Talk:Catholic Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Catholic Church has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Toolbox

Infobox[edit]

@TonyBallioni: Regarding the inclusion of the "Electoral College" in the infobox, I am concern that the infobox is already too clutter and complicated. The infobox should contain only readily understandable quick information, and it is already weighed down with complex terms such as "Churches sui iuris", and I'd like to avoid adding more ambiguous parameters. With regard to the particulars here, the "Electoral College" wikilink only mentions one line in the article about the Catholic Church. The entry refers to "College of Cardinals", who do meet regularly, but only elect a pope once in a generation. The number following is awkwardly placed. In most entries, it is the number of entries (number of dioceses, number of priests, etc. Here, "225" looks like the number of colleges of cardinals, rather than the number of cardinals. An entry for Cardinals might be a better fit, but again, I hoping to trim. There have been a lot of contentious discussion over this template to get it to this point, and I wish to avoid that contention here. --Zfish118talk 03:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with taking the 225 number out as I agree it is confusing. The college meets more than once every 25 years, though, in the papal consistory. They don't do the electing then, but it is then that new electors are appointed and other tasks of governance are done. I think the college should be in the infobox, but if electoral college is the best phrase, I am unsure. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Zfish118:, I like your administration simplification, I was actually just about to suggest it. I've also BOLDly removed Worldwide as its region, and Vatican City as the headquarters. I could go either way on the headquarters bit being in the infobox, but the entire planet Earth isn't really a region until we find life on Mars. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree on removing "Worldwide" (I've proposed that one before, actually). I disagree removing Vatican City as headquarters. I think that is a clear and succinct, and geographically places the central bureaucracy (of note, because further down, it states the was founded in Jerusalem). I appreciate your thoughts and support on these matters. --Zfish118talk 05:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
My only reason for removing Vatican City is that it is painfully obvious and with the picture of St. Peter's and a caption that mentions Vatican City, I don't really think it adds much value. That and you could get into an equally painful argument as to whether it is actually headquartered in Vatican City. If someone wants to restore it I won't object. Worldwide I feel very strongly should be removed since, like I mentioned, Planet Earth is not a region. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I was not a fan of the double tagging of Vatican City either. I will be BOLD and add a stronger geographical tag to the caption "near Rome, Italy", along with the headquarters as Vatican City (I am not strongly attached to this language either, should it be objectionable). I will also add prose to the lead to describe the situation. --Zfish118talk 06:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Good improvements. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I am also not sure about how I feel having Churches sui iuris in the infobox now that I think about it. In my mind, the infobox should contain information that most people would readily understand simply by looking, and I don't think this is the case here. It also make the sui juris Churches seem like administrative subdivisions in my mind, which isn't entirely accurate. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I am neutral on this topic. A year ago I quietly added them, and a few weeks later quietly removed them. Someone objected and put them back. I concur they are a bit technical, and the article overall discusses churches sui juris in more detail than equivalent articles in other encyclopedias. Other the other hand, though not perfectly analogous, an infobox created for the Eastern Orthodox would almost certainly list the number of autocephalous member churches of the communion. I could go either way on whether to include the sui iuris in the infobox.--Zfish118talk 02:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, yes. The autocephalous comparison is apt. I think the distinction I would draw is that the sui juris Churches are not as independent as autocephalous Churches in practice but at the same time very much more independent than dioceses. Leaving them in the odd place between the two. I'll remove from the infobox for now, but if it is reverted I won't contest. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I oppose the removal. The information is of importance for its global organisation and identity. Moreover, with the ongoing events in the Middle East, this should not be considered of less importance than before. Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I suppose my concern is that an infobox is a terrible place to try to explain the concept of a sui iuris particular Church. Including them alongside diocese also feels inaccurate to me in terms of portrayal: it's not like they are divisions of a global NGO with the pope at the top and diocese and eparchies below them as departments. I think the information is better conveyed and handled in the article text rather than by a number in the infobox. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure referring to a perceived deficit of common knowledge is sufficient argument to reduce this variable from the infobox, a variable which very much reflects the church's constitution and well indicates its composition. Compare for instance equivalently necessary variable in infobox of Syriac Orthodox Church. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I actually think the Syriac Orthodox article is a good example about how infoboxes can be confusing and unclear, and it only has one similar situation, not twenty-four. I'm all for having an expansive section in the article text on it, but I don't think having it in the infobox really helps people understand the Church's structure, and I think there are some down sides to trying to highlight the nuanced relationship between the Holy See and the sui iuris particular churches in such a visible place with not much room. At the same time, I don't feel too strongly about this, so if you do feel strongly, please go ahead and reinsert it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I concur that the Syrian article is not strong example to emulate. Prior to browsing the articles today, I was completely unfamiliar with the structure of the Syrian church, and I had to click through several articles to discern the relationship of Catholicos and the mother church; anyone not already familiar a church sui juris may face a similar stumbling block. Building on the nuanced relationship of the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Pope; In the original infobox, we listed we listed the sui juris churches, but also included "Roman Curia" in the hierarchy. Yet, the Eastern churches are not directly subject to the Curia, except to the extend that the Curia is organ of the Apostolic See. The Patriarchal Eastern churches, in fact, can appoint a procurator to the Curia, the Court of the Bishop of Rome. This is an ancient prerogative exercised by the ancient Eastern Churches since before the Great Schism. The Curia manages the Pope's relations with the Eastern Catholic Churches, but does not govern the them directly (like it does the Latin Church). The infobox as written prior would seem suggest a much more top down approach, when it is rather nuanced. –Zfish118talk 23:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Name section[edit]

