Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 9 March 11 >

March 10[edit]

Category:Forestry unmanned aerial vehicles[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. MER-C 12:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a model of UAV has been (or could potentially be) used in forestry is generally a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic (e.g. having things like General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper and NASA Pathfinder under Category:Forestry equipment doesn't make much sense). Most UAVs (including those in this category) can be used for a variety of purposes - border patrol, survey, search etc. DexDor (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unmanned aerial vehicle should not be categorized in Category:Forestry equipment; that form of categorization would put the UAV article in dozens/hundreds of categories (see Unmanned_aerial_vehicle#Uses). That would be like categorizing lorry, rope etc as forestry equipment. When we have an article such as UAVs in forestry or List of UAVs used in forestry then that would belong in a Forestry equipment category. 06:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom.  Liam987(talk) 01:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • support Even considering the one or two which specifically say they are intended for or will be initially used for forestry work, I'm having trouble seeing this category's justification. It's either too small to live, or it includes a lot of drones which by their nature show that these are general-purpose and thus should be merged. Seyasirt (talk) 01:36, 12 March 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:Event poster images[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, with no prejudice against recreating the old names as parent categories for these, with the scope being as named. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clearer names that better represent the inclusion criteria of the categories (e.g. to make navigating round the category structure easier). DexDor (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it would be better to have these as subcategories, so that we can categorize all images on Wikipedia whether they are fair use or not. As there are some images that are not fair-use on Wikipedia, for whatever reason (like a {{keeplocal}}) the more general category without restriction to being fairuse should exist first, before a fairuse category is created. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with having the more general categories, but it would be best to do this rename first (the text of these categories say they are for fair use images) then insert the new layer of categorization. DexDor (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support movement of current body of content to fair use titles then recreation of the current titles as a parent without the fair use delimiter. SFB 19:30, 24 March 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:Qubool Hai Break Bumper Posters[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 (discussion was closed prior to the one immediately above). Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need for a category for just one image. If kept should be renamed to avoid incorrect capitalization. DexDor (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note the target category is proposed for rename in the discussion above. DexDor (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Categories rarely aid navigation if they only include one item. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Far too specific scope to warrant navigation. SFB 19:31, 24 March 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:Chinese Traditional Date and Time[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More appropriate names for these categories. DexDor (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Template categories should be distinguished as such. Initial capitals aren't useful either. SFB 19:31, 24 March 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:Organizations by number of employees[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. MER-C 06:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I can't think of a reason why this category (and the current lone sub, "organizations with five employees") should exist. Seems a clear violation of WP:NONDEF. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The category has no encyclopedic value. It seems to have been created simply to aid in making a point over on the PNAC article. Number of employees does not define an organization WP:NONDEF, for instance many volunteer organizations have many more participants than employees. A think tank, academic or professional organization may have many non-paid officers or participating members cf IEEE or AAAS. The inclusion criteria ie subcategories are arbitrary per WP:ARBITRARYCAT. What makes 5 employees a better category than 10 or 1-10 or 1-15 or... or... or... or... Jbh (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I created this category by analogy with the name of "organizations by membership", which I mistakenly thought was by the number of members. The size of an organization matters, obviously: Consider the huge literature on span of control. Replying to JBH's comment: presumably, segmenting organizations by members on a an exponential scale, e.g. 2^n or 10^n, would result in a manageable size. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (is a) 20:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of members vs participation is still an problem because it does not capture things like volunteers, contractors, fellowships, interns etc. etc.

For example, an organization I am very familiar with the Military Auxiliary Radio System. By this category it would be Organization with 3 Employees (or 1-10) the three Chiefs of Service. There are however just under 10,000 members who provide world wide communication. Span of Control' has to do with effective management within an organization, not with how well an organization can affect its environment. 'Span of Control' is also dependent on other things like funding, access to resources and other 'force multipliers'. So, how does this category differentiate between a world wide DOD communications organization of volunteers and 3 paid positions and one guy who hires 3 others with walkie-talkies? Note: I am using an example outside of the current area of dispute to show how this would scale to other topics in the encyclopedia Jbh (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The number of (legally paid) employees is well documented, e.g. by tax or payroll filings. The basis for categorization is a statement based on a reliable source stating that the organization had a specific number of employees (or a range), just as is done for other categorizations.
