Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 12



Category:Heads of state of Bangladesh

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting heads of state of bangladesh


 * Nominator's rationale: Completely unnecessary category which can be replaced by its only member category, . Green Giant (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * do not delete There is no reason to even consider this for deletion. It is part of a well-established parent category Category:Heads of state by country Hmains (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As you'll see if you actually look at, 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)
 * Yes, I see and now agree. Delete. Hmains (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. can just go straight into  without needing the extra step. Bearcat (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; but some of the subcats are misused: the Commander of the California Republic was never a Head of State of the United States, nor was Jefferson Davis, so why are they so categorized? Did the CSA win the war and the history books are all wrong? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * delete per nom, this intermediate category isn't needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Just adds an extra layer for no reason, in this case. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove this unnecessary layer, per Bearcat and others. Bangladesh has had no other kind of head of state than a president.  As often Carlossuarez46 is bringing up exceptions.  The heads of state of countries that joined or rejoined the union may need to be purged into a separate category, possibly as direct members of a North American parent.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't agree that some of the subcats are wrong, or are you just complaining about it - you seem to be advocating the same position, so why the snipe? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 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

 * 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)


 * Propose merging Category:Members of Parliament in Bangladesh to Category:Members of the Jatiyo Sangshad
 * 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)
 * Merge per nom. Keep the "Parliament" in place as a categoryredirect, however. Bearcat (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge per Bearcat; possibly reverse merge since Jatiyo Sangshad is Bengali, not English. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 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, Estonia's is at , Burma/Myanmar's is at , 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)


 * Merge per nominator, but re-create as a category redirect. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 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

 * 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)


 * Propose merging Category:Film editors from Oregon to Category:American film editors
 * Nominator's rationale: Irrelevant intersection between occupation and location. There is no specifically Oregonian style of film editing. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and populate the structure WP:OC explicitly allows subdivision by state for those categories that are sufficiently large and the 400 articles in the parent Category:American film editors meets that criterion. There is a rather well-defined structure in the parent Category:People from Oregon by occupation that includes (selected at random) Category:Actors from Oregon, Category:Artists from Oregon, Category:Sportspeople from Oregon (with 25 subcategories), Category:Aviators from Oregon, Category:Businesspeople from Oregon, Category:Educators from Oregon, Category:Entertainers from Oregon, Category:Film directors from Oregon, Category:Journalists from Oregon, Category:Musicians from Oregon, Category:Photographers from Oregon, Category:Oregon police officers, Category:Radio personalities from Oregon, Category:Writers from Oregon and (my personal favorite) Category:Oregon postmasters. To the best of my knowledge there is no "specifically Oregonian style" of acting, creating art, playing sports, flying a plane, running a business, teaching, playing music, taking a picture, enforcing the law, playing a record on the radio, writing a book (or letter) or having that letter lost by the post office. It seems that there is a broad consensus that splitting these larger occupational categories by state provides an effective aid to navigation. I suggest that we set a threshold of more than 200 articles (filling more than one page of articles in a category) before splitting a parent and this category is double that minimum. There seems no reason to randomly pick and choose some categories for deletion while leaving an arbitrarily pruned parent structure, which will have the added benefit of trimming the number of CfD discussions that seem to end in no predictable direction. Alansohn (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 400 articles is not large enough to require subdivision by location. Bearcat (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 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) 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm truly fond of quoting the part of WP:OC 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)
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * . Please explain why it is more difficult to search through a single 2-page listing than though 50 pages where the category has been divided by an attribute irrelevant to the occupation. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Merge per nom. Arguments that this is too unwieldy are unpersuasive and per Bearcat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Merge Category:American film editors is too small to justicy a split by state.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 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

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting recipients of honorary degrees


 * 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 Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_28 for example. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Receiving an honorary degree may be worth mentioning in an article and people may be awarded an honorary degree in recognition of their notable accomplishments, but it's not a defining characteristic in and of itself. Alansohn (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not even sure if this is worth mentioning in an article. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Honorary degrees are awarded because a person is distinguished. They are not generally a mark of distinction.  There may be exceptions, but generally these categories are award clutter.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 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

 * 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)


 * Propose deleting chinese interpreter stubs


 * 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  for now.  Propose making template china-interpreter-stub a redirect to china-translator-stub.  Dawynn (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * comment there is a category for and I don't think a judgement call is needed - translation is written and interpretation is oral/live. However, we don't need a stub category when interpreters is not split nationally. Rename or merge to, and do the same with the template.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete category, and create Category:Interpeter stubs with associated template. Catscan2 shows that there are 58 stub articles on interpreters, so is viable.  As Obi notes, the distinction is simple: interpretation is oral/live, which is why we already have a . -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 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

 * 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)


 * Propose renaming Category:People associated with cinema to Category:???????
 * 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. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

As to the idea that is adequate, see my reply below about the US example. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC) For example, in the United States we have film editors, film actors, film directors, film score composers, cinematographers, filmmakers, film producers, stunt performers, script supervisors, screenwriters, and set decorators. These categories of people are currently jubmbled in with all the non-biographical subcats of Category:Cinema of the United States, and navigation would be much easier if they were grouped together by a container category, as has already been done with Category:German people associated with cinema. BTW, "delete all" doesn't work, because only the container category is nominated. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC) If you think the scope is silly, then go and nominate, , and all their sub-categories. They have the same scope within their field. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is already  that seems to fit this bill.  For the country-level subcategories, there is already .  (Its a bit of a stretch -- but one could argue that film critics serve a place in filmmaking, as critics help guide customers to films.  In effect, critics help films make money, thus providing for future films.  And, if the films didn't exist, there would not be film critics.)  Dawynn (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Categorising critics as filmmakers is a bizarre suggestion. It's a bit like labelling police as criminals, since there would be no need for police if nobody committed any crimes.
 * delete all I don't think we need to group these together at a country level - the global filmmaking occupations suffices. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * rename to to match . Still not convinced we should add another grouping at a national level however; these sorts of sub-parallel-tree-structures are hard to maintain and will often be out of synch.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply. We also have Category:Newspaper people by nationality and Category:Television people by country, which tie together the various occupations related to those media. We have extensive coverage of cinmema and the many people different occupations associated with it, so why not group them at the national level?
 * I missed a few: Category:American film biography stubs, Category:American production designers, Category:American film critics and Category:American film industry accountants. Under Dawynn's proposal, the critics and accountants would be mis-categorised as filmmakers :( -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * Delete, it's almost a universalism I'm associated with cinema, I spent $14 to see a movie last weekend. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't that a bit silly? I nominated this for renaming precisely because of the vagueness of "associated with", and as note above there are many occupations directly related to cinema. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * Agreed; the cat is silly. Silly categories ought to be deleted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you unable to distinguish between the scope of a category and its current title?


 * Rename to to match, per Obi's suggestion above. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * comment seems reasonable.  Would a lower level be 'by county' or 'by nationality'?  Would this include all the occupations you listed above, but probably not actors, etc. as they are not limited to film?  Hmains (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It would include the professions listed above, and Category:Film actors (but not the wider Category:Actors). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename - and tag to be container only.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * comment Following the  model, wouldn't we want to have  with its primary subcategories being  and ? If approved, I can work on setting this up. Hmains (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 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.