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 both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Pages containing subscription only links or citations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Pages containing links or citations to sites that require registration ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: These two categories are auto-populated when a reference contains {{subscription required}} or {{registration required}}. They are maintenance categories, implying that efforts should be made to empty them, which would mean removing all references to sites that require registration or a subscription. This is in clear contradiction of WP:PAYWALL, which says that references do not have to be easy for everyone to access. I use lots of subscription-required references, because those are often the highest-quality references available for a particular fact. I shudder to think of the damage a well-meaning editor might do in attempting to clear these two backlogs, replacing high-quality citations with less-reliable, less-informative, but easy-to-access sources.

There is value in checking paywall sources to see if the exact same content is available elsewhere for free, but these categories are of little use for that purpose, since there's no way to mark which references have already been checked. Basically, a backlog that can never be emptied is not a useful backlog.

We could simply remove the backlog notice and instructions to empty the categories, but then I see no remaining reason for these categories to exist. Toohool (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; as increasing numbers of newspaper & trade press sites now require registration, those tags could be placed on vast numbers of citations, and as stated above there is often nothing good to be done about it. (I see that one is empty already, so someone much have changed the template without waiting for this discussion to end.) – Fayenatic London 07:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and create a new category: It would be nice to have a category for articles that contain exclusively paywall material. That is, Category:Pages containing only subscription only links or citations (emphasis on the first only). Such a category would allow us to identify articles that rely exclusively on paywall material, and seek out more democratically accessible alternatives where available. I do think we should make an effort to utilize accessible sources, all other factors the same. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2012 (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. There does appear to be consensus to allow a "Dissenting" category, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose: detailed proposal for Category:Roman Catholic Church organizations category hierarchy

