The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This isn't a list - it's a category. Alternatively (as this category doesn't contain much) might be better to delete.DexDor (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC) delete suggestion removed as category now populated. DexDor (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
rename I found a few others. Annular lake requires a look-over though, as the term is used rarely in the literature, sometimes just to refer to a circular lake, but sometimes more to refer to a ring-shaped lake. More sources/definitions needed here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If these lakes are circular as a result of a meteor impact then this category need to be linked into that category tree. I have added this category to Category:Impact craters on Earth. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:NO CONSENSUS. -Splash - tk 20:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Has 4 items. 1 is a redirect to United States Attorney, which does not discuss assistants (other than to say some US Aty offices have 350 assistant US atys.). 2 others are articles in which the subject has other notability. 1 is an article in which attorney has some notability. – S. Rich (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What does any of that have to do with deleting the category? There are 5400 AUSAs [1] - far too many for a list; it's a significant position; and when an AUSA is notable enough for an article they should be categorised. Podiaebba (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PG, categories are for "essential—defining—characteristics of a topic" and "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article." [emphasis in originals]. I submit that AUSA will not become a notable position in and of itself. Rather, the position is simply lower tier job in DOJ, below the AG, DAG, Assistant AG, Associate AG, USAs, Senior Executive Service folks, etc. Adding this step in a person's career is WP:Overcategorization. (Thanks for your thoughtful comment.) – S. Rich (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AUSA would be a defining characteristic for the vast majority of AUSAs. Many AUSAs are likely to be notable - just not the sort of notability that attracts the interest of Wikipedia editors. Try this Google search. Podiaebba (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you say is true, but the issues concern WP notability & overcategorization. When the AUSAs gain WP notability, that notability should stand on more important factors. I do not want the adding of the category to be a step towards making the AUSA position notable in itself. But that is more of a personal view. The decision on keeping the category should be based on consensus and/or policy. – S. Rich (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't favor an article for every Assistant USA either.RevelationDirect (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't and don't argue that every AUSA automatically merits an article merely by virtue of being in that position for more than 5 minutes. I argue only that there are many AUSAs, that many will achieve notability, and that for many it is a clearly defining characteristic in career terms. If it doesn't look that way from current Wikipedia coverage (hence S. Rich's remarks about it just being a career stepping stone for higher-ups), I think that's a failing in Wikipedia coverage, which isn't exactly going to be remedied by deleting the category. Podiaebba (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being an assistant federal prosecutor is notable and defining. Added 3 more biography articles so there are now 6. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:United States Attorneys. As I read the article, there are c. 90 districts, each with an Attorney, but some may have too much work for one man, so that there are assistants. The assistants will probably usually be NN, but some may go on to be notable for other reasons, so that having a category is appropriate. My solutiuon is to widen the scope of the US Attorneys category, to include also assistant. I would suspect that even many of the US Attorneys will be NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being per RevelationDirect: being an assistant federal prosecutor is notable and defining. It would be wrong to categorise as United States Attorneys people who have not held that office, so merger would be a Bad Thing™. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:37, 20 December 2013
Delete Being an AUSA is defining in most cases, although we do not generally feel a need to delinate all points of a lawyers career. It is not, however, notable. As mentioned there are at present over 5000 AUSAs. There have likely been over 15,000, and maybe even more than that. It is not notable, and for most people who are such who become notable has no close link to them being notable. AUSAs can be classified as lawyers without any problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a lot more people who we have articles on, who could go here, but for who being an AUSA is not a defining part of their career, such as Artur Davis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Military actions and engagements during the Troubles (1969-1998)[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:RENAME to 'Category:Military actions and engagements during the Troubles (Northern Ireland). There is evident consensus to rename (and the need is obvious), but not precisely on what to. However, I think there is agreement on adding (Northern Ireland) to the name amongst almost all participants, but not to further add the years of applicability, and the parent category does not do so either. -Splash - tk 20:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I think the time span is redundant here since per The Troubles they did not exist before the late 1960s and haven't resumed after 1998. Brandmeistertalk 21:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, most importantly omitting the very POV "Military" Several of these were what are normally called terrorist bombings, & I'm amazed we introduce this un-needed POV into category names. A combination of "military" and "paramiltary" does not = "military". Also keep the dates as there have been periods called "the Troubles" at many points in Irish history; the previous lot around the start of the Irish Free State - see the OED. Johnbod (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:WP:OCAT. Only one possible entry, zero chance of expansion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
