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). ∞ Who ?¿? 00:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC) reply

People are imprisoned once they have been convicted, prior to that they are detained. Detained outside of the civil legal system by the US Government accused of being an illegal combatant. Would cover all Camp X-Ray and Gohost prisoners Abu Grab, without making any accusations but is far to long. Though it would cover what seems to be the thrust of this cat. It seem to attempt to tar people with the same brush.-- Son of Paddy's Ego 23:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment: We could rename to "People detained on grounds of alleged terrorism", I suppose, but... James F. (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply

  Rename as per Grutness. Good name. James F. (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Detained terrorism suspects. Grutness... wha? 00:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Grutness. But I wonder the intent here: is it really to categorize the residents of Guanatanmo bay, or does this also cover those detained by e.g. the British Government? This should be clarified in either the title or the preamble on the cat page. - Splash ^talk 02:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep, I feel the current name does justice to those listed, which includes people detained in domestic prisons such as Richard Reid, as well as those listed being held in Gitmo or otherwise. The name implies that's what they're imprisoned for, it doesn't make a value judgment whether they're guilty or not. It seems NPOV to me, and as a quick look to my userpage will reveal, I'm a strong critic of Gitmo, the War on Terror and such, so don't even think of insulting me again SoPE, kthx Sherurcij 21:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• • Temper, I didn't need to think it's a reflex.-- Son of Paddy's Ego 21:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename to "Terrorism detainees". "Suspected" would not apply in some cases, as they've been convicted by civilian courts. Andjam 00:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• keep - some of the existing entries belong there, like, Andreas Baader, Terry Nichols, El Sayyid Nosair, Ulrike Meinhof, have already been convicted. So, they really are imprisoned for terrorism. I agree however with grutness that the gitmo detainees don't belong in this group. I agree someone should create something like Category:Detained terrorism suspects for them. -- Geo Swan 03:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 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. ∞ Who ?¿? 00:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC) reply

This is another category which was left in the incorrect form when the agreement to rename transport(ation) categories based on local usage was not implemented. Sri Lanka uses Commonwealth English. It has a Ministry of Transport, not a Ministry of Transportation. Rename category:Transport in Sri Lanka. CalJW 22:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename. This isn't a speedy yet? siafu 23:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename....I told you this principle should be a speedy :P Splash ^talk 02:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I'll be doing the others in bulk. I'm putting a list together and moving the articles at the moment. CalJW 03:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC) 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. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Unused category, created to house individual pages for 30 seconds adverts which are now - as a result of this vfd - listed at list of The Simpsons television advertisements. Flower party■ 20:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Empty. siafu 23:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. James F. (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, with relief, an empty cat. - Splash ^talk 02:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Osomec 20:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete I could have swore this was here before, but not in the deletion logs galore. I shall rhyme no more. ∞ Who ?¿? 20:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC) 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. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

There are two exceptions to the practice of naming categories for British/English royal houses "House of X".

• category:Tudor --> Category:House of Tudor
• category:Plantagenet --> category:House of Plantagenet - proposal now amended to Category:House of Anjou as per Arnie587's comment below CalJW 19:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Rename both CalJW 20:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename both. No argument. siafu 23:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename both category:Tudor is just for royals. There is also a general category:Tudor people for non-royals of that era. Osomec 20:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep both . I think renaming these categories is unecessary and creates further problems, if you rename Tudor to House of Tudor it will then be inappropriate to have Tudor people as a sub category, it will need to be moved to another category such as Tudor period, Tudor age, or Tudor era. The use of House of Plantagenet is not the term normally used by historians, if renaming it should be House of Anjou NOT House of Plantagenet (google occurences of "House of Anjou": 17,200, google occurences of "House of Plantagenet" 907) Arnie587 21:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment. That is a valid point: should be House of Anjou.-- Mais oui! 18:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

now it's been renamed, Rename both Arnie587 21:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename both for consistency. Bhoeble 23:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename both.-- Mais oui! 20:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename muriel@pt 10:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 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. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Category for articles related to a completely non-notable website Fawcett5 20:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Even if the articles survive the AfD, there are still only three of them, and as such do not need their own category. siafu 23:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. James F. (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC) 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. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

A few weeks ago I participated in a vote on renaming the stock exchange categories. A proposal was made that the abbreviations should be expanded. Some people, including me, suggested that in a few cases this would create confusing or excessively long category names. This may be the reason why only the LSE was amended. But I don't recall any objections being made to the general prinicipal, so I am now individually nominating the ones that no one objected to changing before.