Nominator's rationale: I'm reminded that this never happened after the compromise proposal last year (there were a few users in support and one in opposition, no real consensus either way) so hopefully this will generate more interest. The complete proposal can be read here, but in summary, we aim to create a category structure that distinguishes between official church organizations (like the Synod of Bishops) and lay unofficial organizations (like the Catholic League) which are currently mixed in the category, without leaving either sans a container category. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Why do all of those in the proposal use Roman Catholic except for Category:Organizations of Catholics by century? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  A slip, perhaps? I doubt there was a reason for it, so I'll bring that in line. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed. Or rather, per Elizium's suggestion, everything now conforms to that phrasing instead of vice versa. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Observation' Is it my imagination or is this a cover for smothering voices that disagree with some rule of the RC Church? Is this an attempt to pigeon-hole all those that engage in debate or theological inquiry? Those theologians in the Curia that engage in the same debate and inquiry may then assume the mantle of "official", thereby consigning the others to unofficial, second-rate and possibly heretical? Debate is debate. Inquiry is inquiry. Should Wiki aid and abet Curial purges? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The discussion that prompted this compromise proposal was about whether Catholic organizations like Voice of the Faithful and Catholics for Choice, which have come into conflict with the RCC hierarchy, should be categorized as Catholic organizations. Some users opposed their inclusion, but removing them entirely from Catholic-related categories makes it difficult for users to find them. The proposal would make sure that all groups identifying as Catholic can be found somewhere in the category tree of organizations of Roman Catholics. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - I believe it is reasonable to ensure that those organizations which are included in a category referring to the "Roman Catholic Church" should be only those which are in some way officially affiliated with that body. That particular name is, more or less, an equivalent term to "US government". I cannot see any groups opposed to the US Government being included in such categories, given the confusion that would cause, and I can't see why this should be any different. John Carter (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That was what prompted the discussion, but the problem is broader: as you say, the current title implies that all contained groups are officially affiliated, but that's not the case even with many groups that haven't been criticized by the hierarchy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, not quite. A group that exists and is affiliated with the Catholic Church, but which does not have any "official" approval at the present would probably be included IF its inclusion were non-controversial. You are talking about groups for which their Catholicity IS controversial. Both CFC and CMRI call themselves Catholic, but are not, for very different reasons; should people be able to find them somewhere if they search the general category? Yes, but there should be a distinction, and the destruction of the existing category is not necessary. I would highly recommend the creation of the Category Dissident Catholic organizations or Organizations of Dissident Catholics, but this should be separated from discussion of the main category.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have become aware of the existence of Category:Catholic lay societies but I do not know what defines inclusion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  As defined by the Church itself, a (Catholic) lay society is one that is not clerical, clerical ones being those that "are under the direction of clerics, assume the exercise of sacred orders, and are recognized as such by competent authority" (Code of Canon Law, canon 302). See also Roman Catholic lay ecclesial movement. Esoglou (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm aware of the formal definition, yes, but there are a number of articles in it that don't seem to fit that definition (and thus I wondered if a previous definition had established, for WP use, a broader definition for inclusion). I was wondering if that category would be useful to consider in the category scheme, for lay orgs, but it seems that the better solution would be to continue with the current proposal and simply remove improper entries from the lay socs cat. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Objection to the use of "Roman Catholic" as it excludes Eastern Catholics without setting up a parallel heirarchy with which to categorize Eastern Catholic organizations of the same type. The "Roman Catholic Church" is a communion of 23 sui juris Churches in communion with Rome, and some members of 22 of those Churches would strongly object to being called "Roman Catholic" because this has the connotation of being associated with the Latin Church. Elizium23 (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  So you must be unsatisfied with the current category tree, which uses "Roman Catholic orgs by century," etc. What solution would you propose? Would it work if the proposal was the same with the exception of substituting "Catholic" for "Roman Catholic"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, and yes. Elizium23 (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed. Would you support the current proposal? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the proposal as rewritten today. And I am sure that many Eastern Catholics will thank you for being inclusive. Elizium23 (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Great, thanks! Would you mind striking your earlier objection to avoid confusion? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Category:Private organizations related to the Catholic Church or some such similar title would be both less ambiguous and I believe a better description for groups of Catholics who in some way oppose the "power structure" of the Church. John Carter (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you also support the "organizations of Catholics" language, as proposed above, for a top-level category, with subcategories for official, conflicting or dissenting, etc. as appropriate? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be acceptable. I might prefer a specific subcat of "Catholic lay societies," which, as per this page, are groups organized by and/or for the Catholic laity. The one thing I think would be required for the category you propose is that the name would seem to at least strongly imply that the organizations are, in fact, primarily made up of Catholics of some sort or other. That might include organizations of former Catholics, as well as, potentially, organizations of Old Catholics. I think it would make sense if the category itself contained a clear statement on the category page as to what exactly qualifies an organization for inclusion in one of the categories. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, that (making clear on the page what defines inclusion) is the plan. In my view, "Organizations of Catholics" would be a top-level category for any Catholic organization, while more specific subcategories (like Old Catholics, Catholics in political disagreement, official church projects, etc.) would all be placed in that category and have more specific criteria for inclusion of articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Observation. By all means do create Category:Dissenting organizations of Catholics. But "Category:Organizations of Catholics" is far too wide-ranging. It would include, for instance, any baseball or football team whose members are Catholics. The Catholic Church indicates that what it calls "associations of the Christian faithful" (i.e., associations in which Catholics "strive in a common endeavour to foster a more perfect life, to promote public worship or Christian doctrine, or to exercise other works of the apostolate such as initiatives of evangelization, works of piety or charity, and those which animate the temporal order with a Christian spirit") do not have to be in any sense "official": some are erected by Church authority, some are praised or commended by Church authority, but some are freely established by Catholics themselves by private agreement among themselves (Code of Canon Law, canons 298-299). "Organizations of Catholics" is also much wider than the notion of "Catholic organization", with which Roscelese links the proposal (above). With regard to this term, "Catholic organization", the Catholic Church's rule for its members is: "No association is to assume the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority" (canon 300). Additional query: Would "Catholic Church organizations" perhaps be an appropriate category? It would at least be more clearly defined than the extremely wide "Organizations of Catholics". Esoglou (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Your proposal doesn't change in any way the problem that this proposal is trying to solve, though. I and other users agree that "(Roman) Catholic Church organizations" says or connotes that the organizations are official, but that's not the case with the groups we're trying to categorize. I question your use of the associations of the faithful as criteria for inclusion in a broad, non-diffused category; for some of those we have affirmative sourcing that they've been recognized as such, but for the ones where we don't, we can't just assume without any sourcing that they belong based on canon law, because that's original research. That would continue to leave many organizations without an important container category. And lastly, I think it's obvious that "organizations of Catholics" would not encompass a sports team that happens to have a lot of Catholics (but it would - and should - encompass a Catholic equivalent of Maccabi or Athletes in Action!). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you perhaps confusing an organization of Catholics with an association for Catholics? John Carter (above) at least required that the name of the organization should indicate a connection with the category, but even then he wrote: "The one thing I think would be required for the category you propose is that the name would seem to at least strongly imply that the organizations are, in fact, primarily made up of Catholics of some sort or other" (emphasis added). There are many organizations officially recognized by the Church (and surely these should be included?) whose names in no way indicate a connection with Catholicism: take "Worldwide Marriage Encounter". Whatever problem you think your proposal would solve, it seems to create new ones. Esoglou (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm pretty sure John Carter is arguing that the name of the category must satisfy that requirement. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I think your interpretation of John Carter must be right. In that case, he wants the category name (not the organization's) to indicate only that the organizations are "primarily" made up of Catholics, not that they are for Catholics. An example of such an organization is the International Union of Guides and Scouts of Europe, which is officially recognized by the Catholic Church, and which has Lutheran, Orthodox, Calvinist and Evangelical members. Esoglou (talk) 07:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the argument that the category inclusion needs to be so extraordinarily broad because "we can't just assume without any sourcing that they belong based on canon law, because that's original research" is a straw man. It is easy to provide evidence that an organization's existence and identification is in accordance with the views of the Catholic Church, and Canon Law would only come into play if there were a question of whether the organization was heretical or anti-Catholic. You are dismissing the Catholic Press, the decrees of the Vatican and Bishops, the activities of the organizations, (do they in some way openly cooperate with the Catholic Church, for instance, meeting in Churches, etc.) which are all readily searchable and Verifiable, as WP:OR. They are not. WP:RS takes into account context and how authoritative the sources are, and with respect to Catholic identity', these are especially reliable.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I've just come across this category myself, and I'm surprised we haven't split it a long time ago. It clearly makes sense to distinguish between organisations of Catholics and officially recognised Catholic Church organisations, and a category for 'dissident Catholic organisations' is probably a good idea as well, as long as reliable sources are used to identify them. Obvious solution to a longstanding problem. Robofish (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I think there is definitely consensus that 1) Subcategorization would be good, 2) use of the term "Roman Catholic" should be expanded to include Uniate (the official term) Catholics, and that 3) a category of Dissident Catholic organizations or Organizations of dissident Catholics (I think once you agree that they are "dissident", also adding that they are not "official" is redundant) would be a good addition, and adding it to a category of Roman (and Uniate) Catholic organizations would not be opposed. The contentious part of the proposal is destroying the useful categories that presently exist.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  As I explain both above and below, nothing will be lost or destroyed here, except confusion and ambiguity. The existing category (most likely under a better name) would simply be joined by more categories that would allow us to better organize our articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Oppose At present the Category (which I agree could be improved by making it Roman (or Uniate) Catholic Organizations ) is useful because it defines the component articles as orgs the Catholic Church self-identifies as Catholic. If someone wanted to add a new Category, Dissident Catholic Organizations , that might be helpful, since that no longer would require that the Catholic Church self-identify. It is destructive to change the useful category to something too vague, and which then allows ANY organization which decides to self-identify (even if not Catholic) as Catholic to be called Catholic. The new category would include every sports team of every Irish college, the guy in Kansas who lives in his mother's basement and has declared himself Pope, and is NOT what people would go to the category to find. Sub-categories do NOT need to destroy the original category. We could add Roman (or Uniate) Catholic Hierarchy , Roman (or Uniate) Catholic Clerical Organizations , Roman (or Uniate) Catholic Orders and Societies, Roman (or Uniate) Catholic Lay Organizations and Movements (all of which exist, but could use a rename) do a subcategory, Official and Unofficial to the last, and finally add Dissident Catholic organizations to the end, which would almost by definition not need approval of the Church, and could be sorted according to the component orgs' complaint. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Repeat in isolation, for clarity. You are changing the self-identification from the Catholic Church to the 'Organization. The Nazis were not a Catholic Organization. Clear exclusion from the Category. There were Catholics that were Nazis, and reductio ad Hitlerum for the war years is still present. The new proposed general Category is open to abuse, and unnecessary abuse. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The original category in fact has extremely vague inclusion criteria, which is part of the problem. As John Carter points out, it seems to restrict inclusion only to official organizations (no implication of unofficial ones that have been identified as Catholic), leaving all others high and dry. A category with those criteria would be preserved under a clearer name. It would just be a subcategory of a larger category. I'm also not sure you understand what "self-identification" means...as the word would imply, it is the organization itself which identifies. Within the category scheme we have proposed, it could also be possible to subcategorize organizations singled out as Catholic by the church hierarchy, if properly sourced; but your proposal to include in the whole category scheme only organizations that have been officially recognized would leave even more articles uncategorized and make the readers' task even more difficult. Your scaremongering slippery-slope argument about people categorizing the Nazi Party or college sports teams in this category is unconvincing, and does not address the (real, rather than hypothetical) concerns the proposal was created to address. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as it currently stands. - Some of these suggestions are going to lead to some very broad categories due to ambiguities (some of which are noted in the discussion above). For example, I think the proposed parent might be better named Category:Catholic Church organizations. (Which matches the current Category:Roman Catholic Church organizations, which I suppose could presumably become a subcat.) Also, dissident organisations should be a list not a category, so to note why they are dissident. There isn't just a single issue or even group of issues which unites such organisations. Another way to do what I think is the intent here might be: Category:Catholic Church-related organizations. Also, the word "official" is really problematic in this case. Perhaps the word "sponsored" would be better? - jc37 19:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Curious; why a list and not a Category? Could certainly subcategorize Dissenting groups as to issue, such as Vatican II, Vatican I, Sedevacantism, Women's Ordination, Abortion, Governance, Parish Closings, Abuse Oversight, etc.

