Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 9: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:46, 20 October 2019

< October 8	October 10 >

October 9

Category:Isotope content page

Propose deleting Category:Isotope content page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This aims to create a distinction between redirects and non-redirect pages of isotopes via the hard-coded addition of categories, e.g. [1]. This is misguided, and contrary to best practices. If a dedicated tracking category is desired, it should be added through {{infobox isotope}} (or something similar), not hard coded categories. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason the 'discussion' option does not appear in Twinkle, so it defaulted to deletion. I'm not necessarily advocating for deletion, although it's one possible outcome. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, my preferred outcome would be the removal of hard-coded categories in articles, which can then be tracked via {{Infobox isotope}} ([2]). There is possibly a better name than 'Isotope content page' for the category as well, but I'm drawing a blank at the moment. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notified WP:ISOTOPES, acting WT:ELEMENTS [3]. -DePiep (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Refine into a template-populated category rather than a hardcoded one (as suggested by nom). {{Infobox isotope}} is not exclusive to non-redirect pages of isotopes. For example, it is used in isotopes of xenon#Xenon-133 and isotopes of uranium#Uranium-239. Unless there is a way to distinguish these uses (article sections vs. entire articles) in the template code, the hard coded category seems like the better solution. ComplexRational (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational: in which case the categorization can easily be suppressed with |dedicated_isotope_article=no or something. Alternatively, the infobox could automatically check if Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 9 matches the titles of dedicated isotope pages (Element-# / Element-#m). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How do we know that every isotope content page actually has this infobox? (Answer: use this category; do crosschecks). -DePiep (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Easily done via AWB queries. If an infobox isotope is missing (starred in the list below), then add it.

List

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: I will first say that I am not well-versed in the technical aspect, so I do not know an "easy" way to implement this.

The only way I can see this solution working is if {{infobox}} enables having hidden parameters, so that the user can specify and trigger categorization without it displaying as data in the infobox – is this possible? A simple {{PAGENAME}} comparison does not work because the isotope name is not specified directly in the infobox (no |name= is used, and to my understanding it is drawn from {{PAGENAME}}), and I do not know of any way to use a conditional to check if the title is "isotopes of X" or if there is a redirect. It's a good idea, but it's not the trivial case of using a template to populate a category. ComplexRational (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational: it's quite trivial to code really, involves at most 5 minutes of coding with all the testing and whatnot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done here. Can easily be reverted/modified if deletion is a preferred outcome. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which was predictably knee-jerked reverted by DePiep. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Predictable, sure, nbecasue it is not good practice to have two principles at work at the same time and one should not enforce while the discussion (you yourself started) is going on. -DePiep (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updated !vote per discussion. ComplexRational (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (=Oppose deletion). (ec) I created this category.

I am a member of WP:ISOTOPES (now WT:ELEMENTS), and made an edit or two to improve our isotope articles. This category is part of a greater plan to improve this topic (namely: check all known isotopes agains our articles, redirects or content. Later more checks & improvements can follow, for example known isotopes that have no page at enwiki). I note this is a maintenance category, so no harm to articles is happening. Problematic in this proposal is that the nom, whom I rarely met in WP:ELEMENTS's editing, is prescribing how to do a WikiProject maintenance process. -DePiep (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stick to the issues please. That you 'rarely' meet me has little consequence on anything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is related, heavily, since with this proposal you prescribe/deny how to do maintenance in a WikiProject you are not engaged in. -DePiep (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is patent elitist bullshit, I've been heavily involved at WP:ELEMENTS since 2009 at the very least. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is patent elitist bullshit [4] is not an argument. -DePiep (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patent elitist bullshit is even less of an argument. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

skipping all the distractions, PAs and unhelpful language: I do not mind automating the categrisation through the infobox. And I keep wondering why this could not be achieved through a Talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query @Headbomb: Could you please elaborate on the degree of your self-claimed "heavy involvement" in WP:Elements since 2009? For example, in the WP Elements talk archives I can find only ten contributions made by you since 2009. Sandbh (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I could, but won't, because it's immaterial. If you are really curious, feel free to browse those 10 archive pages (and not 10 contributions/edits), User:Headbomb/My work, and search for 'Headbomb + Isotope' in Wikipedia:Bots/ArchiveBox. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: I could, but won't, because it's immaterial — then why did you bring it up [5]? -DePiep (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one that brought it up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it looks like the wikiproject members lack the technical expertise to properly implement a tracking category. Nominator tries to explain how to do it but the attempt merely leads to unnecessary hostilities. Why not cooperate in this matter? Marcocapelle (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That cooperation could have happened on the project talkpage. Proposing deletion without being engaged in the actual maintenance is confrontational not cooperative. Core point still is that an outsider is imposing/forbidding a certain maintenance process. BTW could you clarify "lack the technical expertise", and why that would be relevant in here? -DePiep (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator was not primarily aiming for deletion as you could have read in the second paragraph. The fact that they are an outsider is irrelevant, you can just make use of their technical expertise which is offered for free (using {{Infobox isotope}}). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seconds paragraph only appeared after two editors had replied already. Also this is a after-replies change. It is not the replying editors to blame. Instead, it is bad discussio behaviour to change ones post afterwards, esp. when one starts blaming others. -DePiep (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I am also not an outsider. Not that it should matter in the first place. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: I see how you implemented the solution, and I would be fine implementing it. Thank you.

