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.
Nominators rationale The speculative fiction categories exist to hold a brad variety of genres, and these are the only categories as far as I can tell that directly categorize people as speculative fiction writers. Having seen some of the discussion in a fairly closely related category, I think the main thrust of these categories is science fiction. I am definitely not convinced that we get anything out of this being a sci fi/fantasy/horror category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think there is value in the category. But I'll point out that if we were to "disburse by genre", we would have to put Allende and Hernandez into "Hispanic and Latino American magical realism writers", Diaz into "Hispanic and Latino American fantasy writers", and Anaya into "Hispanic and Latino American science fiction writers", resulting in two categories with 1 entry and one category with 2 entries. Those categories are then too narrowly defined to have any substantial value. Your suggestion that we throw all of them into "Hispanic and Latino American science fiction writers" is inappropriate, since most of them don't write science fiction. Darrah (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If they don't fit in the goal, then be my nomination we purge them. Since magic realism is largely a genre done by people either in Latin America or connected with Latin America, I think this may be unjustified division. Actually, since Category:Magic realism writers is not currently subdivided at all, I think based on what you have said, we should upmerge to Category:Hispanic and Latino-American writers and the specific genre (or if it works Category:Hispanic and Latino American novelists. This subdivision clearly does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
disperse the hispanic category, keep the other one for now, but I'm less convinced of the value of this container - speculative fiction is one grouping, but not everyone thinks of these types of fiction as all related in the way we are implying.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:26, 20 March 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:Automobiles powered by mid-mounted 4-cylinder engines[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.
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorzation. There are no other "Automobiles powered by mid-mounted x-cylinder engines" category, and the parent "Automobiles powered by x-cylinder engines" categories were all deleted in November 2012. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 19:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this overcategorization? It's a notable group (low-priced mid-engined sportscars) with an obviously very clear definition. The existence or not of potential parent categories is simply irrelevant.
The previous CfD for "Pointlessly broad categories that would not assist in search." was just as stupid as CfD usually is. Because 4 pot front engines are too common to count is still no reason to delete the categories (like this) that are rare and significant. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't actually as rare as you think. As this is talking about automobiles, then it is a very general term, and there are a hell of a lot of racing cars that are mid-engined, and have four-cylinder engines. A lot of those don't have articles, but some do. Beyond that, there are far less 16 and 18 cylinder cars than there are mid-engined 4-cylinder cars, and that category was deleted as well. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 20:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Equally, it isn't restricted to "low priced" groups either, because there are cars like the Alfa Romeo 4C that most definitely are not low priced. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 20:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Racing vs. road is a good point. Restricting (or at least splitting) this to road cars would be an improvement. As to price (which is outside the scope of categorization anyway) this includes the Matra Murena through to the Lotus and the Alfa, but all of these (being 4 pots) are still way out of the Ferrari / Lambo price bracket. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Mid-engined vehicles. A mid-engine design is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a vehicle, but the number of cylinders is not. A car with a 4-cyliner engine of any given output has much more in common with a 6-cylinder vehicle of the same power than either does with a vehicle of same number of cylinders but twice the power. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, 4 cylinders is defining in a way that 6 vs 8 is much less so. There are no 4 cylinder Ferrari sportscars – They did build 6 and 8 though (and Lambo also 12s). Mid engined cars have generally been seen as sportscars, an awkward and inefficient layout chosen for its better weight distribution. There is a distinction within this based on price, such that the Fiats and Matras are at one (4 cylinder) level and the 6- or 8- cylinder high-end cars at another. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 20 March 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.