You are correct that organizations have attributes besides the number of employees. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (is a) 21:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Number of paid employees says nothing encyclopedic about an organization. I have shown above that two 'Organizations with three employees' are not comparable to one another. You have made no argument, policy based or otherwise, that supports this as a useful way to categorize organizations. I suggest a you make a policy based argument for keeping the category since there is no reality based argument to be made. Then we should allow others to comment here as that is the purpose of CfD. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, it's non-defining. It's trivial. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Number of people may fluctuate too much over time (most organizations will start on very few people to begin with). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The numbers fluctuate and as noted above often do not represent the full staffing. I also have a great deal of trouble seeing what categories may represent meaningful divisions. Seyasirt (talk) 23:08, 11 March 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:WikiProject Blackadder members[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. MER-C 06:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's WikiProject, WikiProject Blackadder, was already deleted (per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Blackadder (2nd nomination)); only member of the catgory hasn't edited in over 7 years. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Only one inactive member.  Liam987(talk) 01:45, 11 March 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:Christian denominational families[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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 19:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please close this discussion now. My head spins thinking about the number of tangents that have spun off. Start again somewhere else. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree. It's not leading to any consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. tahc chat 17:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree: close as "No Consensus"; I almost withdrew the nomination altogether, but did not to allow additional feedback. I believe the discussion here has now run its course. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps someone might feel motivated to put together a more comprehensive proposal building on the feedback here? --Zfish118 (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Main discussion[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The term "Christian denominational families" does not seem to appear anywhere outside of Wikipedia. Within the category, there are no citations to the use of this term, and the article denominational families has only one source, that does not address the concept of denominational families.
A quick search for "Christian denominational families" reveals no sources outside of wikipedia, where as "Branches of Christianity" turns up many. "Branches of Christianity" would appear to be the more common usage. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Would branches of Christianity lead to the same subcategorization as we currently have in Christian denominational families? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply, I do believe it would. The current page contains a flowchart that shows the various branches of the denominational "family tree". Renaming would only align the category to the most commonly used terminology.
  • Oppose: It would seem that anyone could claim their group (denomination, etc.) is a branch of Christianity-- and would be included. Such a page if often dominated by members of that denomination (RCC, etc.). This would defeat the purpose of our category here, because it would then duplicate Category:Christian denominations. tahc chat 03:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply, The term "denominational families" could be still used to help clarify what "branches" are, and any minor group would need a reliable source defining it as a "branch" to be included. "Christian denominations" would continue to be a subcategory of "Branches of Christianity", as it would "Christian denominational families". Even within the current Wikipedia article defining Christian denominations, the term "branches" is used (although not well sourced here). --Zfish118 (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the group's size that makes (or dosen't make) it its own Christian denominational family. If any group of a certain size becomes a branch of Christianity then that would be a reason to not use the Category:Branches of Christianity-- it might as well be Category:Christian groups with a million adherents.
