Category talk:Leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Stake Presidents
I am going to create a category for Stake Presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It seems like the natural connection between the General Authorities category and the Bishops category. --TrustTruth 18:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't see much of a need for a Bishops or a Stake Presidents category. The reason being that there are few individuals who are noteworthy for being a Bishop or a Stake President. If a person is noteworthy due to something other than their church involvement (ie academis, politics, sports, entertainment) then it is appropriate to include them in the "members" category. If they are noteworthy because of their church involvement, then they most likely belong in a category such as "leader" "general authority" or perhaps "LDS writer" or something like that. I don't see Bishop or Stake President as being a useful category, as few people are noteworthy for BEING a Bishop or a Stake President (perhaps viable exceptions may include some very early church leaders which can then go in the appropriate leadership category). Isaac Crumm 03:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your point, and certainly being a bishop is not enough to get you into Wikipedia, just as being from Vermont isn't enough either (although "People from Vermont" is its own category). However, I believe these categories are useful in categorizing the church involvement of people who are noteworthy for other reasons, e.g. Mitt Romney, who was a Stake President or local leader. Giving Romney the more-general "Leaders of the Church of ..." category implies that he was some kind of general authority, as he would then fall into the same list as, say, Parley P. Pratt. My arguments for these more-specific categories are (1) they are (in general) for people who are noteworthy for reasons other than their church position; and (2) the categories serve to clarify those notable individuals' church involvement. (The obvious exception to #1 is for certain people in the early days of the church who may at least partially be notable because of their positions, e.g. Edward Partridge.) --TrustTruth 03:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I just don't see the point in categorizing people as Bishops, Stake Presidents, Patriarchs; if they are a general authority then that should be categorized, if they are not then simply in the LDS member category should suffice IMHO. Isaac Crumm 04:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)