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.
Category:Television seasons by programming
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.
Definite rename, but I'm not sure what the right answer is. We need to work around the differing American vs. British definitions of "series" here — but an individual recurring television show is either a series or a programme, not a programming.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:35, 19 September 2017 (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:Buckingham Nicks albums
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.
Category:Wikipedians who do not edit by smartphone
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 category groups users based on the absence of a particular characteristic and, therefore, is
not-based overcategorization. This category does not facilitate coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement of the encyclopedia. --
Black Falcon(
talk)21:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete; "this user doesn't do X" may be useful for mass-message exceptions (e.g. you send a message to everyone who's not in a specific category), but we don't do stuff that's meant for everyone except the smartphone users, so the category's pointless.
Nyttend (
talk)
01:55, 23 September 2017 (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 who edit by smartphone
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 category was
discussed in July 2016, with a "no consensus" result. The keep argument was that, because there is a perception "that it is highly impractical to edit by smartphone ... [i]t is therefore useful to have a category of editors who use smart phones specifically, to foster collaboration and best practices". However, merely using the same hardware seems like a very weak
basis for collaboration, and the previous discussion did not address questions such as: What are potential areas of collaboration?; Wouldn't different editors with different models and/or web browsers have different experiences?; and so on. In addition, the frequency of the mobile editMediaWiki tag, which is on
10.3+ million edits, suggests mobile editing (granted, not all of it on smartphones) is not at all uncommon. (@
Cullen328: pinging the category's creator) --
Black Falcon(
talk)21:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Because of this category, I have had about ten very productive conversations with other editors who work on the encyclopedia with smartphones, and we have shared tips and ideas to make our editing more efficient. This is the essence of collaboration, and helps the project. As for the "mobile edit" tag, that is generated only when an edit is made on the much less useful mobile site. I use the fully functional desktop site when editing on my smartphone, as do most serious editors, and my edits do not show up as "mobile edits" although they are. The WMF does a very poor job supporting highly productive editors who work with smartphones, and removing this category would be a step back.
Cullen328Let's discuss it23:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Thank you for sharing your positive experience with this category. Do you have any thoughts on Marcocapelle's suggestion to create a dedicated forum for such discussions? Regarding the "mobile edit" tag, it is my understanding that any edit made from a mobile device is tagged as such, whereas edits made from the Wikipedia mobile website generate the "mobile web edit" tag (see
Special:Tags). Is that not the case? --
Black Falcon(
talk)05:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)reply
If someone else wants to create a "dedicated forum" about smartphone editing, I would certainly support that,
Black Falcon. But I am here at this specific debate to support keeping this specific category, which is clearly useful for collaboration among editors, in my own personal experience .
Cullen328Let's discuss it06:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Well, the two aren't unrelated, but I wasn't suggesting that you should create it. In any case, your rationale has convinced me and I am happy to see the category kept (the discussion seems to be solidly heading that way anyway). Cheers, --
Black Falcon(
talk)22:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not persuaded by Cullen's rationale as to the usefulness of this being a category. While having productive conversations with other editors about this form of editing is great, the nature of this being a category implies that there is a useful function in specifically seeking out users who proclaim themselves to be editing via smartphones in and of itself, which I don't think there is. Certain users who are specifically interested in talking about tips and ideas perhaps, but the category as named is too broad to assume every person who adds themselves to this category is using it to that end. In fact, many users simply see a category, go "Hey, that applies to me so I'll add myself!" and forget about it thereafter. This type of usage could actually impede collaboration by making the category participants less likely to care about tips or ideas and could make going through the category for such ends more daunting. If the goal is for such users to talk to each other and gain tips and ideas, I think a Project or talkpage would be much more productive for that goal, or a more precisely named user category that is more specific about the stated goals outlined by Cullen above.
VegaDark (
talk)
00:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment. It is probably not too useful to know which editors are editing by smartphone but rather to have a platform where editors can exchange their experiences in smartphone usage. If that platform doesn't exist yet, it would make sense to postpone deletion of the category until creation of the platform for the sake of a smooth transition (including notification of editors who are currently in the category).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep I normally stay out of these "Wikipedians" category discussions because I don't care what people have on their user page. But, as with Maintenance Categories, if an editor comes here with a reasonable explanation for how this might improve the encyclopedia, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
08:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. User categories like this are for improving collaboration, and when collaboration's happened because of a category, it shouldn't be deleted.
