Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 7



Category:LessTif

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. I have added a link in the article to the sub-cat. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting lesstif


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. No need for an eponymous category to hold the main article and a single subcat. Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Tassedethe (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Not large enough to be justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Resurrection of Jesus

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Resurrection of Jesus to Category:Easter gospel episodes
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Small issue here, I noticed that the main parent categories are 'Gospel episodes' and 'Easter'. So it makes sense to name this category 'Easter gospel episodes' for reason of consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Some elements of the resurrection of Jesus are not about one particular resurrection gospel episodes, for example The Three Marys, or Category:Film portrayals of Jesus' death and resurrection‎ (removed by Marcocapelle). Also, while resurrection episodes can be called "Easter gospel episodes", no one would normally call them that. Choosing a strange name for a category makes it harder to find. tahc chat 03:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: You're right, I deliberately moved Category:Film portrayals of Jesus' death and resurrection‎ up by one level, as to make Category:Resurrection of Jesus more homogeneously in its content. The point is, when you're interested in the explanation of bible texts and found the Category:Gospel episodes you might well be willing to check 'Easter gospel episodes' too. While you wouldn't check 'Resurrection of Jesus'. Frankly, if you have have a better name that covers both aspects of the category, I'll be happy to support that. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:Common Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree entirely that Resurrection of Jesus is the common name. However, the parent category is Category:Easter and I would consider Category:Easter and Category:Resurrection of Jesus to be synonymous category names. While under it, there should be various aspects of Easter / the Resurrection of Jesus, e.g. Category:Film portrayals of Jesus' death and resurrection‎ and Category:Easter gospel episodes. Or maybe a better alternative for the latter is Category:Easter in the Bible
 * This was my final attempt and then I'll close the issue.Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure that this category has an exclusive parent. It probably has multiple parents so I wouldn't sweat the parentage thing. For example, I've just added Category:Jesus Christ as a parent - who's to say that this is not a natural parent? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep—shoving the key doctrine of Christianity into a vague category that appears to be dealing with pericopae doesn't make sense to me. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Current name more clear and straight forward.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * keep Believe it or don't believe it, but in any case this is what it's called. Mangoe (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bishops of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting bishops of the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints


 * Nominator's rationale: Essentially the same reasons as Category:Stake presidents of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which was recently deleted. Not a notable enough office, and too redundant a category, to justify a category. The people in this category meet the GNG for things other than being an LDS bishop, either by rising to higher office in the LDS Church, or by being notable in some aspect other than religion.  Since nearly all of the people in this category are in another LDS category, there is no loss of WP:DEFINING by removing it.   Any people who aren't in any other LDS categories can be recategorized in Category:Latter Day Saints or one of its subcategories.  FWIW, a bishop is the lay leader of a single congregation (~400 members); we do not have a corresponding category to this in other religions.  p  b  p  15:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. tahc chat 03:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose The decision on the stake presidents category was not done in line with good policy. It ignored the issue of whether things are defining to the people involved. For people holding these positions, holding them is defining. It has a deep significant to their outlook and who they are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The bishop is a pastor. As a matter of course, we have categories for people who serve as pastors in other religions. There is no good policy reason to not do so for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, just because its pastors are also expected to hold other jobs. In reality, many baptist and other protestant pastors especially at certain times, have also held other jobs, but as long as the person was for a time a pastor we will categorize them as such. Bishops may not be paid for their work, but they commit a large amount of their time to serving as such, and it is worth categorizing by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The consensus was I believe 5-1 in favor of deleting the stake president article; only you opposed it. Also, LDS bishops are more lay leaders than pastors.  Being a protestant pastor is generally a job that is held FULL-TIME for TWENTY TO THIRTY YEARS.  Being an LDS bishop is a job that is held PART TIME for a FEW YEARS.  So they're hardly analogous, and even if they were, since there are so many other LDS-related categories out there, this particular one isn't needed.  p  b  p  20:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The bishop is the pastor. That is a doctrinal view and position. The amount of time in the position is on both sides more variable than you suggest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I generally agree with the nominator's rationale that in most cases being an LDS bishop will not be defining, largely because bishop is a non-full-time position held by a lay leader. There are a few from the early days of the church where it might be, when it was more common for bishops to serve in the twenty to thirty year range. It's probably more towards being defining than being a stake president is, but those for whom being a bishop is defining are generally those in Category:Members of the Presiding Bishopric (LDS Church)‎ and its subcategories, which should be kept. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * delete It should be pointed out that talk about lay positions etc. is problematic given how different LDS polity and ordination are from those in episcopal or Protestant churches. Nonetheless, a review of the membership of the category shows the same issue as with stake presidency in many cases: people high up the LDS hierarchy tend to have held these relatively low positions as well. In addition there are large numbers who are prominent people who happen to be Mormons. What I'm not finding is people who are notable for being LDS bishops. The comparison with Protestant pastors or Catholic priests isn't accurate because there are lots of people who become notable as these types of ministers, and the few who are prominent for other reasons (e.g. John Danforth are also noted because the combination of minister and some other profession is unusual and remarked upon. Mangoe (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * An example of someone for whom being a bishop might be closer to defining than usual is Orange Seely, but even then being a bishop was somewhat ancillary to leading a settlement effort, so ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Buildings and structures on roads in Western Australia