  Also, slight problem with change of Roman Catholic to Catholic, rather than the more specific Roman (or Uniate) Catholic. Catholic could mean any number of religious groups. For instance, you could argue that Catholic WomenPriests , while not Roman Catholic, is Catholic of a kind (though they never reveal their Apostolic bona fides - for arguments sake lets put that aside), but also a Dissenting Catholic organizations, since it is at least 60% protest at the Roman Catholic Church. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Because it opens the door to WP:OR.

  Roman (and Uniate) could all exist as specific subcats.

  I didn't understand your "for instance" example in relation to the previous. could you clarify? - jc37 21:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  CC-related organizations could also work instead of "organizations of Catholics" (the intended parent category), but I worry that it would seem to include organizations whose activities are related to the RCC but whose membership or identification is not Catholic. Perhaps, however, these worries are as baseless as the worries that "organizations of Catholics" would include baseball teams with a lot of Hispanic players or fascist parties that don't specifically identify as Catholic. Can you elaborate on your concerns about broadness? (CC orgs, etc. is, as I and other users have said, too specific for a parent cat; other proposals may be broad-sounding but I don't think that in practice they will be problematic.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  What it sounds like you then want is: Category:Organizations with Catholic members? - jc37 21:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No, of course not. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Then please clarify your comments:

  • "but I worry that it would seem to include organizations whose activities are related to the RCC but whose membership or identification is not Catholic. Perhaps, however, these worries are as baseless as the worries that "organizations of Catholics" would include baseball teams with a lot of Hispanic players or fascist parties that don't specifically identify as Catholic." (bolding mine)

  It sounds like you re looking for organisations which have catholic members, as opposed to those who don't. And looking for organisations which are catholic-related in some way, as opposed to those who are not. If so, that's a problem because tying together those strands of connection can be very varied. How is such-n-such organisation "related" to the Catholic Church? Through dissent? Through agreement? How many degrees of dissent does an organisation need to be dissenting? How many degrees must an organisation need to be agreeing? How do we determine "official"? Is it because it has the sponsorship of some local church or individual priest? Perhaps because it has the imprimatur of a bishop? Approval of a particular Episcopal Conference? The Pope? This is just a mess, and WP:TNT is really looking like the best course of action for these categories.

