Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 16



Category:Free Decentralized Software

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting free decentralized software


 * Nominator's rationale: With one article and no parents this category has no navigational purpose. If kept would need to be decapitalised. DexDor (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't even have an article about what "decentralized software" is. We do have an article on the basic concept of decentralization which contains a few sentences about decentralization as a software development model, but fails to suggest a reason why decentralization would be a defining characteristic of the resulting software and not just a trivia detail. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 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:International Independent Research Consortium

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting international independent research consortium


 * Nominator's rationale: A category with one (eponymous) article and no parents does not serve any navigational purpose. DexDor (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability problems are present for the main topic, so sub aspects of it are not likely. SFB 14:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * DElete -- This appears to be a Bangalore-based research organisation claiming to be international. The category is actually empty at present.  Even what claims to be a link to a main article goes to a dab-page.  Even if it were a consortium of research institutes in several countries, it would need to be a very important organisation before we could allow members to be categorised.  We have in ther past not allowed universities to be categorised by organisations of which they are members; and this would be worse.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The problems around notability that apply to eponymous article would mean this category would remain empty, so doesn't appear to be any purpose in retaining this category. Drchriswilliams (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 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:User:Muffingg

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting user


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:USERNOCAT DexDor (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment suggest to the user to use Special:PrefixIndex/User:Muffingg/ instead of a category -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and IP suggestion above. SFB 14:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete -- user categories are not allowed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 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:Best Training Partner of NSDC STAR Scheme

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting best training partner of nsdc star scheme


 * Nominator's rationale: A WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. DexDor (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Not appropriate for a category – info (if there was any) would be better placed in an article/list about the NSDC STAR Scheme. SFB 14:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete -- This is not a category. The sole content apears to be the scheme's sponsor.  Furthermore the appearance of "our" in the headnote implies that the creator is associated with the subject matter - clear COI.  Whether there should be an article is a matter on which I am neutral, but my feeling is that this is designed to become an AWARD winners' category, which we do not allow.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 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:Eastern Christianity