• category:Companies traded on AMEX / category:Companies traded on the American Stock Exchange
• category:Companies traded on the ASX / category:Companies traded on the Australian Stock Exchange
• category:Companies traded on BSE / category:Companies traded on the Bombay Stock Exchange
• category:Companies traded on HKSE / category:Companies traded on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange
• category:Companies traded on NYSE / category:Companies traded on the New York Stock Exchange
• category:Companies traded on the PSE / category:Companies traded on the Philippine Stock Exchange
• category:Companies traded on the SGX / category:Companies traded on the Singapore Exchange (note that the word "Stock" is not part of its name)

Carina22 17:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. See, this is why we avoid abbreviations. I couldn't have told the difference between the first two without the expansions, nor have guessed at most of the rest. - Splash ^talk 02:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. However, there are now two types of Category: either with: Companies listed on.. or Companies traded on.... We should have just one version to avoid confusion (adding the categories to corporate entries is cumbersome enough without this randomness). My suggestion would be to use listed because that is more precise. - DocendoDiscimus 13:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

In fact, it gets even more complicated. It has a category now called Companies listed on Xetra. As Xetra is not an exchange, a company cannot be listed on it. It's a trading system, so this is the only case where I'd say Companies traded on Xetra could make sense. However, there are several versions of Xetra - one used for shares listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange, one for shares listed on the Irish Stock Exchange (called ISE Xetra), and they are not interchangeable. Best to just delete this category. Oh, and we should call the Euronext one Companies listed on Euronext - DocendoDiscimus 17:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC) 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. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Horribly POV category that merely stole articles from Category:People imprisoned for terrorism, imprisoned doesn't make a value judgment about guilt/innocence and merely states they've been imprisoned/detained. The category seems to have been created by User:195.188.141.133 to try and move articles towards. (Oddly, he also left an entertaining threat on my talk page, considing how left-wing I am IRL) Sherurcij 15:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Inescapibly POV name. TexasAndroid 18:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No argument. siafu 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. For Terroism is far from neutral. Under international law the movement of individuals in the way they where moved is kidnapping and as the term used to describe the prisoners is not recognised in international law. The US either has the choice of treating them as POW or Civilians and according them the requisite rights. As it refuses to classify them as either the detention has no basis in law international or US domestic. The poster doesn't seem to know his left from his right.-- Son of Paddy's Ego 23:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I think it's the rights that are at question. Those on the left can't like this kind of business of rights (ab)use at all, but it'll be fine with those on the right, all of whom are probably clear which hand is their left and which their right. - Splash ^talk 02:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Actually Son of Paddy's Ego, I'm a cardcarrying member of the Communist Party of Canada, so I'm quite certain that I'm aware of the difference between left-wing and right-wing, and I assure you I'm very much a leftist. (Trotsky and Chomsky, not Michael Moore, ty) Sherurcij 21:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Not all captured belligerents are granted by the Geneva Conventions the right to POW status. Andjam 00:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. James F. (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. In the absence of a ruling from Somewhere, it is only opinion, albeit strongly held and strongly denied, that these people are held illegaly. The category can try again once the issue is settled.... - Splash ^talk 02:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, hopelessly POV name. -- Curps 02:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 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 Speedy rename (reverse merge) per CSD cat 3.3. ∞ Who ?¿? 07:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

2 categories cover the same material, Category:Kidnapping is what the article on Kidnapping is categorized under. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Reverse Merge Category:Kidnapping into Category:Kidnappings per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories); articles included are almost all actual kidnappings, not articles on the topic of kidnapping. siafu 23:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep and recategorize both categories' contents per siafu. - Sean Curtin 23:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Reverse Merge, yes. Plurals, please. James F. (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rev merge. ∞ Who ?¿? 02:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge as above. Categories contain more than one item and so get plural names. I'd suggest this is a speedy. - Splash ^talk 02:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC) 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. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

To rename using that following format as seen in Cat:Films by directors. *drew 10:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename. No argument. siafu 23:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• I think this is being blanketed down there ↓ somewhere. - Splash ^talk 02:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • It concluded already, and this cat was not in the Films by director cat so it didn't get renamed with the umbrella. So I just put it in that cat. Rename. ∞ Who ?¿? 02:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename Osomec 20:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC) 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 all subs to "United States Senators from Foo". ∞ Who ?¿? 21:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

This is to rename all the subs of Category:United States Senators using format:

from Category:U.S. Senators from Alabama to Category:United States Senators from Alabama. ∞ Who ?¿? 06:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename all. No argument. siafu 23:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Strongly oppose. Absolutely pointless to make simple names longer without any necessity. older≠ wiser 00:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Necessity? Quote: Avoid abbreviations. Example: "World War II equipment", not "WW2 equipment". siafu 00:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nominator. This is much more obvious than the Representatives debate where I can barely decipher what is going on where. - Splash ^talk 02:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Well I tried :) I also tried to make the sections more clear. Any suggestions would be helpful. ∞ Who ?¿? 02:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename all. Avoids abbreviations. ( SEWilco 14:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)) reply
• Rename all Avoid abbreviations. Carina22 16:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Why make category names longer than needed? They already make the bottom the page messy for a number of articles. U.S. is not ambiguous, and is almost universaly recognized. Lou I 18:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC) 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. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