I've trimmed the name section. Some of those paragraphs were tangentially related (the Donation of Constantine one in particular), or were quite rambling. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The name section evolved due to the on-going saga of "Roman Catholic" versus "Catholic". Few organization have a naming history as complex as this one! --Zfish118talk 16:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but I think the bit about the Donation of Constantine is overkill here, and comparing the naming conventions of the Eastern Church and the Western Church can be described in detail later in the article. A concise description of the etymology of the term and acknowledging the Catholic vs. Roman Catholic uses should be enough for a naming section. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the original edits cut a bit too much out. I restored the section, but preserved a few key edits. I could definitely see more being cut out or clarified, but would strongly prefer to keep the East-West,Protestant,Roman after western fall discussion kept (though some of the rambling examples of "Roman" could be removed). --Zfish118talk 16:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
That's fair, I tend to edit based on WP:BRD, and the environment on this talk page has been very collegial compared to many others on Wikipedia, so I assumed that if there was an issue, there would be a good discussion concerning it. Don't mind the reverts at all, and I see your point on the Orthodox/Catholic/Protestant paragraph. After your new edits, the only thing I feel somewhat strongly about cutting would be the section discussing ecclesia, which seems like a bit of overkill on the etymology section. I don't feel a need to describe the etymology of the Christian word Church when this article is about one specific church and its name. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the entire second paragraph of the section could go - I added (from Greek καθολικός (katholikos), "universal") after "Catholic" to replace this paragraph, but we now seem to have both. This isn't Wiktionary, and Catholic (term) exists; I don't think it's necessary to define 'church' or to explore the etymology of 'Catholic' any further than the brief note at the start. TSP (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done I went ahead and removed it, though I am fine with it being reverted if we need further discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