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: no consensus on deleting, therefore rename. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures on roads in Western Australia to Category:Buildings and structures in Western Australia by road
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category is "intended to be more of a metacategory, breaking down buildings and structures by the road they are on, rather than by type (airport, hospital, etc) or location (city/suburb/town/locality/region)". For earlier discussions that lead to this proposal, see WT:WA and User talk:Evad37. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per my previous discussions with Mitch, linked above - Evad37 &#91;talk] 15:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an unnecessary level of categorization.  I did not see any similar categories and in general this is not how structures in Category:Buildings and structures are organized.  The is in effect a shared attribute for the structures which may or may not be defined by this fact.  This probably fails as WP:OC. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There's not much point in deleting this category without also deleting the subcategories; if you want to discuss that then those categories should be tagged for CFD and their creators notified. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 04:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, no that is not true. All of the streets go into Category:Streets in Australia or Category:Roads in Australia.  This category is simply not needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that goes completely against WP:SUBCAT, which says When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions[clarification needed]) to belong to the parent also. For each category, only one single entry, the road itself, would fit under Category:Roads in Australia or Category:Streets in Australia, while everything except that one entry fits within Category:Buildings and structures in Australia. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The larger question is: why are we categorizing buildings and structures into categories named after the roads they are on? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support evad's proposal - as to whether the category is not needed - there are in various parts of recent wikipedia glam projects where a specific locality and its features do indeed see a tie-in between roads and structures as being of vital use and need. 'Streets' or 'Roads; in a whole nation are in relation to this practically useless. I make comment here with reservations about the mushroom territory nature of this section of category decision making - as there is never any onus on the discussors for or against to actually go to the places where others may see - many of these discussions remain undiscovered until after the fact. satusuro 02:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This matter was raised at WT:WA (with an explicit link from there to here) because it is a West Australian category. Feel free to mention and link here from anywhere else that may be appropriate. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the category structure is not 'owned' or controlled by any Wikiproject. As a result, each WP does not dictate category policy. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree that this is an unnecessary level of categorization and probably invokes WP:OC. I don't think Wikipedia is meant to be a directory of what streets particular buildings are on. Probable deletion of most of the subcategories is a logical follow-up to my opinion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - one thing for CFD tragics to pass their judgement, another for where WikiTowns, and more recent variations of GLAM projects have to meet such responses. Whether OC/Trivial needs to be re-written is not even entertained.  There might be situations where the CFD frame of mind needs to stretch beyond the easy 'delete' button and have to think out of the usual strictures, god forbid we have to go to Wikimedia's Category review person and say hey the CFD territory has not only a monopolistic concern about cats, but they cannot see outta the dark hole they inhabit. satusuro 01:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have just as much right to comment as anyone other user. I don't appreciate the implied characterization of me as (1) a "CFD tragic", (2) exercising an "easy 'delete button", or (3) thinking within certain strictures or a dark hole. Please play nice or don't play at all. I have at least provided a guideline-based reason for my opinion; I can't see that a guideline-based reason for keeping this structure has been presented yet. If any user wants to open up OC/Trivial for discussion, I would welcome it—but for now, it is the guideline supported by most recent consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment/reply - the comment was not meant to be taken personally - it was made in a more generic sense - and I would have thought the perennial habituees here have at least accepted the fact that for over the last x years they have been the main inhabitants. The strictures/dark hole is in the nature of the beast - there is no obligation within the process to ever alert anyone as to what is going on here - unless there is a new reporting device that I am unware of, as to nice from someone well versed in the process of legalities, I would have thought a small broadside generic comment about this process would have been taken with at least a sense of resigned humour, as it apparently hasnt, I unreservedly apologise to Olfcatory if he has taken the point as a personal jibe, and I also feel sorry if he has in any ways been harmed by the imputations made. As to the general argument - I see that Ames and others are providing their element of the points of argument. satusuro 00:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, when a comment is indented beneath another's comments, it generally looks like a direct reply to the other's comment. But I accept your apology and understand that you didn't intend the comments to be taken how I took them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Rationale for not deleting – as to why the category exists at all: We did raise that question in the original discussions (linked in my original rationale). Specifically, "is the street a building is on a WP:DEFINING characteristic?" or "is categorising buildings by roads ... Intersection by location (overcategorisation)?" My answer was/is:
 * Mitch Ames (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is not defining. While the location could be defining in a small number of cases, that makes the inclusion criteria ambiguous and again not something we keep. Clearly an article like Western Australian Bank is not defined by the street it is on! Vegaswikian (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a very misleading example. The (unpiped) Western Australian Bank - if such an article existed - would not be categorised by road, because it probably had more than one branch. However the specific building that is the Western Australian Bank, Newcastle Branch (the target of your piped link) can be defined as the building at 108 Stirling Tce, Toodyay. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not misleading in any way shape or form since it is in fact in the category. This is a normal way of linking buildings when we are talking about a specific one! Vegaswikian (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's misleading because the visible text is an institution (not a building) that clearly does not belong under the category under consideration, but the link is to a specific building that is under that category and clearly belongs there. The reader might be led to believe that we are categorising such institutions by road, when we are not.

When we are talking about a specific building, we make the name of that building visible in the text, rather than hiding it behind the name of something that is not a specific building and which we are not suggesting should be under the category being discussed. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This also violates WP:OC. 19:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The category is not "Buildings and structures associated with a road", it is "... by road", where subcategories are specific roads, whose contents are explicitly stated by Cathead on road as being "[the specific road] and buildings, structures, and other features on it". In most cases, it is likely to be fairly clear decision as to whether an article is in the category or not. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No they are in the category because of their association to the road. The arguments above seek to use the address to establish their association.  In the end this is nothing more then a collection of building associated the road by having an address there.  That is not defining.  What is is the category about what it contains does not change the fact that the category is itself the issue and the problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at WP:OC, an association itself isn't the issue (e.g. Category:Obama family and Category:Obama Administration personnel are allowed), but rather determining what degree or nature of "association" is necessary to qualify a person for inclusion in the category (leaving aside that buildings aren't people... perhaps some of the WP:OC sections should be written more generally). An address is not a loosely defined association, and the inclusion criteria is neither WP:OC nor WP:OC. Also, if "nothing more then a collection of building associated the road by having an address there" was a reason for deletion, that would apply to any grouping of buildings by location: Category:Buildings and structures in Perth, Western Australia, Category:Buildings and structures in Western Australia, Category:Buildings and structures in Australia, etc. are all just a collection of buildings (and structures) associated by an address in a location. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom, then try to sort out (e.g. by putting inclusion criteria on categories) this categorization which puts articles like Stirling Gardens under a B&S category. DexDor (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.