Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 16

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< January 15 January 17 >

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Delete Notability problems are present for the main topic, so sub aspects of it are not likely. SFB 14:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[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: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)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:USERNOCAT DexDor (talk) 23:07, 16 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: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)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A
WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. DexDor (talk) 22:52, 16 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: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)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This is an odd mixture of things. At first glance, it appears to be about
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)[reply
]
  1. "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.
  2. "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)[reply]
  • Last time I checked it was a subcat of Middle Eastern culture, 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 Eastern culture while it existed, see [1]. I dunno why we deleted Eastern culture but kept Western culture, though. Place Clichy (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]
  • 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)[reply]
    • @Laurel Lodged: 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)[reply]
      • @Sillyfolkboy: 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • @Place Clichy: 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
    • Protestantism or Evangelicalism 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • I don't think this would be a good idea, as it would overlap too much with Christian denominational families. 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)[reply]
  • 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)[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: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)[reply]
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)[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: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)[reply]
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 [talk] 04:23, 16 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: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)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category should be merged into the currently empty, but more appropriately named Category:Kapiti Coast District. This relates to an earlier withdrawn CFD (see here) and discussion with @Sillyfolkboy:. The following subcategories will also need renaming:
Grutness...wha? 00:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support. The phrase "in the Kapiti Coast" sounds odd. "in the Kapiti Coast District" sounds fine. Nurg (talk) 20:48, 16 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_16&oldid=1074814736"