User talk:AsteriskStarSplat

__NOINDEX__

Please consider leaving comments intended for me at w:user talk:AsteriskStarSplat, instead of here, as I look at that talk page much more frequently. AsteriskStarSplat (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary categorisation of sub-pages
We don't categorise sub-pages of a work under a category for the work. This is because the work is already in the title of the page and therefore the category is redundant. Please don't spend any more of your valuable time on the Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate category. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Beeswaxcandle, if I might ask, what about the items in Category:Mormon religious speeches? By definition everything found printed in the Journal of Discourses is a Mormon religious speech, and after I saw the huge number of entries in that category, I thought that this was the way categorization was done on this project. Obviously I was wrong, as you kindly pointed out; however the individual Journal of Discourses entries in Category:Mormon religious speeches do not follow the organization pattern you have prescribed, and I'm hesitant to make any attempt at fixing this without consulting you. — AsteriskStarSplat (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We categorise by type of work rather than by the work itself. So, because Category:Mormon religious speeches could well have speeches from sources other than the Journal of Discourses added to it, it's fine as a category. Where as a category named for the Journal of Discourses isn't. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Right, sorry, but I'm not questioning the existence of Category:Mormon religious speeches; I wondering why Journal of Discourses isn't listed in it only one single time instead of the 1000+ subpages of the individual speeches from the Journal of Discourses. AsteriskStarSplat (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We generally list per work, per author, so where we have journals you will often find that articles will have a level of mixed categorisation that is specific to the article (we are looking for the right level of categorisation). If you believe that the journal is specific to a category, and then we would generally categorise the parent work, and remove the subsidiary categorisation. If the journal is that specific, we wouldn't categorise, if it has other works of that do not, then we have to do as relevant. Where you believe that you have identified such a clear case, then please put a request to Bot requests with reasoning. If it needs some level of discussion, then please take it to WS:S. — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)