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. –
FayenaticLondon13:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't have a problem with creatingCategory: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
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
Support, but preferring the opposite title (merge from
Category:Catholic Church to
Category:Catholicism) I don't think
Marcocapelle reviewed the subcategories; virtually all of
Category:Catholic Church is about Catholic culture as opposed to Catholic Church institutions. The institutions and culture are intertwined in categories and articles like Catholic missions, Catholic education, and Catholic liturgy, so we cannot separately categorize these separately. Contra
Chicbyaccident, there is no need for a
Category:Catholicity; I can't imagine what article would belong there.
Daask (
talk)
16:23, 9 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
Confused Maybe we should resolve the articles problem along with the category problem. Currently we read at
Catholic Church that "Catholic" and "Catholicism" redirect here, which is not entirely true. A "Catholicism - Wikipedia" search now redirects to
Catholicity.
Jzsj (
talk)
21:10, 17 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
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.
Keep - I have never been convinced by Chicbyaccident's insistence (largely successful) that 'Roman' should be dropped from category names (eg
this cfd, with various assertions masquerading as arguments).
Oculi (
talk)
20:38, 24 April 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)
I agree with Marcocapelle; currently the article titling is hodge-podge, trying to conform categories to that hodge-podge will only create problems later when we want to standardize them.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
18:51, 26 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: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 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.
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.
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 here08:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep clear difference between fiction and non-fiction. "History books" is not my preference because it would preclude things like the memoirs like the
Diary of Anne Frank which was contemporaneously written not retrospectively written. I would prefer a rename to "Non-fiction books" about ...
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
18:53, 26 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.
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
Keep - 'History book' is a perfectly respectable formulation. It is merely a standard formulation to name subcats of a category in the same manner, unless there is good reason to do otherwise. 'History books about the Holocaust' is opposed to 'novels about the Holocaust - nothing wrong with it.
Oculi (
talk)
18:25, 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.
Upmerge to
Category:Field hockey insofar the articles aren't already somewhere else in the Field hockey tree. The articles aren't about terminology (i.e. they are not about the linguistic use of terms), it is just a random collection of terms.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)reply
I thought that the category was better populated when I commented before (with more techniques articles) but am not entirely certain about that because it is long time ago. Fayenatic london is right that we should not create
Category:Field hockey techniques for only two articles.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:56, 5 June 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.
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. –
FayenaticLondon13:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't have a problem with creatingCategory: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
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
Support, but preferring the opposite title (merge from
Category:Catholic Church to
Category:Catholicism) I don't think
Marcocapelle reviewed the subcategories; virtually all of
Category:Catholic Church is about Catholic culture as opposed to Catholic Church institutions. The institutions and culture are intertwined in categories and articles like Catholic missions, Catholic education, and Catholic liturgy, so we cannot separately categorize these separately. Contra
Chicbyaccident, there is no need for a
Category:Catholicity; I can't imagine what article would belong there.
Daask (
talk)
16:23, 9 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
Confused Maybe we should resolve the articles problem along with the category problem. Currently we read at
Catholic Church that "Catholic" and "Catholicism" redirect here, which is not entirely true. A "Catholicism - Wikipedia" search now redirects to
Catholicity.
Jzsj (
talk)
21:10, 17 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
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.
Keep - I have never been convinced by Chicbyaccident's insistence (largely successful) that 'Roman' should be dropped from category names (eg
this cfd, with various assertions masquerading as arguments).
Oculi (
talk)
20:38, 24 April 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)
I agree with Marcocapelle; currently the article titling is hodge-podge, trying to conform categories to that hodge-podge will only create problems later when we want to standardize them.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
18:51, 26 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: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 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.
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.
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 here08:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep clear difference between fiction and non-fiction. "History books" is not my preference because it would preclude things like the memoirs like the
Diary of Anne Frank which was contemporaneously written not retrospectively written. I would prefer a rename to "Non-fiction books" about ...
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
18:53, 26 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.
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
Keep - 'History book' is a perfectly respectable formulation. It is merely a standard formulation to name subcats of a category in the same manner, unless there is good reason to do otherwise. 'History books about the Holocaust' is opposed to 'novels about the Holocaust - nothing wrong with it.
Oculi (
talk)
18:25, 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.
Upmerge to
Category:Field hockey insofar the articles aren't already somewhere else in the Field hockey tree. The articles aren't about terminology (i.e. they are not about the linguistic use of terms), it is just a random collection of terms.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)reply
I thought that the category was better populated when I commented before (with more techniques articles) but am not entirely certain about that because it is long time ago. Fayenatic london is right that we should not create
Category:Field hockey techniques for only two articles.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:56, 5 June 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.