Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-26975268-20130605193451/@comment-88790-20130606172826

I think you're over simplifying and trying to force categories on some things that aren't religions or to call them religions is over simplifying a complicated and vague topic. One that we are already fairly vague about on our page that discusses the topic. Considering how "religion" is used so interchangeably in some DW stories I think we need to be careful how we apply it in categorisation.

Here's a couple of examples where I think the category falls down.


 * Kurkutji, no where on Aborigine article does it even mention religion. Even going to real world sites "religion" is a term that's barely used.


 * Pilgrim, its page describes it as a "Pilgrim was a small Cardiff-based discussion group on metaphysical and philosophical matters". The term "religious" only turns up on one of the pages in the Pilgrim category.


 * Savants, who're a science-based group, contrasted against the Deons (the religious ones). Classifying Caris and Deedrix as "individuals by religion" is a little odd. They'd maybe be better as a sub-cat of Category:Groups.


 * Category:Faction Paradox members shouldn't be in the religion category as they're specifically identified as a Cult for which we have a separate page with its own definition.

I agree with SOTO we need definite proof that they're a member of the religion, definitely not an extrapolation based on the real world as Shambala108 queries.

I don't agree with SOTO that we should merge Category:Protestants and Category:Catholics as many characters are specifically identified as such, and I think that'd be over simplifying things. I think we do need to go through those categories and make sure we have proof those characters belong to those specific denominations and if not then maybe push them into the CategoryChristians category if they're non-specific about their specific beliefs.