Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 5

< February 4 February 6 >

February 5

Polish-Lithuanian office-holders names

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 13#Polish-Lithuanian office-holders names

People depicted in music

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 13#People depicted in music

Category:Undefined articles needing translation from French Wikipedia

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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Undefined articles needing translation from French Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: delete per precedent in this discussion and per WP:OCMISC. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2023 (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:Australian Conservatives

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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Australian Conservatives to Category:Australian conservatives
Nominator's rationale: Conservative is not a proper noun. There is already Category:Australian Conservatives members which covers the political party. Steelkamp (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we should (inserted) categorize politicians by political party, not by a general label. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and ok with renaming. The comments of we categorize politicians by political party, not by a general label from Marcocapelle is total rubbish they have a category for Australian feminists‎ and Australian socialists‎, so they must have one for Conservatives as well.La lopi (talk) 07:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last time we had a similar discussion on this platform is long time ago. Back then the consensus was we shouldn't categorize politicians by general labels. Which is quite imaginable, because if you start that WP:OR is just one step away. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • So do you get rid of category for Australian feminists‎ and Australian socialists‎??? and where would these people go on that category that i made Australian Conservatives??, do they go on the Category of Conservatism in Australia. La lopi (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Socialists and conservatives would go the party that they represent. Feminists aren't politicians by default, they can be activists or writers, so that is something different. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor does Category:Neo-liberals by party, Category:Paleo-conservatives by party, Category:Reactionaries by party, etc. Best leave that be. My point is that you cannot go by the name to deduce a political stance. The name can be anything. The stance can change over the years.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Marcocapelle. Categories need clear criteria for inclusion based on cited facts. There is a difference with socialists and feminists as they generally articulate their commitment in favour of a particular set of changes, eg government-provided free/cheap services or equal rights of women. Conservatism tends to be support for the status quo through a pattern of opposition to change over a wide variety of issues, but less likely to be specifically articulated as a commitment to conservatism. And even socialists and feminists can be conservative in relation to other issues. It just feels more like a criteria that will based on opinion rather than cited facts. Kerry (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- we do not allow categorisation by political opinion, because a person who is a conservative on one topic may be a radical on another. This differs from party memberships. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello???, gees i can see a lot of bias in this talk, people keep saying things like person who is a conservative on one topic may be a radical on another. This differs from party memberships BUT only for consertivates, if you check the Category:Australian socialists the vast majority of people in that page are members of the labor party not a socialist party. so where is your talk for them. what about the page of Category:Australian anarchists they have No anarchist party in Australia yet they have a page. It seems like you people are trying to play a different rule to Conservatives. Its also just public knowledge in Australia those people who are in the conservative category are all noted conservatives in Australia. Tony Abbott, Eric Abetz, Cory Bernardi, Joh Bjelke-Petersen and John Howard.La lopi (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- (Fixed previous comment's categories.) Many of the articles concern radical reactionaries, not conservatives per se.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2023 (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:Government Polytechnics of Odisha

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The parent is Category:Technical universities and colleges in India. Four "Government polytechnics" or "Polytechnic colleges" categories exist.

Please let me know if this presents any issues from the India editor point of view.

I also plan to create a state-level parent Category:Technical universities and colleges in India by state or union territory for these categories and create others if necessary. The parent cat has a cat diffuse notice and 151 members. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Sammi Brie: based on the main tree, "technical" apparently consist at least of "aviation", "engineering" and "mining". Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2023 (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/2023_February_5&oldid=1139162112"