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: Many of the members of the denominations listed in this cat would argue that they are not a denomination. For example, Eastern Orthodoxy is a collection of self-governing bodies within the EO family. Protestantism is an umbrella term for many individual denominations. "Family" more accurately reflects the category's purpose. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question—Is "denominational family" a recognised term in ecclesiology? It's not a term I know and feels like a neologism but I'm happy to learn otherwise. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Used in enWP as a sub-heading doesn't necessarily equal a recognised term in ecclesiology. Can you cite RSs in the ecclesiology literature that use the term "denominational family"? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose for now This is a toe in the door for the ecclesiastical "mine's a church; yours is a denomination" crap that afflicts religious discussion across the internet. I also note that two levels below this, at least in the Anglican tree, this breaks into separate bodies; the Orthodox tree forks out more irregularly (in that it has multiple patterns of division at each level) but eventually it gets around to breaking out into individual church bodies as well. "Denominational families" isn't the right word for this; maybe "church body" or even "church" is the right word, but what most of the world uses is "denomination", and the object within these churches isn't universal anyway. It's mostly something that gets thrown around as a debating point, but outsider scholars don't have a problem with the word "denomination", and we do have to work from a viewpoint that treats the different denominations/bodies/churches neutrally. Mangoe (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Categorization shouldn't be on how members on an organization would like that organization to be described, but as how it's described by RSs. If "denomination" in the category title needs to be interpreted broadly then put a note to that effect on the category page. DexDor (talk) 06:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is "heading down" an issue? All categories eventuallty lead to a single article. But this category is no more than a container for the 9 or 11 branches of Christianity. I would expect that it never contain more sub-cats than that with all others being diffused. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2014 (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 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 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.
Oppose on the grounds that MOS:TM is supremely silly. The show is called Numb3rs and that's how it should be referred to. The idea that we should call something by something other than its name is bizarre. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a good reason we try to match category names with article names; the population of those interested in the category/CFD is quite different than the population that looks at RM, and frankly we aren't as experienced a bunch in such things. RM debates can be epic, much more so than the worst CFD I've seen, and there's a different standard of evidence and different reasoning and a whole different policy in place. Trying to bolt that on to CFD, or creating inconsistencies, doesn't make sense; thus unless you have a really good reason, I don't see any value in not matching the article name. If MOS:TM bothers you, then make an RM request, and see what consensus holds.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware of the unwillingness of the CFD crowd not to perpetuate foolish decisions made in other areas of Wikipedia. Because it's better to make mistakes bigger rather than smaller and contained. Quite frankly anyone too stupid to figure out the connection between "Numb3rs" and "Numbers (TV series)" is probably too dumb to operate a computer. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2014 (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.
Oppose on the grounds that MOS:TM is supremely silly. The show is called Numb3rs and that's how it should be referred to. The idea that we should call something by something other than its name is bizarre. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2014 (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.
Oppose on the grounds that MOS:TM is supremely silly. The show is called Numb3rs and that's how it should be referred to. The idea that we should call something by something other than its name is bizarre. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2014 (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.
Oppose Dynasty and state are not synonymous. Many of these dynasts ruled multiple states, many of which were not in the Mongolian state. Laurel Lodged (talk)
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:RELIST is the only thing I can think of here. I feel that a consensus may emerge with more discussion. -Splash - tk00:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not really. For example, we have Category:Soups_by_country and I'm not sure why we would have soups but not salads for example. The other ones you may have a case for, but again, the broader question is, what sorts of divisions are acceptable more generally in this tree. It seems no-one would argue with desserts or drinks, but kebabs is out. Why?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge alltoCategory:Greek cuisine. There is a potential difficulty over the similarity of Greek and Turkish cuisine, which is partly a consequence of Greek Nationalism: in Greece, Turkish coffee becomes Greek coffee and similarly Greek (not Turkish)delight. However Greece became a major mass tourist destination for Europeans before Turkey, so that the cuisine of both tends to be referred to as Greek. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...as noted in the nomination, no merge is necessary as all of the articles in the originally nominated categories are already also categorised in the proposed target. Not all of the additions were, however... - The BushrangerOne ping only00:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am certainly not advocating merging Greek and Turkish categories into a single one. If they are already in the putative parent, merge and delete amount to the same thing for a category. See my further comment below for a possible solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment The nomination is a bit over-broad. Some of those categories are populated and more useful than others. Category:Greek cuisine pilavs and Category:Turkish cuisine pilavs look useless and should go, but Category:Turkish cuisine dolmas and sarmas should be Kept as it is populated with items that would be unclearly connected if scattered. As an example, if I was researching the cuisine, I wouldn't be able to pick out that Zucchini Flower was a type of dolma, when looking at a list of over a hundred items. That's when the category becomes useful. Also, the idea that any Turkish cuisine categories should be merged to Greek cuisine is baffling and should not be acted on. Turkish coffee being called Greek coffee when in Greece, and the behavior of European tourists, are not compelling reasons to merge national cuisines. Greek cuisine and Turkish cuisine have certain historical similarities and overlapping dishes, but are overall distinct. __ E L A Q U E A T E12:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if my intervention has caused confusion. Greek cuisine as experienced in UK may well actually be Cypriot; after WWI, there was an exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey, with the result that the two countries became almost ethnically pure. Greece now contains Orthodox Greek speakers; and Turkey, mostly Muslim Turks. However, much of the cuisine is typical of the eastern Mediterranean, perhaps the 19th century Ottoman Empire, rather than of either country. I suspect there is little difference between a Greek kebab and a Turkish kebab, or a pilav, etc. I think the best solution may be to ensure that the articles on each dish adopt a NPOV as to whether they are Greek or Turkish; if there are slight differences, they can be explained within the article. In this way, the dishes can appear in categories for both Greek and Turkish cuisine. This is a means of providing a NPOV solution to what is essentially an irreconcilable dispute. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there are similarities, as there are strong links and similar dishes and ingredients between all of the Mediterranean-influenced cuisines, (Lebanese, Italian, Spanish, etc.). But the distinctions are reflected in our separate articles. There are sub-cats in Category:English cuisine that are not in Category:Irish cuisine and I think that's fine, even though (as with Greece and Turkey) there is a deep and profound overlap of ingredients, dishes, and shared history. I'd also suggest that Category:English cuisine and Category:Irish cuisine might be considered identical in every way and every similar dish completely merge-able to someone who lives in Japan or Mexico, but that clearly wouldn't be the best thing to do. Your suggestion is a good one for similar dishes, and is currently used for dish articles like Cottage pie and Baked beans, but there still appears to be room for sub-cats in cuisine categories if there are enough culture-specific dishes, like Category:Irish breads. I still think Category:Turkish cuisine dolmas and sarmas shows a connection between enough specifically Turkish-specific dishes that wouldn't be clear by their article names alone and that this type of sub-cat should be kept.
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.
