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:rename, Catholicism is broader than Catholic Church and it should be broad here. For example, Catholic trade unions and Catholic political parties shouldn't be parented to Catholic Church but should be parented to Catholicism. Note that this proposal is actually reverting an earlier out-of-process rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you if it wasn't for that some determinent users insist that anything in Catholicism and under Category:Catholicism basically qualify as long as it self-identify as such. That creates a lot of problems other than just this example, that I have tried to address without success. Chicbyaccident (talk)
Please clarify in what way these problems affect this proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Namely that it sacks one definition that is encyclopedically relevant, with one that remains controversial in its current circumference. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In sociological terms it is simply a distinction between a social movement and a legal institute. For example, Catholic trade unions don't belong under the legal institute (Catholic Church) but do belong under the social movement (Catholicism). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you but please then also update the definition of Catholicism article content, please, will you? Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with the article's definition "Catholicism ... in its broadest sense refers to the beliefs and practices of Christian denominations that describe themselves as catholic." The category nominated here is more about practices but also about beliefs. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – there is a recent tendency for editors to use the 'move' facility to rename categories unilaterally. This is such a case. This bypasses cfd altogether. The onus should be upon the mover to establish their case at cfd, not vice versa. Improper category moves should be undone with the briefest of discussions pending a proper discussion. I also support the name Category:Catholicism and society. Category:Catholicism is much broader than Category:Catholic Church, as the latter is in fact the Roman Catholic variety and omits the Eastern Catholic church altogether. Oculi (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're entering complicated and infected discussion there. Please consider reading Roman Catholic (term) first in order to not come across as an uninitiated elephant bull in a glass house. Chicbyaccident (talk)
About the earlier bypassing of cfd, I presume if this discussion would result in no consensus, that the status quo ante will be implemented. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2017 (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:withdrawn. – FayenaticLondon 08:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We had a mini-discussion about this here. This is the usual naming convention that is used for NFL categories. Regardless of the name, I've been wanting to get this category moved because the current Chargers players needs to be populated. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2017 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Most of the entries in this category are in Userspace. (Neutral on deletion) Pppery 20:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree something needs to be done with this category. My question is if this has a reason for existing at all? Is there any reason to group all these pages based on them using Wikidata? What encyclopedia improving purpose will be accomplished by grouping these? I'm not saying there definitely isn't, but I'd be curious to know what the rationale is for why this category exists in the first place is. If we don't get an answer, Delete. Otherwise, rename per nom (I'm not 100% sure if your proposed rename is the panacea for this category either, but I agree it's an improvement over the current name, and I cannot come up with an alternate at this time). VegaDark (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if Kept The rename is sound. I do wonder what administrative purpose this category serves though. (I would favor deletion if there is no purpose but I'll hold off on that to give other editors some time for input.) RevelationDirect (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have found this category useful for identifying Wikidata lists prepared by other users. I belive the category is added automatically to such lists. As for the ones under my user name, they can be deleted as they have been moved.--Ipigott (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Lists based on Wikidata This category is automatically populated by @Magnus Manske's {{Wikidata list}}. It's a useful maintenance category to have to keep all of these lists together so that other lists can be found and learnt from while making new ones, but I agree that the category should be renamed. Perhaps "Lists based on Wikidata" would me most appropriate, given that it only contains (and is only likely to contain) lists. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At least all of my list articles are gaining this category via {{Wikidata list}}. They are worklists and will remain in user namespace, wouldn't mind to categorizes them more specifically if that helps. e.g. Category:Lists in user namespace based on Wikidata but that might not be easily achieved at that template is not bound to this use only. But I wouldn't mind deleting it either.--Aeroid (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The template could be re-coded to include "user" in the category name only for pages within the user namespace. – FayenaticLondon 21:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can attest that Wikidata-generated lists have already caused something of a stir at Afd, and a list-related category will be used, by editors on all sides of the debate. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2017 (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:Personal prelatures of the Roman Catholic Church[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 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.
Nominator's rationale: Unlikely to become populated. —swpbT 18:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the long-standing category structure set out at Category:Albums by artist - "Please note that all single-artist album articles may have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded". LugnutsPrecious bodily fluids 19:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Category:Albums by artist is a tree that is expected to directly include all albums — not only albums that happen to have been recorded by artists who made a certain specific minimum number of albums, but all albums that have Wikipedia articles at all — and so even a one-album category is permitted in this tree. And furthermore, Alison Limerick appears to have recorded four albums overall — although it's true that only one of them has an article today, there are three other potential topics to be catted here. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2017 (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.
Don't plainly delete, but upmerge to both parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2017 (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:alternative merge per Marcocapelle. The other two nominated categories (Churches in Anchorage / Fairbanks) will be deleted as unnecessary. – FayenaticLondon 23:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: – This amounts to far too many categories and too specific a categorization relative to the quantity of content they contain, when the broader categorization scheme by places of worship would work just fine or better. There's been a pattern of category creations which suggests that editors' perception of the stature of the Catholic Church should drive the creation of categories, resulting in what amounts to vanity categories puffing up our coverage of the church. Witness the previous examples of Category:Roman Catholic churches on the National Register of Historic Places in Alaska containing only one article, when a common-sense look at parent Category:Churches on the National Register of Historic Places in Alaska would say that a logical subcategorization would be of the Russian Orthodox churches, and Category:Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical Province of Anchorage, which exactly duplicates the function of parent Category:Catholic Church in Alaska. In the latter case, with no article on the ecclesiastical province, the category is only useful to those who know what an ecclesiastical province is, as opposed to being useful to the readership in general. Based on previous discussion, that suits the editors in the former group just fine, but it's hardly NPOV for us to create a wiki-within-a-wiki benefiting only or primarily the Catholic faithful. The creator of these categories has only helped push these POVs along by failing to add either the other church articles or the applicable Commons category to Category:Churches in Anchorage, Alaska. The big question mark I had was with the Fairbanks categories. The Category:Fairbanks, Alaska tree is supposed to pertain to the city of Fairbanks, whose corporate limits are defined here. However, many editors have applied their own definition of Fairbanks to parts of the encyclopedia over the years. If we go by those definitions and not by a factual basis, then there's effectively no real difference between Category:Fairbanks, Alaska and parent Category:Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska, in the sense that there's plenty of places with "Fairbanks, Alaska" as their address which are located in the borough and not the city. This would be a factor in terms of that category's growth potential. However, it appears that Category:Places of worship in the United States by city contains subcategories on the first level below pertaining to specific cities, but Category:Places of worship in the United States by county does not contain such subcategories pertaining to specific counties (or county equivalents, as boroughs in Alaska would be). That latter category has been tagged as underpopulated, so I see no reason why not to add such a category. Also, an offhand glance indicates that there are plenty of other locales in the United States for which this same argument would apply, but I'm only going to nominate these categories. Anyone else may feel free to expand this nomination with such categories if appropriate. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These categories were created following similar models from hundreds of other cities in the United States and around the world. I do not see why they can not stay as they are. I oppose to move but respect the decisions of the community--Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat, this is a continuation of the pattern of enthusiasm for covering the same specific aspects of the Catholic Church across various places, rather than a real need for still more categories which will likely never contain more than an article or two. This approach really doesn't respect the context of the places being covered. In Alaska, a great deal of what's notable about the Catholic Church and its history centers around missionary activity in remote areas, something which is barely represented on the encyclopedia. In place of that, these editors have chosen to treat Alaska as mere window dressing by offering the same one-size-fits-all content as everywhere else, namely providing a directory of dioceses, bishops, cathedrals, etc. The above categories and the existing pattern of categorization appears to follow this same POV and ignores reality. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Laurel Lodged that these categories may be upmerged differently, because the nomination merely creates new categories that are equally unnecessary. An alternative is:
I disagree with "unnecessary categories", unless you're telling me that slavish adherence to a by-the-numbers, one-size-fits-all scheme is more important than the end result of creating an endless quantity of categories which can't stand on their own. As I've stated before, that's little different than playing a game of FarmVille. We already have too many examples of two or three nested categories which exist solely to support a single article because "they were created according to an established scheme" or whatever, with the creators of those categories feeling no obligation to further create articles to fill out those categories. Ridiculous. It's the precise definition of what I've been calling "vanity categories".
Each of the categories I proposed would accommodate instances of places of worship that are not churches. For example, in Anchorage you have the LDS temple and the so-called mosque. I say "so-called" because there's no evidence that the actual mosque has been completed and dedicated and an imam installed. Nonetheless, in the wake of the Fort Lauderdale shooting, various media outlets have taken to declaring the Islamic Community Center Anchorage Alaska's existing facility (a rented space in a strip mall) to be a "mosque" and Wikipedia appears content to follow along by virtue of the existence of Category:Mosques in Alaska. In the Fairbanks area, you have the studios of KJNP (AM) where worship services take place for live and tape-delayed broadcast, but that's not a church, either (it's also located in the Fairbanks North Star Borough but not in Fairbanks proper, per my previous argument). There's likely other radio stations where the same scenario occurs. In Juneau, the Shrine of St. Therese contains a chapel, but is technically not a church. There's also a redirect for Echo Ranch Bible Camp, a place where common sense would dictate that worship services occur.
As for "some day there will be sufficient content", that's the result of another POV. It seems as though in big cities, we treat all sort and manner of barely-known places as automatically/inherently notable, while in the rest of the United States, anything not listed on the National Register of Historic Places or not the subject of fleeting headlines within the encyclopedia's lifetime is treated as non-notable. This discourages editors who have access to high-quality local sources (which tend to be paper sources more often than not) from filling in those gaps in coverage.
While your alternate proposal is fine, there's really nothing to "merge" as the categories to be merged to are long established and adequately populated; it's more a deletion of these newly-created categories and reversal of the more specific categorization. My proposal would replace six barely-populated categories with three adequately-populated categories. You contend that it doesn't conform to some sort of scheme or another. Years and years later, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question of how creating an endless array of categories solely to support subcategories or one article and resultantly pushing content even further down the tree helps rather than hinders navigation. In my experience, this "scheme" results in some cases in an additional half-dozen clicks or more just to get between two articles. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Category:Places of worshipis an established category tree here. So there is no contending that "it doesn't conform to some sort of scheme or another". Instead it's a concern that we will still keep barely-populated categories. Adding one additional article per city doesn't really help much. Btw it is pretty questionable to count a bible camp or a studio as a place of worship. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2017 (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.