@Marcocapelle: These hostilities indeed are absolutely unnecessary. "They're an outsider" is not an argument, especially when they have technical know-how and can provide a solution that no one at WP:ELEM (myself included) proposed.

You may also wish to see [6] - a textbook example of no true scotsman. Can we please stay focused on the category for discussion? (Headbomb’s solution looks fine to me; I just need to add three more {{infobox isotope}} later.) ComplexRational (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational: could you update your !vote above then? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational:: no hostilities, just statements. The original post (and its offspring) clearly advocates deletion; and that is what you and I replied to at first. In there, Headbomb tries to impose a certain WikiProject maintenance part without being involved in that maintenance. (and of course, could have gone to a talkpage to communicate, why didn't they?). BTW, bwelow, at 15:59, again a maintenance aspect is introduced (indirectly). Same reply. IN general, Headbomb shifts topic a few times in this thread. Could be OK, but at least do not complain when others cannot follow— or seem to, because of late threadflow changes. -DePiep (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will you stop fucking lying about my involvement in WP:ELEMENTS and the maintenance of isotope pages, or my intentions? It's at least the 5th time I ask you to do so. I have never once advocated for deletion, nor am I uninvolved (and even if I were, it would be completely irrelevant, as you do not WP:OWN the category). As for why I didn't start a talk page discussion, I didn't, because Categories for Discussion is a perfectly appropriate venue to discuss what to do with a category, both with its scope and its technical aspects. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that I made my original !vote before the rationale was clarified, but I was never opposed to Headbomb's solution of implementing a template-based tracking category. I am most certainly not complaining about shifts in the discussion that lead me to change my !vote or consider another aspect; that is naturally part of the consensus-building process. It was actually quite helpful to clarify that deletion was not the desired outcome.

Categories for discussion is exactly that, categories for discussion. I don't see anything wrong with having a discussion here, especially because everyone can participate whether they are regulars, semi-regulars, passersby, or have no affiliation whatsoever with WP:ELEMENTS; it is fundamental to consider all viewpoints and remember that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not override community consensus. It seems that community best practice is indeed to use template-based tracking categories rather than hardcoded ones (Don't add articles directly to maintenance categories. – WP:CATDD), the opinion of WP:ELEMENTS is irrelevant.

I will remark once again that this thread has deteriorated to back-and-forth arguments that do not pertain to the category itself. As nothing beneficial will emerge from this, I stand by my claim of unnecessary hostilities. DePiep, you have repeatedly made the same argument; it is not gaining support, and Headbomb's participation at WP:ELEMENTS and local consensus are both non-arguments. Headbomb, thank you for your proposal regarding the category, but I also urge you to disengage from the argument. We may disagree, but that's what community consensus and community discussion pages are for. I suggest we use them to move forward with the discussion and fate of this category (my most recent !vote stands).

That said, Headbomb, I added infoboxes to the three remaining isotope articles marked with * above. Such an implementation may now be workable. ComplexRational (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

re "you have repeatedly made the same argument" — unfortunately, you may be misguided by out-of-context replies. If someone wishes to prolongue this misinformation, I may feel invited to re-address the issue correctly as per its context. Anyway: keep within context.

re "It was actually quite helpful to clarify that deletion was not the desired outcome": to me it appears different.

The OP by Headbomb says: This aims to create a distinction between redirects and non-redirect pages of isotopes via the hard-coded addition of categories [...]. This is misguided, and contrary to best practices. Of course this is ambiguous at least, especially since the CfD was pulished as "possible deletion, merging, or renaming". It was this post that me and ComplexRational reply to as "Keep".