  But of course, I welcome your thoughts and clarifications on this. - jc37 22:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  My first comment was in reference to - say - an organization aimed at prosecuting, or advocating for the victims of, Catholic Church sexual abuse, but which was not made up primarily of Catholics and did not identify itself as a Catholic organization. Or perhaps an organization whose relationship to Catholics was to persecute them. Its activities are undoubtedly related to the Catholic Church, but it's not what we're trying to categorize here. However, as I said, this worry may be unnecessary, and CC-related organizations may be a perfectly fine name, especially if we clarify in category text what it is for.

  As we say in the proposal, organizations would be in the parent category by default. Affirmative sourcing (with a conversation on the talk page to determine what is sufficient) would be necessary to place it in a subcategory. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question How would the proposed schema categorise the Association of Catholic Priests? It's not a lay organisation so the Lay sub-cat won't do. It's not an order or society. It's not sanctioned by the Vatican so it's not "official". But they are priests in good standing. Would a new category for "Dissenting voices" have to be created for it? In the current schema, it's just a RC organisation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There is presently no proposal for a lay subcat. (The existence of Category:Catholic lay societies has been noted but it seems that that won't really affect the discussion.) ACP would go in the top-level category, Category:Organizations of Catholics, unless a discussion at the article talkpage itself determined that sources treated it as a dissenting organization, in which case it would go in the proposed dissenting subcat. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose, the Catholic Church doesn't distinguish between lay and clerical organizations, and some have members that belong to both. Also - the category should specifically identify for inclusion only those organizations listed by the Catholic church as Catholic. Anyone can claim that they are affiliated with the Catholic church, that doesn't make it so. Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  A lot of people seem to be harping on "lay." I've replaced it with "unofficial" in the proposal, since that is the actual intent - the parent category would encompass all Catholic organizations, with those set up by the church hierarchy as a subcat. Can you explain how you propose to deal with Catholic organizations whose endorsement by the hierarchy cannot be sourced? They're not all dissident, and removing them from any Catholic category makes them difficult to find. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The Catholic Church definitely distinguishes between lay and clerical organizations. See Code of Canon Law, canons 327-329. Elizium23 (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I note that there is an annual almanac of the Catholic Church published by Our Sunday Visitor. It seems to be fairly comprehensive and it could probably serve as a basis for determining status of at least the numerous groups it mentions. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose. The statement "unless a discussion at the article talkpage itself determined that sources treated it as a dissenting organization" makes me feel deeply uneasy and has made up my mind on the question. I am now for a "strong oppose". The statement could be taken to mean that the talk page is the arbitor of RC orthodoxy. It's not the function of Wiki to act as ecclesiastical court. The ACP self defines as RC. Their detractors cal them "dissenting voices". The ACP rejects these claims; who's to gainsay them? Is the ACP to be consigned to the marginals/crazies/dissidents sub-cats because of the propaganda of a few enemies? Unless there is an absolute excommunication by the Vatican, they may be presumed to be in good standing. So any sub-cat that purported to say otherwise would contract this working assumption and would indeed enter murky waters. Let's not go there. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Talkpage discussion certainly would not be based on personal opinion, but rather on the sources about that topic (and not just sources reporting that the group's been criticized by the church hierarchy). I specified the article talkpage in order to clarify that such a decision would probably not be made here or on a category talkpage. I don't think standing (wrt excommunication or not) is really the issue addressed by the proposed dissenting subcategory, but if you think the wording is unclear or suggests something incorrect, it'd be great if you'd suggest alternate wording. Does this address your concerns? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• OBSERVATION. A news item about an organization that removed the word "Catholic" from its name "after a dispute with the Archdiocese of Detroit about its right to use the term under canon law" may be of interest. Esoglou (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It is an interesting observation, which might speak to the obedience of an organization that takes the trouble to rebrand itself after a single bishop raised the issue, especially after Voris contended that he might not be under the jurisdiction of that bishop. Voris has been known for standing up to bishops that he perceives as lukewarm or unfaithful, but it is a good sign that he has chosen to be obedient in this matter. It has been suggested that the objection to his use of the term "Catholic" may have come about merely because he never sought express permission for it in the first place. At any rate, it also speaks to the visibility and influence of that apostolate; it is only after gaining notoriety that you will find yourself censured in some way by your bishop. Elizium23 (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've created Category:Catholic Church organizations as a parent to Category:Roman Catholic Church organizations.

