Category talk:Religion

Open articles in category:religion are 1) the main page to any subcategory, 2) any major religion (I took some of the tiny cults off the list), 3) terms about religion in general, 4) terms that apply to several religions so they don't really live in a clear subcategory. Anything that related to a specific religion was moved to the sub category in the religion section. In theory, all of these should have the template:religion, unless there is a more appropriate template. Articles that did not have a specific subcategory within religion were not moved. GodotThe Peyote God awaits 22:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. What's next? 22:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL, slowing going through all the sub cats, making sure they have good cats. The nice thing is it's a way to look at each article, and see if there's anything you can contribute. I stuck about 10 or 15 on my user page to play with, when i have time. GodotThe Peyote God awaits 22:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

OH, and S. i forgot to finish S. so there's that tonite or tomorrow. or someday.GodotThe Peyote God awaits 22:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I call the process of moving all articles from a major category into its subcategories "metacatifying," and I did it a while ago to Category:Politics. I am of the opinion that this whole category should be metacatified, actually. I don't think any article besides Religion belongs in this cat. Blue (pester) 22:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure why not? I tried doing that to Politicians a while ago, I guess I should finish. 23:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I can spot several that are generally about religion and wouldn't go into something more specific. ADK^{...I'll legislate your minefield!} 23:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Such as...? Blue (pester) 23:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Gateway religion, God, Apostasy, Cult, Dogma - all things to do with religion in a more generic capacity. Sure, it's a big cat, but meta-category is not the way. ADK^{...I'll loll your hostel!} 23:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, One world religion, Fundamentalism... Or are you thinking of a mass replacement with Category:religious terms? ADK^{...I'll feast your hailstone!} 23:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC)All of those can be put into more specific cats. Gateway religion would fit into religious terms and fundamentalism, God already fits into deities and Biblical figures, apostasy goes with religious terms and religious disengagement... Blue (pester) 23:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

a bit like a librarian. at the top level, you have things that realate directly to religion. that relate to all religions, and that are about the concepts in general. then as you build downword, you specificy. but to remove the rest of what i've left in religion out, is not to get that "religion really serves something.GodotThe Peyote God awaits 23:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)(e)

I was really quite careful when I moved each of these, and when i left the ones i left. This is my field of "expertese" as it were, and they really do make general sense as a general catigory under religion. Also, we use navigation tools, and you want the "religion" nav to pull up the large religions, the general topics, etc. GodotThe Peyote God awaits 23:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(ECx2)Sure we might have to create some more categories, but I don't think more variety is a bad thing. Categories are supposed to help you find similar articles, which isn't happening in a cat with 250+ members. Blue (pester) 23:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, blue it is fine. The articles left all have a very specific set of conditions and they relate to each other and make navigation more easy. And many of what are left are IN other cateories, but they hold the religion category because of the navigation propertyGodotThe Peyote God awaits 23:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Said category is also required for the random dpl in the templates to work. We could replace it all with a hidden maintenance category that's read by the dpl if anyone is up for that. But Nx is planning on doing something to dpl soon so I'm not sure whether to jump on that or not. ADK^{...I'll watch your nuke!} 23:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(addendum)I did, of course, consider using band new maintenance categories for the random article lists, but that would have required adding them to all articles. So it was built on the existing category structure (or lack of) instead. But in the majority of cases the separate category in the code has been stripped off where it's added by transclusion, so just changing it on the template to a hidden maintenance one should hit most of them. ADK^{...I'll model your anchovy!} 23:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC)I appreciate your work, don't get me wrong, but to me there is still such a wide variety of articles (even if they're mostly general topics) in this category to make it difficult to use. That's one of the reasons why WP tries not to have any articles in their religion cat. That's my opinion, I'll not try and foist it upon the site if you guys disagree. Blue (pester) 23:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see any need to reduce it any further, well other than S, which i'm finishing now. At some point, people using the "religion nav" should see articles about religion, including not only generic ones like "sacred" and "secular", but ones that bring you directly into another nav bar, which is why i deliberately left the head article for sub cats. so if you are in "religion" and link on hinduism, it will bring up all the hinduism articles in it's own nav system. but you want people to be able to browse from the Portal religion and from the nav systems. @ ADK, i'm not sure i understood a thing you said about the nav system. I saw a ref that NX wanted to change things, but i read his request and said to myself "geek greek". do we need to do different kinds of navs now? GodotThe Peyote God awaits 23:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Blue - the 200 or so articles left all make sense as "religion" articles. Yes, some are also terms, but that's not a reason to remove them from the religion portal as a single link. Again, you are trying to give people access to general religion concepts, as well as topical links. You've given no reason other than "it's confusing", but as someone who lives in this world daily, the articles are carefully and specifically chosen to be independent articles because they link to things that are ABOUT religion. --GodotThe Peyote God awaits 23:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, wikipedia's religion portal is absolutely huge -- they have nearly 30,000 articles in the religion portal at large. They have some 100 sub categories. And they don't use side bar navigation. You cannot reasonably compare the two. (sorry, i kept missing your posts in edit conflicts. don't mean to beat dead horses)GodotThe Peyote God awaits 23:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, yes, the nav bars should try to have some semblence of consistency so a random link doesn't magically replace it with another. That's something to figure out. Now, the bars themselves generate a category. If we made the category the template searched for the same as the one it includes, that would instantly solve the problem of the template changing when you click a random article. BUT that comes at the price that a bar needs to be added to every article. Now I doubt Nx is going to alter the basic functionality of dpl when he's done, but it's still an open question what the end product will look like, so I'm just thinking "first things first". ADK^{...I'll crackle your disaster!} 23:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, i'm going to be working on these religion cats for a while. lots of subs and subs in subs. But do please let me know if i should be doing something differently - especially if it will cause nx more of a headache. I was planning on adding navs for Cults, for Fundamentalism, and we'll see what else as it "speaks to me". if i should wait on navs, just give me a shout.GodotThe Peyote God awaits 00:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not that it's a problem, just that the code will have to be replaced. It's a simple matter, but one that means "more templates = more work" ADK^{...I'll swirl your Etch-a-Sketch!} 00:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Nods. if i just stick a commented out line of "there will be a Cults template here" would that be better for the short term? I really don't want to make MORE work for anyone. the point for me is just to make religion look pretty, be logcial, and work well. ;-) GodotThe Peyote God awaits 00:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're inclined to make it, make it and use it. We have the best part of 4000 articles to sift through and sort through, so it's going to be a big job regardless of what order it happens in! ADK^{...I'll soak your homology!} 00:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"Historical battle"

I question this grand narrative. It seems to me to be too reductionist. Also are religion and science really incompatible? If that were the case I don't think religious scientists would exist. Hell, an argument can be made that God or the Gods gave us reason to explore and understand Creation, which is what the process of science is. I question the leading text in this category, and don't think it's really accurate. Vee (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)