From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 23

Category:Catholicism

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. It might be helpful to put forward one of the other alternatives discussed below as a fresh nomination. – Fayenatic London 13:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: In accordance with how Catholicism redirects to Catholic Church. Second best option would be renaming it to Category:Catholicity in compliance with the consensus as seen in the main article space ( Catholicity). Chicbyaccident ( talk) 16:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Well, as a second best option, I would support renaming it to Category:Catholicity, which would then better comply with the consensus as seen in the main article space. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 14:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I wouldn't have a problem with creating Category:Catholicity as a topic category (if it can be populated decently) but I can't see how a set category would be helpful if it would contain nearly all Christian denominational families. So in that respect I'm opposing a straight rename of the nominated category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Marcocapelle: So what are your arguments for this quite remarkable dissonance in the category tree from the article realm, please? Chicbyaccident ( talk) 19:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Because it concerns two entirely different concepts, Catholicism concerns one "denominational family" (in WP terminology) while Catholicity concerns the use of the term Catholic by nearly all denominational families. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Well, if you don't argue for that in the article realm, then with what arguments do you think the category tree should differ, though, please? Chicbyaccident ( talk) 11:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Well, fair enough. I'd support that as a third best option. At least that would mean a step towards more in harmony with the article realm. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 17:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Jzsj: Are you sure about that? Please check again. The thing is that the categories do not currently reflect consensus in the article realm. Please let us know should you still find things confusing and we'll try to sort it out. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 21:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Chicbyaccident: Yes, I am sure that when I do a Google search for the Wikipedia article on "Catholicism" and click on it, it lands me at the "Catholicity" article. This would seem to belie any consensus in the article realm. Jzsj ( talk) 22:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply
As far as I am concerned, search engine results may vary individually. Either way, not sure about its relevance here. On Wikipedia, Catholicism redirects to Catholic Church. Arguments for categories differing from the article realm still seem unclear. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 22:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Chicbyaccident is correct, you cannot measure Wikipedia's structure by what a search engine does to it. There are four redirects in place to "Catholicity" and they are: Catholicity (term), Catholicity of the Church, Universality of the Church, and Catholicism (term). 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 ( talk) 00:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Μαρτζέλος 2009, p. 103-120.
  2. ^ McBrien, Catholicism, pp. 19-20.
  3. ^ e.g. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Galloway diocesan website
  4. ^ e.g. The Roman Catholic Church and the World Methodist Council, report from the Holy See website

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:Roman Catholic Diocese of Stockholm

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 12:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per main article Catholic Diocese of Stockholm. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 16:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The convention of the articles in Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Nordic Europe is firmly "Roman Catholic". The nom likes citing WP:CONSISTENCY, which is about articles ... and in this case WP:CONSISTENCY leads us to using "Roman Catholic" in the article title, with Category:Roman Catholic Diocese of Stockholm correctly named to match. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your comment. I notice, however, that you moved the article in question before posting it. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 17:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Indeed, but no "noticing" was needed, because I explicitly disclosed it in my post. As I wrote above: an undiscussed move in February 2018‎, which I have now reverted. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Please note that the article was moved to its current state by BrownHairedGirl, who have made similar objections which subsequently prooved contrary to consensus. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 22:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Chicbyaccident, that sort of falsehood is tediously disruptive. Please stop misrepresenting reality.
The reality is that I reverted a page move which had been made without consensus and restored a title which had been stable for 10 years. Unless and until a WP:RM discussion sets a new consensus, the consensus on the title of the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS of that stable for 10 years page title. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Sigh. More silliness.
Chicbyaccident edited their comment after I had replied to it, and altered its meaning. [2] (see WP:REDACT)
This is not complicated. WP:Consensus can change ... but unless and until it does change in discussion the stable title is the consensus. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:16, 2 May 2018 (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:Confraternal orders

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. It currently only contains Order of Saint Joachim, which I will also add into another parent Category:Confraternities. – Fayenatic London 12:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: While articles fraternity and confraternity exists, as categories of scope(s) of orders they prove notoriously unclear to distinguish. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 15:04, 23 April 2018 (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:Fraternal benefit orders