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting Category:Eastern Christianity
 * Nominator's rationale This is an odd mixture of things. At first glance, it appears to be about Eastern Orthodoxy. However that's not the case as it includes Eastern Catholicism. On second glance, it appears to be about a region of the world - the Middle East or the Levant. But a reversion from an editor tells me that that is not the case. Rather it is a cultural thing. At some point in the past the Eastern Catholics might have had a common communion with their Eastern Orthodox brethern, but this is not longer the case. This category looks like an attempt at ecumenism that does not exist. I see no reason to continue this strange marriage. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep -- There were several denominations in the Byzantine Empire and Ottoman Empire. These are not all Orthodox.  I think the subject is adequately defined in its headnote.  Clearly it needs to include the descendants of these Byzantine, Assyrian, etc denominations following emigration to US and elsewhere in the late 19th and 20th centuries.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep A good start would be to read Eastern Christianity and highlight what contents in the category fall outside of that definition. If you don't think Eastern Christianity is a thing, then please nominate the article for deletion, although I think you'll probably encounter a world of resistance. SFB 00:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The term "Eastern Christianity" existed long before this article: it refers to traditions of Assyrian- and Greek-speaking Christians, not all of whom are Catholic or Eastern Orthodox (many are [Assyrian] Church of the East and Oriental Orthodox). —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Eastern Christianity does exist, see article. The fact that it doesn't fit an attempt to classify all Christianity under the concept of denomination (which is probably a Protestant concept) says more about this classification attempt than about the discussed category. Place Clichy (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment We previously had a where this category would probably better fit, but it was deleted citing a merger with . May I suggest the following system instead: below,  subdivised by denomination,  subdivised by sui iuris Church (incl. independent Churches), and  and/or  subdivised by autocephalous/autonomous Church. That way, we would use more neutral terms that are acceptable and used by each group, rather than the quasi-Americanism denomination. Place Clichy (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support nomination as the article does not provide sufficient evidence that the churches mentioned really have something in common. Two particular quotes from the article:
 * "The various Eastern churches do not normally refer to themselves as "Eastern", with the exception of the Assyrian Church of the East and its offshoots." Then I wonder, if the churches themselves don't refer to themselves as Eastern, then who does? No answer to this question is provided.
 * "The Eastern churches' differences from Western Christianity have as much, if not more, to do with culture, language, and politics, as theology." Then I wonder, what does Egyptian culture have in common with Russian culture? No answer to this question is provided.
 * Besides, if kept, Eastern Christianity currently belongs to a religious tree while the latter quote from the article suggests it should be in a cultural tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked it was a subcat of, so it is also "in a cultural tree", and I agree with you that it should be there. (it should also belong to a religious mother category, of course) It was also a subcat of while it existed, see . I dunno why we deleted Eastern culture but kept , though. Place Clichy (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would strongly disagree on categorization in a religious tree, as the article doesn't explain any religious commonality between the four churches. Besides I still don't understand what Russian and Egyptian culture have in common. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Reply to Keep editors If the category was just about "several denominations in the Byzantine Empire and Ottoman Empire" then the contents ought to be diffused to Category:Religion in the Byzantine Empire and Category:Religion in the Ottoman Empire. RE "Eastern Christianity does exist" - if it does, what is it? Is it a religion, a family of religions? Is it religiosity in a geographic region? Is it cultural ties to which a set of people consider themselves bound in community and self identification? From the article, I can find no evidence for it. There appears to be many regions, many cultures, many empires and many religions with only the loosest of commonality. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The exact same could be said of Category:Western culture. It's the way the field is understood culturally and the way it is analysed in relation to the areas that fall outside of that description. Just because you can't quantify it doesn't mean it's not relevant to the scope of concepts. SFB 20:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi SFB, I don't think that the analogy is apt in this case. With Western culture, you know what you're getting - culture, in the west. The same cannot be said for this nom as, despite the name, it may not necessarily be about Christianity. It could, for example, be about cultural ties that bind or that used to bind (in some unspecified remote past) groups of people together. Also Eastern is not so clear: is it Middle East, Near East, Byzantine Empire east, eastern Europe including Ukraine? Does it include the general diaspora of emigrees from Russia to America who follow the Moscow Patriarch? Such levels of ambiguity ought not to be allowed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Read the article, it explains what Eastern Christianity is and its history. About your last question, there are now Eastern Christians pretty much in the entire world, and especially in the US and in Western Europe. Also, not everything can be perfectly categorized or labelled, and Wikipedia reflects that. At least, the category tree can be flexible enough to reflect that, and it is not a problem. But there is still no reason to delete the nominated category. Place Clichy (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * By stating that there are Eastern Christians around the world, do you mean there are Eastern Christian communities that mingle the traditions of the four separate mother churches that are mentioned in the article, and thus do not uniquely belong to any of these four mother churches? If that would be the case, the situation would be quite different (but this is not mentioned in the article). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by that. In the US alone, you will find Chaldeans, Orthodox, Maronites and Armenians to name a few, and probably in millions. This means that Eastern Christians are not geographically exclusive to the Middle-East. Place Clichy (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * or are also gathering of many things only loosely related, however they do exist (just as Eastern Christianitydoes exist) and Wikipedia has a category for them, rightly so. What about my suggestion to categorize the major branches of Christianity (Protestant/Catholic/Eastern) and to categorize each of these major branches according to their own customs and logic? Place Clichy (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The category Branches of Christianity was deleted at CFD here. Do you want to re-create it? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think this would be a good idea, as it would overlap too much with . At the most we might rename Christian denominational families into Christian branches. Let's keep that for a separate discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not take part in this CfD discussion, and if I had I would have challenged its deletion. In my understanding, the concepts of denomination and denominational families are very much Protestant and/or American concepts (not that I have anything against either of the two groups). I have suggested earlier that Major branches of Christianity and Protestant denominational families might be a solution to your problem. Place Clichy (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 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:The Kids in the Hall members

