User talk:Ravenpuff/Archives/2021/August

Picture of the day

Please be more careful when you change the text of the picture of the day captions so that you do not introduce any errors. You often do your copyediting just before the POTD is protected and I do not always look at the POTD again before it goes live. Today's example is the omission of the word "of" from the sentence "Although little is known of the subject .." in the 2021-08-08 caption, and there have been several similar instances of this sort during the last few months. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Thanks for letting me know. I admittedly often do copyediting relatively late at night given my current time zone, and mistakes have occasionally crept into POTD blurbs, for which I certainly accept responsibility and apologise. Many thanks again for your work in creating and proofreading them! — RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Archdiocese of Mexico (city)

The disambiguation (city) is needed to distinguish the the city from the ecclesiastical province and from the state. Please revert the name change. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: Sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand why disambiguation is needed here. Do you mean that we need to specify that the archdiocese covers only Mexico City and not the entire surrounding State of Mexico? I don't think this is necessary: the entity in particular is officially known as the "[Roman Catholic] Archdiocese of Mexico" (without "city"), and there is no other entity by that name which would require us to disambiguate. The ecclesiastical province is called the "Ecclesiastical Province of Mexico", not the "Archdiocese of Mexico" – no disambiguation required. I'd be fine with adding a hatnote along the lines of "This article is about the Mexico City archdiocese. For a list of Mexican Catholic dioceses, see List of Catholic dioceses in Mexico", but disambiguation in the page title probably isn't the place to make such clarifications for readers; that's more the purpose of the article lead. What do you think? — RAVENPVFF · talk · 08:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 21. That explains the need i think. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: I certainly agree with the need to disambiguate for the denomination (Roman Catholic vs Anglican). Although I can see why disambiguating city vs state/country might make for a bit of clarity, I still don't see why "(city)" is strictly required. As pointed out in the linked discussion, a proper category that would contain Mexican archbishops of whatever denomination would be Category:Archbishops in Mexico. In the same vein, a category for Mexican Catholic archbishops would be Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Mexico.

In particular, I think the category previously under discussion should properly be titled Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Mexico, in line with the current article title for the archdiocese. Note that this doesn't clash with the more general category above – in the spirit of WP:SMALLDETAILS, I'd argue that this is sufficient to establish two separate categories, in both cases satisfying the WP:C2C criterion without further disambiguation. To reiterate:

• Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Mexico includes Catholic archbishops in the country of Mexico, regardless of archdiocese, in line with e.g. Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Ireland.
• Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Mexico, a subset of the above, includes only those that led the Archdiocese of Mexico, in line with e.g. Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Guadalajara.

Discussion of categories aside, I think it's worth noting that "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Mexico" remained a redirect to the same article even after your page move. Given that we agree this title is equivalent to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Mexico (city)", I believe we should naturally prefer the more concise one. Do you agree with this analysis? — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Your analysis is technically correct. However, it's a lot for a reader to take in at a glance: "Roman Catholic archbishops of Mexico" looks very like "Roman Catholic archbishops in Mexico". For the sake of a few extra bytes, I think the the addition of (city) makes navigational errors less likely. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: Sure: I'll readily concede that a two-letter difference between "in" and "of" within the category names can easily be missed, and thus disambiguating this to reduce navigational errors is definitely sensible, even if according to WP:SMALLDETAILS says that it isn't strictly necessary. But I don't think the same applies to the article title – there is no other entity to distinguish "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Mexico" from, and the undisambiguated title works perfectly well to "balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area". Besides, we already have a way to orient users who encounter common navigational errors without having to burden article titles with unneeded disambiguators: hatnotes. The only potential other similarly titled page I could think of is List of Catholic dioceses in Mexico, and we can definitely handle this with a hatnote at the top of the article. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ravenpuff: But category names usually follow article names. So if the name stays as is, that will create pressure for the category name to change. 18:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: Perhaps, but I reckon this might be where we could make an exception to the usual rule ("usually", as you said). Although, as I argued previously, I don't think establishing two separate categories named "... in Mexico" and "... of Mexico" would be an entirely bad thing: with the provision of hatnotes, and some maintenance now and then if necessary, we could ensure the proper categorization of archbishops and that readers are directed from one category page to the other. I'm just not sure that we ought to take into account the vagaries of Wikipedia's own internal categorization scheme to decide on what page titles should be: article titles should be decided on first, and categories (which might or might not agree with the corresponding title in terms of disambiguators) should come later. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)