Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 12

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< May 11 May 13 >

May 12

Category:Church buildings in the United States by state

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: Rename and perform necessary pruning/splitting manually. There's a feeling on both sides that there should also be an RFC on this matter to get an overall final consensus but for now the consensus is to rename these. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Restore the old name for the container category and all of its contained state-level categories, per discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 3#Church building back again that resulted in "no consensus" to rename the remaining state-level categories. The current naming situation is inconsistent. "Churches" is a better choice for these categories; although many of the individual articles in the contained categories are focused on buildings occupied by churches, many of them are about churches. While the term "church buildings" is specific to only one of these topics, the term "churches" can encompass both. If there is a perceived need for a category hierarchy for buildings occupied by churches (for example, to hold state-specific subcategories of Category:Wooden churches in the United States), it can be created as a separate hierarchy. Orlady (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I think my split suggestion is the prune that jc37 is suggesting. Better to split then abandon valid trees. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree (prune/split). Some may also need renames per he comments of JPL below, where some religious groups use other words (like temple or synagogue) for community assembly. But the renames (and more complex splits) can be dealt with in future noms and/or at editorial discretion. - jc37 03:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Churches and Church buildings are clearly different things. The
    Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Church of England are Churches. They are not buildings. In Latter-day Saints usage no one would ever accept putting an article on a Church building in a category named "Churches". On the other hand some Churches exist without having a building at all. Churches are religious units, their size and whther they are stand alone congregations or networks of thousands varry, but to conflate Church and Church building into being the same term is just wrong. They are not the same thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment It only makes sense to have two of the subcats of Category:Church buildings in Utah there if we leave in the buildings. There is no way that Latter-day Saint tabernacles and meetinghouses can ever be described as "Churchs" they only fit the descriptor of "church buil;dings". Categories like Category;Roman Catholic Churches in Utah and Category:Greek Orthodox Churches in Utah ought to be renamed to have buildings. Within Roman Catholicism "Church" could be used as an alternate word for diocese, but it is just wrong to use it as an alternate word for parish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Propose moratorium, pending an RFC. I supported some of the CfDs which renamed these categories to the "church buildings" format, but am now neutral on the subject because it is clear that the result has not produced a stable consensus. There are good arguments on both sides of this debate, and no easy solution is in sight ... so I suggest that the best way forward is to close any CfDs on churches and their buildings and have a wider discussion at an RFC. It is clear so far that the process of having a series of individual discussions is not leading to consistent or stable outcomes, and the result is unhelpful to both readers and editors. An RFC provides an opportunity to clarify the the issues and lay the basis for a solution which which takes the controversy out of these discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for proposal: As I explained before it is the proper name for churches category. Do not mixed with faith name - Church. It is also a category name similar to other wikis. --Władysław Komorek (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nomination. As I pointed out in previous discussion, our articles do not in general separate out the story of the congregation from that of the place where it meets, for the reason that in general they cannot be separated. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create both schemes and maintenance-tag for manual sorting. "Churches" and "church buildings" are completely different things and should not be lumped together in the first place. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree that two schemes seems to be the best option. Some articles are only about buildings, some are only about church organizations, and some are about both. One single category scheme can't deal appropriately with all three types of article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note that some of us got our wrists slapped back in February (one editor was accused of
    disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point) for recreating categories like Category:Churches in Connecticut and Category:Churches in Tennessee after the categories that formerly had those names were speedily-renamed to the "Church buildings" form. The message was that the "Churches" nomenclature was now strictly forbidden. However, no one has come up with a satisfactory substitute name for a category to contain articles about entities that are universally known as "churches." Also, since that time I see that someone did create Category:Church buildings in Idaho as a category separate from Category:Churches in Idaho. --Orlady (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment. Given that this discussion has not yet concluded, I'm not sure why this nomination was started. It seems to me that that one should be resolved, and then we should go from there based on how it is closed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My apologies for not searching to ensure that there were no related discussions ongoing before I started this one. I don't often deal with articles and categories about churches in Bangladesh, Honduras, etc., so my attention had not been drawn to that discussion. I have, however, been repeatedly annoyed by the fact that categories like Category:Episcopal churches in Tennessee and articles that focus on the history, pastoral leadership, membership recruitment practices, politics, and similar non-building-related aspects of a local church are forced into categories (or subcategories of categories) that are named "Church buildings". Additionally, when creating new categories such as Category:Baptist churches in Wisconsin (one that I created a day or so ago), I've found it annoying to have to check to see if the state in question was one that had a "churches" category or one that had a "church buildings" category. --Orlady (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my arguments in the current other discussion & previous ones, & per nom. BHg's suggestion of an RFC may be a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There was no benefit in splitting those categories in the first place. The world is sometimes ambiguous, get used to it. Ephebi (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For as problematic as NRHP stubs have been to begin with, here's another issue I see which especially applies to many of those articles. If a church is primarily recognized for its building, such as being listed on the NRHP, will that be used as a pretense to ignore or disregard the presence of a current, active congregation regularly meeting in said building? I can actually see this being a problem in the case of small, rural communities, for which little is known to the world at large outside of census data.RadioKAOS (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Olfactory, the current other discussion, etc. tahc chat 16:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it goes to RFC, let it go to RFC. In the meantime, let me voice strong support. As I
    WP:COMMONNAME and the accepted vernacular for both a Christian house of worship (#1 meaning in every dictionary I consulted) and for the body of its worshippers (#2 or #3 meaning in every dictionary I consulted), we should use and reserve "church" to categorize those local groups. The original concern resulting in the move to "church buildings" was intended to rectify was possible confusion over "church" meaning a denominational organization or faith tradition, a concern which has nothing whatsoever to do with what percentage of articles focus on buildings versus congregations, and one which I believe was overwrought to begin with. If the ambiguity is really so striking as to require two largely parallel but separate category trees for the same set of articles, it would also mean that Category:Schools cannot both be in Category:Educational institutions and Category:Educational buildings, Category:Hospitals cannot both be in Category:Medical and health organizations and Category:Buildings and structures by type, and so on. Why single out churches, and not demand Category:Theatre buildings, Category:Library buildings, Category:Madrassa buildings, Category:Hall of fame buildings, and on throughout Category:Organizations and Category:Buildings and structures by type?- choster (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support per my parallel proposal at the country level, but agree that an RFC is desperately needed to bring consistency to the topic. --BDD (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per my arguments and Choster's at CFD May 4 which is about the country level. IMHO the term is broad enough to cover all places of worship within a broad meaning of Christianity including cathedrals and LDS Tabernacles. Even former church buildings also serviced former church congregations; if an article currently says nothing about the people, that is probably because it is a stub awaiting expansion, set up from a register of buildings. Although it would be possible to set up sub-cats as container categories for such premises, I would see that as (i) unnecessary, (ii) highly liable to lead to mis-categorisation, over-categorisation and proliferation of inconsistent categories. – Fayenatic London (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A church is an organization, it is not a building. There is no organization that corresponds to the tabernacle. It is owned by a Church with much more assets, but there is no Church specifically connected to it. This would be like putting an article on a specific university building into Category:Universities and colleges in Connecticut. The building is not the university.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While I originally supported the narrow focus of the church buildings categories, this needs to be standardized. The church buildings categories did not get consensus, so let's put all this back.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per my previous argument: "Do we have Category:School buildings, Category:Hospital buildings or Category:Castle buildings? Per general naming conventions, the category title should refer to corresponding articles and not the category structure." ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 05:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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:Films about the Moon

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: rename, and remove films not set on the Moon. I'm going to make this without prejudice to the re-creation of Category:Films about the Moon. If re-created, that category can be nominated and discussed in the context of the existence of Category:Films set on the Moon. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These films are not really about the Moon, but are simply set on the Moon, see its categorization into Category:Films by geographic setting. The word "about" sounds like documentaries about the Moon, which these films aren't. The Evil IP address (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Exclusive MLB clubs

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are very important milestones in baseball, but in general we don't create categories around arbitrary career numbers like 300 and 500. Each of these is already covered completely, and with quite a bit more context, in the articles 300 save club and 500 home run club. Category:600 home run club was already deleted in this discussion.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nominator and per
    WP:OC#ARBITRARY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. 500 home runs is not arbitrary. http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hitting/hi500c.shtml, "This is a truly an elite club of powerful sluggers that few belong to, and many only dream of coming near". Do a google search on 500 home run club, there are many references to it in baseball and sports media.Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. They are achievements that are considered to be significant in the sport, so the articles about them appropriate. But because they are inherently arbitrary (no one becomes considered a "powerful slugger" just because they hit 500 home runs as opposed to stopping at 499—those who hit 499 would also be considered a "powerful sluggers"), categories are not appropriate here per the guidelines. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Doing a google search for 500 home run club vs 499 home run club demonstrates that the distinction is not arbitrary. There are far more references to the former over the latter. Benkenobi18 (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you misunderstand what I mean by "arbitrary". It is not arbitrary in the world of MLB, because it is a commonly used cut-off that is regarded as significant. But it is an inherently arbitrary standard, since objectively there would probably be very little difference in quality between a player who retired with 500 home runs and one that retired with 499 or 490 or even 475 home runs. Since it's essentially an "in-world" distinction of significance, it makes sense to have lists, but not categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for this and the two below on what "arbitrary" means. There is some confusion here as to what is meant by "arbitrary." It is not a synonym for "unimportant." It means "based on a value judgment." With most player categories, there is no value judgment: this player played this position, the player is from here, the player won this award. With a number of yards, there is an inherent value judgment that that specific number of home runs or yards or goals matters to someone. That is, it's arbitrary. In general, that's not what our categories do.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because these are examples of arbitrary cut offs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

National Hockey League players with single-season accomplishments

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are important accomplishments in hockey. But in general we don't make categories about player accomplishments by season, with arbitrary cutoff points like 50 and 100. These work better as the lists List of NHL players with 50-goal seasons and List of NHL players with 100-point seasons, where they are already completely covered, and with quite a bit more context and detail.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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:National Football League 10,000 yard rushers

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: Listify &* delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Post-close comment: After this close, I discovered List of National Football League rushing yards leaders already exists, which covers this topic completely.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:National Football League 10,000 yard rushers to article List of National Football League running backs with 10,000 rushing yards
Nominator's rationale: This is a very important accomplishment in football, quite often a ticket to the Hall of Fame. But in general we don't do numerical career accomplishments in categories because a number like 10,000 is an arbitrary cutoff point. This would be better as a list where the reader could know exactly how many yards each running back had totaled. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_22#Category:Quarterbacks_with_35.2C000_passing_yards.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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:NFL players with ALS

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: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think we should categorize both by league and by disease. All of these people are already in NFL categories, so an upmerge to Category:National Football League players is counterproductive.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. This sort of intersection just leads to the proliferation of small categories, and impedes navigation. No objection to listification if anyone wants to do that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the well-documented connections between football and brain injuries, I don't think this is an unreasonable category. I'd support renaming the category to encompass multiple brain-related health issues. - Eureka Lott 19:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong retain (per originator of this category): The incidence of ALS in football players is markedly increased. It is thought to be related to trauma, and may not be the same disease as non-trauma related ALS. Trauma related ALS currently appears to be unique from the dementia that develops in football players. (The pathology of the dementia is specific, and has not been shown to be present in the ALS cases.) There is a category for dementia in NFL players; given the concern about trauma in football players, this and ALS are exceedingly timely and important categories. I would not rename to encompass brain related categories, as this is NOT a brain injury. These are not just people with ALS (motor neuron disease is another name for the disease), but a very specific sub-group of such. Similarly, football players with dementia are not just "people" with dementia, but have been shown to be, for the most part, a unique sub-group with their own category in Wikipedia. This category deserves to remain intact. This is an issue of prominent public discussion and the dual identification remains relevant. http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/128/3/451.full Mwinog2777 (talk)
  • Merge per nom. It's far too specific an intersection. If we were going to have a category for this issue (and I'm not saying we necessarily should), Category:Players of American football with motor neurone disease would be a far better way to do it. Or even Category:Sportspeople with motor neurone disease, since American football is not the only sport where this is an issue. But ultimately, I think it places undue weight on a single issue and implies that there is a connection between the two in every case, which is not necessary proven or true. There probably is a connection between some people being NFL players and their having motor neurone disease, but it's not a 1:1 relationship, so we need not categorize as if it is. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not convinced it is worth categorizing people as having this "disease".John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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:Television stations in India