It is the large denominations that are the issue-- being the largest denomination does not make you a denominational family, per this edit. tahc chat 18:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you misunderstood what I meant by "group"; I was referring to a minor groups of denominations that might claim to be a "branch". Protestantism, for instance, should be branch/sub-branch because it is a group with many distinct denominations; Southern Baptist, however, should not be because it contains vastly fewer distant churches (not all Southern Baptist denominations fully recognize each other). --Zfish118 (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the Southern Baptist Convention is the only Southern Baptist denomination. tahc chat 23:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even Southern Baptist has splinter groups that trace their origins and history to the parent denomination; I chose it as a particularly hyperbolic example of an inappropriate "branch". --Zfish118 (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link. I observe that there was a strong consensus to merge the duplicate categories, but no particular rational as to which one to keep. Perhaps "Chr. Den. Families" was the more populated category at the time? --Zfish118 (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Weak support since the rationale makes sense per WP:COMMONNAME. The header should contain a clear explanation, with reference to this discussion, in order to prevent pollution of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"WP:COMMONNAME" is a policy on article names-- not category names. Your plan-- while better that nothing-- would not work as well as one would hope because editors typically do not read or even look at the category page when adding to a category. tahc chat 21:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a legitimate concern that I had not considered. Thank you. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, I changed my vote a bit to reflect that concern. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination in light of the practical difficulty in maintaining the category as "Branches of Christianity". --Zfish118 (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support for "Major branches of Christianity", in lieu of withdrawing altogether (see below for my reply). --Zfish118 (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because the term is a lot clearer, to non-Americans at least. Re: discussion, categories of Christian subgroups are being endlessly recategorized, and this is not likely to stop with this name change, but I wouldn't consider it an obstacle to the current discussion. I would suggest to follow the practice of {{Christian denomination tree}} and use the term Category:Major branches of Christianity instead, as there is less ambiguity of what constitutes a major branch that just a branch. It is a widely accepted convention that the major branches of Christianity are Protestantism, Catholicism and Eastern Christianity, with Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodoxy sometimes also considered, but no other. With this change, I would kindly suggest @Zfish118: to reconsider withdrawal. Place Clichy (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would be a major change of the scope of the category, as for example it would no longer recognize the Assyrian Church of the East as an independent denominational family. It would basically change from a historical scope to a size scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Place Clichy claims to "support" Clichy is really wanting a whole different name-- what is more-- an whole different plan as to what is included. I think every one else wants basically what we have now-- but are just considering what to call it. tahc chat 23:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply; I think the Assyrian Church of the East would still count as "Major", given its historical significance. I don't think major should be correlated to modern size alone, but also to historic movements as well. The continued difficulty in communicating the criteria is why I give only weak support. --Zfish118 (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, "denominational families" is not immediately clear even in America. --Zfish118 (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Zfish118 and Tahc in not changing the content of the category, but only (at most) change the name of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was indeed my original intention, as even the template used on the page is titled "Major branches of Christianity". Perhaps as a guideline, there should be a sourced statement in lead or other prominent spot describing a particular movement as a "major branch" or describing a substantially similar description. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While most seem to agree to keeping the current content, renaming to Major branches of Christianity would be much worse than Branches of Christianity is any efforts to keep the current content-- unless we remove the current image that says "Major branches of Christianity" on it. Having the image there-- which is neither totally accurate nor open to much editing (and thus not open to much WP:CON the way other things are). It would lead to editors deleting any denominational families that is not actually shown in the image. tahc chat 16:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I am not certain that is a huge issue. Major "branches", even major "denominational families", take a long while to develop; perhaps decades or centuries. The category is not likely nor meant to be a highly dynamic one. However, in abundance of caution, a note might added to the image, stating that it illustrative but not exhaustive of all potential branches. --Zfish118 (talk)