The idea being to allow for the non-Roman organisations to be more correctly categorised. (Which appears to have decent consensual support above.) As the discussions are ongoing, this will give the ability for editors to start upmerging those articles and cats which don't directly belong under Roman. If it turns out in the end that this doesn't have consensus, it would be a simple matter to re-merge this category. But at least this would help start a way forward. I welcome thoughts on this, and please feel free to start re-categorising as appropriate. - jc37 23:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you and the other users concerned with Roman vs. non-Roman make sure to add appropriate notes to the categories, to make sure that nothing is improperly categorized? (eg. RCC stuff under CC if that's not the intent) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Folly There is no such thing as a Catholic Church organisation that exists outside the Roman Catholic Church. There are many denominations, such as Anglicanism, that self-identify as Catholic; they would not, however, claim to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Similarly, there are many rites within the Roman Catholic Church such as the Latin rite, the Ambrosian rite, the Byzantine rite etc. All these rites are compatible with the Roman Catholic Church, although in the case of the Byzantine rite, it is mostly used by the Eastern Orthodox churches not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. The essential point here is that any individual, order, society, bishop or cardinal in communion with the Bishop of Rome is part of the Roman Catholic Church. There is not a higher order or parent above the Roman Catholic Church that is somehow mystically part of the worldwide Catholic Church but not part of the Roman Catholic Church. The logical parents for the cat "Roman Catholic Church" is "Christian Churches". Another logical parent is those who used to be Roman Catholic but are no longer so; this cat already exists - Category:People excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church. In conclusion, unless a self-identifying Roman Catholic individual, order, society, bishop or cardinal is in the latter category, he may be presumed to be in the "Roman Catholic" category. To say otherwise is to abrogate powers of discernment, theology and judgement to Wiki that it does not have and should not have. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) - Actually, AFAIK, the church you are referring to is the Catholic Church. (See the name of the catechism, for just one example.) The Pope is (as has been the tradition for well over a thousand years from what I understand) "first among equals". So yes, while certain Catholic churches may (or may not) be in communion with each other, and while they may recognise papal authority, the others are not necessarily part of the RCC. That said, I welcome verifiable reliable sources which show otherwise. (And no, I'm not interested in re-fighting the crusades, nor in the arguments of various church historians regarding Peter and James : )- jc37 14:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jc37 has a point here. We do have some good reasonable cause to want to differentiate between groups which may well exist, or have existed, within the Latin rite Roman Catholic church exclusively and, perhaps, other groups which, for whatever reason, might only exist or have existed within one or more of the so-called Eastern Rite churches. There are, of course, some groups which contain members from all the rites, and I'm not entirely sure how to deal with all of them, but I do think it makes good sense to allow some articles which are directly relevant to only one or a small number of the groups in full communion with each other, with their archbishops or patriarchs among the voters for the Pope (which I think they all are?). Having said that, "Latin Rite Catholic Church organizations" is a longer term and possibly more confusing to some than "Roman Catholic Church organizations," and organizations only relevant to the Maronite Church or the Melkite Church, for example, would most reasonably be included in subcategories for those particular groups. John Carter (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, John C. Actually, I don't see the need to distinguish within the existing category, just to make it more specific as to inclusion. "Roman Catholic (and Uniate)" would be sufficient. Any organization that fits that description would be open to anyone who is Roman Catholic or Uniate, although some may predominantly represent one arm of that Communion by heritage, there is no necessary division.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Laurel Lodged; I understand both points, perhaps a re-phrasing is in order. It is important that we distinguish, as you have said, between i) Organizations that loosely use the term Catholic, ii) that use the term Catholic, but which are not in communion with Rome, and iii) those many component Churches that ARE in union with Rome. I think the issue that has wide appeal is NOT to include the first two categories, but to definitely include the latter. Maronite, Malachite, Syro-Malabar, Syro-Malankar, Chaldean, Ambrosian, and the Uniate Coptic, Eastern, and Anglican use communities all are in union, but do not use the Roman Missal, and do not use the term Roman Catholic to describe themselves. The challenge is to come up with a phrasing to include all them, but not just make the (now) Roman Catholic category include non-Catholic or questionably Catholic organizations. Hope that helps.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I agree with the above. But I also think that we don't need a new category for those churches in Oriental Orthodoxy. This is because they are not in communion with the Holy See and so do not self-identify as RC. The problem before us, as I see it, is limited to those people and organisations that self-identify as RC and how to sub-categogise them (or indeed whther they should be sub-categorised at all). Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Laurel; all of the communities I listed ARE in union with Rome, and CAN be described as RC, it is just that THEY do not use the words "Roman Catholic" to describe their union. The proper term is "Uniate". They have Bishops that are parallel to the Territorial Roman Rite Bishops, and have a section at the Holy See, called "Eastern Rites" that oversee them.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 209.6.69.227. You can be a (Roman) Catholic without using the Roman Missal. For instance, in Milan they do not use it (they use the Ambrosian Rite), but they are no less (Roman) Catholics for that, fully members of the Latin Church. Your claim that, for instance, Maronites do not call themselves Roman Catholics is unfounded and, perhaps more important in Wikipedia, is unsourced; in fact, they are reported to be proud to call themselves Roman Catholics (Catholic Encyclopedia, article Maronites). And the Popes use "Roman Catholic" to mean all, eastern or western, in full communion with the Bishop of Rome (see Roman Catholic (term)#Papal references). Not here but at the Wikipedia article Roman Catholic (term) is the place to discuss that question. Esoglou (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Esoglu; that is to some extent the point that I was making. The third category I referred to, "many component Churches that ARE in union with Rome" are the list that I then used. They ARE in union with Rome, part of the Roman Catholic communion, they just don't usually use the words "Roman Catholic" to describe themselves (with the exception of the Milanese). I did not want that proper terminology (aka including the words "and Uniate") to be confused with adding in groups that clearly do NOT belong (aka groups i and ii)--209.6.69.227 (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example source to show that Eastern Catholics do not necessarily enjoy being called Roman Catholics. Also, "Uniate" is a derogatory term now for the past several decades. I do not know any self-respecting Eastern Catholic who would call himself a Uniate. The correct term for these people is "Catholic". This is a simple unambiguous adjective that encompasses Roman Catholics, Syro-Malabar Catholics, and Byzantine Catholics alike. There is no reason I see to muddy the waters by using "Roman" or "Uniate" or "Latin Rite" (which is also an incorrect term; we would use "Roman Rite" or "Latin Church") If you use categories named simply "Catholic" then you will easily encompass all 23 Churches in communion with Rome and exclude those that are not. There is no reason to tack on unnecessary identifiers to narrow the field or muddy the waters here. Elizium23 (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some members of the Eastern Catholic Churches dislike being called Roman Catholics. Not all. Have you read the article on Roman Catholic (term)? "Uniate" is a term that they all dislike. "Catholic" is fine for all of them. I will not discuss this matter further here. Esoglou (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More than happy to defer to you both and gleefully call all Roman Catholic, Eastern Rite Catholics, and their legitimate organizations simply Catholic Church organizations. Problem is, we have a problem, separate from the issue of the many Rites within the purview of the Pontiff. Although a vast swath of the readership of Wikipedia would simply look up "Catholic", and expect Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic, there are also groups outside of that Communion that call themselves Catholic. Do you really want the top category to include on the same level and in the same category, for instance, Friends of Pope Michael, which they would not want or expect to see, and the Society of St Vincent de Paul? Because we do not live in an ideal world, where common sense would argue against such a thing, before we change to Catholic Church organizations, shouldn't a description and limitation of the category be written FIRST?--209.6.69.227 (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have no strong views about this, but I thought that I had been told in the past that WP had decided that the correct term for churches in communion with Rome was "Catholic". "Roman Catholic" has been adopted in UK as a distinction from "Anglo-Catholic", a wing of the Anglican Church. Accordingly, the policy should be to rename RC to "Catholic", except where there is a good reason for retaining the adjective "Roman". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Attempts to pretend that Catholic can be logically used to link those who accept the authority of the Pope and those who reject his authority in any other coherent system is in the end an attempt to twist the term from its actual meaning in spoken English. In english usage Catholic means those who accept the authority of the Pope, and if you are going to use Catholic to describe any group after 1869 that does not accept the authority of the Pope you need to use some modifier with it. This is the only method of dealing with termonology that recognizes the reality of English usage. Before 1870 the issue is trickier, but from 1870 on it is clear that accepting the authority of the Pope is essential to actually being Catholic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, but that is just false. The word catholic means universal. And that has long been the Roman Catholic Church's stance. It's how the term is used in the nicene creed, by the way.