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: do not rename as nominated; however, it is apparent that further work on these is probably required as per the suggestions below that the existing scheme is not quite right. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Channels" is the word used in India as evidenced by most of the member sub-cats and articles. (I have not nominated the Hindi-language sub-cat as this can be split between India and elsewhere.) – Fayenatic London (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of earlier discussion on Speedy page
  • This is a bit of an oddball case. I'd disagree with the renaming mainly because channels and stations are different. Jaya TV is a station that runs multiple channels including one that is eponymously named. This is the case for Sun TV too. The main channel is named for the station, while the rest follow conventions of Jaya/Sun Music, Jaya/Sun Movies etc. Our articles are quite bare and don't explain any of these things. Zee TV, Sony TV, Star TV are all pretty much similar, every one of them started their station with one channel eponymously named, and then expanded to have multiple channels. Exceptions to this nomenclature system are the newer stations which take on the corporate name and provide the channels different name (BIG CBS is an example for that). —SpacemanSpiff 18:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as an example:
    Sun Music, Sun News etc would belong in the (non-existent) channels category. —SpacemanSpiff 18:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The page Sun TV (India) states that it is a TV station, and is the flagship channel of Sun TV Network. It seems to me that stations and channels mean the same thing, and what you call a station - running multiple channels - is a network, which is different and has a separate category hierarchy. (This does get confusing, especially as some channels/stations include the word "network" in their name.) – Fayenatic London (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said the articles are really a mess. In the Indian context, a station is the physical broadcast infrastructure (Sun Network has many stations, each of which broadcast a few channels, the stations are the ones with the "main" license from the government, the channels are under that). However, given that the entire thing is such a mess in article space, I don't think any changes make much of a difference anyway).—SpacemanSpiff 13:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, I wasn't around for a while to complete the conversation on the speedy. In the list above, it's possible for the first three groups to coexist to an extent (both stations and channels) while the fourth one is unlikely in its present form. There's a difference between channel and station per the licensing policies in India. IMO the channels should be language specific categories while the stations should be geo-specific, both are separately licensed. That said, the articles here are almost entirely about the (larger number of) channels and not the (few) stations, so changing them all to channels is fine as long as this isn't seen as precedent to remove station cats if and when suitable station articles are created. That said the "TV Channels in Mumbai" etc is technically confusing as all these channels are licensed for all-India, so it ought to be "TV Channels broadcast from Mumbai" etc. —SpacemanSpiff 03:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose A channel is a thoroughfare for "something" (in this case a station's broadcast signal). - jc37 01:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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:Marvel Cards

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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no game called "Marvel Cards." Instead, this is a category of different collectible card games that all have the Marvel license. (Disclosure: I worked on the X-Men Trading Card Game.)-- Mike Selinker (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

LGBT clergy

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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Yet another unhelpful diffusion of an LGBT occupational category into separate subcategories for each individual quadrant. Merge back to Category:LGBT clergy and delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gay clergy and the dual identification is a very prominent ongoing issue and people being both is specifically relevant. eg http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/20/church-england-accept-gay-clergy etc RafikiSykes (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an example of why this isn't needed, that rationale fails to demonstrate a meaningfully encyclopedic distinction between gay men and lesbians. The fact that a clergyperson is LGBT is certainly relevant to their career, but the fact that they're specifically a gay man or a lesbian woman or a bisexual of either gender doesn't really make a meaningful difference on top of the basic relevance of being LGBT. Bearcat (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back per nom. It's far more important that they are LGBT, not that they are LGBT + male (or female) (or bisexual). I don't understand the rationale of breaking these down into the subdivisions of L, G, B, and T. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge this category. Also, entries in these categories should be limited to people who publicly self identitified as LGBT at the same time they were clergy. Thus, a person who has publicly renounced their LGBT identity should not go in this category. The same would hold for someone who quit their role as clergy before they publicly identitfied as LGBT.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • upmerge per nom. Whether a priest is gay vs bi is likely not the issue at stake here. --KarlB (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back per nominator's rationale. Makes sense to keep the categories more clean rather than break out the sub-categories. --Eric (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_12&oldid=1136738496"