Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 16 March 18 >

March 17[edit]

Category:Historic public gardens[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 to Category:Urban public parks. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, there is little difference between public gardens and public parks, as illustrated by the fact that the category contains several parks. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's possible that some public gardens are not urban. On the other hand, the target category is a parent category of the nominated one. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to the indicated parent category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2022 (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:Anglican Liturgical book[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: rename to Category:Anglican liturgical books. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, liturgical does not require capitalization and as it is a set category "books" should be in plural. Thus was opposed for speedy renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
@Veverve and Johnbod: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, it should be "books", my bad! Veverve (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I made a mistake by not seeing the "s" was missing. Veverve (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Standard capitalisation and syntax. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2022 (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:Catholic priests convicted of child sexual abuse[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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All the articles seem to be about Roman Catholics. Rathfelder (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No they aren't, they just always have used a different language and they may have slightly different practices in liturgy. Organizationally, the Catholic Church is divided in 24 particular churches, of which the Latin Church is one, and these have very limited autonomy. Eastern Catholic is a catch-all term for the other 23 but that has nothing to do with organizational structure. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says "They are distinct theologically, liturgically, and historically from the Latin Church". That does seem relevant to these categories.Rathfelder (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rathfelder: "Roman Catholic (term)" is synonymous with "Catholic", i.e. both expressions designate at the same time Latin and Eastern Catholics.
    If you want to precise the person's church sui iuris to split the category, you should propose a renaming along the lines of "Catholic priests of the Latin Church convicted of crimes". However, I do not think such a split is necessary between Latin and Eastern priests. Veverve (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are clearly seen as significantly different. That's what we have Category:Converts to Eastern Catholicism from Roman Catholicism. But the real point of this nomination is that these articles about criminals are all about Roman Catholics, and by implication the reaction, or lack of it, by the Roman Catholic church. The governance of the Eastern Catholic churches is clearly distinct and if we get articles about crimes there they should be seperate. Rathfelder (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Converts to Eastern Catholicism from Roman Catholicism is totally weird, that is not a conversion. This becomes very clear when reading the church career of Manuel Nin who is in this category. The governance of every of the 24 particular churches is distinct (i.e. they have a little bit of autonomy) while there is no common governance for the 23 Eastern Catholic particular churches together. Besides it escapes me why this would be relevant for criminal offenses. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The distinction Eastern/Roman was (I believe) formerly the language in which worship took place. Now Catholics normally worship in their vernacular, the distinction is meaningless. I am dubious of the category, whose headnote says there is "no conversion". It thus consists of those who began worshipping in another language, a NN districntion. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as completely unnecessary. Eastern Catholic clergy are probably no more exempt from sin or crime that their Roman Catholic brethren. However you may find less such cases being recorded in Wikipedia for 2 obvious systemic bias reasons: 1°) there are much fewer of them and 2°) they mostly live in countries far from the eyes of most of the English-speaking media. Now, if there were such articles, should they be in a separate category? Probably not, because the Eastern vs. Latin liturgies would in most cases be completely unrelated to their potential crimes. Place Clichy (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per everybody above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2022 (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:Quotations from law[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 to Category:Latin legal terminology. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT, nearly all quotations inside are Latin, although there's parent Category:Quotations. Brandmeistertalk 10:26, 17 March 2022 (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:Filipino priests[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 3#Category:Filipino priests

Category:Persibom Bolaang Mongondow[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 14#Category:Persibom Bolaang Mongondow

Category:Black-and-white music videos[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not sure why this is necessary or why it is of significance. Should we have categories for music videos that have different coloured filters too etc.? Seems superfluous and fancrufty ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unlike different color schemes, any kind of modern-day film-making in black-and-white gets critical notice for the specific fact that it is black-and-white. This is something that gets commented on in secondary sources and is often WP:DEFINING. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2022 (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:Persibom Bolmong 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: rename to Category:Persibom Bolaang Mongondow players. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Persibom Bolaang Mongondow. OktaRama2010 (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category was not properly tagged for discussion. I have done so now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 17 March 2022 (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/2022_March_17&oldid=1084801818"