After those posts, the clarification was stating that lust automated populating was proposed, while still concluding that category deletion was an option. (I have found no logical rationale for this connection). I understand this 'automation' to be 180° change of topic & proposal (delete it versus let's populate it automatically). It is this turn that made CR change their !vote, obviously. Anyway, the origin of the confusion and apparend contradiction is with the author, and could have been clarified easily into unambiguity all along. All in all the actually topic is still confusing.

Adding to the confusion, much later the nom added this statement contradicting the "clarified" post: the OP says to "create a distinction between redirects and non-redirect pages ... is misguided, and contrary to best practices" vs proposing "which is explicitly not for redirects". -DePiep (talk) 09:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same quest, different approach: Headbomb, you wrote I'm not necessarily advocating for deletion, although it's one possible outcome in the "clarification". Though obviously, as others concluded here, your proposal is to automate category populating full stop. Could you be more explicit on that logic (maybe by citing an existing policy); or, even more clear, withdraw and strike that part? -DePiep (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb: pls take note of my question here re your "I'm not necessarily advocating for deletion, although it's one possible outcome". -DePiep (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions have already been answered as far back as 10 October and by the infobox edits which you reverted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is not contributing anything new to the category discussion, it is just hairsplitting on the wording of previous comments. If the two of you think that continuation of this conversation is nevertheless helpful for some reason, please use your personal talk pages instead. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove hard-coded category assignments which are inappropriate in case of tracking categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll also note here that DePiep (talk · contribs) insists on putting the redirects Hydrogen-1, Hydrogen-2 in the category, which is explicitly not for redirects. Baffling. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote, I desigened the category and so one might expect that I know what it should contain. So far, you have not asked for an explanation but instead editwarred. Please undo your reverts and if you want to , start a talk. -DePiep (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Irrelevant re topic, so I struck). -DePiep (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, as I wrote, see WP:OWN. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. I defined and created this category from a maintenance perspective. If you want to change its purpose or concept, you are invited to go to talkpage. It was open for discussion from the start. So far, you did not start a talk (instead, you are bordering unhelpful PAs again here). Note that, while your main proposal here (2nd version) is constructive, this is a deviation into prescribing how to do maintenance while not being involved. You should have started a talk, why did you not? Anyway, these edits (reverts) re Hydrogen-1, Hydrogen-2 are not part of the proposal, and inacceptable to me. -DePiep (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion is a perfectly appropriate place to hold a discussion about a category. As for the content of the category itself, it's specifically about content pages, not redirects. Putting redirects in the category is contrary to its stated purpose. As for 'not being involved', you can keep saying that as often as you want, but it will remain as untrue (and as irrelevant) now as it was when you first said it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"not involved" is relevant when you try to enforce a maintenence suggestion for something you do not work with, as you do in this. (It has been expained to you [7]). Also, it would have been helpful if you did not change topic and did not use attacking, non-arguing language all along. -DePiep (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[8] is FORUMSHOP to me. Not the topic here. -DePiep (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Pink Panther characters

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 20#Category:The Pink Panther characters

Category:Hispanic and Latino winners of beauty pageants

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. MER-C 18:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Hispanic and Latino winners of beauty pageants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Beauty pageant winners are not sorted by ethnicity, and that would open a can of worms if we started going this way. What we have here is a container category for beauty pageant winners from several South American countries, regardless of ethnicity (once again, it is assumed that everyone in Argentine, Ecuador or the Dominican Republic is "Hispanic and Latino", whatever that means). All child categories are already in Category:Beauty pageant winners by nationality, so merger would not be necessary. Alternatively, one could consider a renaming to a continent-based category (Latin/South American winners of beauty pageants), but there are no such categories for other continents. Place Clichy (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2019 (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:Arab poets by nationality

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. MER-C 18:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Arab poets by nationality to Category:Arabic poets by nationality

Nominator's rationale: A now-blocked user created this category, very similar to long-standing Category:Arabic poets by nationality, with the stated intent of separating "Arab-ethnic poets" from Arabic-language poets. The resulting category is pretty much a duplicate from the first, in fact a container category for poets from any nation in the Arab League (e.g. Comorian poets, Somalian poets, Lebanese poets etc.). I guess that all poets from these nations are supposed 1°) to be Arabs and 2°) to write Arabic-language poetry, both of which are of course highly debatable. Anyway, duplicate container categories with overlapping content are unnecessary. Place Clichy (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:OVERLAPCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2019 (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:Methodist church buildings

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 20#Category:Methodist church buildings

Category:Protestant holiness denominations

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 as nominated. MER-C 18:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Protestant holiness denominations to Category:Holiness denominations

Nominator's rationale: Transparent duplicate. Denied speedy (@Armbrust and Fayenatic london: pinging contributors). Note that the holiness movement is part of Protestantism, and especially Methodism, so there would not be holiness denominations that are not Protestant denominations. Category:Holiness denominations is a sub of :Category:Methodist denominations, itself a sub of Category:Protestant denominations. Place Clichy (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of Speedy discussion

Category:Protestant holiness denominations to Category:Holiness denominations – Duplicate, same topic. C2C and C2D par Holiness movement and Category:Holiness movement. Place Clichy (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose speedy Subcategory of Category:Protestant denominations. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Armbrust: but the target is within Category:Evangelical denominations and Category:Methodist denominations which are both already within Protestant denominations. – Fayenatic London 13:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (or else reverse merge), the two categories clearly have the same scope, and the word "Protestant" is redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion of redundant word. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, not reverse merge. Category:Holiness denominations is within Protestant denominations already (via multiple parents). – Fayenatic London 21:17, 10 October 2019 (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:Hispanic theologians

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. MER-C 18:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Hispanic theologians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There does not seem to be anything common to the people in this category beside the fact that they speak spanish or have set foot in colonial Spanish America. There is afaik no movement called hispanic theology - unlike, for instance, liberation theology, which is very much associated with Latin America. Articles in this category will be therefore better sorted by movement (e.g. Liberation theologians), by religion or by nationality. Place Clichy (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:21, 10 October 2019 (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:Hispanic pornographic film actors

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. MER-C 18:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Hispanic pornographic film actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Another category for people by language family. This is a container category for Hispanic and Latino American pornographic film actors and actors from Spain and some other Latin American countries (Colombia, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Peru). Note that Hispanic and Latino American pornographic film actors is already in an ethnicity category, and the other five in a nationality category. Language family is not a defining feature to group the lot. Place Clichy (talk) 09:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2019 (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.

