Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Christians

The following discussion comes from Categories for deletion. This is an archive of the discussion only; please do not edit this page. -Kbdank71 17:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Christians
To be renamed to Category:Christian people. Current one-word name is ambiguous, and too close to&mdash;therefore confusing with&mdash;a number of its sibling and child categories that use the singular form of its current name, "Christian", such as child category Category:Christian leaders. Puts this category into parallel phrasing with those categories, and also more in line with its parent category, Category:People by religion. --Gary D 03:02, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Note: I still like Category:Christians better, but I don't particularly mind the other and since I am the only one who objects, then let's go for it. This should be a precedent for sibling categories. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel (" Sarah ")]] 18:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Note that if this is done, it will be necessary to rename all of the siblings in Category:People by religion. I'm not convinced that this is necessary, though. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel (" Sarah ")]] 03:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think such a renaming would be a good idea. Single word categories split between singular and plural have generally turned out to be less than optimal, because they are unclear and ambiguous. (Note that the parent category here was not called "Religionists".) --Gary D 04:08, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * But there is no Category:Christian. Or, for that matter, Category:Jew, Category:Muslim, etc. These are generally adjectives used as nouns&mdash;it's not the same as relgion and religions. Christian people is redundant. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel (" Sarah ")]] 15:43, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Indeed there is no category titled "Christian," and for that I am grateful. I agree the confusion with "religion" and "religions" may be worse, but I hope "not as bad confusion" does not justify inaction. It's not clear to me that "Christian people" is redundant, since there are non-Christian people, and "Christian people" is useful in distinguishing from "Christian denominations" and "Christian texts", to give examples of two of its sibling categories that have the parallel form, "Christian [plural noun]". Certainly "Christian people" could be called redundant to "Christians" in the sense that they mean the same thing; my goal here is simply quick and clear reader visual understanding upon browsing the subcategory list, and I intend no change in category scope. I recognize that the single-word plural noun system has something of a foothold here, but I consider that insufficient to justify the system's retention when it is less than optimally clear to the reader, and may fail to announce its differences from its siblings and parent categories. If this is a better way, the sooner we move over to it, the better. --Gary D 19:32, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * In that case, perhaps it would be wise to nominate the sibling categories in order to give folks who may be following them a chance to weigh in? (What do you intend to do with "Zen masters"?) -[[User:Aranel|Aranel (" Sarah ")]] 22:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I posted notices in the sibling categories (except "Zen masters"), inviting people to come over and weigh in on this issue. I intend to do nothing with "Zen masters" (except maybe move it under a "Buddhist people" category) since it's a two-word phrase unambiguous in its context. I would feel differently if its parent category were "Zen mastery", for which I would then want the child categories to be "Zen master people", "Zen master doctrines", "Zen master organizations", Zen master history", etc. --Gary D 02:01, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)