  • I am not concerned with future new branches. The category already has about twice as many denominational families now as the image has "major branches". tahc chat 03:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose families suggests that a single church that splits off with its own ideas is not to be included, even though they would be a branch. If you choose major branches, it would have to be defined very strongly. The United Methodist Church itself has >12M members, beating out several other families. If the long proposed reunification with the African Methodist Episcopal Church church goes through, our single denomination would be as large as the Latter Day Saint movement. Would we then qualify as a major branch as they do? Jerodlycett (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jerodlycett:} That is not quite the intent of the category. In your example "Methodism" would be the branch/family/movement, and both the United Method , African Methodist Episcopal, as well as other independent Methodist denominations would be included. Members of a "denominational family" need not be "in communion" with one another; a merger would not likely changed the category, barring other significant changes. The significance of a denominational family is not determined by the size of the movement, but the extent to which the movement differs from other branches of Christianity. Size affects perhaps the WP:Notability of the individual articles; a small but notable group of related denominations would count as a "family". The purpose of the this discussion is to determine the best name that communicates the purpose of the category. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Zfish118: My point is that by calling it families rather than branches it is self-describing. A single denomination larger than several other families could be seen as a major branch. I just prefer it to be descriptive, as it creates less or no chance for confusion. Which is why I'm opposed to the change. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, just stating why I oppose. Jerodlycett (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Separate discussion about the changed content of the category[edit]
  • @Tahc: I notice you have added a large amount of child categories on March 13, making the structure of this category entirely inconsistent with the figure. You should have informed us about this while we are discussing the content of the category. Personally I think the content before March 13 was much better than the current content. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Zfish118: @Laurel Lodged: @Place Clichy: Could you also give your opinion about the latter change. For your information, previously the category contained (in accordance with the graph):
  • Assyrian Church
  • Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Eastern Orthodoxy
  • Roman Catholicism
  • Eastern Catholicism
  • Protestantism
Of course each of these is subdivided into more specific denominations if applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain of what exactly changed? Is there a way to look at the history of articles contained in the category? The above seem like a basic outline, but not necessary an enough for an entire category. Some more modern denominations do not neatly fit into "Protestantism". The graph also does not address Baptist or Evangelical groups, for instance, which are distinct from Mainline Protestant denomination, and at most indirectly influenced by Anabaptist denominations. --Zfish118 (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For your information, previously the category also contained:
  • Adventism‎
  • Anabaptism‎
  • Latter Day Saint movement‎
  • Quakerism‎
As I said before, the infographic is part of the problem-- not the solution. It is biased againist much of Protestantism and anything that is not clearly decended from one other thing. The infographic is effectively unsourced and hard-to-edit text. tahc chat 14:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too was uncomfortable with this when I witnessed it. At a very early point in this discussion, I left a message on Tahc's talk page. He has not replied to it. As I said there, I don't think that it's appropriate to make such swinging changes to a topic that it the subject of a live CFD. I think that he should revert them so that editors can vote on this as it looked ante bellum. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anyone who wants the category to include Adventism‎, Anabaptism‎, & Quakerism‎, but not include Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, & Methodism? If these are "all stay" or "all go"-- then it is better to have them all around for the discussion, to look at during the discussion. If someone wants these but not those-- please tell so and tell us why. tahc chat 03:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adventism‎, Anabaptism‎, & Quakerism‎, are all arguably distinct branches reflecting substantially different beliefs. Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, & Methodism, however, generally represent mainline Protestantism. --Zfish118 (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most denominational families (including Quakerism‎, Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, Methodism) are represented by denominations in both Evangelicalism and mainline Protestantism; see this chart etc.
But even if your claim here were true-- it would be too difficult and arbitrary to divide some denominational families as "substantially different" and others as not. tahc chat 04:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tahc: The chart you pointed us at uses the terms evangelical Protestantism and mainline Protestantism, so I'm comfortable in categorizing them all under Protestantism for the purpose of the discussed category. Just like I'm comfortable in categorizing Roman Catholicism and Eastern Catholicism under just Catholicism. Place Clichy (talk) 10:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Separate discussion about the category in relation to other categories in the tree[edit]
As I read WP:OVERLAPCAT it seems to be about preventing categories from have nearly the same articles in them directly... like Category:1852 religious leaders and Category:1853 religious leaders. Having many categories of this sort would be hard to maintain and not very useful as many separate categories.
But Wikipedia has many things like Category:Foo-bar by century established and Category:Foo-bar by continent even thou these may completely overlap lower down in the tree.
