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The result of the discussion was:Withdrawn non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I am sure what is intended is a categorization of songs by genre, rather than categorization of pieces of plastic. Richhoncho (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Problems with nomination. Withdrawn nomination. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2015 (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:WikiProjects Based on the Turnkey Project[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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This doesn't appear to be a useful way to categorize wikiprojects (we don't have categories for wikiprojects based on anything else). DexDor (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The benefit of such a grouping is not obvious. This also appears to be a relatively old template for projects. SFB 23:20, 12 January 2015 (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:OC#SUBJECTIVE. I can't see any clear distinction between the wikiprojects that are in the multidisciplinary category (e.g. Health, Travel) and those that are in the parent (Category:WikiProjects) (e.g. Environment, Technology). Note also that many wikiprojects (e.g. Science, History) are currently in both the multidisciplinary category and the parent category so that should be fixed (per WP:SUBCAT) if the categories are not merged. DexDor (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Most WikiProjects would be multidisciplinary in some sense. RevelationDirect (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This isn't defining of a project firstly as Wikipedia is often a multi-disciplinary venue, but mainly because projects are a grouping of different people that aren't easily defined as multi-disciplinary or not. SFB 23:20, 12 January 2015 (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.
Delete No longer a useful maintenance category. Much better methods have since evolved. SFB 23:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is outdated is somewhat a matter of opinion, as well. I notice the article on Mexican states has data for 2014. We're only 12 days into 2015, is that really out of date? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2015 (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. This is the onlyresult I can come up with for the time being. Renomination is welcome, if also options of upmerging and the problem of daughter categories have been addressed.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Left/right positions are not ideologies as such, and how an organization is placed on the left-right scale is always subjective. What is considered 'far-left' in US politics would be considered as 'center-right' in many European countries. There are no universal, international standards for left/right classifications, so categories like this is a pov landmine field. Soman (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Soman: Given your rationale, I would expect Category:Far-right political parties and Category:Left-wing parties and their children to be part of the nomination. Can you add these? Otherwise, I can't really support an isolated discussion. I'm reading between the lines here, but are you arguing that the other (true) ideological categories in Category:Political parties by ideology better fulfil the categorisations (e.g. Bulgarian Left is under Socialist parties as well as left-wing parties)? SFB 12:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upon review of this again, I think a general left-centre-right categorisation scheme is much more workable than narrower definitions of those (e.g. far-left, centre-left etc.). I'm happy to support an upmerge of far-left and far-right into left an right categories. SFB 13:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This would, in my opinion, be a more viable solution. --RJFF (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, yes, good point, the CfD should have included other categories as well. Sometimes it could be possible to categorize on left/right axis depending on a specific context, but aggregating it on international left loses all meaning. Categories such as Category:Socialist parties, Category:Communist parties is a much better scheme. --Soman (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- assuming the categorisation does not depend on the POV of WP editors. However. the Israeli category should be directly parented here, eliminating the otherwise empty "Far-left political parties by country". Peterkingiron (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with additions of the subcats as per revelationdirect. While a political party will usually identify ITSELF as right or left (or centrist, or not on the spectrum, such as populist or libertarian), the label "far left" or "far right" is much more subjective, and shouldnt be used as a category here, even if sources describe them as such. other categories should cover the signs of being far to one side, such as "communiist" (usually considered a far left philosophy), or perhaps by their activities, such as disruptive or extralegal behaviors. I still want to know why far right would not also be eliminated. do we believe that this is more commonly used? wouldnt "fascist" be more appropriate?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (procedural) - suggest renominate including the subcategories and/or as a merge to Category:Left-wing parties instead of stright deletion. DexDor (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the definition provided in the article (their desire for fundamental change to the capitalist system) isn't that subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: redundant - we already have Category:Marxist parties, Category:Communist parties, Category:Anarchist parties; unclear how the content of this category is supposed to differ from these; moreover each country has its own political spectrum - a party that may be considered far-left in one country would not be considered far-left in another country - so the parties in this category would not necessarily be comparable with each other; furthermore the positioning in the political spectrum is highly subjective, it is much easier to categorise a party as Marxist, communist, anarchist etc. than as far-left. This category produces lots of unconstructive conflicts and edit wars because users disagree whether a party should be considered far-left or not. The disadvantages this category creates outweigh its benefits. --RJFF (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would not be a solution as not every Marxist or communist party is considered far-left in their country (e.g. the French and Italian Communist Party are considered mainstream leftist in their respective countries). My comment above was therefore inaccurate. I have to correct myself: it is mostly redundant, but not totally. However I maintain my opinion that this category would create lots of conflicts, if not edit wars, because the term "far-left" is so subjective and its use depends so strongly on the nationality and political position of each editor (the same party may be considered far-left by an American rightist editor and mainstream by a continental European or Latin American leftist editor; there have already been dozens, if not hundreds of discussions about this matter). The problems created by this category would therefore outweigh its (in my opinion very limited) utility by far. --RJFF (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A far bigger problem and far more realistic one than has been mentioned before is that party ideologies are not fixed. Over time parties change, so categorizing them as if they do not is not wise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't agree so much. In terms of aspirations, far-left political parties of 100 years ago weren't that different from current far-left political parties, in their desire for fundamental change to the capitalist system. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2015 (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.
Support We do not categorise geographical elements by former polities as for many areas this would result in a profusion of tangentially connected categories. Such information is better dealt with in prose articles on Kosala rather than in the category system. Geography (not politics) based categories should be used for rivers. SFB 13:00, 10 January 2015 (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.
