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 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.
Your answer does not address the changing of scope suggested by this move request. In this category tree at least, "Roman Catholicism" means Roman-rite Catholicism. Changing it to "Catholicism" or "Catholic Church" gives it a larger scope, which is a mistake. In your answer you seem to suggest instead to rename Converts from XXX to Catholicism (which also exists, see Category:Converts to Catholicism and subcategories) to Converts to the Catholic Church. If this was your intention, feel free to withdraw this discussion and open a new one. Place Clichy (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have never read about people who regard themselves specifically a member of the Latin Church while not regarding Eastern Catholics as fellow church members. Of course in the structure of the categories there should be separate subcategories for Eastern Catholicism when it comes to history and liturgy, but otherwise not much diffusion between Latin and Eastern Catholicism is useful. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of biographical articles, when the information is known, it is better to precise this information when we know it. For instance, if an Orthodox converts explicitly to the Roman / Latin Church (however you chose to call it) rather than Eastern Catholicism (the case of Bessarion comes to mind), then this information has encyclopedic value and should be reflected in the categories. Merging these categories with Converts to Catholicism at large, which mostly contains people for which this information is not known, unsure or inapplicable, is a loss of information. Place Clichy (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy:. You'free to advocate development of separate Category:Latin Church and Category:Eastern Catholicism category trees. However, is it too much to ask for to keep that particular church variable discussion aside from this one, in order to not mud it? This discussion pertains to Category:Catholic Church, which clearly has a longstanding raison d'être, along with far-reaching category tree - including for conversion and converts. Afterwards, feel free to branch that however you like, but would you please let this discussion pertain to that very top category tree branch, please? That said, on the side note, your arguments for how you think the particular churches category tree should be treated are very welcome at: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Catholicism)#Latin_Church (which notably currently lacks WP:CONSENSUS contrary to your assertions). Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chicbyaccident: The trouble is that you nominated Category:Converts to Roman Catholicism and subcats for renaming, but your answer applies to Category:Converts to Catholicism (a mother-category) instead. Category:Converts to Roman Catholicism is a sub-category of Category:Roman Catholics, which is itself a sub-category of Category:Latin Church. Feel free to suggest renaming of Converts from XXX to Catholicism to Converts from XXX to the Catholic Church and of Converts from XXX to Roman Catholicism to any vocable of your choice which uses "Latin Church", if this has your preference. I'm not sure that I would agree with the new proposal, but at least it would be coherent with your rationale and it would not change the scope of these longstanding categories. I also gave an answer at the other discussion page you suggested. Place Clichy (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you and quite many here get it right. The essential part of adherence to the Catholic Church is full communion with the Pope, not which rite you employ or jurisdiction. If you are admitted by a bishop to a diocese, you are admitted to all the church, independent of whether jurisdiction (Latin Church or Eastern Catholic Churches) the bishop formally belongs to. It seems many of the commentators on this request fails to assimilate this, and thus makes it more complicated than it has to be. I would therefore caution against hastely closing this nomination before all commentators are on terms about what we are discussing. Thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2018 (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.
Support renaming. Consistency in these categories is important; this is a classic NotWith construction without considering the existing framework. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2018 (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 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:Christian fraternities and sororities by country
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 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.
Support and delink redlinks in main article, which are there to encourage the unnecessary creation of articles on the annual events, or worse still articles on the subject matter of the annual event titles. This is an annual event, but we do not have annual articles, except a redirect from the first one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2018 (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 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.
That might be a possible alternative merge target. Though I'm not really keen about it, because that category is more about the operational planning. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2018 (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 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:Eponymous category for a band without the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant one. As always, every band does not automatically get one of these just because it exists -- they're created only when they're needed navigationally, by virtue of the band having a lot of spinoff content that falls outside the standard categorization schemes (e.g. Category:The Beatles, where there's a lot of stuff besides just the band article and their albums.) But this band doesn't have that, so it doesn't need an eponymous category. Bearcat (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2018 (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.
Done delinked redlinks. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 4#Category:Androni–Sidermec–Bottecchia. ℯxplicit 04:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
