< September 5	September 7 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (no change) --Kbdank71 20:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC) NOTE: This is being listed as unresolved because the subcats from Nebraska on were not tagged for renaming. I'm doing this now, and will keep those cats open for discussion. --Kbdank71 19:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we please rename to a standard? We have:

   * U.S. Representatives from Alabama
   * U.S. Representatives from Alaska
   * U.S. Representatives from Arizona
   * U.S. Representatives from Arkansas
   * U.S. Representatives from California
   * U.S. Representatives from Colorado
   * U.S. Representatives from Connecticut
   * U.S. Representatives from Delaware
   * U.S. Representatives from Florida
   * U.S. Representatives from Georgia
   * U.S. Representatives from Hawaii
   * U.S. Representatives from Idaho
   * U.S. Representatives from Illinois
   * Members of the U.S. House from Kansas
   * U.S. Representatives from Kentucky
   * U.S. Representatives from Louisiana
   * U.S. Representatives from Maine
   * Members of the U.S. House from Maryland
   * U.S. Representatives from Massachusetts
   * U.S. Representatives from Michigan
   * Members of the U.S. House from Minnesota
   * U.S. Representatives from Mississippi
   * U.S. Representatives from Missouri
   * U.S. Representatives from Montana
   * U.S. Representatives from Nebraska
   * U.S. Representatives from Nevada
   * U.S. Representatives from New Hampshire
   * U.S. Representatives from New Jersey
   * U.S. Representatives from New York
   * U.S. Representatives from North Carolina
   * U.S. Representatives from Ohio
   * U.S. Representatives from Oklahoma
   * U.S. Representatives from Pennsylvania
   * U.S. Representatives from Rhode Island
   * U.S. Representatives from Tennessee
   * U.S. Representatives from Texas
   * U.S. Representatives from Vermont
   * U.S. Representatives from Virginia

Rename "Members of the U.S. House from Foo" to "U.S. Representatives from Foo". -- Reinyday, 00:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Rename all to Category:Members of the U.S. House of Representatives from Foo, to match parent category. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename all to Category:Members of the U.S. House of Representatives from Foo, to match parent category. CalJW 00:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. Perhaps then we should look at the other ways of naming US politicians. Grabbing North Carolina, we have:

• Governors of North Carolina
• Members of the North Carolina State House
• North Carolina Court of Appeals judges
• North Carolina General Assembly by session
• North Carolina State Senators
• North Carolina Supreme Court justices
• North Carolina city council members
• U.S. Representatives from North Carolina
• U.S. Senators from North Carolina