  I suppose I could point you to all sorts of references for this, but for now, how about our own article on this? Catholic#Use_by_the_Catholic_Church. - jc37 03:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment categories are meant to use words in a way that reflects their meaning in actual use, not their etymology. The word Catholic in actual English usage refers to the Roman Catholic Church, members of that Church and so forth. In real English usage it does not mean "universal" in most cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's precisely it - we don't currently have a category structure that allows us to categorize organizations related to or made up of members of the church. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, confusing two separate issues There is general sentiment that we should have a category that includes the WHOLE of the Catholic Church, including organizations OF the Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches, and that if we can AVOID confusion, making Catholic the top category is fine, as long as we make sure to NOT include small groups that use the term, but are not in communion, probably with a restrictive description of the Category. That does NOT mean that scrapping the category in favor of a category of orgs TO WHICH some fraction of Catholics belong is positive or supported by any.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  JPL - "In real English usage it does not mean "universal" in most cases." - setting aside the question of "real English", my first question is: According to who?. With organisations as large as these churches, references should come easy to support your view. After all, our guidelines are that we generally name categories based upon what they call themselves, and what they are called in verifiable reliable sources. Not what an individual commenter may self-assert. - jc37 23:25, 4 July 2012 (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: Create subcat - There seems to essentially be agreement on how the final product should look. So while going with FL's structural final version, going with BHG's plan of action if only because it keeps the edit history intact. - jc37 23:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Schools in North Lanarkshire to Category:Secondary schools in North Lanarkshire

Nominator's rationale: All schools displayed are Secondary schools in North Lanarkshire, the new name therefore is more accurate. --Ross (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, rename and make the new one a sub-cat of Category:Secondary schools in Scotland, but keep or re-create the old category as a head category, being part of the hierarchy in Category:Schools in Scotland by council area. Actually, there are only 11 pages, so it doesn't need a bot to assist with the work, especially if you use WP:HOTCAT; just create the new name as a sub-category and go ahead with moving the articles. – Fayenatic London 17:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Keep the current category as part of the scheme Category:Schools in Scotland by council area, but feel free to create a sub-cat. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:54, 8 June 2012 (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: delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Banburyshire ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a geographical category for "Banburyshire", which the head article describes as an "informal area" centred on the town of Banbury in Oxfordshire, England. Informal areas with imprecise boundaries make for very poor categories, because their inclusion criteria are either subjective or arbitrary ... and in this case, the head article appears to have no references in reliable sources to justify its existence. Regardless of whether the head article is kept, a category for a vague and informal geographical area seems to be misleading to readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject England and WikiProject Warwickshire have been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; there'd be no end to this. Johnbod (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2012 (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: rename. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Marxist economists to Category:Marxian economists

Nominator's rationale: Per main article BUT: I had never in my life heard of "Marxian" before a couple of days ago. Using AWB and category recursive to three levels, there are three articles with "Marxian" in the name: Marxian economics, List of Marxian economists, and Marxian Class Theory (which looks like OR.) Everything else is "Marxist X". This would be a simple speedy nomination, but it seems like somethings afoot here--can anyone clarify? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per nom's findings, and rename the article instead. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Marxian economics and Neo-Marxian economics are the standard terms in recent economic scholarship for this distinct tradition of economic thought. See also this and this. Note that Joan Robinson wrote "An essay on Marxian economics" back in 1942, and P. A. Samuelson was using the term "Marxian economists" back in 1957. --Omnipaedista (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I know it looks odd, but 'Marxian' is the adjective used in economics rather than 'Marxist'. (Whether there is any difference between 'Marxist economics' and 'Marxian economics' is not a question that can be resolved in this CFD, but the latter is the preferred term.) Robofish (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2012 (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: Rename to Category:Heroes (TV series) task force. This matches the current structure of other categories for TV WikiProject task forces. If the task force categories should be renamed, there should be a consensus gathered for renaming all of them, rather than singling this one out. Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:WikiProject Heroes to Category:Heroes task force