Nyttend (
talk)
12:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep as a way to allow such editors to register their presence, which I believe to be significantly underreported by Wikimedia statistics which most likely count the users who edit using the mobile interface. This latter is different group and IMHO significantly smaller.
YBG (
talk)
23:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)reply
It is my understanding Wikimedia does register edits by mobile devices ("mobile edit" tag) generally, in addition to edits using the mobile website interface ("mobile web edit" tag). If my interpretation of
Special:Tags is correct, roughly 10.4 million edits have been made using mobile devices, of which 8.9 million (c. 85%) were made using the mobile interface. --
Black Falcon(
talk) 05:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC
Please take a look at my edit history,
Black Falcon. Do you see my edits marked as mobile edits? Because I don't, and well over 95% of my edits are made on my smartphone. I became an administrator two months ago and all of my administrative actions to date have been by smartphone. One editor above claims it "is probably not too useful to know which editors are editing by smartphone" even after I assert quite clearly that it is useful to me, and my contributions to this project were
endorsed quite strongly by the community recently. To repeat, my informed opinion is that the WMF and the broad Wikipedia community have done a very poor job supporting editing on smartphones, the world's most popular computer devices. Deleting this category would be a step backwards.
Cullen328Let's discuss it06:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm in the same boat as Cullen. I edit frequently by smartphone (c.f. this edit) but I avoid the mobile editing interface, so my edits aren't tagged as mobile. At least, I think that's how it works.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
17:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - No reason not to. There are so many different user categories, most of which will not help anyone. This apparently has helped someone, and that is enough for me. It's not HURTING anything.
‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalenciaᐐT₳LKᐬ10:11, 10 October 2017 (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.
American expatriate academics
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: /Upmerge to relevant parent cats. No need to splinter by location: there are only about 150 American expat academics and for (e.g.) Australia, there are only about 100 American expats that aren't in another cat so upmerging will not make the respective parent cats. unnavigable. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯20:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Support - This has only one entry after 9 months, so it doesn't serve much purpose. If the parent category grows eventually, there may be more useful ways to divide it, such as by specialty. I don't even see the value of the parent category itself,
Category:American expatriate academics, but I wouldn't support its deletion, since others find it useful.
Numbersinstitute (
talk)
21:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Support and also would delete the entire tree in its current shape. Academics can serve as useful parent categories in many cases but individual people with completely different academic degrees have nothing substantial in common.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:03, 25 September 2017 (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:Co-operative Party
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.
Wikipedia seems to think it is the primary topic. Otherwise the name of the article would be Co-operative Party (UK). If you feel ambiguity is a problem (and it may very well be) I would recommend starting a move discussion on the article's
talk page before we reopen this discussion.
Charles Essie (
talk)
17:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose all. The
Co-operative Party, in alignment with Labour, fulfils an important role in British politics and must remain the primary topic at both article and category level. There are no comparable parties elsewhere so use of (UK) is superfluous. CravinChillies 17:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose all. The
Co-operative Party is clearly the primary topic. The disambiguation page lists four other political parties, none of which is called the co-operative party, and three of which are defunct.
Ralbegen (
talk)
10:14, 8 October 2017 (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:Agriculturalists by state
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.
GP2 Series rounds
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.
16th- and 17th-century elections in Europe
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.
Elections in Great Britain
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.
Support because there were few if any elections in GB at this period; Oppose Laurel Lodged, because the island and the kingdom were substantially the same place.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:19, 18 September 2017 (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:Chattian people
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.
Language isolates of Europe
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: per
WP:SMALLCAT as this category only has and ever will have one member.
Basque is the only full recognized language isolate of Europe so it will forever be the only article ever included in here. I don't buy the argument that we need a separate category for every continent.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
04:21, 17 September 2017 (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:Operating systems using GNOME
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.
Delete per prior discussions. The thing about Linux is that it's always possible, regardless of distro, for a person to replace the default desktop with a different one if they really want to, either by doing it themselves or by downloading a prepackaged "alternative desktop" spin instead of the "official" GNOME version. So Linux distros are not defined by which desktop environment they offer out of the box, because a distro that "uses" GNOME can still have XFCE or LXDE or KDE or Cinammon or Unity installed overtop GNOME anyway.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - GNOME being a possible default for some distributions, it can usually easily be changed for another environment or can be dropped for a lighter window manager. Moreover, a number of GNOME forks are rightfully still considered GNOME by many, making the category ambiguous. —
PaleoNeonate –
06:06, 8 October 2017 (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.