Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories

WikiProject Categories
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Categories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of categories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.


"Portrayals of" and "Depictions of"Edit

Right now the vast majority of these types of categories used for apperences of figures in art/media use "Category:Depictions of...." and not "Category:Portrayals of...." but Category:Portrayals of Jesus in film, Category:Portrayals of Jesus in music, Category:Portrayals of Jesus on radio, Category:Portrayals of the Virgin Mary in film, Category:Portrayals of Jesus on television, Category:Portrayals of Satan in film, Category:Portrayals of the Devil do not. I think these should all be moved to better names, the Satan/Devil ones also need to have a consistent name with each other.★Trekker (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:PrincipalíaEdit

I could do with a little assistance here. Rathfelder (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for an additional C2F speedy category deletion criterionEdit

See this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  • The discussion is continuing again, feel free to participate. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Churches versus church buildingsEdit

@PPEMES, Fayenatic london, Oculi, Tahc, and Laurel Lodged: pinging a few editors who were recently involved in discussions about this topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Despite this discussion in 2015 we keep going back and forth about churches and church buildings. Here is an idea for a compromise:
  • For denominations that explicitly use the word "Church" meaning the broader church organization (e.g. Anglican Church, Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, most Lutheran churches) we use "church buildings" in the category name.
  • For denominations that do not explicitly use "Church" meaning the broader church organization (e.g. in Pentecostalism, most evangelical denominations, most non-denominational communities) we use "churches" in the category name which may imply both church buildings and communities therein.
This idea makes things perhaps a bit more complex, but it probably addresses arguments from both sides more adequately. What do you think? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I have no idea why they would not want to sport "church building". So until better arguments, I don't see why not to observe WP:PRECISE in both cases. Shouldn't, we be able to afford that? PPEMES (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose For the vast majority of cases the category causes no ambiguity, and very often the articles cover both building and congregation, often with far more on the latter. Plenty of congregations in your second list use "church" - most Baptists for a start. Working out which do and which don't will be very complicated. This won't help at all, and will make many things worse. Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what you're trying to say here, but eg see Category:General Association of Regular Baptist Churches. It might be "natural" to you, but I dobt it will be to many. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Marco'so suggestion. It's a sensible compromise. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose; any idea is worth considering, but I don't think dividing by denomination would be helpful. – Fayenatic London 16:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that it's dividing by denomination any more than "Churches with an episcopal polity" is dividing by denomination. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I meant that having two different category naming patterns for buildings, depending on denomination, would IMHO be confusing. – Fayenatic London 22:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- A Catholic or even a Lutheran "church" article with typically be about the building, and a non-denominational "church" article (if it a notable church) is typically about the congregation -- but we should not assume in advance that it is that way. It may be complicated to categorize congregation articles as congregations AND categorize church building articles as church buildings-- but that is how categories should work. Rarely does an article cover both in any meaningful way, but if it does, then it should be under both categories, if both categories exist. tahc chat 20:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Or just the one category, as at present. After various nominations in the past the the discussion in 2015 (linked above) gave a clear answer, but has not been enacted. If noone has done the work to enact that, we should not fool ourselves that anyone is going to do the vastly larger amount of work necessary either for this proposal, or for splitting articles by congregation vs building , or categorizing them differently on that basis. We are talking about thousands of articles here. Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Johnbod: Why do you say that it has not been enacted? All the categories listed in that nomination were renamed where necessary according to Option B (see blue links in the right hand column at 2015 list#Option B).
I grant that the nomination was not comprehensive, and it has not been rolled out consistently into the rest of the hierarchy that was not listed in the nomination, so there remain various inconsistent categories within the hierarchy.
Some are wholly inconsistent, e.g. those currently up for discussion at CFD 2019 June 15.
However, "Church buildings" is used intentionally in the "by century" hierarchy to distinguish buildings from the parallel hierarchy of Category:Christian congregations by century of establishment.
Within the category hierarchy for denominations, "church buildings" is also used to distinguish buildings from organisational divisions (e.g. Category:Eastern Orthodox church buildings cf. Category:Eastern Orthodox Church bodies).
There is at least one category, Category:Roman Catholic church buildings in Australia, which is stated to be "for buildings that are not used as churches", e.g. a seminary. IMHO this is confusing, and that one should at least be renamed to capital C on Church, i.e. buildings owned by the Roman Catholic Church. Its parent Category:Roman Catholic church buildings states that it is for buildings used as churches. – Fayenatic London 20:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
You may be right - it's chronically unclear what was actually covered there. Like most voters there, I assumed it covered all churches/church buildings. It's certainly confusing, and once again some seem determined to make it still more so. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Category Foo articles vs Category WikiProject Foo articlesEdit

In setting up a WikiProject to work with various templates and banners, I ran across some examples where there is a category that list articles for the subject, and then there is a seemingly redundant category that lists articles for a wikiProject dealing with the subject. The two seem identical except for name. Am I missing something ? How do others treat this issue? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you give some examples? DexDor (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
This is more within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council, if the documentation at {{WPBannerMeta}} does not cover it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Dexor, RedRose64..... Not knowing which page had greatest "bailiwick" I just guessed by naming this thread the main venue per MULTI, and posted a pointer diff at Talk page for WikiProject Council. Hopefully those folks will join us here. Meanwhile, I'll check out the WPBannerMeta documentation, which is new to me, and if I still have quetions will follow up with examples. Thanks so far! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Quaker astronautsEdit

Okay, I lied; there is no Category:Quaker astronauts. Nor should there be. (Unless, of course, sufficient RSes mention this so that it becomes a defining characteristic for some individuals.) But now that I've got your attention, I’ve got a very similar issue to discuss. I'm troubled by this good-faith edit at Gayle Rubin, adding Category:Jewish anthropologists to the article. I don’t doubt that this is true, but I strongly doubt it’s a defining characteristic, for her, or for anybody. How did this category even get created?

Now, I admit to not having done my due diligence (I'm mobile, if that’s sufficient excuse) but I have a hard time believing that a large enough number of solid sources would refer to Rubin this way, sufficient to support it as a defining characteristic. It smacks more of the kind of thing that might come up in late 30s Germany. Do we also have (or are we planning to have) Category:Muslim anthropologists, Category:Catholic anthropologists, Category:Mormon anthropologists? (I did click 15 articles on the Category page, one per index letter, and none of them define the individual in question as a "Jewish anthropologist".)

If the existing category is, in fact, proper, can someone please explain? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Jewishness is (I think) being used in these categories to refer to people's ethnicity (it's in Category:Anthropologists by ethnicity) rather than to their religion. DexDor (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Categories".