Nominator's rationale: Merge. I have recently converted WP:HEROES into a task force, and somehow it needs merging. --George Ho (talk) 04:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and rename It should be called Category:Wikipedia Heroes task force or Category:WikiProject Television Heroes task force. This is a project categorization, not a content categorization. Since there are many "hero task forces" in comics fiction, mythology and legend, the suggested target is ambiguous, so should be renamed. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean, Category:Heroes (TV series) task force, right? --George Ho (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Wikipedia Heroes (TV series) task force or Category:WikiProject Television Heroes (TV series) task force is better alright. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and rename to Category:WikiProject Television Heroes (TV series) task force. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename/Merge to Category:Heroes (TV series) task force, per others in Category:WikiProject Television task forces. While I agree that the whole task force/work group structures (not just the television ones) should be discussed, I don't think we should single out just this one in this case. - jc37 23:21, 15 June 2012 (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: rename. – Fayenatic London 20:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Deaths from bubonic plague to Category:Deaths from plague (disease)
• Propose renaming Category:14th-century deaths from bubonic plague to Category:14th-century deaths from plague (disease)
• Propose renaming Category:15th-century deaths from bubonic plague to Category:15th-century deaths from plague (disease)
• Propose renaming Category:16th-century deaths from bubonic plague to Category:16th-century deaths from plague (disease)
• Propose renaming Category:17th-century deaths from bubonic plague to Category:17th-century deaths from plague (disease)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Plague (disease) comes in three varieties: bubonic, pneumonic, and septicemic. They are all caused by Yersinia pestis infection. Although it has been traditional to assume that anyone who died of plague died of "bubonic" plague (the most common of the three types), that assumption has been questioned in more modern times. When dealing with historical deaths, it is difficult to determine with certainty what kind of plague someone died of. For that reason, it's best to have a category that groups all deaths from plague rather than one that singles out bubonic plague. The parent category is Category:Plague (disease). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. I commend the nominator for a thoughtful and well-reasoned rationale, but I think that this case reveals an undiscussed flaw in the whole Deaths from disease category tree.
  The Black Death and other plague epidemics have historically been labelled as bubonic plague (see Plague (disease)#History), and that will be the label applied to the overwhelming majority of these cases in reliable sources. According to our policies, that is undoubtedly how they should remain categorised, because re-labelling them on the basis of generalised research centuries later is a blatant form of WP:SYNthesis.
  I don't think that there is an easy answer to this, because while our policies are very clear, the application of contemporary scientific analysis clashes directly with several of our core policies. WP:V explicitly says that "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia" (emphasis in original), but in this case the proposal is to dump verifiabilty in favour of a scientific version of truth.
  We could have a very interesting epistemological discussion about the merits of both approaches, and maybe that's the discussion we should have, since the question of how to apply new scientific research to historical topics has very wide implications.
  However, my immediate concern is a little narrower, and it relates to what these categories are for. Briefly, if these categories are primarily medical, then there is a good case for following the latest research; but if they are historical, then surely they should capture either a) the historic significance attached to what has been labelled for the last centuries as "bubonic plague", and will be the term used in most sources; or, b) the much more varied terminology used in contemporary accounts.
  This dilemma does not apply only to plague. In 17th-century Britain, it was common for "gout" to be used as a generic term for what medicine now sees as a wide range of diseases, whilst a range of rapid deaths were labelled as "apoplexy" (see Apoplexy#Historical_meaning) -- and that broad meaning of "apoplexy" survived well into the 19th century. How should the category system deal with all this? Can it accommodate it without some degree of anachronism or synthesis? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see your point, and agree that it could be a concern, especially with the by-century subcategories. I think I would largely agree but for one point: bubonic plague is—medically speaking—simply a more specific type of plague. So the proposal would only be making the category broader—it could include any individuals for which we have sources that say they died of bubonic plague, and it could also include individuals for which we have sources that say they died of one of the two other two types of plague, and it could include individuals for which we have sources that just say they died of undifferentiated plague. In this case it is not a case of us lumping together a now-discredited disease category into one that is medically accurate. The gout and apoplexy examples are cases where historically the diseases were given very broad definitions which in retrospect were not terribly accurate or precise, and today we have medically narrowed them down. However, this is an example of a historically narrow category—which is still medically valid, I would emphasise—being placed within a broader class of disease that is also still recognized. And we do have articles about people who verifiably died from the pneumonic and septicemic varieties. Do we really want to break these ones out into separate categories? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to the less specific name. Oculi (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom or Alternatively. make Category:Deaths from plague (disease) a parent of Category:Deaths from bubonic plague. We might be able to sift the verified bubonic plague cases and put them to the daughter cat while the unclear ones stays with the parent cat --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - "Plague (disease)" is ambiguous; "plague" is used to describe generically any number of infectious diseases in ye olden days when medicine was at the "let's drill a hole in his skull" level; it may or may not refer to Y. pestis. While it is indeed true that there are three different kinds of plague caused by Y. pestis, the fact is that all three are referred to commonly as "bubonic plague" (even though, IIRC, the other two kinds are even nastier - septicemic plague can kill within a day ), so retaining the WP:COMMONNAME seems to be what should be done here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think everyone has made some excellent points here. (And anytime someone asks what an XfD discussion should look like, we should point them here : ) - jc37 23:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom (and after that I merely say "per nom"? Say it isn't so! : ) - Kidding aside, while I agree that "plague" can be a broader term, I think other words are more used these days for such pandemics. And having the disambiguating phrase (disease) is what helped clinch it for me. We simply have no real way (on Wikipedia at least) to go into the past with modern technology to find out which version of "the plague" someone had. And since we're also bound to using references and not our own WP:OR, then I think we're also probably stuck with their verbiage of the time. - jc37 23:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. While the proposed change results in a loss of specificity, it more than compensates for this loss by improving accuracy. Many categorized articles do not mention bubonic plague specifically, attributing death to "plague" or the Black Death, which saw the bubonic, pneumonic and septicemic forms. Although the bubonic form is the most infamous, we cannot assume that any historical plague death was a result of bubonic plague.
  I have no clear answer to BHG's question about whether the categories are primarily medical or historical. Plague is not so common nowadays that it claims the lives of large numbers of notable people (i.e., who have or might have articles), so there is a sense that these categories are historical. Even so, I think that as understanding of the past evolves, so should our categorization. One could argue that, by doing so, we deviate from the source material; however, I consider this to be an organizational decision rather than original synthesis. After all, whereas it is true that all deaths from bubonic plague are deaths from plague, all plague deaths are not from bubonic plague.
  I find Lenticel's suggestion to be intriguing: nothing prevents us, in principle, from categorizing deaths from bubonic plague as a subset of plague deaths in general. In my opinion, neither one would need subdivision by century—the combined use of one category for deaths by cause and another XXXX deaths category should more than suffice—but that is probably best left for another nomination. Therefore, I support renaming Category:Deaths from bubonic plague to Category:Deaths from plague (disease), upmerging the by-cenutry categories (failing that, renaming them as nominated) and, finally, splitting out Category:Deaths from bubonic plague for those cases where reliable sources specifically use this label. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  By the way, I share The Bushranger's dislike of "plague (disease)", but I think that any related change would need to begin at the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:06, 18 July 2012 (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: rename to Category:Eid (Islam). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Eid to Category:Eid (festivals)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think this category needs some sort of disambiguation since Eid is ambiguous, and we already have Category:Eid, Norway in category space. There is not one article about the Muslim festivals, but there are Eid al-Adha and Eid ul-Fitr. It could be named Category:Eid al-Adha and Eid ul-Fitr, but I think a simple disambiguating term would be better. Category:Eid (Islam) is another option. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Eid (Islam) for clarity. Sub-cats for Eid al-Adha and Eid ul-Fitr could be created if needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Eid (Islam) which is more specific.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Eid (Islam) which is more specific. Johnbod (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2012 (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: Merge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Music of Navy to Category:Music of the United States Navy