That's indeed some bold moves. No, this isn't Wiktionary, but the Name section has been carefully carved out over the years. Extended information about its name here is relevant. The diminish it so violently would merit some more discussion. Where did disappeared parts of text of the section get moved to, to start with? Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Zfish118 restored most of the initial trim, and then removed the Donation of Constantine bit along with a few other Roman examples. I just removed the second paragraph mentioned by TSP because it largely duplicates the first paragraph with some additional Greek and Hebrew etymology around ecclesia. I think the changes that have been made as the article stands now convey the message of the seven paragraph section more concisely and make it easier for the reader to understand the issues surrounding the name. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. In fact your trims then weren't the controversial ones, but TSP's changes to the section's content. That content may be improved but should first be restored. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Could you be specific as to what you would like to see restored? I did a larger trim earlier, but like I said, that was restored by Zfish, and the version that is now active has been reduced since then by Zfish and myself. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the concession part, please, in order to be improved. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful to put a copy of the unmodified Name section here on the talkpage (I'm on Mobile or would do it myself). The Concession part seemed to complex for this section (citing it as an authoritative example of early use of Roman, then discussing it's authenticity got confusing for me) --Zfish118talk 21:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
It's about 10k bytes, so I think it would be a bit tough for it to be seen here. I've copied the original version to User:TonyBallioni/CatholicName if anyone wants to look at it for easier reference than going through diffs or old versions in the article history. I agree with you on the Concession being confusing. I don't really think it has a place in the name section, and discussing the authenticity of a medieval forgery there seems to muddy the waters. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure which of my edits is particularly controversial? I've made five, but most of them were small tweaks or rearrangements. TSP (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm pausing any more changes for the moment to avoid muddying the waters while debate goes on, but I would note that the current revision is incoherent ('The name "Catholic Church" is the most common designation used in official church documents, and only the website of the Holy See.'). TSP (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I fixed that for clarity, but other than that I agree that more edits shouldn't be made so as not to muddy the waters. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Your amendment (which I think was originally my amendment) to the words "and only the website of the Holy See" was objected to on grounds of accuracy. I've removed this clause completely - I don't think it's ever had a source, and if we can't even work out what it's meant to mean I don't think we can leave it there. Anyone who knows what these words were intended to mean is welcome to put back an accurate version. TSP (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your cooperation. I think the section looks better now. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I am generally content with how the section looks now, but I agree with TSP that the website line should probably be omitted as failing WP:V. A quick Google search shows that it fails verification [1] at worst, and it is ambiguous at best. Unless there is a secondary source for it, I think it should be removed. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Then it might as well be removed. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Removed. TSP (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── My only two concerns left are that after the citation needed template was placed after the Pius XII claim, while it appears to be true, it also appears to be WP:OR as I can't find any secondary sourcing on it. The claim that Catholic Church is the most common used in Church documents seems to be cited to the CCC table of contents, and while also appearing to be true, I can't find secondary sourcing on. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I am familiar enough with the Catechism to be confident that it does not use "Roman Catholic" in any context except perhaps a quote from an older document. However, I am concerned that the inclusion of the statement here would imply some sort of editorial decision to downplay the term, especially when combined with the statement about no papal documents using the term since the 1950's. It would seem to border pretty close to WP:Synthesis, using two trivial facts to demonstrate conclusion beyond either fact's context alone. --Zfish118talk 16:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that CCC does not use Roman Catholic except in what might be a footnote reference from Vatican I. I'm also confident that CCC says nowhere in it the most used name for the Church in official documents is the Catholic Church. Using the entirety of the Catechism as a citation for that claim is bad sourcing. I also tend to lean that this is synthesis, but also original research of primary source documents. I'm willing to believe that the last papal document was HG in 1950, but I can't find that claim in secondary sources outside of the document. It poses a verifiability problem for Wikipedia, because in order to disprove the claim, you'd have to go through all the papal documents issued from 1950s both in English and non-English sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Redundant lead sources[edit]

To simplify the lead for future maintenance, following guidance at WP:LEADCITE, I have trimmed out a few redundant citations for non-controversial information. Most of these citation are repeated in the body of the article, or refer the same sections of the Catechism that are cited in body.

(Pope is Catholic)

(Papal claim of succession)

  • (ref name="Apostolic succession3")"The Apostolic Tradition". Catechism of the Catholic Church. Vatican. Retrieved 22 July 2011.  (ref name="Apostolic succession3")

(Church claim of infallibility)

(Eucharist - Consolidating to one end of paragraph citation)

(Mary)

"Particular churches sui iuris" section[edit]

There are a couple of points in the "Particular churches sui iuris" section that I am not comfortable with. For instance, the language "communion [of 24 churches]" is not used in the cited source, and I have not seen it described as a "communion" in other sources I have reviewed. The Eastern churches are certainly in communion [adjective] with the Holy See, but the Catholic Church is not described as a communion [noun] in the sources I've seen. I also think the section also needs to elaborate on the relationship between Eastern Catholic churches and the Latin church authorities, as it has historically been complicated, and the current status really only formally came about in 1990 with the publishing of the CCEO. As I've discussed in the infobox talkpage section, care needs to be taken to portray these churches as not mere administrative divisions, but fundamentally independent approaches to Christianity that have managed to coexist in communion with the majority Latin/western tradition. –Zfish118talk 10:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

In terms of the first sentence, perhaps something like The Catholic Church consists of 24 autonomous particular Churches [...] that are in full communion with the Holy See? I'll look further at the rest of the section later. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
If it helps, in es:Iglesia católica we agreed this introduction: "The Catholic Church is composed of 24 sui iuris churches: the Latin Church and 23 Eastern Churches, which are in full communion with the pope." --Grabado (talk) 09:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense in the lead[edit]

