Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 16 September 18 >

September 17[edit]

Category:Companies founded by Jennifer Lopez[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 7#Category:Companies founded by Jennifer Lopez. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme of Category:Companies by founder and these are presently categorized as "works" which is not accurate. Upmerging to the parent would not make it unnavigable. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:07, 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:Television seasons by programming[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 11#Category:Television seasons by programming. ℯxplicit 02:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There has got to be a better name for this. Maybe Category:Television seasons by series? I'm open to other names. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:03, 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:Buckingham Nicks albums[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: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge to individual artists. There is no page for Buckingham Nicks other than the album itself. This is not helpful. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:25, 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:Wikipedians who do not edit by smartphone[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: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 is not helpful. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No benefit to the project. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obvious violation of WP:USERCAT. VegaDark (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We categorize things by what they are, not be what they aren't. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not facilitative of collaboration (which is what user categories are for) in any identifiable way. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 20 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[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: keep. ℯxplicit 02:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 edit MediaWiki 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]
  • Weakest possible keep If it could be useful for testing. If not, then delete. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:26, 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. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:16, 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 . Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:42, 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 per Cullen. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:53, 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. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, that rather turns my thinking about the automatic tags on its head. Thanks for correcting my comment to YBG. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:21, 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]
    On the other hand, I'm making this edit on a desktop computer. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:30, 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 ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 10:11, 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[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: merge to parent categories. ℯxplicit 02:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Subcats Category:American expatriate academics in Australia, Category:American expatriate academics in Canada, Category:American expatriate academics in China, Category:American expatriate academics in Pakistan
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[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: keep. ℯxplicit 02:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was recently renamed under WP:C2D per primary topic Co-operative Party. However, this is highly ambiguous, see Co-operative Party (disambiguation). Category:Co-operative Party and Category:Co-operative Party politicians should be category disambiguation pages. – Fayenatic London 13:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  • Keep -- Unless someone will point to a similarly named party elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, otherwise some day the non-British Co-operative parties will be added to this category as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting from CfD 2017 Sep 01.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:31, 17 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[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: upmerge to Category:American agriculturalists. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge as appropriate. There are only 38 members of Category:American agriculturalists and only three members of Category:Agriculturalists from Massachusetts. I have added all three to Category:Academics from Massachusetts in anticipation of deletion and merging to the main parent category here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:58, 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.

GP2 Series rounds[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 all as nominated. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D, closer to the names of the articles in this category and other series. Bbb2007 (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted from CfD 2017-Sep-07 § GP2 Series rounds. Categories were not tagged originally; they are now tagged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 15:49, 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.

16th- and 17th-century elections in Europe[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: merge. ℯxplicit 02:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
more years
Nominator's rationale: merge redundant category layer, every of the global target categories (e.g. Category:1573 elections) consists of only one European child category (Category:1573 elections in Europe) and nothing else. There is no need for a second merge target since the articles are in a year by country category already. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:42, 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.

Elections in Great Britain[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: merge as nominated. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
more years
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, mostly just one article per category. Note that a merge to Category:Elections in Great Britain is mostly not needed, nearly all articles are already in Category:Elections to the Parliament of Great Britain‎. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support mergers, this overcategorisation is annoying and unnecessary. Sionk (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. In any case, they should all have been called "XXX in the Kingdom of Great Britain" since islands don't vote. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also needs to be merged with year in Great Britain, and not Kingdom of Great Britain as Laurel Lodged falsely states. Tim! (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter is a good point, there is a third merge target possible. I'll update the nomination accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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[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: upmerge. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, there is only one article in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per nom. I'm not even sure the sole article in the category passes WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:11, 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.

Language isolates of Europe[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: merge. The suggestion of User:Koavf should be discussed in a fresh nomination with all continents included (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  • Really we should delete and listify the continent break-down because if we upmerged all of them, that would be a category of less than 100. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upmerge of SMALLCAT with no chance of expansion. Sionk (talk) 18:03, 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[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: delete. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Similar to Category:Operating systems that offer the Xfce desktop and Category:Operating systems that offer the LXDE desktop, should be deleted per those discussions. Editor-1 (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Frietjes:
  • 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_17&oldid=1074282154"