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The contents are currently limited to topics to do with the United States Navy, not navies in general. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both categories The subject category seems to have been emptied out of process; the target category only contains a single article which I think is miscategorized, and the US Navy bands category, which in comparison to its Army counterpart is already properly categorized without this "music" category. Mangoe (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and properly populate - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:38, 14 June 2012 (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: UpMerge to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Idaho. - jc37 21:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting/Upmerging Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Adams County, Idaho ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: In addition to the one I have nominated here I also recommend deleting the following group of categories. These categories were made to try and better organize the images needed for articles relating to Idaho by county but most are empty and probably always will be. In my opinion this over categorization actually makes things more difficult to track the images needed for Idaho related articles. It takes a lot of time to identify them and add them to the category and even then each category would likely only have a couple in it. Kumioko (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do recommend leaving the category for people in place. I believe this is an important distinction of articles needed and should be kept. Kumioko (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. AFAICS, none of the categories whose talk pages are listed in the collapsed box has been tagged, so they should not be changed by this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If I was in Idaho and was looking for photographic gaps to fill in my area, then I would find the by-counties very useful in identifying locations near me. So I like the principle of the scheme, and the fact that it is being underused for now seems to me to no reason to delete it.
  I presume that these categories are being populated via a template, so why not tweak the template so that articles are added both to the by-county categories and an all-Idaho category? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

To answer a couple of the questions. Yes the ctegories are populated by a couple templates. Some of the WikiProject banners includeing WPUS populate it as does Template:Image needed and I think a couple of others. The folks who more or less run the image tagging and maintenance aspect of image stuff like this on Wikipedia prefer that the image not be listed twice in both the main category and the subcategory and in some cases the sub sub category as it makes it appears as though there are more images needed than there are. Also, most of the people that do the tagging don't "know" what county category they go in, they just tag it for Idaho and keep moving so then someone would need to know what county it belongs in and then adjust it. In most cases that means someone has to go to each individual article where an image was needed and manually verify it. I would also note that not every state does it like this. Some have only a couple categories (like for people) some have over a hundred. Most of the state projects that have the county sub pcat system at least partially use it but it is a very time taking process and it requires a knowedge of the template syntax that most don't have so they just say the state (in this case Idaho) and someone else has to adjust it to be more precise. I will also go back and tag all the subcats. Kumioko (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the attached categories have been tagged for CFD per request. Kumioko (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed nomination to reflect the category and not the talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The listed categories by my count contain a total of 1 article. The parent has one other subcategory with 8 articles and 119 articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As there are less than 200 articles in the state category, it is easy to review this list. Having to click down to each county sub-category is not productive. The map articles function at the head of the state page helps locate requests near a reviewer, not need for county organisation in this case. If the state category gets large, as is the situation with some states, then some county sub-categories can be recreated. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion after upmerging the three articles in these categories. No objection to recreation when the parent category grows so large that navigation is affected. Subcategories can then be created if there are ample articles to populate them. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2012 (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.