Closer's notes
The argument was made that 'place of worship' is a more logical choice of terminology than 'property' in light of the fact that the main category under discussion is a subcategory of Category:Places of worship in the United States. The counter-argument was that not all NRHP properties "of religious function" are places of worship, so renaming to 'places of worship' would cause errors of categorization, and that 'property' reflects the terminology used by the NRHP itself.
The argument emphasizing consistency has merit but seems to overlook the fact that the category system consists of multiple, overlapping trees, which may require differing conventions and terminologies. We can define the scope of categories to suit our needs—e.g., in theory, we could have both Category:Properties of religious function on the National Register of Historic Places and Category:Places of worship on the National Register of Historic Places, though I do not recommend it—but must attempt, as much as possible, avoid category names that are ambiguous or misleading as to their scope. Consistency with the naming of existing, general Wikipedia categories is undoubtedly desirable in general, but not at the expense of accuracy. In this case, an exceptionally-compelling reason was not produced to use the terminology of one particular parent category tree instead of the terminology used in the real world by the NRHP.
-- Black Falcon (talk) 06:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... And numerous other categories (for U.S. states and other U.S. jurisdictions) that are named according to one of these patterns.