 * 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 to delete, with the balance leaning towards "keep". Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting the kids in the hall members


 * Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge to two parent cats. This is categorization by television series. Cf. Category:Saturday Night Live cast members. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose. SNL is a television series, pure and simple, which has had, over the years, a rotating cast. But these are not "cast members", they are members of a comedy troupe (The Kids in the Hall) which just happens to have its own TV show. As such, this is closer in spirit to or . A minor distincton, maybe, but an important one. Grutness...wha?  10:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Every single one of these articles mentions Kids in the Hall in the 1st or 2nd sentence, implying that this is indeed defining. I do understand the nominator's concern with WP:PERFCAT though.RevelationDirect (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * DElete -- I thought this was going to be a Hall of Fame category (which should be deleted as an Awards category). I now see it is a performance by performer category, which we equally do not allow.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not a performance category – it is a comedy troupe category as the members of The Kids in the Hall are strictly defined (i.e. someone who merely appeared on the troupe's show is not a member of the troupe). WOrth keeping per the standard set in the troupes category. SFB 14:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 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:Streets in Perth

 * 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: Renanme Category:Streets in Perth to Category:Streets in Perth, Western Australia. A merge or reverse merge between the roads and streets categories did not gain a consensus due to the multiple options that wound up being proposed here.  If that is still needed, feel free to nominate. There appeared to be a consensus to upmerge Category:Streets in Perth central business district, Western Australia to Category:Streets in Perth, Western Australia, but again with the multiple proposals I'm not convinced that the consensus was strong enough to do that merge, so again that should be a new discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting streets in perth