"and from the Middle Ages until the Modern Age acted as the principal force of unity in the Western world", that seriously needs needs a citation and I am not sure one can be found considering the background of the protestant reformation. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, the early modern era started in the 16th century (around the time Protestantism emerged) so it would be accurate. Ltwin (talk)
I would have no issue if you changed modern age to early modern era as they have very different meanings since modern age includes contemporary history. What is there now is erroneous. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Ltwin you seem like a knowledgeable person about the subject. Not sure why changing it to early modern era is a problem. This is an encyclopedia, or is at least supposed to be. Encyclopedia's have precision of language to be concise and clear. I agree that the catholic church was the principle force of unity from the beginning of the Middle Ages until the beginning of the Modern Age. Why is is a problem to be clear, concise, correct and non vague by changing it to "and from the beginning of Middle Ages until the early modern era acted as the principal force of unity in the Western world"? 2602:304:788B:DF50:E4B2:7FEA:8B64:85B5 (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually, nothing should be in the lead of the article without being in the body of the article(and sourced). So, where in the body of the article does it show/state/refer, "...and from the Middle Ages until the Modern Age acted as the principal force of unity in the Western world"??
"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."[2]--Kansas Bear (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I have no issue with the removal of that part of the sentence, just to be clear. As I put in the section title, it is obviously nonsense as written, but the article is locked. My first request was for removal or to provide a source. Ltwin defended it as written and I was trying to engage. 2602:304:788B:DF50:E4B2:7FEA:8B64:85B5 (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
@2602:304:788B:DF50:E4B2:7FEA:8B64:85B5: Just to be clear, I don't edit this article, so I don't really have an objection for removing the sentence. Just pointing out that given that the "Modern Age" began in the 16th century, the sentence as written isn't "nonsense." Ltwin (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
It is nonsense, and others seem to agree. If you don't want to edit the article, why comment in defense? 2602:304:788B:DF50:E4B2:7FEA:8B64:85B5 (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Kansas is correct. If the body does not support it then it should be deleted in its entirety. There is not discussion about this type of thing given that it has long been settled format. --StormRider 18:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
So to come full circle, no one disagrees anymore, would someone please delete the offending sentence? 2602:304:788B:DF50:E4B2:7FEA:8B64:85B5 (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Done. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Disagree! Please review the first sentence and its source in the Medieval and Renaissance periods section. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I am neutral towards removing the sentence, but rather strongly disagree with lengthening it to "'early' modern period". Lead should be tightly written, and a single vague adjective does not change an inappropriate sentence to appropriate. –Zfish118talk 21:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Our whole category system might be broken[edit]

I'm here because of these two discussions in Wikimedia Commons [3][4].

If, as stated in the first line of this article, the Catholic Church is also known as the Roman Catholic Church (that is, that the whole Roman Catholic Church includes both the Latin Church and Eastern Catholic Churches), then Category:Roman Catholic church buildings shouldn't be used for Catholic churches of the Latin Church, Category:Eastern Catholic church buildings for Catholic churches of Eastern Catholic Churches and Category:Catholic Church as a common container for both.

What do we do? --Grabado (talk) 11:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

As I understand it (and this matter has been discussed pretty extensively here):
  • "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are, as applied to a specific church organisation, synonyms; with "Roman" being added to distinguish from other uses of the term "Catholic" (see Catholic). Both refer to the entire church that is under the leadership of the Pope.
  • The Catholic or Roman Catholic Church is divided into several particular churches of equal standing; by far the largest is the Latin Church, the others are grouped as the Eastern Catholic churches.
So, yes - if "Roman Catholic" and "Eastern Catholic" are being opposed, then, as I understand it, that's wrong. The Catholic or Roman Catholic Church is the whole organisation; which can be divided, if you like, into Eastern Catholic churches and the Latin Church, but not into Eastern and Roman. TSP (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I tend to mostly agree with User:Grabado and the user's changes. Although I am uncertain about to what extent or depth the Latin Church categorisation is needed, I would still consider the edits improvements. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Please note that Grabado opened this can of worms only because he made massive changes to the categorization tree concerning Roman Catholic churches over on Commons without the consensus to do so, and refuses to undo them, despite numerous editors telling him that he should. The only reason he's here is to bolster his position there, but he refuses to acknowledge that the question of what the categorization should be cannot take place until he undoes his disruptive non-consensual edits to the category hierarchy. Since this is essentially a Commons issue, and not an en.Wiki one, I suggest that this discussion be shut down, as it was opened under false pretenses. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

