Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 2

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< July 1 July 3 >

July 2

edit

Category:Knowing Bros participants

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 result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 13:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization of performers by performance. This is simply categorizing people who have made guest appearances on the variety show Knowing Bros. There is a long-standing precedence against these types of categories: User:Good Olfactory/CFD#Reality TV participants. It is a trivial and non-defining characteristic. ℯxplicit 23:45, 2 July 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:Roman Catholics

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 result of the discussion was: keep, i.e. do not merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS the nominator Chicbyaccident forgot to tag the category for this discussion, so regardless of the balance of opinions here, there could have been no valid consensus to merge, delete or rename the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:Consistency in accordance with Catholic Church, Category:Catholic Church, Talk:Catholic Church, Talk:Catholic Church in Armenia, etc. No reason to have duplicated category.Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support Roman is unnecessary for disambiguation in this case. When I originally commented I was on mobile and didn't see the Eastern Catholic tree, which includes Eastern Catholic clerics. Merging these categories would be inappropriate given this consideration. It serves as a valid disambiguation within the category tree. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that that disambiguation can - and seems like it's going to - be sorted out in a later phase. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a reply to all your objections here, since they seem to come from the same reasons. Catholic Church and Category:Catholic Church do not contain things related to Independent Catholicism, which legitimately enjoys its own category tree under Christianity. Anything pertaining to Independent Catholicism that ended up under Category:Catholic Church or its subcategory Category:Catholics, ended up there (and remained there) by mistake. Notwithstanding the discussions of names, theologies or ecclesiologies, we're talking about a difference here of like 20 million to 1,3 billion, and sone 150 years to millenia. Although understandibly frequently tried by sympathisers of smaller, recent groups with nominal pretentions, WP:Primarytopic remains clear here. None objects to Category:Independent Catholics, but its not due to fit inside Category:Catholic Church (either directly or indirectly). Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating my point from below, Catholic != Catholic Church TSP (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is the decision of Chicbyaccident that non-Roman Catholics should be removed from Category:Catholics. Disgraceful in my opinion. Numbers are immaterial. There has been a concerted campaign to equate catholic with Roman catholic for the last year or so. Category:Old Catholics are catholics and should be in Category:Catholics. Period. So should all the orthodox catholics. "The Eastern Orthodox Church,[1] also known as the Orthodox Church,[2] or officially as the Orthodox Catholic Church,[3] is the second-largest Christian church[4] and one of the oldest extant religious institutions in the world.[5]" Oculi (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed a larger discussion that should probably address Talk:Roman Catholic (term), regarding the reflection presented on Roman Catholic (term). Anglo-Catholics and Independent Catholics are indeed listed as Christians. However, as a brief reply, we will have a hard time convincing the crowd to have Catholics categorised as Orthdodox, although if you ask the 1,3 billion, most would probably find themselves no less orthodox in their Christian faith and identity than, say, Eastern Orthodox. Numbers are not immaterial as one of the aspects to have in regard when it boils down to WP:Primarytopic. As yet another comparison, you will have a hard time starting a new denomination, call it Eastern Orthodox, and then introduce a disambiguation policy for preexisting Eastern Orthodox matters. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not all people who identify as Catholic are in communion with Rome, e.g. Anglo-Catholics. Note I am not opposing the other renames on this page to rename Catholic Church categories to Catholic. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a difference between people who self-identify as Catholics versus people are identified as Catholics in reliable sources. Presumably Anglo-Catholics are regarded as Anglicans only, except by themselves. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a true remark - and a position I also perceive is in prevalent WP:Consensus here. However, perhaps another consensus regarding this individual case would evolve as exceptionate. Peterkingiron (talk · contribs), if you support the other cases, though, why don't you list yourself as such there? Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:32, 4 July 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:Roman Catholics by nationality

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 result of the discussion was: keep, i.e. do not merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:Consistency in accordance with Catholic Church, Category:Catholic Church, Talk:Catholic Church, Talk:Catholic Church in Armenia, etc. No reason to have duplicated category.Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS the nominator Chicbyaccident forgot to tag the category for this discussion, so regardless of the balance of opinions here, there could have been no valid consensus to merge, delete or rename the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which should in that case be adjusted, since otherwise it would stem from a fault of WP:Consistency with WP:Primarytopic, etc. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can't add people to the wrong faith merely to satisfy WP. Oculi (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is a useful category anyway; but I would distinguish "Catholic" from "Catholic Church". Note that Catholic redirects to Catholicism, which is not about the same thing as Catholic Church, so the primary topic argument may not apply. TSP (talk) 12:16, 3 July 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:Roman Catholic dioceses by continent

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 result of the discussion was: keep, i.e. do not merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:Consistency in accordance with Catholic Church, Category:Catholic Church, Talk:Catholic Church, Talk:Catholic Church in Armenia, etc. No reason to have duplicated category.Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose necessary disambiguation from Eastern Catholic dioceses and it is consistent with most of the titles used by the diocese articles in the main space, which typically follow the names the diocese call themselves. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that opposition stems for the ongoing Latin/Roman rite discussion on Talk:Catholic Church. Perhaps we could wait for more discussion regarding this very individual proposal. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's the articles' realm. However, here we're talking about a category, and two levels up from that article realm that you're talking about. Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the category doesn't match the article names, it won't be used properly. –Zfish118⋉talk 13:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see your point regarding the very articles. Possibly, in line with your argument, I could see why theur respective imnediate categories would follow naming method of their corresponding articles. However, some way up the category tree, the prevailing consensus departing from Category:Catholic Church should folloe suit, don't you think? I have a hard time seeing why individuals cases should make override the WP:Consistency naming of Category:Catholic dioceses by continent. That doesn't make sense to me, until you have equivalent cases in other category subjects that you can refer to as examples for duch exceptionate category naming condition. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:38, 4 July 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.
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 result of the discussion was: no consensus, defaulting to keep, i.e. do not merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS the nominator Chicbyaccident forgot to tag the category for this discussion, so regardless of the balance of opinions here, there could have been no valid consensus to merge, delete or rename the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:Consistency in accordance with Catholic Church, Category:Catholic Church, Talk:Catholic Church, Talk:Catholic Church in Armenia, etc. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:03, 2 July 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:Roman Catholic schools by continent

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 result of the discussion was: no consensus, which defaults to keep, i.e. do not merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS the nominator Chicbyaccident forgot to tag the category for this discussion, so regardless of the balance of opinions here, there could have been no valid consensus to merge, delete or rename the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:Consistency in accordance with Catholic Church, Category:Catholic Church, Talk:Catholic Church, Talk:Catholic Church in Armenia, etc.Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As there is one category, it should be Catholic, because there is one Catholic Church. The fact that the church has subdivisions does not mean that every category must be split by its subdivisions. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 4 July 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:Roman Catholic universities and colleges by country

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 result of the discussion was: no consensus, which defaults to keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS the nominator Chicbyaccident forgot to tag the category for this discussion, so regardless of the balance of opinions here, there could have been no valid consensus to merge, delete or rename the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:Consistency in accordance with Catholic Church, Category:Catholic Church, Talk:Catholic Church, Talk:Catholic Church in Armenia, etc.Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As there is one category, it should be Catholic, because there is one Catholic Church. The fact that the church has subdivisions does not mean that every category must be split by its subdivisions. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 4 July 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:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse cases by country

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 result of the discussion was: no consensus which defaults to keep, i.e. do not merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS the nominator Chicbyaccident forgot to tag the category for this discussion, so regardless of the balance of opinions here, there could have been no valid consensus to merge, delete or rename the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:Consistency in accordance with Catholic Church, Category:Catholic Church, Talk:Catholic Church, Talk:Catholic Church in Armenia, etc.Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:03, 2 July 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:Roman Catholic Church Councils by country

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 result of the discussion was: no consensus, which defaults to keep, i.e. do not merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS the nominator Chicbyaccident forgot to tag the category for this discussion, so regardless of the balance of opinions here, there could have been no valid consensus to merge, delete or rename the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:Consistency in accordance with Catholic Church, Category:Catholic Church, Talk:Catholic Church, Talk:Catholic Church in Armenia, etc. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:03, 2 July 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:History of Roman Catholicism by country

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 result of the discussion was: no consensus, which defaults to keep, i.e. do not merge. There is a narrow WP:LOCALCON in favour of the renaming amongst the 4 participants here, but I note the clear lack of consensus in the much wider discussion at Talk:Catholic Church#Our_whole_category_system_might_be_broken. It's cleAr that changes need broader support than has been offered in this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:Consistency in accordance with Catholic Church, Category:Catholic Church, Talk:Catholic Church, Talk:Catholic Church in Armenia, etc. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not like the process used here, where a subset of articles are selected nearly at random for renaming, and categories are selected at random for renaming, and a once fairly consistent set of articles and categories become ever more fragmented, without a strong compelling consensus for a need to change. Each article that is selected for renaming ought to be carefully edited for consistency, and that follow up never seems to happen, so articles end up in worse shape. –Zfish118⋉talk 04:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see your remark that the discussion about thus category could arguably rely on the results of the on-going discussion that you referree to. However, it is currently in a state with little concrete proposals. This is a try to get down to concrete proposals to evaluate. Are you really opposing this proposal, even independently of said discussion? Because that doesn't seem consistent to me judging from your reasoning on the very discussion. Again, as Grabado (talk · contribs) has pointed out, som clean-up ought to be tended to. Having "Eastern Catholic X" a subset of "Catholic X" seems to be what the discussion is leaning towards, why I offered this (these) concrete proposals to discuss. I think this way if finding the way forward would be the least bad solution, considering the kind of theoretical exchange on said discussion. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not like this process one bit. We had a long, protracted conversation that went, in my opinion, nowhere (and frankl left me exhausted). Grabado proposed a very slim outline, and I said it had some merit, but needed more research, and Grabado agreed. Now, you've proposed to rename a handful of articles and categories, which will impact thousands of articles, with little community buy-in. Most early participants spoke against the need for change. The rest of the discussion consisted of mostly four editors, who each reached separate conclusions. There 2000+ diocese articles and 200,000+ parish articles that will be impacted by your proposals above. Will you edit each one to carefully make them consistent? Will you document your naming conventions so that others can duplicate them? Otherwise, we are creating just a big mess by changing category schemes while few people are looking. The current system is imperfect, but several editors such as @Elizium23: have at least worked to make it consistent in several areas such as diocesan naming and categorization, and I would hate to see that fragmented without strong consensus and documentation. –Zfish118⋉talk 10:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I see two important users who have voiced against the process of the above interrelated proposals. I have also noticed a significant change in the background picture, namely how Grabado (talk · contribs) has made a neat way of bringing down the discussion on Talk:Catholic Church to a concrete and slim level in a productive way. What about if we put the above discussions on hold - or I ask an administrator fold them with "no consensus" for the time being, while we work out Grabado's discussion further, keeping it in that sole place for the time being? Would that be alright for the participants? Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As nothing has happened to my request, here is another comment. The above proposals are all related to the general Catholic Church perspective. Thus, they are not related to the Latin/Roman rite/Roman Catholic ongoing issue at Talk:Catholic_Church#Our_whole_category_system_might_be_broken, despite users opposing the proposals with that very reference. I made sure that the same perspective (avoiding Latin/Roman rite/Roman Catholic issue) should apply to my proposals here as much as on Talk:Catholic_Church#Requested_move_2_July_2017. So I am rather surprised by the different voices in the two places. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:57, 9 July 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:One-Hit Wonders in the United States

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 result of the discussion was: delete. I've listed the current content of the articles on the talk page in case anyone would be interested in creating a list article (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category seems to be focusing on a non-defining characteristic of songs (e.g. that the artist did not chart again the top 40 in the United States). For example, many of the songs being tagged as one-hit wonders are from only a few years ago, and all it would take is for their artists to have another song within the top 40 to disqualify the songs in this category as "one-hit wonders" (not at all unlikely considering how some of the artists behind these "one-hit wonders" are still popular acts producing music). If such a likely scenario can exist, whereby a song can be removed from this category for no longer qualifying as a "one-hit wonder", then the category itself is not a defining characteristic. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 05:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the reasons given for deletion 10 years ago remain valid today. Oculi (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The parent category:one-hit wonders was deleted not only in 2005 but again in 2006 and 2007. – Fayenatic London 20:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify? I agree that a category isn't the right association but (assuming there isn't one already) it seems to me that a chronological list would prove interesting to many. Mangoe (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per past discussions. The problem with this is that it's remarkably subjective — lots of artists are technically "one-hit wonders" because they only had one conventional Top 40 hit, but aren't thought of that way because their overall bodies of work are too iconic despite their lack of success on the traditional singles chart (Jimi Hendrix, nuff said), and lots of artists are thought of as one-hit wonders despite having had more than one actual chart hit, because one "signature song" has endured better than the others (i.e. A-ha routinely get classed as a one-hit wonder even though "Take On Me" was not their only chart hit, just because its video was so bloody iconic that it's the only A-ha song that most people still remember, and still hear on the local Jack FM station, 30 years later.) So this is basically just a recipe for constant editwarring with no possibility of a truly objective definition. And yes, many of the songs filed here right now are recent enough that the artist who created them is still active in the recording industry and thus could still easily come up with another hit single tomorrow or next week or next year. Not to mention that even if a category for this were warranted, it would belong on the artists, not the songs — while it could at least be debated whether being a one-hit wonder is a defining characteristic of the artist or not, it's definitely not a defining characteristic of the song that happened to break the barrier. Bearcat (talk) 23:29, 5 July 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:Hurling players

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 result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pointless layer. Players of hurling are called hurlers, and this variant offers no distinction. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support merger No objection to this move. Djln Djln (talk) 18:13, 5 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_2&oldid=1074283266"
  NODES
admin 3
Association 1
COMMUNITY 1
Note 8
Project 1
USERS 2