There are far too many of these to nominate all at once, and I don't think the "no-abbreviations" rule should be applied inflexibly to U.S. categories in any case, but I see no problem with renaming this one category:Foreign relations of the United States. CalJW 06:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename. No argument. siafu 23:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. ∞ Who ?¿? 02:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC) 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. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Merge both into the parent category: Category:Fictional scientists. These two subcategories are unnecessary, and there's been contention on individual talk pages over whether or not particular characters qualify as 'mad' or 'heroic' to the point that they should be categorized as such. - Sean Curtin 05:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Merge as requested Carina22 17:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge both. Osomec 20:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge. -- Reinyday, 20:22, 30 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 Keep. ∞ Who ?¿? 20:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

This category is inconsistent with the other sub-categories of Category:Battles by country, since it (1) creates a categorization by the location of battles rather than by the participants as the other sub-categories do, and (2) it is not named "Battles of Foo". Because of (1), it should not (and cannot) be merged into another category, and should be deleted. Kirill Lokshin 04:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply

To clarify why categorizing battles by location is problematic: such categories either try to use modern countries, which may have no logical connection to the battle (e.g. Category:Battles of Alexander the Great would be scattered among categories for Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria, Israel, and others); or use historical countries, which introduce POV problems when battles cause territory to change hands (e.g. Fall of Constantinople took place in a city that belonged to the Byzantine Empire before the battle and to the Ottoman Empire after it). To avoid these problems, the remaining battle categories use participants, rather than location to organize battles. Kirill Lokshin 12:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep: This category is meant to include the battles that occurred in Saudi Arabia. It may be considered a stub category now, but definitely should not be deleted. -- Eagle ^{a m n} 08:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply

I'll note that there are reasons why categorizing battles that occurred in a country is problematic, some of which I've expanded on above. Kirill Lokshin 12:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Might I also note that it would make more sense to have a category for the battles which took place in Saudi Arabia or in which the Saudi military participated, for the sake of consistency. Since in reality the modern Saudi military did not engage in a battle as a major participant, but it did fight battles with the "assistance" of other militaries, therefore the most appropriate name in my opinion is "Military Operations in Saudi Arabia." But feel free to rename the category if you have any better suggestion. I still insist this category's existence makes sense. -- Eagle ^{a m n} 19:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Actually, some further discussion of the subject here has suggested that Category:Battles by country might be split into Category:Battles by participant and Category:Battles by location, in which case this category could be placed in the latter. Kirill Lokshin 19:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep It is appropriate to categorise both ways. Carina22 17:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Only the article on Battle of Khafji would be appropriate for a Category:Battles of Saudi Arabia article from this collection. siafu 23:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep, categorise in both directions. James F. (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep, I believe we do indeed categorise both ways. Moreover, I think it would be also be ok to have a battle appear in both the modern counrty's cat and the historical one, if such exists. - Splash ^talk 02:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep Bhoeble 19:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC) 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 no consensus (no change) on both proposals -- Kbdank71 13:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Please state if you oppose/support each section. They deal with the same category structures. ∞ Who ?¿? 23:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Section 1, we have two categories Category:Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Category:Members of the U.S. House of Representatives by state. I propose we merge the first into the latter, I do not see how any biographies would not be in one of the state subs. Or merge them both to a non-abbrv category.

• Oppose: Why would you leave the "U.S." abbreviation in the parent cat? Merge and rename to Category:United States Representatives (would then match Category:United States Senators). -- Reinyday, 05:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into "United States Representatives" to go along with the Senator format, above, yes. James F. (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge. Even if the names of the parent and child categories are changed (as I hope that they will be), the pages currently in the parent should still be moved into the children, or removed from the parent where they are already in the children. NatusRoma 06:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Support. Ordinarily, I avoid subcategorization. Subcategorization can be a useful academic exercise, but it's not always helpful to the researcher. In this case, however, thousands of articles would be best suited in 50+ (states, DC, etc.) subcategories.