@@ Line 167: / Line 167: @@
 ==== Category:Methodist church buildings ====
+[[File:Symbol move vote.svg|16px|link=|alt=]] '''Relisted''', see [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 20%23Category:Methodist church buildings]]<!-- Template:Cfd relisted -->
-:* '''Option A: Propose merging''' [[:Category:Methodist churches]] to [[:Category:Methodist church buildings]]
-:* '''Option B: Propose merging''' [[:Category:Methodist church buildings]] to [[:Category:Methodist churches]]
-:'''Nominator's rationale:''' Duplicate categories. Denied speedy ({{Ping|Armbrust|Laurel Lodged}} pinging contributors). Categories have identical scope and much overlapping content and should be merged whatever the outcome. I am pretty neutral towards which name should be picked, and the ''churches vs. church buildings'' debate has never given very clear consensus in the past. Parent {{cl|Protestant churches by denomination}} has a mixboth: {{c|Anglican church buildings|Anglican}}, {{C|Brethren church buildings|Brethren}}, {{C|Mennonite church buildings|Mennonite}}, {{C|Reformed church buildings|Reformed}} and {{C|United Protestant church buildings|United}} Protestants use ''church buildings'', while {{C|Christian Science churches|Christian Science}}, {{C|Congregational churches|Congretional}}, {{C|Episcopal churches|Episcopal}}, {{C|Evangelical churches|Evangelical}}, {{C|Lutheran churches|Lutheran}}, {{C|Moravian churches|Moravian}}, {{C|Presbyterian churches|Presbyterian}}, {{C|Seventh-day Adventist churches|Seventh-day Adventist}}, {{C|Swedenborgian churches|Swedenborgian}} use ''churches''. However, I note that ''churches'' has the disadvantadge of inviting users to add articles about full-fledged church organizations at large, which should be better placed in {{C|Methodist denominations}}, such as the {{diff2|561437705|Protestant Methodist Church in Benin}} (90,000 members, 420 congregations) or the {{diff4|675881505|old=710250283|Free Church of Tonga}} (congregations in 6 countries). I therefore prefer '''Option A'''. [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] ([[User talk:Place Clichy|talk]]) 14:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
-:{{hidden
-| header = Copy of speedy discussion
-| headerstyle = background:#ccccff
-| content =
-:* [[:Category:Methodist church buildings]] to [[:Category:Methodist churches]] – Duplicate. Older category suggested as target, also C2C per {{C|Protestant churches by denomination}} and C2D per [[List of Methodist churches]]. [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] ([[User talk:Place Clichy|talk]]) 13:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
-:*: '''Oppose''' Every member of the category is about buildings (except [[List of Methodist churches]], which should be removed from the category). [[User:Armbrust|Armbrust]] <sup>[[User talk:Armbrust|<span style="color: #E3A857;">The</span> <span style="color: #008000;">Homunculus</span>]]</sup> 07:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
-}}
-* '''Reverse merge or merge''', the two categories should not exist next to each other since they have the same scope. I also have a preference for option A, for the same reason as nominator. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 14:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
-<strike>*'''Option A''' to make it less tempting for editors to add congregations.</strike>  [[User:Laurel Lodged|Laurel Lodged]] ([[User talk:Laurel Lodged|talk]]) 07:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
-*'''Strongly oppose Option A''', which would place [[:Category:Methodist congregations established in the 19th century‎]] within "buildings". Instead, I suggest '''Option C: Rename''' [[:Category:Methodist church buildings]] to [[:Category:Methodist church buildings by date of completion]] and make it a sub-category of [[:Category:Methodist churches]]. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''<span style="color: #FF0000;">L</span>'''ondon]] 21:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
-*: '''Comment''', [[:Category:Methodist congregations established in the 19th century‎]] contains articles about church buildings (which also contain a section about the congregation therein) so in principle they should be in a churches built category rather than a congregations established category. Note that I do not exclude the existance of building-independent congregations (I actually know two congregations in my own surroundings who moved from one church building to another), but they will not likely be notable for wp. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 10:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
-*:: Agree with [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] here: the "congregations" subcategories can be renamed to "church buildings" or "churches built in" category following the result of the current discussion. Note that their content really seems to be about church buildings, not congregations, e.g.: {{tq|'''[[Bethel Methodist Church (Bantam, Ohio)]]''' is a historic [[Methodism|Methodist]] church building in rural [[Clermont County, Ohio|Clermont County]], [[Ohio]], [[United States]].  Built in the 1810s under the leadership of one of Ohio's earliest Methodist preachers, it has survived the death of its congregation, and it remains in use for community activities.}} [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] ([[User talk:Place Clichy|talk]]) 08:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
-*'''Option D''' Changing my vote. Retain both. Create a third cat called [[:Category:Methodist congregations]]. Let both this and the buildings be children of Churches which becomes a container . [[User:Laurel Lodged|Laurel Lodged]] ([[User talk:Laurel Lodged|talk]]) 06:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
-*: That's not really the issue here. The ambiguity brought by "churches" was that users added large church bodies with hundreds of congregations. There can legitimately be a single category for both single-building congregations and single-congregation buildings (excluding large church organizations). The structure you are suggesting was afaik never put forward by anyone in any of the ''churches/church buildings'' discussions. It is true that some articles are mostly focussed on the congregation where that is the more notable element of the two (very grossly, my feeling is that it happens more often in a New World / Protestant / congressionalist context) while others focus more on the building (symetrically, in branches of Christianity following [[episcopal polity]] i.e. Catholic, Eastern/Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran etc., individual congregations or parishes have little autononous existence and would rarely be notable on their own, while church buildings are often monuments in high regard). However, this is just very much a way to write an article about essentially ''the same topic''. Splitting building-oriented and congregation-oriented articles in separate categories brings more problems than it would improve things. [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] ([[User talk:Place Clichy|talk]]) 16:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
-*::'''Reply''' I don't see the problem that you see in Option D. Firstly it's likely that the thrust of an article will be either building or congregation, in which case categorisation is easy. If it's both, then use both categories. [[User:Laurel Lodged|Laurel Lodged]] ([[User talk:Laurel Lodged|talk]]) 12:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
-*::: It seems very unpractical to me to maintain a three-leg structure for churches/church buildings/congregations. But mostly, it would be even stranger to have this structure for Methodist categories only. They are currently the only ones suffering from this duplication. [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] ([[User talk:Place Clichy|talk]]) 08:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
-::::: Stools with 3 legs are the most stable. If other denominations suffer from the same problem, I'm happy to replicate the structure for them. [[User:Laurel Lodged|Laurel Lodged]] ([[User talk:Laurel Lodged|talk]]) 12:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
-:::::: You do not address the fact that the "Methodist congregations" categories are currently about church buildings. This does not help in making the case for splitting content in separate subcategories. [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] ([[User talk:Place Clichy|talk]]) 16:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
-* '''Note to closer''' during the speedy discussion copied above about what is essentially Option B, [[User:Armbrust]] {{diff2|920199902|expressed}} the following: {{tq|''Oppose'' Every member of the category is about buildings (except [[List of Methodist churches]], which should be removed from the category).}} I'd like to invite them to express any similar or different opinion on the merge options above. [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] ([[User talk:Place Clichy|talk]]) 16:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 ==== Category:Protestant holiness denominations ====