Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 7

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< June 6 June 8 >

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 London 11:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[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: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 London 11:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You're right. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep Current name more clear and straight forward.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[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: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 London 11:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Essentially the same reasons as
p 15:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Support per nom. tahc chat 03:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[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: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 London 11:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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#Buildings and structures by road in WA and User talk:Evad37#Categorization of roads. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
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 [talk] 01:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply
    ]
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)[reply
]
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)[reply]
Mitch Ames (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply
]
That's a very misleading example. The (unpiped)
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)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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.
"This is a normal way of linking buildings when we are talking about a specific one!"
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)[reply]
This also violates
WP:OC#ASSOCIATED
. 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)[reply
]
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)[reply]
Looking at
WP:OC#ARBITRARY. 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 [talk] 01:41, 18 June 2014 (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/2014_June_7&oldid=1074813370"