-- Reinyday, 00:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• NOTE: When the rename is decided, we still need North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. -- Reinyday, 01:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support rename to "Members of the U.S. House of Representatives from Foo." I don't support a consistent application across all other U.S. politician subcategories, however, because we use "members of" only because there is no simple noun form aside from the non-gender neutral "congressman." "Senators of the North Carolina Senate" would be kind of silly (and "Senators of North Carolina State" still ambiguous), and calling them "members" would be unnecessary and possibly confusing because no one calls them that. Same thing with justices, judges, etc. The "Members of" form should only be used for anything where the only other option would be the equivalent of "congressman" or "assemblyman" (and only because "congressperson" and "assemblyperson" sound really dumb). Postdlf 05:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I wasn't suggesting that they all be renamed uniformly, I was just providing other examples. -- Reinyday, 20:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Categories must be tagged, and these aren't: Reinyday, please tag the "Members of" subcats with ((cfd)). Postdlf, please get the rest. Thanks. --Kbdank71 15:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I made it alphabetically through Montana. Postdlf 18:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename as nominated. --Kbdank71 15:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment U.S. should be expanded to United States. Hiding talk 18:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • U.S. is not ambiguous in any way, and it's probably usually abbreviated when spoken or written in this context. No need to make the category names any longer than they need to be. Postdlf 18:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I fully agree, but I think there's been a consensus somewhere that US and UK not be abbreviated (which I personally dislike only because it takes up a lot of room, as in Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from Minnesota).-- Reinyday, 20:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Discuss - I tried to start this discussion, please look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Categories. Yes, we need to address consistancy, but lets try for a consensus on an overall solution first. In general, I think category names are sometimes just too long, and prefer the shorter version. Several long categores on an article, especially when line wrap occurs, are confusing. Lou I 22:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 23:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. Maurreen (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to Category:U.S. Representatives from Foo, (sorry comment wasn't clear) ...Lou I 19:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename as per Lou I. As the creator of many of these, I wish to apologize; I had only seen the "U.S. Representatives from Foo" formulation, and assumed that was standard. Meelar (talk) 03:31, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per Grutness. Only rename categories of federal officials in this manner, and leave categories of state officials the way they already are. NatusRoma 19:10, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to (Name of state) state representative. Unless I'm missing a trick. Can't see the need to mention the U.S. in the name, since the name of the state declares their country, and they are the state in question's representative, yes? Hiding talk 15:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unless something in the machinations of US politics eludes me, their official title is "Members of the U.S. Representatives". If you just say "Georgia state representatives", say, you'll end up with people who have represented the state at politics, sport, spelling bees, etc etc etc. Grutness...wha? 01:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This would be confusing. Category:Mississippi State Senators houses members of the Mississippi Senate. US Senators are housed in Category:U.S. Senators from Mississippi. Category:Mississippi state representatives would be for members of the Mississippi House of Representatives. -- Reinyday, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair play then. Rename per Grutness. Use U.S. in contexts such as this. Hiding talk 18:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to Category:U.S. Representatives from Foo older≠wiser 20:49, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:U.S. House Rep. from Location We should use a short, standard and clear common term. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 22:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 16:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was cleaning up at the bottom, and did the move Category:U.S. state insignia by state → Category:United States state insignia. Then I noticed this one was a parent to Category:U.S. state insignia by state, which just seems wrong. It evidently got left out of the rename spree. It seems this was intended as a parent cat, but since the target isn't "...by state", and keeping the existing cat is confusing at best, we should probably merge it. -Splash 22:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was party at Grutness'!!! Um, I mean rename as nominated. --Kbdank71 16:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A rather clumsy name which was chosen before the standard was established (See category:British visitor attractions by locality). It should be renamed category:Visitor attractions in Scotland. Could Americans please note that the term "landmarks" while fine for the U.S. is not suitable for UK categories as the word has a much narrower meaning in British English. Visitor attractions is the correct British English term. CalJW 22:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename for consistency per nom. But what does "landmark" to USians? -Splash 23:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Almost anything. Height isn't necessary. Lake Merritt, Midway Atoll and the Great Dismal Swamp are all in the category, along with skyscrapers, museums, hotels and casinos. CalJW 05:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• "Scotland to visit"? I'll have to get the spare room ready, then. Rename. Grutness...wha? 01:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Empty category - TexasAndroid 21:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Empty, parentless, inconsistent with Category:Architecture by country. siafu 21:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete because it's empty, but it is a legitimate category. Bhoeble 21:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 16:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Empty category - TexasAndroid 21:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. I just populated and parented it; fits in Category:Chemical compounds by element. Though there are only two articles, I parented Category:Coal to this as Germanium is found in all varieties of coal. siafu 22:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Submitter, changing my vote to Keep. I knew it fit in Category:Chemical compounds by element, but I have nowhere near the right knowledge to know what articles to populate it with. Thanks. TexasAndroid 02:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Empty category - TexasAndroid 21:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Non-standard category. CalJW 21:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete inconsistent. Wikipedia does not categorize by social class. siafu 22:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment This vote should also apply to category:Intelligentsia, which has no non-Russian content and to the non-empty variant of the originally nominated category Category:Russian intelligentsia. Delete all CalJW 02:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all 3 Bhoeble 21:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Empty category - TexasAndroid 21:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Could be populated per the article, but this is much better written up as a list in pedigree format. siafu 22:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge, then rename (add hyphen) --Kbdank71 16:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overly broad category. While it currently has only cricket and rugby entries, the category could conceivibly hold just about any sports related list. All three current categories have other, more useful, categorizations, so IMHO this one could (and should) just disappear. TexasAndroid 20:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge and delete Not too broad at all, but a duplicate of Category:Sports related lists. Merge and delete. CalJW 21:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge per CalJW. siafu 22:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge per CalJW... and rename the new category as Category:Sports-related lists (with hyphen). Grutness...wha? 01:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's please not clutter this vote with a rename of a (currently) unsubmitted category. If you want to submit Category:Sports related lists for rename, please do so. But strongly IMHO it should get it's own vote separate from this one. TexasAndroid 02:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No need to bow at the altar of bureaucracy. I'm in favor of taking care of it all at once, if possible. siafu 03:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yes rename Category:Sports-related lists CalJW 05:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge to Category:Sports related lists. This category is only for "lists" related to sports (not articles). It is part of the Category:Lists super-structure. No list categories should be deleted for being broad as they can have subcategories, but this one is a duplicate... -- Reinyday, 14:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The correct category should be Category:Alumni of Trinity College, Cambridge. I've added this category to the (single) entry here, but the dud category needs deletion. Bluap 19:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. -- Reinyday, 20:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. We did all these a couple weeks back — this might be speediable as an unknowing recreation. If these keep coming back, we'll have to do ((categoryredirect))s. -Splash 23:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment Reverse merge (or at the very least redirect if consensus is delete) If these keep coming back I'd say it indicates that "alumni" is not the most intuitive term to use for this. Granted it's well known and growing in populatiry in higher avademic circles and many universities across the globe doesn have "alumni networks", but usage of the term is extremely rare in everyday use (at least outside the US/UK) and for the vast majority of the "unwashed masses" (those not part of an alumni network) alumni is basicaly an "alien" word. So why use it in this context when "former students" works equaly well and is understood by anyone who undrstand English. Granted this is not the simple english Wikipedia but still... --Sherool 18:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reverse merging this will result in 1 category in 20-something being different. Why would that be helpful? If you really want all 20-something the other way around, it would be better to propose to undo the renaming en-masse than to do it for one single category,surely? -Splash 18:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yeah I guess. Consider it a "protest vote" hoping to "stir up" some debate on the issue rather than let it get "rubber stamed" though on the merit of presidence alone. If my little "rant" here can't get anyone to reconsider, at least in principle, even if they favour renaming for the sake of consistency, then such an undo nomination would be an utter waste of time. Feel free to disregard my vote in this instance if there is a "no consensus" danger. I'm basicaly just fishing for more input on the issue. Guess the village pump would have been a better place, but I'll give if a couple of days here first and see what turns up first. If there is a strong consensus in favour of the rename (for other reasons than consistency) I'll yield. --Sherool 19:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Ok, seems I realy am the only one bothered by the use of the term, at least among the people who frequent CfD, so I just changed my vote to a comment. I did a little "survery" on a forum I frequent and most people did know off the term. It should be noted that it has different meaning in different countries though (at least that's what I was told) in Canada it aparently only apply to people who earned a degree (opposed to how it apparently also apply to drop outs in the US), also in Australia the term is only used for former students (graduates or not) who actively keep in touch with the school (guest lecturers and such I guess), while the rest are usualy refered to as either "old scolars" or just ex students (except maybe at "formal" avaversary reunion parties). --Sherool 23:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 17:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both names Gdańsk and Danzig allowed.

