Category:Roman Catholic church buildings in Montana[edit]
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 result of the discussion was:rename; I took the old/previous discussions into account when closing this discussion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In Catholic speak these are church buildings, often functionally the same as parishes, although parishes sometimes have multiple buildings. In Catholicism Church is used for a much higher level organization, so I do not think we should introduce such confusion here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You made that same point repeatedly (in different ways) during those protracted naming discussions last year. The ended with consensus to rename the "church buildings" categories to "churches". After that discussion series finally concluded last year, there has been remarkably little controversy or confusion about the "churches" categories. Notwithstanding the specific meaning it has when it is part of a proper noun like "Roman Catholic Church" and "Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints", the word "church" has a dual meaning, so that these categories can easily accommodate articles about buildings along with articles about church congregations. I fervently hope that we can "let sleeping dogs lie" and avoid reopening the broad topic of church categories again. (Also, note that three of the nine articles in the Montana Roman Catholic church buildings category are not parish churches, but cathedrals.) --Orlady (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I think we had a fine merrygoround on this some years ago. At one point, churches became congregations, then they were renamed to church buildings; now we seem to be back to churches. "Church" in its origin referred to Christians as those "called out" of the world. I then came to refer a group of Christians who came together to worship; hence to the building in which they worshipped. In practice most church articles are about the building, but they may also deal with the minister (or priest or pastor) leading the church. This makes it convenient for the articles to be categorised as "church". Parish is also a word used in a variety of contexts, sometimes depending on the extent to which the denomination has organised boundaries between the area in which differnet local churches minister. A cathedral is a variety of church, distinguished by having the bishop's throne in it. Categories often have to cover differnet things that are slightly diverse, so that it is often useful to use a word that can bear several different meanings. Yes, "church" can also refer to the denomination, but the plural rarely will. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, "church" can mean many things, but in this context it is used to refer to congregations and the buildings in which they worship. Catholics, at least in my experience, have no problem referring to a group of people who attend mass at a certain building as a church. The problem of "church" referring to a larger organization is not particular to Catholics. I can speak for Presbyterians who refer to denominations as churches, while local congregations are technically "particular churches." The building exists as a place for the congregation to worship, otherwise it ceases to be a church, so we can safely say that every article on a church building includes a congregation in its scope. --JFH (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Jfhutson's first sentence. Vegaswikian's comment (which the nominator quotes) is really irrelevant — articles should cover both parish and building, so there's no good reason to ask "which is this" as if we were intentionally having separate articles for the two. "Church buildings" makes it sound as if we're trying to exclude articles that don't focus on the buildings; the proposed name's ambiguity is good because we should attempt to have both the organization and the building in the same article. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split into both as needed. Most of these articles are based on the buildings. When an article covers both the building and congregation then it should be included in both category trees. The discussion here seems to favor ambiguity which we try to avoid in category names. Where is it written that we can only use one category for an article? The proposals to rename fail to consider that some of these articles belong in both. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm coming around to this PoV. Bonnie and Clyde is in categories for both people, so I guess articles about two things can be in conflicting categories. I do think churches are unique as organizations in being identified with their buildings, but they are certainly different things, and there's no reason not to categorize them appropriately. --JFH (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2013 (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.
Nominator's rationale: The California Statutes is the common name of the California government publication called the "Statutes of California" which are similar to the United States Statutes at Large. But this category is used generically for legislation, and such a category to typically named "[JURISDICTION] legislation". The Statutes of California does not need its own category. This category was from a long time ago before these categories, or knowledge, were so developed. Int21h (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All the state subcategories of Category:United States state legislation use the form <state> statutes, so they should all be renamed or none of them should be renamed. Tim! (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- in my country (UK) not all legislation is a statute. There is also subordinate legislation. I do not know about American practice. I cannot beleivbe that we need two categories, and have no strong view which it should be. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For consistency with other categories and for other reasons given above. Statutes are laws on the books of the state, while "legislation" consists of bills that are passed. Legislation may create statutes, but it also can amend statutes. Also, as Peterkingiron notes, some legislative actions are resolutions neither create statutes nor amend them. If there are articles about resolutions or about specific bills that passed but that don't correspond with statutes, then additional categories might be needed. --Orlady (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2013 (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.