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: split to Category:Fraternal orders and Category:Fraternal service organizations. The word "benefit" may point to the latter being the best match, but I will leave it to another editor to examine the contents sufficiently. The category page should probably be kept as a category disambiguation page.
For the record, the article listed at the head of the category is List of North American fraternal benefit orders. There is also a List of North American ethnic and religious fraternal orders. – Fayenatic London 13:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: No such article as fraternal benefit order. If it existed, it would probably have been redirected to either fraternal order or benefit society anyway. Virtually unsurmountably unclear, nisched, even WP:fringe-wise term and scope. No equivalents in other language versions. Items previously categorised ought better simply be categorised in Category:Fraternal orders and/or Category:Fraternal service organizations. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 14:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Sure, that is the idea as proposed. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 07:31, 9 May 2018 (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:History books about the Holocaust

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. – Fayenatic London 13:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is one of many, many related categories where the word 'history' is simply unnecessary. (Those books are not only 'history', they are social sciences, including sociological and such insights, too). And the category name is confusing, suggesting this is about the 'history' of TH, and not about things such as economics, politics, etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:44, 23 April 2018 (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:History books

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The parent category Category:Works about history is IMHO better. Particularly for subcategories, ex. Category:History books about the Holocaust should be Category:Books about the Holocaust and so on. A lot of the categories like this should be rerenamed, but for now we can tackle this one, I'll start a separate CfD about child categories like this (but there are hundreds, where the word 'history' is simply unnecessary and even wrong). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose as nominated. There many many subcats with titles beginning "History books", including
  1. Category:History books by century‎ and its 27 subcats "nth-century history books"
  2. Category:History books by topic, and its 32 subcats of which ~20 have titles beginning "History books"
  3. Category:History books about countries, with 87 subcats all named "History books about FooCountry"
I don't see any advantage in a rename which places this cat out of synch with so many of its children.
A group nom which included the children could possibly be more persuasive, but I'm not sure that other workable formulations will always be available. I would want to see those alternatives before saying yes. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:59, 23 April 2018 (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:Field hockey terminolgy

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 to Category:Field hockey. Timrollpickering 07:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Correcting typo Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:50, 23 April 2018 (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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 23

Category:Catholicism

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. It might be helpful to put forward one of the other alternatives discussed below as a fresh nomination. – Fayenatic London 13:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: In accordance with how Catholicism redirects to Catholic Church. Second best option would be renaming it to Category:Catholicity in compliance with the consensus as seen in the main article space ( Catholicity). Chicbyaccident ( talk) 16:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Well, as a second best option, I would support renaming it to Category:Catholicity, which would then better comply with the consensus as seen in the main article space. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 14:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I wouldn't have a problem with creating Category:Catholicity as a topic category (if it can be populated decently) but I can't see how a set category would be helpful if it would contain nearly all Christian denominational families. So in that respect I'm opposing a straight rename of the nominated category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Marcocapelle: So what are your arguments for this quite remarkable dissonance in the category tree from the article realm, please? Chicbyaccident ( talk) 19:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Because it concerns two entirely different concepts, Catholicism concerns one "denominational family" (in WP terminology) while Catholicity concerns the use of the term Catholic by nearly all denominational families. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Well, if you don't argue for that in the article realm, then with what arguments do you think the category tree should differ, though, please? Chicbyaccident ( talk) 11:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Well, fair enough. I'd support that as a third best option. At least that would mean a step towards more in harmony with the article realm. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 17:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Jzsj: Are you sure about that? Please check again. The thing is that the categories do not currently reflect consensus in the article realm. Please let us know should you still find things confusing and we'll try to sort it out. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 21:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Chicbyaccident: Yes, I am sure that when I do a Google search for the Wikipedia article on "Catholicism" and click on it, it lands me at the "Catholicity" article. This would seem to belie any consensus in the article realm. Jzsj ( talk) 22:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply
As far as I am concerned, search engine results may vary individually. Either way, not sure about its relevance here. On Wikipedia, Catholicism redirects to Catholic Church. Arguments for categories differing from the article realm still seem unclear. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 22:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Chicbyaccident is correct, you cannot measure Wikipedia's structure by what a search engine does to it. There are four redirects in place to "Catholicity" and they are: Catholicity (term), Catholicity of the Church, Universality of the Church, and Catholicism (term). 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 ( talk) 00:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Μαρτζέλος 2009, p. 103-120.
  2. ^ McBrien, Catholicism, pp. 19-20.
  3. ^ e.g. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Galloway diocesan website
  4. ^ e.g. The Roman Catholic Church and the World Methodist Council, report from the Holy See website