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:rename per adjacent categories. – FayenaticLondon 23:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both the parent category and the sub-category use "United Kingdom" rather than "British". Note: If this CFD succeeds I intend to propose a similar change to the WWII categories. DexDor (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What has what "Empire armed forces were using" got to do with it (we categorize vehicles by country of origin, not by countries of usage) ? Do you think it's sensible to have a mixture of demonym and non-demonym categories (we usually try to avoid such inconsistency in category names) ? DexDor (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the British Empire. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to answer the questions I asked ? DexDor (talk) 22:01, 11 March 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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 23:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- the target includes presidents of various kinds, not merely national ones. It may be that some of the subcats of the target need moving down a level. In the context of current events, I note that Crimea has a president, for an autonomous republic within Ukraine. I suspect that there will be other cases of sub-national presidents. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Category:Presidents should be for national presidents (interpreted broadly) - not for anybody who has the title "President" (e.g. in a company/club). The categories should be merged and the text amended to make it clear. DexDor (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per PK, it should be clear this is for national leaders. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you look, Category:Presidents by country already contains all of the national leaders. I don't think we need a separate category tree just for "presidents who are heads of state of a nation state" - instead, we have a generic "presidents" tree, which we split by country, and then separate out the corporate presidents in a sub-category. This Category:National presidents category, if filled out, would contain all of the contents of Category:Presidents by country, so is not needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Presidents by country" is not indicative it is for national leaders, so a separate tree should be created. "Presidents" is WP:OC#SHAREDNAME since there is little relationship between political and corporate leaders. Instead the entire heirarchy should be split up for corporate and political trees. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want to separate out the corporate leaders, we can simply remove them from Category:Presidents, and leave Category:Presidents for political leaders, whether of states or sub-entities thereof.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That still leaves the lack of clarity of what it is. Corporate presidents exist, so "Presidents" is a bad category name. Also, subnational divisions have presidents, so grouping national presidents together isn't a bad thing, if we also group nationabut the l presidents with subnational unit presidents in a political presidents by country category tree. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
we have Kings, even though kings aren't always in charge of nations/countries. The bottom line is, president category is used for political presidents except for one category. I think the status quo is ok.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"King" is a nobility title, and the categorization is for the usage/users of the nobility title, not the rulership of a sovereign country. Many countries have had ruling princes or dukes or emperors, and "king" is frequently a subsidiary title owning fealty to another in the order of peerage. King is therefore not equivalent to political president, as it is a nobility title, and not a political office. As president is also a corporate office, and corporate presidents are much more common than political ones, the category tree should be unambiguous as to which it is supposed to categorize, also the issue remains of whether national presidents should be categorized together as a grouping (I think it should) underneath political presidents, which would also include other subnational presidential offices. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as creator). I never got to fully populate this category, but the intention was to have a category solely for presidents who are heads of state. Category:Presidents includes presidents of sub-national entities, and is therefore not a sub-cat of Category:Heads of state; nor is Category:Presidents by country. This is absurd: we should have category for presidents who are head of state. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Presidents by country is close enough - we could delete this one, purge that one, and move corporate presidents out and keep them as a see-also - and create a separate tree under presidents for sub-national governmental presidents of which my guess is there are very few. In other words, lets reform the existing cat structure that has the bulk of articles and dozens or hundreds of categories and create new smaller trees for the oddball cases.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obi, the great thing about category trees is that they can intersect in several different ways.
I'm arguing that the additional complexity of having two closely related trees is simply NOT worth it. Much better to separate - one tree, which we can call Category:National presents by country (renaming Category:Presidents by country) would just include national presidents/heads of state. from that tree we pull out the sub-national presidents and any corporate presidents. Otherwise, your solution would have two parallel trees adding a lot of complexity with very little discernible value to the user - and as you note, this hasn't been done yet, with good reason - it's a pain.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble even finding any sub-national presidents in that by-country tree. I just found Category:Spanish_Regional_Presidents which wasn't part of Category:Presidents at all, I don't think this this should be in Category:Presidents of Spain - there's no need - because if we group them together by country - e.g. presidents of spanish companies, presidents of spanish regions, and presidents of Spain itself, that is grouping by shared name. Better to keep them separate, as editors have if you simply look at the tree.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:23, 20 March 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: The particular financial circumstances of notable people and their trials and tribulations with money are not worth categorizing on - there are a great number of celebrities who have at some point declared bankruptcy but the different jurisdictional issues and more importantly the fact that this is rarely mentioned about most people who have gone through this makes it an essentially non-defining characteristic. This would make a good list and we have plenty of sources to generate such a list but it makes for a poor category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This will end up holding any business person who ever went bankrupt. Even then, it is more likely to hold people at certain times, because the rise of the corporation has at times reduced rates of personal bankruptcy. Not really defining to the people involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Obi & JPL. DexDor (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above comments. Additionally, if kept this badly needs a renaming. When I first saw this I wondered why we would categorize people who are morally bankrupt. Then as always with bankruptcies, is this filed, or is it court approved? Does it matter it they paid back all that was owed as required in some filings? So way too many questions to keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing more to add at all beyond what has already been said. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 01:00, 9 March 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:American players of Canadian football[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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. We don't want people to think this category is for players of Canadian football from all of North and South America, do we?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as this is the accepted adjectival meaning of American. Is there any evidence that the Canadians call themselves Americans? Or the Mexicans? This is nothing more then a solution in search of a problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose the term American is widely used here to mean US person, in spite of the grumbling of some. Unless we will do a wholesale shift in this approach there is no need to make an exception here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although I acknowledge that "American" can be seen as anyone from the North American and South American continents, in practice on Wikipedia, American is frequently used to avoid awkward phrasing of "United States of America X". It is a shorthand and I know that the arguments against this use are valid (my dissertation adviser made me change every single reference of "America" to "United States" and there were dozens!) but, on Wikipedia, this is standard practice and word usage. LizRead!Talk! 23:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am not clear how American and Canadian Footfall differ, but sampling seemed to indicagte that there were players who had engaged in both in the course of their career. WP has commonly used American as a demonym for US, but before this could be implemented,it would be necessary for some one to check that all the articles relate to US citizens. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A simple answer about the differences is that the rules are not the same and the size of the field is different. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think "United States" should be implemented across the board, per the implication of the nom's nomination. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:21, 9 March 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Another gendered category that sits at a mezzanine level; the parent is a container category, but this one isn't. The parent is a broad mix of different professions, from poker players, to carrom players (several of the champions are women), to game designers, to pool players, gamblers, poker players, and so on. this tree hasn't been divided by gender yet in almost all cases (I only found Category:Female poker players, and I'm not convinced that most of these game professions need to be gender divided. I suggest we delete this category, and then allow the creation of gendered categories if warranted for some of the sub-jobs under this broad umbrella. But it doesn't make sense to have this as a gendered umbrella here. OTOH, something like Category:Women in the video game industry or perhaps more specific Category:Women video game producers could be worthwhile, given the attention given to women's roles in video game production. But that's a lower level than this category. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The importance of gender in many of these places is unclear. This only reflects lack of support for the overall structure, some subsections may warrant gender specific categories, but not this overall category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the issue is that this isn't a container category, fix it so that it serves the purpose. Don't suggest deleting and then suggest a scenario where it will likely need to be recreated. Category:Women by occupation has an obvious need for "mezzanines" at multiple levels. It shouldn't be Category:Women by occupation and then then hundreds of the lowest levels of categorization. On another note: at this point, Obi-Wan Kenobi, it looks like you're just directly working through User:Ottawahitech's contributions, with arguably Goldilocks objections (it's too narrowly defined, it's too broadly defined; this covers too many articles, this doesn't cover enough articles) but all created by this user. You understand that even if someone's acting in good faith, they can be considered disruptive to the work of another editor. Specifically I strongly suggest you consider dispute resolution before you nominate another of User:Ottawahitech's contributions.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is we only create categories like this where the specific intersection is culturally notable. There is no reason why we need every possible contained category. Some of them if created will just lead to the creation of categories that go against policy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Elaqueate: Whether a category should be kept/deleted should be decided based on the merits of the category, not on who created it (although knowing who created it sometimes helps to understand the background). If most/all of Obi's CFDs "succeed" (i.e. result in deletion/upmerge etc) and Ottawa keeps creating similar categories then if anyone's being disruptive it's Ottawa. DexDor (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there is a Category:Women by occupation, I don't see the logic of eliminating all of the "Women in occupation X" child categories that are contained in the parent category. Rename or subdivide the category if it is imprecise but let's not, day by day, eliminate all "women" categories, especially when there are areas of the category structure that really need attention (fancruft, anyone?). LizRead!Talk! 23:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is proposing eliminating all of the women + job. These are just a few outliers which don't qualify per our long established guidance. Your argument seems to be 'it's a women + job category therefore keep' - doesn't seem like a strong rationale. Can you bring Evidence that women poker players, video game designers and casino executive are spoken of in the same way? I doubt it very much. This grouping is a Wikipedia invention for convenience, and as such there is no justification for gender-splitting it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- We seem to have got lots of female occupational categories. I contend that in many professions there is no need to split by gender. The exceptions are where women perform differently from men: writers of fiction commonly write from the perspective of the gender; actor/resses normally play people of their own gender (with exceptions); sport, where men and women complete separately (again with exceptions). Otherwise, there should be no gender-based occupational categories, in my view. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The best subcategorization of Category:People in the games industry is by more precise occupation (thus separating players from designers etc). Other subcats (e.g. "Women in the games industry", "LGBT people in ...", "Eskimos in ...", "Bearded people in ..." etc) might occasionally be of use to someone so if we had unlimited resources to maintain categorization and categorization didn't have drawbacks (e.g. causing watchlist noise) then I'd support such categories. A category like this may lead another editor to create a "Men in ..." subcat and then we're likely to get some articles placed in a gendered subcat and some in a player/designer subcat instead of in both. We should keep the category structure simple (e.g. by avoiding a mix of topic and EGRS categories at the same level) so that article editors (who can't be expected to be an expert categorizers) have the best chance to place articles in all the correct categories. Hopefully, one day there'll be a facility (e.g. category intersection or using Wikidata) to select articles by any combination of characteristics (e.g. "Women LGBT Eskimos with beards in the gaming industry"), but the number of possible combinations of such characteristics means that creating "manual" categories is not the way to provide that facility. DexDor (talk) 21:52, 3 March 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.