  Note, however, that it's very useful to the researcher to have a long list somewhere. If these articles are merged into "Reps by state," then the "List" articles ( List of members of the U.S. House of Representatives and List of former members of the U.S. House of Representatives) MUST be kept complete, accurate and up-to-date! -- Markles 18:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Section 2, we rename all subs of the above two categories to expand U.S. to United states;

example Category:Members of the U.S. House from Kansas to Category:United States Representatives from Kansas

example Category:U.S. Representatives from Alabama to Category:United States Representatives from Alabama

(note this is superceding current Cfd's). This will standardize all of them. ∞ Who ?¿? 04:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• • Comment: Are you going to do the same for Category:U.S. Senators from State? It seems silly for them not to match. -- Reinyday, 05:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Actually I was considering it, got distracted with something and forgot :) ∞ Who ?¿? 05:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Category:Members of the U.S. House of Representatives is an appropriate target for deletion once we get more of its population distributed to the state categoies. I vote we use Category:U.S. Representatives from Foo for two primary reasons. First, it matches with the Category:U.S. Senators from Foo. Second is my goal to keep category names as short as possible. Having several lines of categories at the end of an article is confusing and distracts from the article. Many of these people are also justices, governors, generals, etc. The use of U.S. is not ambiguous and is clear to almost every person literate in English. I treat this as an exception to a 'no abbreviations' guideline. Please also contribute to discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Categories. Lou I 12:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • There is no good reason for an exception to the no-abbreviations convention here. Everyone has their favourite categories, but that is no reason to have them an exception to a guideline that is widely used and easily understood. - Splash ^talk 22:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose: The overall cat of all members makes it easier to find someone when you only have some variant of the spelling of their name. The members should also be cat'ed by state. The name of the "by state" category should include mention of the country and house of congress because a term such as "Representatives to USA" or "U.S. Representatives from..." also describes ambassadors and trade representatives. Make a separate proposal for the expansion renaming. ( SEWilco 14:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)) reply
  • I don't really see a need for a seperate discussion, this involves the whole Rep's cat. One can easily say "Oppose first part, support second". It would also be pointless to expand all of the subcats and leave the parent abbrev. Reinyday made a suggestion for the parent above, which I support. ∞ Who ?¿? 23:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
    • I didn't separate my opposition because I also oppose the proposed phrasing in the second part. The name of a category for the U.S. House of Representatives should not use the unqualified term "Representatives" because that word has many meanings. ( SEWilco 14:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)) reply
• Whatever you do, expand the abbreviation. This is an oppose to any suggestion of not expanding the abbreviation. - Splash ^talk 22:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• So are we fine with Category:United States Representatives for the first section? This will match the Senators cfd above. ∞ Who ?¿? 22:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • No, we are not fine. Several people oppose or propose a different rename. This is specifically why I asked for my original rename request to go through. -- Reinyday, 13:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Avoid abbreviations. Per Splash, regardless of anything else, make sure that "U.S." is not in the final version. siafu 23:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Agree with the merge proposed in section 1. Most emphatically oppose expanding U.S. to United States. older≠ wiser 00:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose and do the opposite. I started recategorizing the House in the same manner as I recategorized the Category:United States Senate. Once the recat is finished, there will be no need for Category:Members of the U.S. House of Representatives by state, but the recat isn't finished since there aren't many people who are helping (me, basically), and I stopped doing it. ;) Also oppose extending "U.S." to "United States" as the category is made an even longer title than it already is. -- tomf688^{{ talk}} 21:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose in its current fomat. I can easily see someone not too familiar with the topic placing United States Trade Representatives in a category named United States Representatives. Also, Territorial Delegates and the Resident Commissioners from Puerto Rico and the Philippines should really feed into this category and its subcats, and while they are usually treated as Membersm they are not Representatives. The base category should be Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives with subcategories such as Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from Idaho which would include such notables as George Ainslie who was a Delegate from the Territory of Idaho. Caerwine 23:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Forgot to add that I'm neutral as to the issue of whether to abbreviate "United States" to "U.S.". Caerwine 23:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives. Consider the supposed parallel between Category:United States Senators from foo and Category:United States Representatives from Foo. The parallel doesn't quite work out, because the connection between the word "senator" and the word "senate" is different from the connection between the word "representative" and the word "house of representatives'. By definition, a senator is in a senate, but a representative is not, by definition, in a house of representatives. A "United States Representative" could, technically, be someone who represents the United States, or be a native of the United States who represents a corporation or university to an international body. This category's name, and those of its by-state subcategories, ought to make it explicitly clear that its members are people who represent their states in the United States House of Representatives. Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives and Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from Foo make this distinction crystal-clear. NatusRoma 06:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Undecided Comment (open to persuasion) Category:Members of the U.S. House of Representatives I read to mean sitting House members, whereas by state I would assume to find past or deceased members. How is this addressed? Thank you. nobs 18:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Support with a big "however". Keeping "United States" vs. "U.S." consistent is a Sisyphean task. It's a good practice and a goal, but we can't lose sleep over it. -- Markles 18:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• ***Note, however***, that a "Member of the United States House of Representatives" is not a "United States Representative." In diplomatic summits, e.g., the United States Representative is the Representative of the U.S. Administration. In some instances, the "United States Representative" is someone who represents the United States. -- Markles 18:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Support both proposals. Per Splash, regardless of anything else, make sure that "U.S." is not in the final version. Per Markles, a "Member of the United States House of Representatives" is not a "United States Representative." Hiding talk 09:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC) 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.