+1 to BMK's comment. Please lets not reopen the name can of worms, especially when it comes to categorizations.The question of whether Roman Catholic and Latin Catholic are synonyms is very complex and can be argued on both sides depending on the geography. Having the argumentation over articles is bad enough, but delving into it with categories would get needlessly complex and likely end with no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks TSP and Chicbyaccident for the clarification. Grabado opened this discussion because another user asked him to do so. I see no bad intentions in it. My understanding is also inline with the current status of this articles. George Alencherry and Baselios Cleemis, who are heads of two Eastern Churches are Cardinals which confirms they are part of Roman Catholic Church. Jee 04:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Jkadavoor for your support. That's a good point: the Cardinals are formally known as "Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church". [5] [6] [7] --Grabado (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I can't believe this is even real. Is this Wikihounding? I've opened this because I've been requested to do so. --Grabado (talk) 05:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
To clarify my comment above: I was agreeing with BMK that this is a Commons problem not an en.wiki problem, and I don't see any need for there to be a conversation here because our categorization system is not in fact broken: it works perfectly fine for people finding what they need to find (not to mention that most en.wiki users just search rather than use cats). I don't really see the need for a discussion about this and think that it should stay on Commons. It was not meant to be an attempt to doubt your good faith, and sorry if it came off that way. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry, TonyBallioni. Thank you for your clarification. My point has been better explained by TSP than me. The problem is that our current approach says that "Roman Catholic" and "Eastern Catholic" are disjoint categories while the main article about this topic says the latter should be a subclass of the former. I don't know if questioning this would get needlessly complex and likely end with no consensus; that is what I'm trying to see, as requested by another user in Commons. --Grabado (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, that topic is complex and you'll get different answers on it depending on which region of the world you are in. A Google Books search on "Roman Catholic" AND "Greek Catholic will show you some cases where it is used as a disambiguator from Eastern/Greek. To pick another random example from the Eastern Catholic Churches "Roman Catholic" AND "Syro-Malabar" returns results that are favourable to the view that Roman is a synonym for the larger category, but also returns results that can be used to argue the opposite. In terms of categories the question should be if we know what we are talking about and if we can easily find it. I think we do here and don't see this as a big enough deal to need to have larger community discussion about a rename when nothing is broken. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that there are different views. But on one hand, Category:Roman Catholic Church redirects to Category:Catholic Church, which includes Latin Chuch and Eastern Catholic Churches. On the other hand, Category:Roman Catholic church buildings is a subcategory of Category:Catholic church buildings, which also includes Category:Independent Catholic church buildings and Category:Eastern Catholic church buildings. There are two opposite criterias working at the same time in the same place, which from my point of view is more confusing. --Grabado (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Grabado (talk · contribs) is right. Improvements of said category tree was needed but has long been postponed. It is good that someone makes an effort to improve it. As for the "Latin/Western/Latin rite" distinction in the category tree, its terminology and depth may be altered later on, if requested. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Any such massively extensive change, whether here or an Commons, requires a firm consensus of editors to do so, not fly-by-night changes made by an editor with a POV to grind. Grabado didn't get a consensus on Commons (but made the changes anyway) and is not now likely to get one ther, so he came here hoping to get en.Wiki to alter its hierarchy, so he could then import the change to Commons on the (invalid) grounds that Commons must follow en.Wiki. That is why this discussion is bogus, because it's an attempt to bootstrap his failing argument on Commons by using en.Wiki for leverage. That's not why we're here, and the purpose of categorization is not, as another editor put it "an epistemological exercise" but, as TonyB said above, to help people find things. Grabado refuses to grasp that principle, or the one that says you don't make massive terminological changes on your own authority. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • One example category in the Commons discussion was: "Category:Catholic churches of the Latin Church in India". This seems unwieldy and inappropriate here. I will not offer an opinion as to its use in the Commons. The Latin Church is a name given to the particular portion of the church directly governed by the Pope. The Eastern Catholic Churches have a degree of autonomy from the pope. "Latin Church" is not really used to identify dioceses, churches, and/or buildings in common language, and offers little clarity to the common user who might be navigating using categories. The "Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem" used as an example in the commons, is a special case that is not generally applicable. I would urge very strong caution against changing the categorization scheme to use the relatively obscure "Latin Church" name, especially in lieu of the more common "Roman Catholic". One thing that is indisputable is the the Eastern Catholic Churches are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. It is more ambiguous as to whether they themselves are (or identify) as Roman Catholic. The language here is evolving. Wikipedia may even be influencing it, as much as we attempt to stick to reliable sources. If categories are renamed en mass, this will trickle into articles. I would argue the status quo is the best, though imperfect, solution for now. –Zfish118talk 02:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Beyond My Ken, thank you for pointing out so clearly why this is a non-issue on en.wiki. I'll point out an additional factor as to why the Commons discussion doesn't have any impact on en.wiki: we have a functional main space and they don't. Category names matter quite a lot on Commons since their main space is for a lack of a better phrase absolutely useless as even many of their functionaries would admit. On Commons, this discussion has much more importance because their categories need to be at the best possible name so people can actually find things. Here, we simply need it to be at a recognizable name since our search feature works relatively well and our main space is actually functioning. No need to stir up the pot by getting into a discussion as to whether or not Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church buildings are actually Roman Catholic Church buildings. Our categories function for the need they serve: helping people find things. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)