Category:Baptist has 14 sub-cats all by itself. I think we can agree it is good for one of them to be Category:Baptist denominations. There is no extra work and no WP:OVERLAPCAT to have one parent-cat for Category:Baptist, Category:Lutheranism, etc. and a different parent-cat for Category:Baptist denominations, Category:Lutheran denominations‎, etc. tahc chat 23:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite uncomfortable with the Christian denominations by denominational family, as this tree seems to make sense pretty much only for Protestant organizations. I'd rather have categories called sth like Protestant denominations (by denominational family), Catholic sui juris churches and Eastern Orthodox autocephalous churches (its current name, although complicated, is fine though). Place Clichy (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I do not disagree, the "Catholic" family could arguably contain daughter articles of independent Catholic Churches (PNC, etc). --Zfish118 (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not envy whoever tries to close this discussion.
If it closes as no consensus (and maybe even if it doesn't) -- if anyone still thinks it needs "fixing", you should bring up a new and clearer proposal to change/merge Category:Christian denominations by denominational family. This is all a bit late to keep adding new ideas of how to "fix" the tree, and that category is not even tagged with a CFD notice. tahc chat 12:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I get your point... Categorization of Christian groups on this project seems to never find a kind of equilibrium, and likely never will, that's all I can say for sure. Place Clichy (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy: If you add new ideas to a CFD thread after the CFD starts, it weakens the ablity of that CFD to measure real Wikipedia:Consensus, since some people will only see the first idea(s) and not be able to comment on any ideas that come later.
Since this has all gone to a different place than the origanal CFD, the best I think we can do now is either (1) agree to leave it as it is, or (2) reach a tentative idea or two on what else might work, and then start a new CFD with that/those as the proposal from the begining. tahc chat 17:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is important to have consistency in the lower levels of the hierarchy, even if non-ideal language is used to describe the individual groups in the sub category. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Next steps[edit]

I propose closing this discussion as No Consensus for the name change.

I proposed the name change to address issues that turned out to not be relevant. Instead, there appears to be a great deal of confusion as to the scope of the category and the difficulty in maintaining and communicating its intent. I would like to start an alternative proposal to make "Category:Christian denominational families" a sub-category within "[Category:Christian denominations]", listing "Christian denominations" directly within "[Category:Christianity]" (instead of listing it within "denominational families"). The effect would be that "denominational families" would more clearly be represented as groupings of related churches and denominations. Please find the new discussion here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 23#Category:Christian denominational families. (To facilitate communication, I will keep the discussion here for now.) --Zfish118 (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it is not the opposite? Denominational families are larger than denominations, so the latter would be a subcat of the former (and I believe it's pretty much always been the case in Wikipedia).
My understanding is that a great part of the problem lies in the use of the word denomination outside the context of Protestantism. As a solution, I would try using other terms instead, such as branches (as in Islamic branches), religious movements (as in Jewish religious movements) or groups (as is Sikh groups and sects). Place Clichy (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is certainly a fair point. One problem with "Branches" as the parent category, however, is the inconsistent usage; that "branches" would then split into "denominations". "Branches" has also proven vague in the past. If the two are not switched in the hierarchy, perhaps both categories might be renamed for clarity; parent "category:Major Christian movements"; then sub "category:Christian churches and denominations". Then "Christian denominations by denominational family" could then be renamed "Christian denominations by movement". "Major Christian movements and "Christian denomination by movement" should also echo each other. (I think that "movement" is a bit more clear than "branch") --Zfish118 (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However, I do still think that "denominational families" or "movements" are less concrete than denominations; they serve more to categorize denominations. While Protestants tend to view other denominations as peers, many others (even within the same "movement") do not. Having this as the parent category may suggest a stronger relationship than exists, whereas having "Christian (churches and) denomination" as the top level represents each individual group's claim of exclusivity or equivalency equally. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combining the ideas you put forward: presumably it wouldn't be a bad idea to start off with subdividing in branches (Catholicism, Protestantism etc.), then only Protestantism to be further subdivided 'by denomination' (or maybe first 'by denominational family'). We probably do not need a special term for subdividing within Catholicism and within Eastern Orthodoxy, because in these branches it's just a matter of splitting the 'official' Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church in one category versus the unrecognized spin-offs within that branch in the other category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While this could be done, no one has a given any good reason to push these "protestant" denominational families down into a new layer. Doing so would not make anything easier to find and would create disputes-- many "Protestant" groups claim they are not Protestant-- so they will want to be in the top layer with Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxs. Likewise Roman Catholicism will want to be at the top level under the name "Catholicism" as if they are only real Catholic denomination (contrast Category:Catholic denominations which also has the same POV).
