling on the 2006 Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia" is referring to, and I would not recognise "STC 31/2010 of 28 June" at all.

As outlined in this comment above, the advice about article names for cases at MOS:LEGAL does not apply here: this is not a ruling that is primarily known for its precedent or place in legal scholarship. The first sentence there seems much more relevant ("Articles should be titled according to their commonly recognizable name").

Would not oppose a move to something else which is more WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE, but none of the options suggested elsewhere in this discussion seem any better than the current article name on balance. Theorolyst (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that the current title is not PRECISE: there were multiple other rulings by the Spanish Constitutional Court on the 2006 Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia. Multiple. This is not really debatable, and meeting PRECISE is still a requirement. There have been multiple alternative proposals to the current title (including one accepted by the current title's author), so that could fit this in its place if the proposed title is found as not suitable. Impru20^talk 14:30, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I support a move which serves readers.

2010 Constitutional Court ruling on the Catalan Statute of Autonomy is the best alternative suggested so far, but I think that removing "Spanish" makes the topic less clear to the English reader, which is why I said that no existing suggestion is obviously an improvement over what we already have.

I don't think disambiguation with other rulings in the same year is all that important if this one is by far the most notable one and is the only one included at En-WP.

As an aside, it is worth mentioning that the creator of the current article name should have no greater weight of opinion than anyone else on this. Theorolyst (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

There were multiple such rulings in 2010, so it would need to be "June 2010". Also, removing "Spanish" does not make the topic less clear to the English reader because you are already mentioning "Catalan Statute of Autonomy" (it is not conceivable which other Constitutional Court's jurisdiction would be able to rule on such topic, so that is why "Spanish" can be cut there).

"this one is by far the most notable one and is the only one included at En-WP" Being "the most notable one" and being "the only one included at en-WP" are not enough, by themselves, to skip WP:NCWWW (if we treat this as an event rather than as a judicial ruling), because it is not a proper noun. The 2024 United States presidential election is by far the most notable "2024 US election", yet we have a title that is more PRECISE and informative than just the shortest name we may think of. We only have one article for the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, yet the main name is at [[2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami}} because "earthquakes" and "tsunamis" are not uncommon in the referred region: the date adds necessary precise to highlight that this is precisely the event we are referring to, out of many ones out there.

"it is worth mentioning that the creator of the current article name should have no greater weight of opinion than anyone else on this" I did not say the creator. I said the one who moved the article from its previous title (which was also worser). And just as easy as that, I could have also moved the article to a title I preferred the most rather than opening a RM, but I wanted to see a stronger consensus and ascertaining what people's opinions were.

So far, there seems to be an unanimous (or almost unanimous) consensus that the current title is bad enough to merit seeking an alternative. The point of conflict is what such alternative could be. Seems like something that implies something along the lines of "[date] Constitutional Court ruling on the Catalan Statute of Autonomy" could be an acceptable compromise solution, but that requires people to have an actual constructive will. Impru20^talk 17:57, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to stop you there. There is nobody other than you saying the current title is bad. There is unanimous consensus that your proposal is bad, but otherwise it's just people offering alternatives that they think might satisfy you (but they never do). If you want to propose Constitutional Court ruling on the Catalan Statute of Autonomy, do so. If people come back and agree, great. But at the moment, the clear consensus is not to change from the current title. Scolaire (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Scolaire, please take in mind that I said that after an uninvolved relister expressly cited that "Editors are coalescing around a number of possible alternatives" and that "this article was recently created (21 August 2026) at the title 2006 Constitutional Court Ruling on the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia and was moved the following day without discussion". I opened this RM because you should probably done so instead of unilaterally moving to a title that does not even comply with Wikipedia's MOS on title capitalization. If this RM to this specific proposal fails, I could perfectly open another one under a different proposal (or just open-ended) based on the arguments presented here. But per WP:SNOW, that would not be necessary if we agree to a title in this very same RM. Impru20^talk 18:36, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

"Moved without discussion" is a straw man. Not even you are arguing that the article should be moved back to the original title. WP:Requested moves says, if you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page, and I certainly had no reason to expect the fuss you've made! Scolaire (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

"Not even you are arguing that the article should be moved back to the original title." I am arguing that it should be moved to another title, and that I am basically doing the job you, as the mover, could have done (which is: seek a consensus on what could be a better title) rather than conducting what was a potential controversial move unilaterally. You yourself have described the current title as "clunky" and "lacking precision" (you); others have also said that the current title is confusing. Also, excuse me if I disagree with regarding a legitimate RM as a "fuss". Impru20^talk 14:56, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note re precision. Impru20 has cited WP:NCWWW, and the example of 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. What the guideline actually says about that article is, There are no other "Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami" articles in Wikipedia, but the year is a useful identifier (emphasis added). It does not say, "there have been other earthquakes and tsunamis in Tōhoku, even if they don't have articles, so the year is mandatory." The same applies here: no other Constitutional Court rulings on the 2006 Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia have articles, nor ever will; Impru20 thinks the date [edit 15:14, 3 September 2026 (UTC): day and month] is a useful identifier, but the consensus seems to be that it is not. Until I read that guideline, I was taking the WP:PRECISE argument at face value, but it is clear to me now that Impru20 is interpreting WP:PRECISE too restrictively, as he interpreted WP:LEGAL too restrictively. The current title, and the other proposed titles, are sufficiently precise. Scolaire (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Now you make a straw man yourself: I have never said the year is mandatory.

This is you above acknowledging that the current title is "clunky" and "lacks precision". And this is you openly supporting a later proposal as "getting around the precision problem".

"no other Constitutional Court rulings on the 2006 Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia have articles, nor ever will" "Nor ever will" seems like a WP:CRYSTALBALL assumption. Even so, we do not need for similar other articles to exist for a title to be PRECISE: 2004 Madrid train bombings, 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State (this one cited by Scolaire themselves in the discussion above) and many, many (many) other articles do have the year as identifier because it is an useful identifier.

This workaround on what was initially said (and agreed!) in this discussion feels disruptive. Impru20^talk 15:08, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I am now going to formally propose Constitutional Court ruling on the Catalan Statute of Autonomy, as being both sufficiently concise and sufficiently precise. @Walrasiad and Theorolyst: do you think you could support that? Scolaire (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Which Catalan Statute of Autonomy? 2006? 1979? 1932? You can drop the Statute date if you add the date of the ruling, dropping both is incredibly imprecise. Considering the development of the discussion above, I am quite astonished by your back-and-forth stances. Impru20^talk 15:19, 3 September 2026 (UTC)