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. — ξxplicit 19:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nomination Mayumashu (talk) 01:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename With the current name, I would assume it was talking about the toy or the BDSM role. Dimadick (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2010 (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:Hong Kong people of Zimbabwean descent[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.
Keep as per Explicit. (Perhaps the contributor is new to this project but a properly done nom. would request an upmerge and not a straight delete.) Mayumashu (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 06:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete per WP:OC#SMALL and WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. The sole content is Polyethylene terephthalate. The category is grouped under Category:Semiconductors, even though the article Polyethylene terephthalate makes no mention of it being a semiconductor. Another one from Nopetro this is just puzzling. Is there a category on flexible coatings (the meaning of substrate, in this case, I'm told) we can merge to? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 19:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably was what he was going for, since one of Nopetro's primary interests has been electrical stuff. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2010 (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. — ξxplicit 19:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another from Nopetro. I've tweaked the master cats but I think my suggested rename would be more precise as to what kinds of battery recharging designs are being undertaken by the two categorized corporations. Either that or delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 19:25, 17 June 2010 (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:keep. — ξxplicit 19:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Backpacking is a form of camping, and both share equipment, so separate categories would be largely redundant, and the category is already being used for both backpacking and camping equipment. Gjs238 (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If backpacking is a form of camping, then the addition seems unnecessary. Mangoe (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 19:25, 17 June 2010 (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. — ξxplicit 19:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not seeing a world of difference between the Microgeneration and Distributed generation main articles, but that's not our problem here. For their respective categories, however, can someone explain to me why banned User:Mac's underpopulated category should not just be merged to his suspected sock account-created Category:Distributed generation to improve navigation? Or should the source cat remain a subcat of the proposed target for some defining difference? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Vegaswikian. How it is it a unique subset, in your view? Not being cheeky, I'd really to hear why, so I can get it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If these are truly small units then the category could well make sense. However one must ask is 500KW micro? For me the biggest problem is that micro is generally ambiguous as to defining a size. The actual article does not really address this so, it to is ambiguous. So while this area should be a subcategory as I mentioned, I fail to be convinced that the current contents justify a category and the main article is very problematic. Not sure if we should deal with the article or the category first. But the article needs work. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. My objections aside, the case for this subcategory is still weak at this time. Upmerge and allow recreation if needed in the future and a clear scope for the contents is established. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2010 (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.
Making it plural would change and narrow its meaning, from articles relevant to the concept of financial risk to examples of financial risks. postdlf (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 07:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either rename is better, the only question is which category would have most of the articles. So unless someone is willing to do that analysis before hand, rename to either and manually split as necessary after the fact. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT as this category does not facilitate coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia. Large precedent against such categories, as well. — ξxplicit 06:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication that this is not article-content category in the name. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per vast precedent and sound reasoning to delete individual user categories. VegaDark (talk) 06:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category for a relatively minor record label. No category is the overwhelming standard for Category:American record labels and the three pages in the current cat could probably be merged. Pichpich (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 05:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The category has only three articles attached to it, and they could all be morged together into one article. My reasoning is pretty much close to the same as that of the nominator. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 21:20, 17 June 2010 (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:Keep (i.e. do not merge). Only one editor supported the merger, but eight opposed it, and the detailed rationales for the objections are persuasive ... so persuasive that the nominator graciously withdrew the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is what I thought, but then why isn t there a page named Roman Catholic, with Catholic being a largely disambiguation page?? Mayumashu (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, from reading it over a bit, Roman Catholic = Catholic and Eastern Catholics are a kind of Catholic, that is a kind of Roman Catholic. Mayumashu (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that that is right. See my comment below. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Missed it. Important to know here, to say the least Mayumashu (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Disagree with both. While the Roman church often claims to be the Church Catholic there are many members of Catholic Churches who do not look to Rome as pre-eminent or even "first among equals". The list of churches at Catholic Church (disambiguation) that Vegaswikian notes should be enough to persuade that this suggestion is not a good one. I've just had a look to see why the RCC article redirects to Catholic Church and find that there had to be mediation to do so. However, with 48 archives I have no intention of wandering about in there to find out what the final rationale was - I might miss breakfast! My guess is that part of the compromise was the disambiguation page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. And I guess I should withdraw this nom. but want to see first if there ll be any more comments. Mayumashu (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From reading a bit of the articles for this, it sound very much that this merge should occur. Roman Catholic = Catholic and Eastern Catholic are a kind of Catholic (i.e. a kind of Roman Catholic) Mayumashu (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Eastern Catholics are not Roman Catholics, at least from my understanding. The Catholic Church is composed of one western church (the "Roman Catholic" one) and 22 Eastern churches (the "Eastern Catholic" ones). "Roman Catholics" are members of the western church; Eastern Catholics are members of one of the Eastern ones. They are all "Catholics", but Eastern Catholics are not Roman Catholics. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the case in the end - I don t personally know - but that is not what either the intro of Catholic Church or Catholic Church (disambiguation) says. I read this before a few months back (and thought then that the cats will one day need to be altered to be consistent with the article) so I m sure what is there is not vandalised text. It really surprised me too when I read it the first time, that the eastern churches are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, a condition that they apparently refer to as the Holy SeeMayumashu (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roman Catholic (term) explains it fairly well. It's terminology that is used somewhat loosely, even by the church itself, but strictly speaking an Eastern Catholic is not a Roman Catholic, and the adjective "Roman" is used in the phrase for the sole purpose of clarifying that the person is not an Eastern Catholic. Since it is common for the distinction to be unimportant in the context, "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic" are often used interchangeably, but the latter is actually broader than the former. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Yeah, that clears it up. Essentially, the wording in the intro of the article Catholic Church needs to be edited in how it uses the term 'Roman Catholic'. Nomination withdrawnMayumashu (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, rereading Roman Catholic (term) more carefully, 'Roman Catholic' does equal 'Catholic', officially, but only recently. Certainly traditionally and apparently even now in common usage, 'Roman Catholic' refers to the Western church and excludes the 22 eastern ones, as you ve been saying. Normally I d advocate going with current, official usage to base category naming, but in this case, for now anyway, I m just going to let it go. Mayumashu (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is There are other Catholic Churches; this is the proper name for this specific one. No justification for creating confusion where there is now none. Change the article name, not this category. Hmains (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Clarification. Some of the names here described are being used in the wrong contexts. Catholic Church is not the same as Roman Catholic Church which is not the same as Latin Catholic Church. Catholic Church applies to Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Catholic Church [not to say that the Anglican Church and the Oriental Church also claim to be catholic (universal)]. Roman Catholic Church applies to the Latin Rite Church and the 22 Eastern Rite Churches. The Roman in Roman Catholic does not mean rite, but primacy. All 23 Roman Catholic Churches, 1 Latin and 22 Eastern, are Roman because they are under the Roman Pope. Roman IS NOT Latin Rite. Roman means under Rome, in contrast to the 14(15) Orthodox Churches, each under a Patriarch or Primate, other than Rome. All 22 Eastern Catholic Churches are Roman, the Eastern means Eastern Rite, not primacy, even thouth they each has a primate, those 22 primates are under Rome.--Coquidragon (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You understood perfectly what I meant. I agree with the supracategory and the Category:Orthodox Catholic Church. As to your question, same reason as the back and forth about the Roman label here. At the end, the arguments for the ones advocating Roman Catholic=Catholic won, even though they were obviously wrong. WP:Common Name rules. I ask, where? In the US? In the English Speaking World? I will leave a comment a the talk page about this.--Coquidragon (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don´t agree. Category:Chalcedonian Christians is a supracategory which could include Catholic Church (Catholic as name, not catholic as label) and Protestant churches. Protestant churches are Chalcedonian, but are not Catholic.--Coquidragon (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then define "Catholic". I was supposing it meant anyone who claimed to be part of the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church", and that applies as much to Anglicans and Lutherans as it does to Orthodox. Do you have ssome other distinction in mind? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 09:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It might not be pretty but we need a way to distinguish the Latin Church from the 22 other churches that make up the RCC. Unfortunately Latins never refer to themselves by their particular church and Eastern Catholics always do. There is no parallelism in usage and we just have to deal with that. Unless you propose renaming most of the RC category tree to Category:Latin Church and subcats, this has to stay as is. For another thing, let's not have a category that jumbles together those 23 particular churches under the primacy of Rome with the Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, dissident RCs, and other churches that are also part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church and "catholic" (universal) in aspiration because it is complicated enough just dealing with the Latin and Eastern Catholics. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 05:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If according to this, Roman Catholic = Latin Rite, I don´t think Latin Rite Orthodox (yes, there are Latin rite Orthodox under the Russian and Antiochian Churches), would like for them to be called Roman, which they obviously aren´t. I don´t think we need to go with majority opinion on this, but with what is and what is not.--Coquidragon (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Latin Rite Orthodox aren't under discussion at all. All I'm saying is that "the Latin Rite Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome" is overwheamlingly know as the RCC. What would you rather call it? It can't just be "The Catholic Church" or at least not without some disambiguation, as there are plenty of other catholics out there, as we have discussed already. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 09:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I´m using Catholic as name (The Catholic Church), not catholic as label (one, holy, catholic and apostolic church). This is more or less what I had in mind, accounting for the fact that "apostolic" (as sucession) is missing in some Protestant Churches. This division accounts theology and rites.
A. Chalcedonian Christians
1. Catholic Church
a. Roman Catholic Church
1) Latin Rite Church
2) Eastern Rites Churches
b. Orthodox Catholic Church
2. Traditional Protestant Churches
B. Non-Chalcedonian Christians
1. Oriental Orthodox Churches
2. Non-Chalcedonian Protestant(=Western) Churches
C. Non-Ephesine Christians
1. Assyrian Church of the East
2. Ancient Church of the East
3. Non-Ephesine Protestant(=Western) Churches--Coquidragon (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is much closer to what we want. That's quite thorough, but there are still issues I can see. I'm assumeing that by the "Orthodox Catholic Church" you mean the fifeteen or more seperate Eastern Orthodox churches, none of which are in communion with Rome? Why are they considered a branch of Catholicism, especially if Anglicans and Oriental Orthodx are not? Secondly, these "non" categories are a problem, we shouldn't be categorizing things by what they are not unless that is a unique and defining feature of the thing in question (e.g. non-trinitarians). Thirdly, are there academic and other reliable sources that refer to such a thing as "the Latin Rite Church", if so that's fine, but we can't pull a name out of thin air, especially because, as you said there are other churches that use the Latin Rite. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 08:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the chart. I remember looking at it some time in the past, but had forgotten about it. What I have done here is quite similar. The schism at Ephesus I have called it Non-Ephesine, which would also include modern Western churches (not existent at the time) that share the theology (but did not split at Ephesus). Same for the schism at Chalcedon. Looking at the chart, both Western and Eastern Catholic rites are Roman Catholics, as I have indicated above. Later, with the Reformation, started the Western Protestant Churches, which I have called Traditional (we can call it something else) Protestant, within which we could have other divisions, that I did not show, separating the Anglicans from the rest, as the "Via Media". As to your specific questions, this is my reasoning. 1) Leaving on the side the Council declared heresies maintained at some local Churches, there was one Church, call it the Church, or the Catholic Church. At Ephesus and Chalcedon, there were schisms where local Churches split within themselves, some bishops separating themselves, but some staying with the Catholic Church (I am not saying that the Non-Ephesin and Non-Chalcedon were wrong, but they did separate themselves from the main body). That is why I haven´t called them Catholic, since the bishops who separated, did it from the main Church, the Catholic (universal) Church. Same with Anglicanism, as some underground bishops and priests stayed loyal to Rome, even though Catholicism was illegal in England, there was a local schism; to which we could add the Protestant theology elements that made it to Anglican theology, specially during the Elizabeth era, which separated from Catholic theology. So, now the one Church split in the 11th Century. There were no Westerners in the East and no Easterners in the West, there were not local schisms. The one Church (Pentarchy) split in two, be it Roman vs non Roman (the other 4 Patriarchates and affiliated churches) or be it Orthodox (4 Patriachates) and non Orthodox (Roman) keeping in mind that Romans are heretics from the Orthodox point of view. 2) I think you are right as to the use of "non" categories, but I could think of no other way to do it. Suggestions are well received. 3) My argument was against stating that Roman Catholic = Latin Rite, which is not. You are right, Latin Rite Church is not the right name (even though that's how wikipedia has called it: see Latin Rite). Still, there is no Sui Generis Latin Rite Churches within Orthodoxy, as they are dioceses of the Antiochian and Russian Churches. We could divide also Orthodoxy (which I did not do) in the 14(15) Churches and then some additional divisions, until we get to Latin Rite Orthodoxy. Thanks for your feedback. You have good points which, even though I tried to answer, I may not have done so to your satisfacion.--Coquidragon (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The term "Roman Catholic" seems to have arisen due to Anglo-Catholics claiming to be Catholic. This is an English phenomenon. Elsewhere churches in communion with Rome are "Catholic". "Greek Catholic", "Easter Catholic", etc refer to churches in communion with Rome, but which used a Greek (or other) rite, rather than Latin rite that was used in western Europe until mass began to be celebrated in the vernacular in c.1960s. Perhaps we need a headnote limiting the category to those in communion with Rome, with "see also" capnote for a category "Catholic churches not in communion with Rome". Peterkingiron (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the Church of England, which cannot be said to be currently in communion with Rome since Henry's little problem, has always defined itself as "catholic". It was catholic before Henry's divorce and remained so afterwards. This has nothing to do with the Anglo-Catholic movement. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose both. The term Catholic is ambiguous, and whilst the RC church does object to use of the prefix "Roman" , it is needed for disambiguation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is it - some sort of disambiguation is needed, and for both Category:Catholic Church and Category:Roman Catholic Church, if the later is renamed to reflect its corresponding article page and official Church practice now, of objecting, as you say, to use of 'Roman' in the title. But 'Roman Catholic' does seem to be the most straightforward disambiguate, although it is a bit old-fashioned - a tough one to get right! Mayumashu (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think now that Category:Catholic Church should be named Category:Catholic Churches with a hatnote, Category:Roman Catholic Church be named Category:Catholic Church with a note, and there should be a Category:Latin Rite (or Category:Western Catholic Church) and Category:Eastern Catholic Churches as subcats. I don t think the name of the category page, in itself, can provide enough disambiguation and only hatnotes will work in this case. I think now that, in this case, the category should match the article page, which should definitely be named 'Catholic Church'. I think this not only because 'Catholic Church' is the official name but because, unfortunately, 'Roman Catholic Church' can and is taken by some/many to mean the Latin Catholic Church or Latin Rite (I was one of them), as the talk here illustrates. Mayumashu (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like this new proposal much better. However there is still a problem: "the Latin Rite Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome" has no other common name in English "the Roman Catholic Church". We can't make up a name for it, and we call it simply "The Catholic Church" at our own peril. That change should be done with etreme caution as there are plenty of other flavours of Catholics, and we shouldn't be picking between them. Also cats have to jive with articles, does this? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 09:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The term "Catholic" has many different uses in Christianity, not all of them have to do with Roman Catholicism. Dimadick (talk) 06:28, 25 June 2010 (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.
