Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 23

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]

Propose merging Category:Catholicism to Category:Catholic Church

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]

Oppose, Catholicism is broader than the Catholic Church, it also encompasses catholic personal devotion, catholic political parties, catholic labor unions, the Old Catholic Church, more catholic independent churches, etc, so it is perfectly fine as a grandparent category of Category:Catholic Church. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Catholicism equates to Catholicity: "Catholicity (from Greek καθολικότητα της εκκλησίας, "catholicity of the church"), or catholicism (from Greek καθολικισμός, "universal doctrine") is a concept that encompasses the beliefs and practices of numerous Christian denominations, most notably those that describe themselves as Catholic in accordance with the Four Marks of the Church, as expressed in the Nicene Creed of the First Council of Constantinople in 381: "[I believe] in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church." While catholicism is most commonly associated with the faith and practices of the Catholic Church led by the Pope in Rome, the traits of catholicity, and thus the term catholic, are also claimed and possessed by other denominations such as the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Church of the East. It also occurs in Lutheranism, Anglicanism, as well as Independent Catholicism and other Christian denominations. While traits used to define catholicity, as well as recognition of these traits in other denominations, vary among these groups, such attributes include formal sacraments, an episcopal polity, apostolic succession, highly structured liturgical worship, and other shared Ecclesiology. The Catholic Church is also known as the Roman Catholic Church; the term Roman Catholic is used especially in ecumenical contexts and in countries where other churches use the term Catholic, to distinguish it from broader meanings of the term." Dimadick (talk) 04:49, 24 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]

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]

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

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]

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Diocese of Stockholm to Category:Catholic Diocese of Stockholm

Nominator's rationale: Per main article Catholic Diocese of Stockholm. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, The title Catholic Diocese of Stockholm was the product of an undiscussed move in February 2018‎,[1] which I have now reverted. The parent categories are Roman Catholic dioceses in Nordic Europe and (for the article) Roman Catholic dioceses and prelatures established in the 20th century.

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]

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]
I would normally support this for consistency with Catholic Church but admittedly creating consistency throughout the articles should precede the categories, an RM is the best way out here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 25 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]

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]
Rename to match Catholic Church. This is the common name and we should reflect this in articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
REname -- "Roman" is only necessary as a prefix where there is another major church claiming also to be Catholic. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 29 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 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]

Propose merging Category:Confraternal orders to Category:Fraternal orders

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]

Support, while fraternity is more often used in a secular context, both categories are clearly in use for religious orders. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:58, 24 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]

Propose merging Category:Fraternal benefit orders to Category:Fraternal orders

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]

Support rationale of nominator but, as a consequence of the rationale, split this category to Category:Fraternal orders and Category:Fraternal service organizations dependent on whether an article is about a religious order or not. Possibly Category:Fraternal benefit orders is kept as a category disambiguation page. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:07, 24 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]

Propose renaming Category:History books about the Holocaust to Category:Books about the Holocaust

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]

Comment - there is already Category:Holocaust books. Oculi (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, looking at Category:Holocaust books, I presume history books is meant to contrast versus novels and personal accounts. Not sure if this is a clear distinction though, I can well imagine we upmerge this. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't know how I missed it but yes, upmerge is a totally reasonable outcome. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the distinction between novels (fiction) and history books (non-fiction) is entirely clear. Oculi (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oculi. This is a subcat of Category:Holocaust books for the reasons given by Marcocapelle. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep changes do not improve navigation and will confuse things Hmains (talk) 02:10, 24 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]
- They are kept in a separate subcat of Category:Holocaust books called Category:Personal accounts of the Holocaust. Perhaps they and the History books category should be lumped together in a parent non-fiction category, but then we'd probably get into grimy edit wars over whether the Holocaust denial books should go in there. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Renaming to Category:Non-fiction books about the Holocaust isn't a bad idea at all, it is perfectly in line with Category:Non-fiction books higher up in the tree. Category:Personal accounts of the Holocaust and Category:Books about Holocaust denial should become subcategories of it. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - That would be a reasonable option. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Current situation seems fine and simplest. Marcocapelle's proposal is reasonable, but Category:History books about the Holocaust has numerous parent categories that are useful and are less applicable to Category:Personal accounts of the Holocaust‎. Daask (talk) 19:04, 7 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

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]

Propose renaming Category:History books to Category:Books about history

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

Category:History books by century‎ and its 27 subcats "nth-century history books"
Category:History books by topic, and its 32 subcats of which ~20 have titles beginning "History books"
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]

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]
Keep Per Oculi's explanation. Dimadick (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep per the very good reasons above Hmains (talk) 02:13, 24 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]

Propose renaming Category:Field hockey terminolgy to Category:Field hockey terminology

Nominator's rationale: Correcting typo Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename per WP:C2A. @Zeke, for future reference this should have been listed at WP:CFDS. No need for a full discussion. It's here now, but next time, please use speedy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]

Or rename to Category:Field hockey techniques, as a subcategory of Category:Sports techniques, since a number of articles in this category seem to be about techniques. Articles not about techniques may be moved to Category:Field hockey after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Split~~ to new Category:Field hockey techniques and parent Category:Field hockey – combining the above alternatives. As "terminology" categories are often upmerged, it was worth having this full discussion after all. – Fayenatic London 22:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and split as described by Fayenatic london and Marcocapelle. Daask (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On closer inspection I realised that only two articles are about field hockey techniques (drag flick and Indian dribble), so there is not enough contents for a useful new category. I have added those two pages to Category:Sports techniques. Instead of a split, I now suggest a simple merge to Category:Field hockey. – Fayenatic London 13:42, 4 June 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]
Left a request for closure at the admin noticeboard. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 22 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.