Category talk:Roman Catholic dioceses in the United Kingdom

message: Seeing as this category was deleted once, I'd like it to stay. I understand that the folk who like scotland would rather not have a joined one, but honestly, I find it much easier to find all the diocese articles like this. This category was emptied once, if someone has a problem with this category, I'd like them to please discuss it with me on the talk page. Benkenobi18 (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great Britain is neither 1) a state nor 2) a meaningful division in the Catholic church. The existence of the category serves no purpose other than to perpetuate and propagate the confusion of its author. It has nothing to do with nationalism either (always a favourite accusation to throw around), as I'd have no problem with Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in the United Kingdom (though it should not be a supercat, as it is state descriptive category not an RC division), but Great Britain is pointless unless one opens a new supercat Roman Catholic dioceses by island. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's fine, but none of this justifies a speedy. How can you justify depopulating an existing category and tagging it for speedy deletion without waiting 24 hours for a response? If you are going to be serious about your concerns, I'd like you to refrain from deleting this category.  Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As for your concerns, 1) every country has it's own diocese list, as does each episcopal conference the issue isn't "it should be grouped by RC division" it should be conformity with all the other subcats in the "Roman Catholic dioceses in Europe". 2) It's not my confustion that has it as the category, it has always been "Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain". Catholic Heirarchy uses "Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain" because, by their impeccable logic, there are no Catholic dioceses in Northern Ireland.  Finally, if your real concern was simply the name, why didn't you simply change the name to the "Roman Catholic dioceses in the UK? Why delete the category altogether twice? Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I've removed the speedy tag, as it is not clear that this was properly deleted in the first place. If there was a CfD on this, please link to it. Note that I don't take a position on whether or not this category should be deleted (though I actually lean towards deleting it), but that there is no history to justify the deletion, and it seems controversial enough to warrant an actual deletion discussion. Argyriou (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can put up a CfD. I was gonna do that before, but my connection cut as I was preparing it. The category is misleading and pointless, there's just no reason for its existence. Is there a way I can put it up along with the similarly pointless Template this user also created. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead. I don't really have a dog in this fight; I could be persuaded that the existing categories are sufficient, or that they should be merged into this one, or whatever. As the original deletion was performed "because the category was empty", which is something which should not have happened without some record of a discussion somewhere, I think a CfD would be the best option. (And an RfD for the template, which is now a redirect.) Argyriou (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are possibly a couple of things that might live at this level, the military ordinariate Bishopric of the Forces, though part of the English and Welsh Bishops' conference covers miltiary personnel in Scotland, simlilarly the Apostolic Exarchate for Ukrainians in Great Britain covers the whole of Great Britain, though again (presumably since it initially covered only England and Wales) this is part of the English and Welsh bishops' conference.  David Underdown (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  So why on earth is this blanked again? Stop this BS Deacon. If you want to delete the cat take it to CFD. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because most of the Dioceses should be in teh proper sub-cat.  With the possible exception of the two I mention above, there is no call for anything to be directly in this category.  It probably is valid placeholder, but please stop putting things in that belong sub-cats.  You really are verging on disruptive behavious over this.  David Underdown (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your accusations aren't helpful. Take it to CFD if you want to empty the category. You do not have consensus. If the cat is a valid placeholder, then you need to step back here. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:SUBCAT.  The dicoeses are in a subcategory so simply do not need to be in teh higher category as well.  A category that does not directly contain any articles can be perfectly valid.  You are the only one arguing to keep the dicoeses in both the higher category and it's subcats and bluntly, you are wrong.  David Underdown (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This category is retainable if renamed :Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in the United Kingdom, but it should not be a super cat for England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland, as these Roman Catholic national divisions do not corresponded with the state. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, Deacon - I don't follow this argument at all.  It is the United Kingdom category that doesn't make sense (because some of the Irish dioceses are partly in the UK and partly in the Republic).  The only diocese, if it is one, that is not wholly either within or without Great Britain is the Bishopric of the Forces.  I think it's easier to approach this by first asking 'Should there be a category for RC dioceses in the island of Ireland?'  Clearly yes - this reflects the Catholic hierarchy.  Should there then be one for Great Britain?  I think there should - it will have two sub-cats (Scotland and England and Wales), and two direct members - the Exarchate, and the BotF (as being the best place for it).  In line with David's argument, there is then no article in both a category and a sub-cat thereof.  What's wrong with that? Philip Trueman (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  My main problem with "Great Britain" is that it doesn't exist either as a state, a subdivision of the UK, or as a national division in the Catholic church. It is an island, and that's it. The United Kingdom is actually a state. If you oppose the use of United Kingdom as a category, then I can't see how one could reasonably support Great Britain. That's all. Regards,  Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great Britain exists as a geographical division of the Catholic church (why should it have to be a national division?) - witness the Exarchate.  It also exists as a subdivision of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - both legally (some laws are different in Northern Ireland) and in terms of geographical contiguity.  Philip Trueman (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The second part isn't true. You've observed that the name "Great Britain" is in the full name of the UK, but Great Britain has no legal existence within the UK. Laws unique to Northern Ireland are so because the same laws haven't been made for Scotland and England and Wales; there are a number of laws unique to Scotland, and to England and Wales too ... witness that England and Wales and Northern Ireland both have the same secondary education exams, Scotland has different ones. In general, there are more lawas shared by Northern Ireland and England and Wales than by either with Scotland, because the latter's legal system is of a completely different nature (mixed rather than Anglo-Saxon common law). The Forces bishopric covers the UK as a whole; the exarchate is an idiosyncratic development that only covered England and Wales until 1968. I can't find out if it covers Northern Ireland too ... but it's not part of the Roman Catholic church in Scotland. Really, there's almost nothing to back Great Britain. One of the reasons I so strongly oppose Great Britain is precisely because there are so many misconceptions about the legal existence of this place it is an island and no more. Arguably places such as Orkney, Shetland, the Isle of Man, etc, aren't part of it, so it's even worse than the UK. The UK is a state. If people need to duplicate the content of templates and have supercats .. I think you have to do so under United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. It's all rather silly and completely unnecessary! Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for deletion 

message: I've decided to come back. 
There are three issues which need to be sorted out here. Each of them need to be decided separately. 
The first, is whether the Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain ought to be deleted. Deacon is arguing it ought to be deleted, but as far as I can see he is the only one who has done so. I have nominated it up for Categories for deletion, and I was waiting for Deacon to put it up in the list. He has not. He has had a week to act on this. He has chosen not to do so. Therefore, I that discussion is over. I am going to pull off the listing for the Category for Deletion. Consensus has decided that the category should exist.  
The second, is what this category should be named. As far as I can see, Deacon is the only one suggesting it should be renamed "Roman Catholic dioceses in the United Kingdom". Do Philip and David agree that the category should stay "Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain"? 
The third, is how should the category be structured. I am willing to compromise on this issue and abide by the consensus that David and Philip have established. I think having the Category as "Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain" with two sub categories "Roman Catholic dioceses in England and Wales", and "Roman Catholic dioceses in Scotland" is the way to go. Do Philip and David agree that this is the solution to this issue? Is this acceptable to you?Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, WP:CONSENSUS does not define consensus as making up the minds of a few other users for them and disregarding everything else. Check it out, it really doesn't. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence the discussion here. I suggest you check this page BEFORE reverting my edits. I laid it all out here first, and you can check the timestamps to confirm. Consensus is pretty clear here. You are imposing your views on the other editors, and we must wait first for David and Philip. Do you contest me removing CFD from this article?Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did. All the arguments you made for the category have been debunked, and you've not made any new arguments. I've not CfDed this pointless category yet because I've got better things to do ... but I'll get around to it. Yes, you should remove the "CfD" because you didn't actually CfD it, you just tagged it as a CfD. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  PS, you're continuing to revert. This looks really bad and hypocritical after such a self-righteous post. You should probably stop. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then the category stands. You have had a week to carry it over from the list and make it show up. If it's so unimportant to you then by all means, spend your time on more worthy matters. As for the other matters, well you have had a week to convince David and Philip. That's not happened here. Your first response was not to read what I posted here but to revert. That is a sign to me that you continue not to abide by the wishes of other editors, rather you are seeking to impose your views on others. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're being very confrontational Benk, and no good will come for you with that approach here. You should let David and Philip speak for themselves; I was the last one to post before you renewed your revert spree after returning from your huff. The consensus is in your head. And I didn't, btw, see you'd commented here (not that's there's anything important) until after I saw (and reverted) your first revert. Please, btw, do not WP:Troll on my talk page. I'll just remove it. My talk page is for discussion and bringing things to my attention, not trolling. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence why I said we should wait for them. I have no problem abiding by whatever they decide is appropriate. You may feel that the consensus is all in my head, in that case, they will swiftly overrule my changes and you have nothing to worry about. I have informed them both on the talk page, that their opinions are requested in this discussion. As for your talk page, the history will show what I wrote there. I have no desire to cover up what I said. I simply informed you of the discussion here and that you should read this prior to reverting edits. That is what I brought to your attention.Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I saw, here ... some sucking up and then You've got what you wanted. Now I just need your help to make it stick.. This, far from being you simply "inform"ing, is in violation of the spirit, if not the word, of WP:Meatpuppet and WP:CANVASS, and probably for no good as David is an intelligent and strong individual. Anyways, as your comprehension of it appears to be weak, I'll recommend you re-read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy. My view on this will be determined by argument not number stacking. Enjoy your day! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you willing to abide by what David and Philip decide, or would you prefer a more neutral arbitrator? It's entirely up to you. I'd just like this dispute resolved so I can continue doing my work here. Oh and if you are calling me a meatpuppet, "The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used only with care, you've stepped over WP:CIVIL"Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said before, I will follow a discussion. We solve our editing disputes by discussion here on wiki. You'd be better off providing new arguments that haven't been debunked than trying to bully me with numbers and gross misunderstandings of wiki rules; Arguments please ... no argumentation has occurred since my last post on Feb. 14. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will add, I do hope for wider participation here. It is bad for both of us to appear to be so against each other. My goal is accuracy here. These articles minus the categories and pages you introduced are accurate and not misleading. Persuade me that this category isn't misleading, and you will see my opposition vanish like a sigh in a thunderstorm. But 1) the page of dioceses in the UK is superfluous and if it exists should be a dab page. What is the point in replicating content? 2) Regarding this category, I have argued it is misleading and pointless, but I'll repeat that I don't have such a problem with it (though it'd be better as UK) as a as long as it does not intervene between Europe and England and Wales, Scotland. These national churches aren't subsections of a Great Britain "national church", so shouldn't appear to be so. They are in Britain though so accuracy won't be a big problem otherwise. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not opposed to renaming the Cat, but it's always been Great Britain. Secondly, there is a need for this cat, to exist alongside all the other Roman Catholic diocese of X cats per nation. The argument that Roman Catholic church of X can be merged with the dioceses ignores the entire structure of the CC dioceses here on wikipedia.Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Solution