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:Rename. Propose disambiguating, since there are several bodies named "Assembly of the Republic", including the legislatures in Mozambique, Albania, and Macedonia. The official name of the body does not include the name "Portugal", however, so the name should be in parentheses—it should not be "Assembly of the Republic of Portugal". Good Ol’factory(talk)22:56, 10 October 2010 (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:Wikipedians in or around Mankato, Minnesota
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:Merge. Single entry category with limited growth potential. I was going to consider an up merge to a county, but this small city lies in 3 counties. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Previous discussions and precedent have deleted "Wikipedians in location x" categories if the location has less than 50,000 people, as too small for collaboration. Such users who wish to identify with a more narrow location than the state can join/create a category for the county they are located in. Additionally, "in or around" is a bad choice of wording and doesn't match any other similar categories. VegaDark (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2010 (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 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 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:Rename or delete. If kept, disambiguate to match article Cursive (band), since the primary meaning of cursive is something else. Alternatively, category could be deleted due to lack of contents—just a template and a subcategory. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and don't rename. Nominated the same day I created it? That was fast. (1) I haven't had time to properly populate it yet. Like most bands, there are several logical subcats (this band also has articles on 5 EPs, 6 singles, and 6 band members, all of which should be placed in the parent cat or in subcats). (2) AFAIK there is no standard declaring that the category name has to match the disambiguation of the parent article name. There is no category for any other use of the word "cursive", so there is no need to disambiguate the category. Of course if anyone can point to a standard saying otherwise, I'm open to reconsideration. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding disambiguation, categories are generally treated differently than article space. It's thought that categories need to be self-standingly unambiguous, regardless of what already exists in category space. And anyway, I think it makes far more sense to have the article name and the category name match when they are referring to the same thing. To have them different doesn't really help readers in any way. Regarding timing, it takes about 5 seconds to add a subcategory or an article to a category, so I would have thought that if it was going to happen, it would have happened when it was created. (Unless you're planning on actually creating articles in the future, in which case it may be said that articles generally come first, then the holding categories when you get enough articles or subcategories to warrant it.) Good Ol’factory(talk)08:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding timing, I created it and then was off-wiki for the majority of the day (went out of town, came back). Let me scoot around & populate it now, then let me know what you think about keeping it. --IllaZilla (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganized. It now contains the band article and nav template, and serves as a parent for 4 subcats: EPs (5 articles), albums (8), members (6), and songs (6). What do you think now, as far as keeping? --IllaZilla (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm never too good at judging "how much is enough" when it comes to eponymous categories, because we've seemed to have a difficult time deciding on any sort of standard with respect to that—I generally give users the option to delete, but don't push hard for it. I'm happy with a rename. Good Ol’factory(talk)21:04, 11 October 2010 (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 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 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 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:Delete. These categories were all created by the sockpuppet of, apparently, a very problematic former user User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg. Sheynhetz apparently suffers from some sort of OCD issue and creates endlessly growing categories and lists, particularly for Jewish issues. These are just some of the three-way intersection categories he has created. I am putting them up for CFD one grouping at a time. As you'll plainly see, there is no reason, benefit, or logic to have these categories. Most of the people categorized were just plain Jewish, and did not have ethnic or cultural affiliations with either of the listed countries, except perhaps the association of having once lived under that nation's government. DeleteSoundsboy (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2010 (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: The name changed in 1949 to the "British Commonwealth" after the republics of India, Ceylon and Pakistan joined, though in some Asian countries, and in Australia, the old term Commonwealth of Nations may still be used. The name used now by the Secretariat is "the Commonwealth", [1], and that is both the official name and the one used widely throughout the world. Documents use "the Commonwealth", unless originating from one of the Asian countries which may still use the former term of "Commonwealth of Nations". See [2] and [3]SilkTork *YES!10:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I agree with the placement of the main article at The Commonwealth (as it is by far and away the most common usage), the categories don't especially need to follow suit. Unambiguous description is essentially the most important function in categories. With this in mind, I don't think this would a greatly negative move but then again I think it would not be a positive one either. SFB11:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. The Commonwealth Secretariat uses the brand 'the Commonwealth', but it also uses its full name. The nominator's rationale is fundamentally flawed in that the name did NOT changed to 'British Commonwealth' in 1949, but fromBritish Commonwealth! The London Declaration renamed the organisation to 'Commonwealth of Nations', as is its full name. See the Singapore Declaration (the other founding document of the Commonwealth, and issued after the nominator alleges that the official name changed), or the plethora of sources that can be found by googling 'Commonwealth of Nations'. Here's just a news search. Bizarre that the nominator thinks that the BBC is an Asian source. Bastin 14:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose ::: The Commonwealth most often refers to the Commonwealth Secretariat, the main (but not only) intergovernmental agency of the Commonwealth. There is also The Commonwealth Foundation, Commonwealth of Learning, Royal Commonwealth Society and Association of Commonwealth Universities. It's laid out pretty clearly at [4]. Do not forget there are other commonwealths other than the British one.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Earliness of claims is entirely irrelevant - it's what people understand by the term now that counts. In Britiain "The Commonwealth" refers unambiguously to this organization. Is that not true elsewhere?--Kotniski (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We know (at least I do), I'm just throwing info around. Connected to this point though—when I lived in Boston and people said "the Commonwealth", they were referring to the state of Massachusetts. Now that I live in New Zealand, people generally mean the Commonwealth of Nations. When I visit Australia, people often mean the federal government of Australia. There is no one universal principal meaning now I don't think. Good Ol’factory(talk)10:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we need to fix the article name first, I suppose. So better not to continue this discussion here, until the other one concludes (probably the same points are going to be made here as there in any case).--Kotniski (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's been pointed out to me that I have misread the Evolution of Australian Foreign Policy source. It is not that clear what "the Commonwealth" is currently officially called - though "the Commonwealth" is the term that is used to describe it by the organisation itself and media reporting on it, and commentators writing about it. Under WP:Commonname we should be using "The Commonwealth" as the name of the article and for all references to the organisation. Using an obscure form, for which there appears no clear evidence is the current official usage, is not helpful to our readers. We should use the principle of "least astonishment". If there are other usages of "The Commonwealth" then it appears they are local usages rather than the global and widespread use of "the Commonwealth" to refer to the intergovernmental organisation under discussion, and articles on these local usages can be disambiguated from the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as at Commonwealth. I agree with Good Olfactory that it is helpful to match categories with the main article title, and as there is a discussion at the moment regarding the main article name, then this category change can wait upon the result of that discussion. SilkTork *YES!18:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- "The Commonwealth" is also used for the period 1649-1660 when Britain was a republic. I would suggest that the root category should be "Commonwealth of Nations", but the rest (or most of them) do not need "of nations" to avoid ambiguity. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2010 (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 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 - Delete - Don't see how this category benefits the encyclopedia. Can't think of a use for a category meant for searching for users who sometimes edit anonymously. VegaDark (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2010 (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 - Delete - Linked to a userbox stating "This user values faith over reason". No legitimate encycopedic purpose. VegaDark (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2010 (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 - Delete - 0-level category. Unanimous precedent for deleting all 0-level categories as not helping the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2010 (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:Rename to match the name of the parent article. The other option is an up merge since this category only contains one article at present. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shouldn't that be OLED TV screen TVs or its expansion? OLEDs can be used on a control panel or display panel without the TV screen itself being an OLED screen. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with anonymous poster-- there may be some confusion here. If not, I apologize. An OLED ( organic light-emitting diode ) is a specific electronic component used for all sorts of displays. Lately, this includes TVs, although not much because of the too short screen life-span. The most common use is color cell phone displays, where the advantages of low power consumption, etc. make up for the poor screen life. In phones, the screen is not on much and gets replaced every year or so. BTW, Vegaswikian just inexplicably deleted the wikilink from organicsemiconductors to OLEDs without explaining why. OLED's are all composed of organic semiconductors. I'd revert, but I always like to hear any reasonable explaination. It may be that there is a confusion between OLEDs and OLED tv's. Nucleophilic (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, links were updated. However your revert is against the MOS since the article is already linked in the text so it should also not be included in the see also section. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2010 (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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 18. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)