The orginal change all sounds better than this. If you don't like "denominational family" say "branches" and keep all the denominational families." tahc chat 13:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least it should be one way or the other: either a denomination is Protestant or not. If Protestant, it shouldn't be put at the same level as Protestantism, like now is the case with Category:Lutheranism and multiple others. Marcocapelle (talk)
While I see your point, there is no category policy that says we cannot list something under both Christian and Protestant. Some parts of the tree are done this way because it makes it easier to fine what you are looking for.
At the same token, Protestantism is not really a denominational family. Protestantism is a catch-all for groups that don't fit in other catagories. This would follow many printed works, like the Handbook of Denominations, that has no listing for "Protestantism." tahc chat 20:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This relates very well to the actual nomination that initiated this discussion. I would argue that Protestantism isn't a denominational family in itself, because it is (one level higher) a branch of Christianity together with Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy etc. while Protestantism consists of denominational families like Lutheranism etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well put! --Zfish118 (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Separate discussion regarding the "branch" diagram[edit]

Another issue that has been brought up several times is the branch diagram, which has some content issues and is not readily editable. A possible solution might be to create an alternative template using built in wiki/html functions, perhaps modeled after Template:Timeline of Italian artists to 1800 or Template:Buddhist traditions timeline. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you know how to create something like that, then please go ahead. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I unfortunately do not have the time, but wanted to point out for anyone ambitious that there is built in functionality to create relatively easily maintained timelines, particularly as used in the Italian artists one. --Zfish118 (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The obvious way to remove the bias in the diagram is to remove the diagram. An alternative diagram such as Zfish118 proposes, might be better or it might not-- but the more complete it is the more large and unwheildly it becomes. Other category trees (such as Category:Schools of Buddhism) do not try to maintain such a diagram. If the diagram is really needed somewhere then it should be on an article page instead. Having it on an article page whould give more room to explain it and more room to make it comlete. tahc chat 16:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see nothing all that wrong with the diagram that cannot be mitigated by saying that it is illustrative only and not definitive. It's a very useful diagram. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With the caption, it is improved. It illustrates very well the relationship between the historic apostolic churches, and the break at the Protestant Reformation. Some improvements for the Reformation branch would still be welcome. The article Christian denominations provides a separate "protestant" tree that looked pretty comprehensive. --Zfish118 (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This diagram places undue detail and emphasis on litergical bodies, esp. the "Catholic" Church, and none of it is cited.
The separate Protestant diagram at Christian denominations#Taxonomy is pretty comprehensive, but since we don't need any diagram on category pages, I oppose having two diagrams on category pages. tahc chat 15:25, 26 March 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:Dates[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. MER-C 06:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current name is ambiguous (it looks like it may refer to the fruit by the same name); proposed disambiguation is based on the article, Calendar date. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:46, 10 March 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.

Soft redirect stub categories[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. – Fayenatic London 14:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no need to keep redirected stub categories. Stub categories are all filled by templates, which can be moved as needed to more appropriately named categories. All of these categories are empty and the templates moved. Delete these categories. Dawynn (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is no need for discussion, they can be rightaway deleted, see Wikipedia:CSD G8: "and categories populated by deleted or retargeted templates". --PanchoS (talk) 06:03, 10 March 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_March_10&oldid=1079915036"