 * Nominator's rationale: Newly created category that is redundant to Category:Roads in Perth, Western Australia, which covers the metropolitan area, and Category:Streets in Perth central business district, Western Australia, which covers the CBD - Evad37 &#91;talk] 04:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Note Tagged Category:Roads in Perth, Western Australia with the alternate downmerge proposal. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also tagged the CBD subcategory. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Creator probably didn't realize these even existed. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Abstain instead. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See reply below. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I note that the main article on the city is at Perth. For consistency it might make sense if that title was a dab page and the category and its key article both used "Perth, Western Australia". Grutness...wha?  10:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose/Reverse Merge as creator and per WP:C2C, "bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree". Streets and Roads have a slightly different meaning, streets being a subtype of roads in an urbanized/developed areas. The problem with grouping highways and other roads by city is that they often go through cities but include other areas. That's why clear naming convention is grouping the more specific "steets" by city and not "roads", in the entir Category:Streets by city tree. Even in Australia, "street" is the clear naming convention: Category:Streets in Australia by city.RevelationDirect (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If street is a specific subtype of road, then surely a merged category, i.e. covering streets and roads, should be named as roads – otherwise you would be reducing scope, and forcing roads in Perth that are not streets into the parent roads in WA category. Your concern that some roads don't fit the scope of "in Perth" seems mostly hypothetical – are there any current problems with articles in Category:Roads in Perth, Western Australia? Also, I don't find your C2C argument convincing, as it also applies the other way, with respect to roads: Category:Roads → Category:Roads by country → Category:Roads in Australia → Category:Roads in Western Australia → Category:Roads in Perth, Western Australia. That category is simply the next level of WP:DIFFUSE and fits in with the "established naming conventions for that category tree" - Evad37 &#91;talk] 16:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - despite the absurd 'primary topic' notion of Perth as a stand alone category and topic, Perth, Western Australia would be more suitable satusuro 14:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge business district category into Category:Streets in Perth, Western Australia. It is not helpful to navigation to delete the parent which follows a common navigable standard in favour of a hyper-specific sub-city level street category. SFB 18:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that a previous CFD resulted in Category:Streets in Perth, Western Australia being renamed to Category:Streets in Perth central business district, Western Australia - Evad37 &#91;talk] 16:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like a bit of flaky decision given that no one actually supported the rename. I would have opposed it on the basis that I think category trees should have logical parents without big jumps to narrow definitions (Australia → a sub-area of Perth is quite a leap for me). The definition of street should purposefully omit major roads and highways, so my suggested name only broadens the area in which those streets may be found in Perth (e.g. includes suburbs, etc). SFB 01:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with a CBD category is that it can include longer roads that just go through the CBD and what counts as a CBD can be subjective. We could create Category:Streets in the City of Perth but I think understanding that only applied to the City of Perth would be a challenge.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge (not reverse merge) -- Perth is a city in Scotland. If this is about the West Australian city, it needs disambiguation to keep sottish streets out of it.  As to the "streets/roads" issue, is there any objective measn of distinuishing the two from each other?  If not these should be merged together.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * New CFD and Old RM There is another nomination about Australian street categories for Buildings and structures in Western Australia by road and your input would be appreciated. Also, there was a controversial and ultimately unsuccessful Requested Move to rename the article to "Perth, Western Australia". RevelationDirect (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Alternative proposal 2: Upmerge both Category:Streets in Perth and Category:Streets in Perth central business district, Western Australia to Category:Roads in Perth, Western Australia – there's not that many articles in those three categories that having a single category would impede navigation, and as mentioned further up in the discussion a street is a type of road. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 16:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think one category would work best too. Category:Streets in Perth, Western Australia would match both transport naming format and the Perth ones. What do you think? RevelationDirect (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But not all roads within the geographical bounds of a Perth are streets: Would you call Beechboro Road (google street view), Gnangara Road (google street view), Yanchep Beach Road (google street view), etc streets? Hence my suggestion for "roads" as the category, as that is the more inclusive term. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 05:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Those clearly look (non-street) roads to me. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, you changed my mind. Perth clearly has enough roads within the city to justify keeping a Roads category. (For most cities, it just ends up just categorizing long roads that go through a city but aren't defined by it, the same problem suffered by Category:Highways and freeways in Perth, Western Australia.)RevelationDirect (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge/rename - most Australian cities seen to have both "Roads in..." and Streets in... categories. As such two categories are preferable: and its subcategory, to match . The current categories should either stay or be merged/renamed accordingly (the article should also move to Perth, Western Australia, leaving the current title (Perth) as a dab page, but that's a separate matter largely irrelevant to this page). Grutness...wha?  23:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Alternate Proposal 3 Keep Category:Roads in Perth, Western Australia, rename Category:Streets in Perth to Category:Streets in Perth, Western Australia, and upmerge Category:Streets in Perth central business district, Western Australia to the now re n amed Category:Streets in Perth, Western AustraliaRevelationDirect (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This would be an acceptable compromise - Evad37 &#91;talk] 10:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that this proposal is exactly what I said in the preceding post, support :) PS - I think you mean "...to the now renamed category" ;) Grutness...wha?  10:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I totally overlooked your earlier comment. Yes, I agree with you. (And my "n" key is sticking!) RevelationDirect (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 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:Kapiti Coast

 * 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/rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting kapiti coast


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category should be merged into the currently empty, but more appropriately named . This relates to an earlier withdrawn CFD (see here) and discussion with . The following subcategories will also need renaming:
 * &rarr;
 * &rarr;
 * &rarr;
 * &rarr;
 * &rarr;
 * Grutness...wha?  00:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per my previous comments that human places and ideas should generally be grouped within the corresponding human-defined area, not an incidental geographic feature of that area. SFB 18:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support -- but it may be useful to keep the current category as a redirect, to discourage re-creation. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. The phrase "in the Kapiti Coast" sounds odd. "in the Kapiti Coast District" sounds fine. Nurg (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.