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:Roman Catholic Diocese of Stockholm

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 12:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per main article Catholic Diocese of Stockholm. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 16:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The convention of the articles in Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Nordic Europe is firmly "Roman Catholic". The nom likes citing WP:CONSISTENCY, which is about articles ... and in this case WP:CONSISTENCY leads us to using "Roman Catholic" in the article title, with Category:Roman Catholic Diocese of Stockholm correctly named to match. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your comment. I notice, however, that you moved the article in question before posting it. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 17:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Indeed, but no "noticing" was needed, because I explicitly disclosed it in my post. As I wrote above: an undiscussed move in February 2018‎, which I have now reverted. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Please note that the article was moved to its current state by BrownHairedGirl, who have made similar objections which subsequently prooved contrary to consensus. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 22:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Chicbyaccident, that sort of falsehood is tediously disruptive. Please stop misrepresenting reality.
The reality is that I reverted a page move which had been made without consensus and restored a title which had been stable for 10 years. Unless and until a WP:RM discussion sets a new consensus, the consensus on the title of the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS of that stable for 10 years page title. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Sigh. More silliness.
Chicbyaccident edited their comment after I had replied to it, and altered its meaning. [2] (see WP:REDACT)
This is not complicated. WP:Consensus can change ... but unless and until it does change in discussion the stable title is the consensus. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:16, 2 May 2018 (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:Confraternal orders

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. It currently only contains Order of Saint Joachim, which I will also add into another parent Category:Confraternities. – Fayenatic London 12:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: While articles fraternity and confraternity exists, as categories of scope(s) of orders they prove notoriously unclear to distinguish. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 15:04, 23 April 2018 (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:Fraternal benefit orders

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: split to Category:Fraternal orders and Category:Fraternal service organizations. The word "benefit" may point to the latter being the best match, but I will leave it to another editor to examine the contents sufficiently. The category page should probably be kept as a category disambiguation page.
For the record, the article listed at the head of the category is List of North American fraternal benefit orders. There is also a List of North American ethnic and religious fraternal orders. – Fayenatic London 13:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: No such article as fraternal benefit order. If it existed, it would probably have been redirected to either fraternal order or benefit society anyway. Virtually unsurmountably unclear, nisched, even WP:fringe-wise term and scope. No equivalents in other language versions. Items previously categorised ought better simply be categorised in Category:Fraternal orders and/or Category:Fraternal service organizations. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 14:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Sure, that is the idea as proposed. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 07:31, 9 May 2018 (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:History books about the Holocaust

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. – Fayenatic London 13:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is one of many, many related categories where the word 'history' is simply unnecessary. (Those books are not only 'history', they are social sciences, including sociological and such insights, too). And the category name is confusing, suggesting this is about the 'history' of TH, and not about things such as economics, politics, etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:44, 23 April 2018 (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:History books

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The parent category Category:Works about history is IMHO better. Particularly for subcategories, ex. Category:History books about the Holocaust should be Category:Books about the Holocaust and so on. A lot of the categories like this should be rerenamed, but for now we can tackle this one, I'll start a separate CfD about child categories like this (but there are hundreds, where the word 'history' is simply unnecessary and even wrong). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose as nominated. There many many subcats with titles beginning "History books", including
  1. Category:History books by century‎ and its 27 subcats "nth-century history books"
  2. Category:History books by topic, and its 32 subcats of which ~20 have titles beginning "History books"
  3. Category:History books about countries, with 87 subcats all named "History books about FooCountry"
I don't see any advantage in a rename which places this cat out of synch with so many of its children.
A group nom which included the children could possibly be more persuasive, but I'm not sure that other workable formulations will always be available. I would want to see those alternatives before saying yes. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:59, 23 April 2018 (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:Field hockey terminolgy

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 to Category:Field hockey. Timrollpickering 07:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Correcting typo Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:50, 23 April 2018 (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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook