Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 4

3055:(b) You are apparently aiming for a cat that will cover not only abbeys in their monastic function but also buildings in later functions that used to be parts of abbeys. The way to deal with, e.g., Westminster Abbey, is surely to distinguish its functions, and to cat it as (1) a "Christian religious house (or monastery) of the xth century"; and (2) as an "Anglican church". If you want to be very accurate, you can add another cat for "Former abbey churches". There's no need to try to do all these things in a single category, and this may be why it hasn't worked very well. 739:, later notable as an author, was one for 3 years from age 32-35 before he got a parish. They were not at all a major factor in the last debate, and it would be inappropriate to have a category for them, if any did become notable by progressing to more significant roles. They are a complete irrelevance here. I will repeat that this part of that article remains unreferenced, & is very hard to find anything about on Google, including at the cathedral website. We don't in 3856:'s comment that "While there are many music aficionados who would appreciate the nuances of splitting a single artists songs based on what component they created, there are many more amateurs who would only be baffled as they navigated through categories trying to understand why a song they associate with Johnny Mercer isn't listed under songs written by but is instead in songs with music by" there only needs to be a cross-reference such as was done in 3494:. This category serves no real purpose. Over the past few years, many editors have asked why it exists and unsurprisingly their questions have gone unanswered. This category requires bots to constantly add redirects. And in doing so, the bots block legitimate page moves. The category provides little to no benefit to re-users of our content, to readers, or to editors. -- 2646:. I originally created these categories (up to the 11th century) instead of the much more descriptive, categorizable, and useful subcategories ] and ] and the parent category ]. Having moved all the ordinary church buildings and orders into their own categories, these should be upmerged into] (so the monasteries— all that is left in them— are not lost)-- 2724:

Rename to "Christian monasteries established in the xyth century". My reading of the discussion is that this option was OK with everyone. Though it sounded like it was probably no one's first choice, it was the one everyone seemed to agree on being acceptable. Participants, please let me know if I've

466:

And no doubt you know all the families of small birds living in say Africa or South-East Asia? I certainly remember, when probably older than the average WP user, being slightly puzzled as to why a football team had called itself after the College of Cardinals. They have little or no imprint on the

799:

Since "all the cardinals who are eligible for inclusion to date are of the Roman Catholic Church", adding "Roman Catholic" to "Cardinals by nationality" is mere tautology, on the same lines as adding "Natural-born American" to a category or list of "Presidents of the United States". In addition, it

683:

of the same Roman Catholic Church, as this term is understood by the Church itself. Or, if you prefer, they are all cardinals of the same College of Cardinals of the same Catholic Church, as this term is understood by the Church itself. There is no need to add either "Roman Catholic" or "Catholic"

456:

They don't? Have you asked people about this? If so, you must live in quite a provincial place. I think people generally would know about them just because they are reasonably well-rounded individuals who have general knowledge about the world. Do people who don't live in New Zealand know that about

3878:

on grounds of overcategorization only. I originally nominated the category for merger but I do agree with BRG to a certain extent. However, I think the real solution is to create a "List of Songs written by Johnny Mercer" which can deal with all the nuances that JM needs and deserves. To this end I

2927:

abbeys). Renaming all to "Cat:Christian monasteries of the xth century" would be perfectly possible, but rightly or wrongly people sometimes query the use of "monastery" for women's communities, and also for orders - eg., the Franciscans or Dominicans - in which the male religious are not monks, so

332:

In the previous discussion, the focus was on Church of England cardinals. In any case, your comments seem more relative to re-fighting the battle over the parent category name. That horse's left the barn. Besides, I don't think we're locked in to using terminology in the same way the Holy See does.

309:

The only usage of "Roman Catholic Church" by the highest authority of that Church refers to the whole Church. On request, I can give you at least 18 cases in which the Holy See has used it in this sense. I challenge you to give even one instance in the last century or in this, in which the Holy See

147:

were never changed. I'm proposing that all of the nationality categories that use "Fooian cardinals" be changed to "Fooian Roman Catholic cardinals" to reflect this change. However, before I nominate all 100-odd categories, I thought I'd make sure that there would be consensus for such a rename, so

516:

I asked both of my neighbours about this. I asked them what a "cardinal" was. One said "a bird" first thing. The other said it was a religious position. When I asked if there were any other meanings, he said, "a red bird". The first is an immigrant to New Zealand from Scotland. The second is a NZ

734:

There used to be, until some point between 1750 and 1900, two (at a time) very minor CofE office-holders at one cathedral whose job title was either Senior Cardinal or Junior Cardinal, but were not addressed as such. No holder of these offices ever appears to have been notable, which holding the

3639:

The template and category could not generate a to-do list for this project; it consists of titles for which redirects ought to be created, whereas this template marks redirects which have already been created. The only viable correlation is for the template/category to serve as a measurement of

757:

Look, I'm not chomping at the bit to rename these, and I don't care all that much one way or the other. But once the parent category has been renamed, to have the subcategories in a different format than that parent category makes it look like Knowledge (XXG) has never seen a style book before.

1825:

Yes - on examination several of these entries are. John G. Bennett was a writer and he wrote several books on Subud. Eva Bartok an actress who experienced what her entry describes as an "allegedly miraculous recovery" from cancer credited to the Subud spiritual exercise. Roger McGuinn's entry

3844:

I think a "Songs written by X" category is appropriate, with either "Songs with music by X" or "Songs with lyrics by X" used where appropriate for any where he wrote only one or the other. And for someone like Frank Loesser, who was a major lyricist but also wroth both lyrics and music for a

457:

the bird called a "kiwi"? Do non-Australians and non-Africans know about the ostrich? Plus many watch American TV (and in particular American sports), which may mention cardinals. I don't live in the Americas right now; I think I'm going to ask my neighbours about this this weekend. ....

2034:

There's a lot of Gold singles? Well yes, but i thought that seemed defining. Should we split them into what they're based on, is that what should be done if the decision is keep? By the way, i also created a similiar category for Platinum singles. Feel free to check that out.

2009:

The RIAA does have an online database through which album and single certifications can be very easily verified. I think the main problem with this category, though, is that singles can be certified gold by physical sales, digital sales, or mastertone sales, and there are

938:

There is no serious argument for there being any other Cardinals divided by nationality than those of the Catholic Church. It's a bit like naming a category "Japanese Mayors of Tokyo". It just looks silly. Besides the main article title is currently under discussion.

3805:

In fact, I did not know the change was up for consideration, as I received a notice on my talk page on the 18th, but did not happen to be editing on Knowledge (XXG) from the 18th until after the discussion had closed. So I was unable to put forth my arguments.

3586:- I created this a couple of years back, but cannot at this point remember my reasoning. I do have one concern, but just a procedural one. This is a category populated mostly by template. In such cases, is it not proper procedure to take the template to 430:

You're joking right? How stupid do you think people outside of the Americas are? Give them a bit more credit. I don't think they would think "Italian cardinals" refers to a bird, but I also don't think they have no concept that a bird of that name exists.

4020:

Precedent is that producers should have multiple solo credits to their name to warrant an albums-by-producer category. Only one of the albums in this category is a solo production job, and Allmusic lists almost all of his credits as being collaborative.

710:

in the normal broad sense as defined in the article, though not of the largest, Roman rite, part of it. To introduce these distinctions in category names is confusing and inappropriate. Pastor Wayne would be delighted to see his work continues.

3624:

I'm also going to drop a note on the talk page of the template about this discussion. Since I cannot add much for or against this deletion, I'm hoping someone from there might remember what the intended purpose of the category/template is. -

3883:. Any interested parties are welcome to edit in situ, including somebody competent enough to make it a sortable table. The benefit of this kind of list, over and above categorization, is that songs that don't have WP articles can be added. -- 3062:

a general term that can be applied without further thought to all religious communities: "religious house" on the other hand is, and has no ambiguities. For the avoidance of future wrangling I'd rather go for the option most likely to avoid

800:

wrongly suggests that other cardinals distinguished by nationality do exist, as the addition of "Natural-born American" to the other category or list would suggest that some Presidents of the United States were not natural-born Americans.

93:, for example, shows the very clear "Classification: People: By occupation: Clergy" header. I don't know about anyone here, but none of the people or clergy I know are birds.), there is enough opposition to the rename. The header at 2998:: If the only issue is that "monasteries and abbeys" maybe a tautology, they can just be renamed to "Cat:Christian monasteries of the xth century". This would, however, lead to the question of what to do with churches that were 3085:

rehame proposal. As a general reader, i would have no idea what is meant by "religious house". How can a house be religious? Or, is it a kind of publishing house? Or any home of devout people? Would it include any

782:

in the broad sense of that term, followers of the Pope of Rome. While there might be a use for a category for Eastern Catholic cardinals, I think the different name would, ultimately, bring more confusion than clarity.

1965:

There doesn't seem to be a precedent for categorizing singles by certification. Not sure on this one. It could be seen as a defining characteristic, but it could also get insanely huge. If kept, maybe rename to

1560:

I originally created this category for the country singles, then i created a category like this one for country singles, and left this one for singles in all genres that were the number-one singles of the year.

650:. He's an Indian cardinal but he's not a Roman Catholic cardinal, so theoretically he's misplaced under the ultimate parent. A bit problematic. Perhaps changing them all to just "Catholic" would be preferrable. 1826:

describes his "Subud name" as making him "vibrate better with the universe", which sounds like it has something to do with him as a musician. I think these show the categories do have a constructive purpose.

3640:

progress made by the wiki-project. Even if the accuracy of this weren't vastly undermined by bots indiscriminately "tagging" such redirects, the disadvantages would still outweigh any possible benefit. —

684:

to the word "Cardinals" in this category. Not only is there no need: the addition of either would suggest the false idea that there are also other Cardinals distinguished by nationality. There aren't.

3066:(d)I don't agree that readers are less likely to understand the expression "religious house" than the word "monastery". As for editors, who knows? But why not avoid the difficulty before it becomes one? 291:

This is not really anything to do with birds. As pointed out in the previous discussion and discussed at length (and below by Carlaude), there are non-Roman Catholic cardinals of the religious variety.

3513:. Huh... I've known about this category for years and I never really thought about it, but now I do I can't see any possible use. It's obvious when a redirect is from another capitalisation, anyway. 2548:

Merge all per creator's request. Note that "and abbeys" was eliminated from the the target categories in the CfD immediately below this one, so they are actually being merged to the new categories.

966:. The proposal is just ridiculous. What else would anyone mean by "Cardinals by nationality"? The proposal would also raise the question "Roman Catholic" or just "Catholic". Neither is needed. 3090:, for example? I think monastery is a clear name for a category covering monasteries. I don't know much about abbeys vs. monasteries, but i oppose the proposal to rename to "religious houses". 185:

per nom. I'll also support that the categories affected be processed as a speedy renames if there is support here for the renames. All of the categories would need to be tagged for a speedy.

237:

Please don't reductio ad absurd me. You don't think there are enough cardinals of different nationalities in churches other than the Roman Catholic Church to justify nationality categories?

3590:

first, and then G8 the category? Or are you leaving the template behind? It's not been marked for TFD yet. I'm puzzled as to why the category might be deleted, but the template left. -

3123:"I haven't heard of it, so you can't use it" - 15 seconds on Google will make clear that "religious houses" is a standard expression, not something I made up for fun: religious houses : --> 1803:

Are these people notable for being of this religion? Does it affect how they do whatever they do that makes them otherwise notable? If we cannot answer yes to both and explain particularly

150: 128: 3618: 3551: 3446: 3787: 542:

And I think the fact that I am actually Canadian kind of tipped them off that I was running some sort of "how dumb are New Zealanders" test of knowledge, so it was hardly a fair test.

3821:

Putting songs like "Autumn Leaves" and "Moon River" in a category of "Songs written by Johnny Mercer" minimizes the roles of the other partners in the team that created these songs.

758:

That's just my opinion. Most readers aren't going to care about these fine arguments and distinctions. But they will notice when half-way down the category tree the names changes.

3013:

IMO, as a discriptive word, for the understanding of outsiders who do know what "religious houses" are. Most who edit these monastery pages know that monasteries can be for male

725:

Except that there are Church of England cardinals too. All of this above is more of an argument to reverse the previous rename of the parent category. It's already been renamed.

3736: 42: 37: 3463: 3621:. This page has not been updated in almost a year, so it may be moot, but it appears to be a project that used either the category or template to generate it's contents. 3434: 1665:

Subudians is not a proper word. Subud members are just called Subud members. Thus the term "Subudians" is not in accord with Knowledge (XXG)'s General naming conventions

2629: 2620: 2611: 2602: 2593: 2584: 2575: 2566: 2091:

Genre + certification might work, yes. There are probably thousands of gold/platinum singles in all genres, so subdividing by genre would probably be a good way.

3992: 3454: 2904: 2895: 2886: 2877: 2868: 2859: 2850: 2841: 2832: 2823: 2814: 2805: 2633: 2624: 3319:

per nom. Yikes -- Does Melbourne have a really big population of expats from Cincinnati? This puts to shame that now-mostly-deleted collection of sub-cats of

2796: 2787: 2778: 2769: 2760: 2751: 2615: 2606: 2597: 2588: 2579: 2570: 3779: 3756: 3058:(c) There's absolutely nothing wrong with the word "monastery", but it has several overlapping meanings, which makes it potentially ambiguous, and it is 2908: 2899: 2890: 2881: 2872: 2863: 2854: 2845: 2836: 2827: 2818: 2809: 3021: 2800: 2791: 2782: 2773: 2764: 2755: 21: 2738: 528:

Hmm! Not exactly a statistically significant sample, even for New Zealand. Maybe you should throw a party "Come as a cardinal" and see what happens.

3983: 3783: 3752: 2053:

That's the thing though. It is a defining criterion, but given the super-high number of gold and platinum singles, the categorization needs work.

1576: 659:

As I said above, the only usage of "Roman Catholic Church" by the highest authority of that Church refers to the whole Church, not excluding the

2742: 3828:

categories for one songwriter: "Songs written by X," "Songs with music by X," and "Songs with lyrics by X." While I would think this to be the

17: 3320: 1480:(per the introduction ... year-end is ambiguous). I am supposing this is defining. Subcats for the various charts can be created if desired. 202:

to match title of parent article. Note that there are other categories within the parent that don't prefix "Cardinal" with "Roman Catholic".

3563: 2451:. A very minute category that is unlikely to have many other Australians in it, I feel that this was especially created for the one entry. 2260: 2073:

for the country singles that were certified gold, and a similiar thing with the other genres that also have gold singles. Would that work?

2070: 2923:. "monasteries and abbeys" is a tautology - all abbeys are monasteries (although some buildings with the word "abbey" in their names are 1991:, for US sales? Would the plan be to have categories for best selling singles in each country? It doesn't sound particularly attractive. 3471: 3148: 3048:

one. An abbey is a particular type of monastery: that's not up for discussion. The cat as presently worded is the equivalent of (e.g.)

1477: 1945: 1937: 573:

I can't imagine anyone even in the Americas thinking that "Italian cardinals" means Italian birds. So, by adding "Roman Catholic" to "

491: 116: 3604:

Or after we've deleted the category, we just delete the template (noting that it no longer has any effect). Does it really matter? —

743:

have a sub-cat for canons, still less for minor canons, still less for minor canons of St Paul's Cathedral, of whom these were two.

3233: 1450: 740: 627: 144: 136: 112: 94: 3287: 1967: 1503: 4000: 3668:- redirect categorization is a waste of time, and as the nom explains, can prevent legitimate page moves by editing the redirect. 865:: Per arguments stated above. As all cardinals of a certain nationality are Catholics, the attribute Catholic is not necessary. -- 1928: 606: 3362: 3253: 3249: 393: 3857: 2495: 2483: 2460: 2405: 1214: 612: 3341: 3283: 3279: 3257: 3237: 2420: 2428: 481:

I can't believe you just insulted "Cuthbert the Cardinal", the cartoon mascot of the local high school in Podunk, Indiana.

220: 2256: 2411: 1785:

It does provide useful function, allowing notably members to be referenced without cluttering up the main article page.

599: 4047: 3955: 3931: 3903: 3722: 3698: 3418: 3394: 3203: 3179: 2711: 2687: 2535: 2511: 2386: 2362: 2229: 2205: 2140: 2116: 1900: 1876: 1623: 1599: 1420: 1396: 1338: 1308: 1284: 1180: 1156: 1110: 1037: 1008: 74: 3836:

either music or lyrics there should be two categories: "Songs with music by X" and "Songs with lyrics by X," with the

3365:

only has 82 articles covering the world, which makes it unlikely that any one city will have anything but a trivially

2170: 574: 385: 90: 1851:

per nom, though with only about 7 people between 5 sub-cats, I think one main category would be sufficient here.

1230: 870: 660: 315: 4046:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4028: 3974: 3930:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3915: 3892: 3869: 3773: 3744: 3697:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3682: 3660: 3644: 3634: 3608: 3599: 3578: 3534: 3522: 3503: 3393:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3378: 3353: 3332: 3311: 3294: 3268: 3222: 3178:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3164: 3134: 3110: 3099: 3075: 3049: 3036: 2986: 2971: 2953: 2937: 2730: 2686:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2671: 2652: 2553: 2510:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2361:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2346: 2335: 2318: 2303: 2280: 2248: 2204:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2189: 2159: 2115:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2098: 2082: 2060: 2044: 2025: 2000: 1977: 1919: 1875:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1860: 1835: 1816: 1794: 1776: 1753: 1735: 1717: 1692: 1674: 1642: 1598:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1583: 1570: 1547: 1531: 1513: 1489: 1466: 1439: 1395:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1380: 1361: 1342: 1327: 1283:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1268: 1256: 1237: 1199: 1155:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1140: 1121: 1056: 1007:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

992: 975: 958: 922: 905: 883: 874: 849: 832: 818: 809: 792: 762: 752: 729: 720: 693: 654: 639: 621: 586: 546: 537: 521: 511: 485: 476: 461: 451: 435: 420: 402: 389: 360: 351: 337: 327: 296: 286: 263: 241: 232: 211: 194: 177: 158: 101: 3954: