Category talk:Catholic Church

message: Now we have a "sack of cats", if you will, containing :Category:Roman Curia, :Category:Curial Congregations, :Category:Diplomats of the Holy See, :Category:Vatican City, and :Category:The Papacy.  Isn't there a way to consolidate these five categories into one or two?  Categories are supposed to make it easier to find articles, not to entangle the reader into a seemingly arbitrary hierarchical structure. --Smack (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A dissent.  :Category:Vatican City needs to be kept seperate as it is a sovereign state.  :Category:The Papacy is a fairly wide ranging category that needs to include more than the administrative structures as it has theological, historical and ceremonial articles that can also hang off this.  Not everything in :Category:Roman Curia can be included in :Category:Curial Congregations, although the congregations are a clearly defined category.  As long as the inclusion criteria are clear (for both articles and sub categories) and properly followed, where is the problem?  JASpencer 12:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I should say re the above comment that I'm perfectly willing to accept that the inclusion categories may be unclear or not followed.  If this is the case let's sort this out first.  JASpencer 13:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proliferation of Vatican-related categories 

message: There are far too many subcategories of :Category:Roman Catholic Church and far too many parallel categories. I found the article Veneration in :Category:Roman Catholic worship.  With so many categories, it's too easy for things to be inappropriately categorized.
I think there needs to be some serious discussion regarding any categories related to the Catholic Church. --Elliskev 17:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the older uncorrectly named ones would benefit from being moved from "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic...". Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subcategories 

message: I just created the new page titled lay cardinal.  I don't know which pages ought to link to it, but at this time only Giacomo Antonelli links there.  Perhaps those who read this talk page can link more pages to this now nearly orphaned article. Michael Hardy 05:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  lay cardinal 

message: Question... While browsing the articles contained in :Category:Catholicism and Freemasonry there are a bunch of stub articles on various Papal Encyclicals that really do not say anything beyond the fact that the encyclical was against Freemasonry.  (See, for example, Annum ingressi and Mirari Vos).  Some don't even say that much (see: Inimica vis).  Would it not make more sense to combine these into one article?  Say: "Papal Encyclicals condeming Freemasonry" or something.  I can understand that some of them deserve their own articles (Humanum Genus for example), but many of them could probably be combined in some form.  Oh... a disclosure before someone yells foul... I come to this from both sides of the coin: I am a Catholic (not a "good" one in many eyes, but still a Catholic) and, yes, I am a Freemason. The suggestion stems from neither of these... I simply hate ultra stubby articles. Blueboar 20:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree with combining the articles. Instead, read the encyclicals and expand the articles with appropriate commentary. These are both religious and state documents and deserve their own articles. TMLutas 19:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub articles on Papal Encyclicals 

message: please see my proposal here. --Richard (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I commented on the WikiProject_Catholicism page, I think this is a disaster of an idea. It will create confusion when churches say Roman on their physical door, and users can not be sure if they are really Roman via the category structure here. It will be a dis-service to Wikipedia users. And what is to be gained here? An attempt at a universal church via a free encyclopedia? Amazing..... History2007 (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been hotly discussed over the years and resolved in favor of the NPOV practice of calling the Church what it calls itself: The Catholic Church. "Roman Catholic", properly speaking, only applies to a part of that Church, either synonymous to the Latin Church or to the Church (Diocese) of Rome. All the category pages should follow the same standard, that is, "Catholic" not "Roman Catholic". (Just search the Vatican website: "Catholic" to "Roman Catholic" is favored by a margin of 20:1.)  Protoclete (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationalizing the use of "Catholic" vs. "Roman Catholic" in article titles 

message: There is a reason why pages on the Catholic church should reflect the teachings of the Catholic church and not those of other churches. If you wish to add this picture to other pages, feel free to do so, just not this one. Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the illustration? What's wrong with it exactly? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The illustration claims that the Catholic church as an organization originated after the Great Schism. This is contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches. Unless you have evidence to substantiate this fact, it needs to go. Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The illustration is dumb. It makes no claims. What you see in it is in your brain. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If the illustration cannot substantiate itself then it needs to be removed. Benkenobi18 (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The illustration is completely useless on this category page. The only reason for its inclusion seems to be an attempt to violate WP:NPOV and the ensuing edit war is WP:POINTy. Please remove it, and keep it gone. Elizium23 (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm getting conflicting signals here. Elizium wants it removed because it's useless. BenK wants it removed because it is useful in supporting a claim to which the Church does not subscribe. Which is it guys? Useless or not useless? From my perspective, the inclusion of the illustration has everything to do with NPOV - it maintains NPOV because all major faith families within Christianity are represented equally. What could be fairer or more neutral than that? It makes no claims about any one branch. If it did, then that would be to advance a POV. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it here, on a Category page? It seems that a category description should be short, concise, and completely relevant. A study of branches of Christianity is wholly irrelevant to a category which only covers the Roman Catholic Church. There is no other mention of the Assyrian Church, the Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, or anything but the Catholic Church in this page, so why bring them up in the first place? The only purpose it serves is to make an inappropriate WP:POINT. Elizium23 (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is on this page because the Catholic Church is one of the terminal points illustrated. If you care to look at the category page for each of the other terminal points, you will find the same illustration present. So no special treatment. No pointiness. Just plain NPOV. Just helpful wikiness. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well why didn't you say so! , please stop edit-warring with her. She appears to be right. Elizium23 (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because LaurelLodged added it, to the other pages. Arguing that the Roman Catholic church was not founded by Christ is still POV!Benkenobi18 ([[User talk:Benkenobi18|talk]19:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Where in the illustration does it say that the Roman Catholic church was not founded by Christ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of unnecessary header 

message: Don't you find it remarkable that the single largest Christian denomination/Christian denominational family according to you won't qualify for categorisation in :Category:Christian denominational families? Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A Christian denomination is not a Christian denomination family-- so even being the biggest Christian denomination doesn't make you a Christian denomination family either. Why would that be remarkable? tahc chat 22:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, aren't many "Christian denominational families" themselves sort of Christian denominations? Why can't :Category:Catholic Church be categorised both as a Christian denomination, which it is, as well as a Christian denominational family too, considering that it does in fact include other Christian denominations in the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches? Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sometimes people refer to Christian denominational families (e.g. "Lutheranism") by the term "denomination" even though our system only considers things like "Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America" a denomination. If we had a different category system we might lump both such things (and perhaps others) as if they were all denominations, but that does not seem to be a better system to me. More important to this issue is that it is not the category system that we do have. tahc chat 13:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suppose the nomenclature here is a bit vague, and it's hard to discuss, really. Third party opinions would be welcome. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Christian denominational families