• Keep Rename per Reinyday below. --Lysy ^(talk) 16:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep because the article is Gdańsk. -- Reinyday, 20:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Warn that there is currently a not-inconsiderable debate raging somewhere about the name of this article and its template. We should be wary of renaming this category without a significant turnout from those involved in that debate (it has even generated a temporary exception to the 3RR on a related template, I believe). As it stands however, the new name can't be had because of the '/', I'd think. -Splash 23:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • How about "Natives of Gdańsk (Danzig)" name then ? The motion to rename is actually provoked by the dispute that you mention in an attempt to provide a neutrally sounding category name. A Category:Natives of Danzig has been created by an editor, which both collides with the earlier existing Category:Natives of Gdansk and seems to be a potentially inflammatory action. --Lysy ^(talk) 07:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: please see the related vote to delete Category:Natives of Danzig. -- Reinyday, 02:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Rename since it was my idea ;-) --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to Gdańsk (Danzig), as per Lysy. This issue is in desparate need of some moderation and sane compromise. Alai 01:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per Reinyday. Gdańsk is not the only place known by more than one name, and making this Gdańsk/Danzig sets a bad overcomplicating precedent for other disputed names. The categoty name should follow the article name here.--Pharos 03:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Leave it alone Don't feed the trolls. Septentrionalis 19:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 17:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have already nominated various building categories that are missing "and structures" from their names, so here are the rests of the national categories. Is seems that at some point a decision was reached that all buildings categories should be called "buildings and structures" (see Category:Buildings). This makes sense as it removes any doubt as to whether things like bridges, tunnels, dams, masts, walls, locks, piers and towers may be included. The majority of the national categories already include the word "structures" but the ones that don't include most of the bigger ones that were presumably created earliest, eg UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan, China. I would like to see these all made consistent now. I have listed the amended titles in brackets where it involves any change other than adding "and structures" after "buildings".

• Category:Buildings in Australia
• Category:Buildings in Belarus
• Category:British buildings (Category:Buildings and structures in the United Kingdom)
• Category:Buildings in Egypt
• Category:Finnish buildings (Category:Buildings and structures in Finland)
• Category:Buildings in France
• Category:Buildings in Germany merge into category:Buildings and structures in Germany and delete
• Category:Buildings in Greece
• Category:Buildings in Hong Kong
• Category:Buildings in Hungary
• Category:Buildings in Iran
• Category:Buildings in Italy
• Category:Buildings in Japan
• Category:Buildings in the Netherlands
• Category:Buildings in Pakistan
• Category:Buildings in Poland
• Category:Buildings in Portugal - delete, category:Buildings and structures in Portugal already exists.
• Category:Puerto Rican structures and buildings (Category:Buildings and structures in Puerto Rico)
• Category:Buildings in Romania
• Category:Buildings in Russia
• Category:Buildings in Scotland
• Category:Serbian buildings and structures (Category:Buildings and structures in Serbia)
• Category:Buildings in Singapore
• Category:Buildings in Spain
• Category:Swedish buildings (Category:Buildings and structures in Sweden)
• Category:Buildings in Wales

Also, Category:Lists of structures should be renamed Category:Lists of buildings and structures

Rename all CalJW 15:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename as per CalJW. I noticed this inconsistency a while back and I think this is a good resolution. --stochata 16:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Makes sense. TexasAndroid 18:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 18:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add another one to the list: Category:Buildings and structures of New Zealand → Category:Buildings and structures in New Zealand. Grutness...wha? 01:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I listed the seven categories containing of separately - see below. CalJW 05:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as above --Kbdank71 17:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no clear consensus: keep --Docu, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Suggested renaming to: Category:Lists of buildings and structures (see above).

• Keep, the shorter version "Lists of structures". Every building is a structure. -- User:Docu
• Keep per Docu. -- Reinyday, 07:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. This category has no clarity of definition whatsoever. As several people have observed on the talk page, it does not provide any useful information other than the fact that a person had something to do with the cold war. This category has an archived peer review request which asks whether every national leader during the cold war be in this category? Revealingly, there is no response! The cold war was the basis of geopolitics for decades. How do you then generate a list of "cold war people"? How about every foreign minister too? Where do you draw the line?!

• TreveX^talk 13:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Confusing and not too clear. - Darwinek 14:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. I've never been comfortable with this one. The whole world participated in the Cold War in one way or another. Postdlf 17:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. I agree with the nominator... --Daedalus-Prime 19:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Carina22 22:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was listify --Kbdank71 17:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listify and delete. Same format like Category:Mountains by Elevation (km), which has been recently deleted. Purpose of categories is not to sort by elevations, depths, lengths, areas etc., but to sort by name. - Darwinek 12:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Category:Atlantic Ocean trenches by depth
• Category:Caribbean Sea trenches by depth
• Category:Indian Ocean trenches by depth
• Category:Pacific Ocean trenches by depth

Voting:

• keep => delete : A tiny list will do the job. Anyone can google the name of a trench, but find them sorted by depth is virtually impossible, c.f. similar discussion Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 1#Category:Mountains by Elevation (km) and its subcategories - ¢ NevilleDNZ 01:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC) ¢Reply[reply]

• Delete. Interesting that someone who is doing so much work on trying to reinvent the wheel, and spending so much energy arguing about it, is accusing others of being stubborn. Perhaps it's everyone else who's marching out of step. Grutness...wha? 01:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • Nominated team? Not sure what you mean by that one. Nor am I sure why you think that copying and pasting and automated sorting using spreadsheets (how I got the information into list form) constitutes manual tabulation and hard work. Grutness...wha? 01:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete and can we get rid of the extra distracting nonsense above, a link to it all would be better:) Vsmith 13:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. This really needs to be a list. siafu 15:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete and listify. —Lowellian (reply) 17:39, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• delete. Catagories are catagories and lists are lists and never the twain should meet. BL Lacertae 00:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy delete pls. No longer used and now emptied, created by me on Sunday and now replaced with Category:UCL academics after discussion (not all academics are professors under the UK system). --stochata 11:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Bhoeble 21:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rebundant with Category:User pas and not used. CG 10:34, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No argument. siafu 20:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rebundant with Category:User for and not used. CG 10:34, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No argument. siafu 20:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While it's possible that there may be some potential subcategories for Category:American lawyers that are useful, accurate, and clear to laypeople, this is not one of them. Ultimately an arbitrary designation because the term "high profile" has no substantial meaning, and whatever meaning it has will likely already be accounted for by the simple fact that the lawyer deserved an article. So that's a delete from this side. Postdlf 05:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Any lawyers that are not high profile (or better, "are not prominent") are unlikely to have Wikipedia entries. So Delete. Grutness...wha? 10:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete We don't do categories that make subjective judgements about eligibility. It is a problem though that the category system doesn't highlight key articles. Imagine how big some categories will be in 20 years time! The ability to sort the articles in a category by length or number of edits would help to address this budding problem. CalJW 15:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I like the idea of being able to sort articles by length... Unfortunately that doesn't always correspond to importance, but it's interesting nonetheless. Maybe sorting by number of articles that link to that article may be more indicative of significance? Postdlf 17:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • That would be useful too. CalJW 21:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Mmmmm. Those are both tasty ideas. -Splash 00:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete adjectival cats. Any so-named cats will only retain their entries if the articles either a)are clearly notable or b)are questionably notable and survive AfD. -Splash 00:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. —Lowellian (reply) 17:40, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Only high profile lawyers deserve articles. Osomec 17:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: "High profile", as it is used here in the States, does not mean notable. It refers to getting a lot of media attention. The OJ Simpson case and the Scott Peterson cases were high profile, and the lawyers in those cases were high profile lawyers. A Google search reveals about 30,000 instances of the phrase "high profile" in the English Wikipedia, and about 15,000 instances of the phrase "high profile lawyer" on the web. However, if this usage is not clear, particularly to English speakers in other countries, then the category should certainly be deleted or renamed. -- Reinyday, 02:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 18:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe this category is unique. I have looked at its history and at one time it was the head category in Category:Russia and it contained things like law enforcement and military until I took them out. All in all it revealed a distinctly Russian point of view about the primacy of the state which shouldn't be apparent in Wikipedia. The standard category would be category:Government of Russia, which would have 27 companions in category:Government by country. Rename CalJW 00:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename. -- Reinyday, 00:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. No argument. siafu 23:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.