Category talk:Churches in Brussels

Category mismatch

Hello. I see that people have categorised here all churches in Brussels-Capital Region, but that's a mistake:

• "Churches in xxx" categories normally group churches in the same municipalities, not regions;
• Churches are better grouped by diocese, not region, as already done for Flemish and Wallon municipalities; the current structure of this Brussels category will make things quite odd when categorised in its archdiocese.

So I'll move the "Churches in xxx" to the Archdiocese category and add a note to this category. — Bjung (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose - see Category talk:Belgium. Nobody knows the borders of the various communes in Brussels (that change from time to time), so Brussels is always the supercat. --Foroa (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

So, there's just the overcategorisation in the Archdiocese left as a solution, ok? — Bjung (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Roman Catholic churches category for Brussels: how?

We need one to categorise in Category:Churches in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Mechelen-Brussels. The choice is between:

• Category:Roman Catholic churches in Brussels City (simple to do)
• Category:Roman Catholic churches in Brussels (which must then include all Roman Catholic church categories for Brussels-Capital municipalities)

— Bjung (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

As around 99 % of the churches in Belgium are Roman Catholic, it makes not sense whatsover to create Roman Catholic church categories as they will be redundant for 99 % of the existing cats: we need special categories for the churches that are not Roman catholic. There are a couple of percents of churches that are Roman Catholic but that do not belong to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese (ex: Category:Church of Kortrijk (St-Antonius)) and that belong to the Passionists, Benedictines, Brothers of xxx, monasteries, hospitals, schools, former churches no longer used as church, ruins ...). The role of Commons is to make things findable, so I doubt that spending energy on categories by diocese will help.

What might be more helpful is to follow the structure or the vicariats and parishes such as in nl:Categorie:Aartsbisdom_Mechelen-Brussel. --Foroa (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Dioceses have been organised well before the fusion of communes in Belgium so don't follow exactly the province borders and some municipalities might form part of several dioceses. The church of nl:Sint-Katrien (plaats) falls under 3 municipalities but under the Kuurne federation, don't know if there are many cases like that. Izegem and Tournai have several federations, some federations fall under other dioceses (Dour belongs to France). So the make correct diocese categories, you'll have to add the churches one by one, not the whole group in a city. --Foroa (talk) 08:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with adding all churches of all municipalities one by one, at least for now, mainly for practical reasons. As the grand majority of churches in Belgium are Roman Catholic and the grand majority of municipalities have all their churches belonging to the same diocese, we do NOT need to create special Roman Catholic categories for all of them. It's also much easier to categorise in diocese per category; otherwise, will YOU be the one who will spend all his time categorising ALL churches AND other individual images into the diocese categories? I certainly won't do it manually, it's too much work, not only at start up, but also on an ongoing basis when people add images and church categories; that work is also an exact duplicate of categorisation in "Churches in xxx" for church categories and images. Working with the bulk categories now also has the great advantage that a simple look at a diocese category give us a quick and rough indication on the progression of the church categories structure: a "Churches in xxx" including too few subcategories or too many images indicates more work is needed; adding the churches one by one may well be the best solution but doing it now would be premature and a big mess to assess during this church category development period.

Creating non-Roman Catholic categories as you suggest doesn't help solve the diocese categorisation problem at all, in both cases (bulk or individual categories in dioceses), assuming we keep the generic and useful "Churches in xxx" top-level categories, think about it.

Of course we'll have to handle the relatively rare special cases now, but creating more fine-grained categories into "Churches in xxx" should then suffice; there shouldn't be too many anyway. Those extra categories would also be very useful to separate the "normal" mainstream-religion "active" churches from the rest inside the same "Churches in xxx" category, otherwise it's not easy to do.

As for making things findable, I don't see why it wouldn't be the case with dioceses. It's the same kind of problem finding a municipality from the Provinces category or finding a village from a specific province category.

If you don't find the Roman Catholic churches subcategories or other subcategories useful (for instance Category:Roman Catholic churches in Ixelles), then, in addition to deleting them I must ask you to add all the churches one by one to the (arch)dioceses, otherwise your edits are a clear regression; that's as simple as that. You have no right to arbitrarily force extra work on others. Others do not "have to" do what you say in the absence of agreement. — Bjung (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I added the Ixelles churches to Churches in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Mechelen-Brussels. If you start to create Roman Catholic church subcats to some church cats, you have to do them all (or some other people will continue to do that, so you force extra work on others), so you are shifting the work from the diocese cats to the Roman catholic cats. There must be other ways instead of making very approximate diocese lists. I asked the opinion of LimoWreck, one of the main authors of the diocese lists in Belgium. --Foroa (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I checked and in the Category:Roman Catholic churches in Ixelles you made, 3 pictures don't belong to the diocese. In Category:Roman Catholic churches in Uccle, there is one that don't belong to the diocese. I would suggest that if there is a need for further split, we call it "Diocese federation of Ixelles" so it can not only include the churches but equally the few rectories and vicaries, while avoiding the confusion and overcategorisation. Moreover, as most dioceses will be cut down seriously in the coming years because the lack of priests and money, it will simplify maintenance. --Foroa (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what this discussion is exactly about. All I known: a while ago, the categories used to be more or less OK, putting churches in their municipality (and it's fine to group the brussels municipalities together: though the municipality borders may be a bit difficult). Furthermore:

• All those "Roman Catholic churches..." categories: I'd say: get rid off those ASAP and stick to "Churches in ...". Churches in Belgium are historically catholic. Period. The very few anglican, orthodox or protestant churches are rarities: create dedicated categories for those.
• Even categorisation by diocese: in my opinion, that's not something for commons. The scope of commons is making it possible to find media (images) in a structured and more or less known way. Overview per diocese: that's detailed and specialized information, which is great for Wikipedia, but don't annoy commons with that. E.g.: English football clubs: you can put them in a country category. You can add them to a municipality. But you don't care on commons if they're playing in the Premier League, The Championship, League One, etc...: those are organisational details for Wikipedia. Don't bother commons with those details: people want to find media of a football club, not the full organisational details: that's what's Wikipedia is for. Likewise for churches: in Belgium you want to find buildings in a municipality or in the whole country, because people are mainly looking for those special landmark buildings. Creating diocese categories won't help much. (or it should be a parallel category tree, so the normal tree isn't messed up) Moreover: some churches aren't used for religious services anymore, so they don't "belong" to the diocese anymore. Yet, people often don't care that the church isn't used for services: it's still their village church, or a well known town church. So people will go looking for it in the (churches of the) municipality categories. Like they care (or even known) that a church isn't used anymore, or strictly isn't part of the diocese anymore. You could even argue it's still on the "territory of" the diocese, etc... Oh, and what about the churches that belong to religious catholic orders and have nothing to do with the diocese ? That would all just lead to cumbersome discussions and unmaintainable headaches that are helping no-one, and are IMHO not something to bother commons with. --LimoWreck (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)