Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 6 November 8 >


November 7[edit]

Category:Ancient Roman Christian Britons[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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Christians are neither exclusively Ancient Roman nor British. They have to do will the Roman colony of Brittania. Similar to Category:Romano-British saints and Category:Gallo-Roman saints. This proposal was opposed at speedy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nominator rationale; "Christian" predates "Catholic". Quis separabit? 02:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename It is just plain weird to stick the Chirstian between Roman and Briton. The current title looks like an attempt to put "Roman Catholic" and "Ancient Roman" into the same name and is just messed up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- to match Category:Romano-British saints. The use of "Briton" is somewhat archaic. "Romano-British" is the accepted term for Britain (actually only England and Wales) in this period. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE -- the tag is not a CFD tag, but a speedy tag - SNOW? Peterkingiron (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2012 (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:Lithuanian men by occupation[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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then why doesn't Category:Men by nationality and occupation exist?? Quis separabit? 19:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't exist because ... because it hasn't been created. :)
I will create and populate it once this discussion closes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Create the missing parent. See also item below in CDF list. Closure of both should conform. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the categories that exist are justified, we need this parent category for them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete don't need to separate the boys from the girls. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment misunderstands the nature and purpose of the category under discussion. It does not contain any individual articles, and should not contain them. It is simply a {{container category}} to group the existing sub-categories. Deleting it simply makes it harder to locate those existing by-occupation categs of Lithuanian men. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK fair enough, I hereby withdraw the nomination, in light of BrownHairedGirl's clarifying comments, at this time. Quis separabit? 16:50, 14 November 2012 (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: Men by nationality (and subcategories as below)[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: No consensus to delete - jc37 10:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep works as categories for men not covered by occupations etc and as containers for gendered categories like comedians, footballers etc from those countries.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 06:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I wait to see Category:American men. It should be interesting to watch Wikipedia turn into NNDb. Not every category requires a container. Quis separabit? 16:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why don't you get started on it. Quis separabit? 16:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and populate as container categories, and tag them all with {{container category}}. We have quite a lot of men-by-occupation-nationality categories, creating for those intersections between gender and occupation which meet WP:CATGRS. See for example the subcats of Category:Male singers by nationality, Category:Male models by nationality‎ or Category:Male prostitutes.
    I am not advocating the creation of male categories in any situation other than where they meet WP:CATGRS, but where we have men-by-occupation-nationality categories, they should be grouped together by nationality as well as by occupation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but make sure these are container categories that have no biographical articles. The same should be done for all women by nationality categories, but has not been done consistently. I just added the container cat tag from Category:American women to Category:Afghan women, but the later still has lots of articles directly in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- if we are to have categories for women, we need the converse categoiriues for men. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - don't need to separate the boys from the girls. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment misunderstands the nature and purpose of the categories under discussion. They are {{container category}}s which group the existing sub-categories of men-by-occupation. Deleting these container categs simply makes it harder to locate those existing by-occupation categs of men. --03:53, 13 November 2012 (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.

Genres of Death metal[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 both to Category:Death metal. - jc37 10:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Subgenres of death metal[edit]
Nominator's rationale: No need for a tree of sub-sub-subgenres. Cf. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_28#Category:Genres_of_death_metal —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Genres of death metal[edit]

:The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closure reversed per comments in the above discussion & on request. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary and not helpful for navigation. Evidently, some were confused by previous nom. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:23, 7 November 2012 (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:G-Dragon & TOP albums[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Evidently, this was not clear. Merge to both parent categories: Category:G-Dragon albums and Category:T.O.P (entertainer) albums (the latter of which I just created.) The main artist is a redlink and it's just a collaboration between two other acts--we don't make a category for every intersection of a collaboration. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:18, 7 November 2012 (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:LGBT chefs[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 & upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:CATGRS there is no significance to the intersection of "LGBT" and "chef". If there is disagreement on that point then at the very least the subcats should be merged to the LGBT parent because there is definitely no "gay way" to cook versus a "lesbian way" to cook so the gendered categories are not needed. Buck Winston (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all How are these two facts supposed to be relevant? Does it matter if someone who is making an omelet wants to have sex with a woman? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at the very least merge all to LGBT chefs I don't really see how sexual orientation impacts one's ability to cook and I don't think the restaurant industry is notoriously prejudiced against LGBT people. So this looks like an intersection of little value. Pichpich (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as an irrelevant intersection of sexuality and occupation. If that's the result then the closing admin should add this to the "to be checked manually" list, in case there are names there with no other chef-related categories (or perhaps even no other LGBT-related categories). BencherliteTalk 15:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all -- This is a profession where orientation is irrelevant. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Chefs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to chefs. If there were dozens, OR if the two were a vital intersection, such as lgbt politicians (in which case i would support subcategorizing down to the city level if there more than a few), i would say keep. this is for now a completely trivial association, at least until we have LGBT Top Chef airing on network tv:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete LBGT chefs don't cook differently than their straight counterparts. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2012 (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.

Automobiles powered by engine configurations[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pointlessly broad categories that would not assist in search. Somewhere over 70% of all cars ever produced would fit into the four-cylinder category. Many cars have more than one engine cylinder configuration. Very few cars have the number of cylinders as a defining characteristic. --Falcadore (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the fact that many cars are avialable in more than one of these types makes it a needless overcat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See WP:RECENTISM for one reason why this argument about how most cars in 2012 are four cylinders is not a good argument for deletion. Even if the majority of cars did fit in one category, so what? Is there some law that says categories must be proportionate in size? If the four cylinder category looks too big, break it up with subcategories. Or just leave it be and don't worry if it's a large category. Number of cylinders is very much a defining characteristic; many legal codes recognize this, along with displacement, as a way of categorizing cars for taxes and regulations. In motorsports formulas, number of cylinders is also a defining characteristic. Number of cylinders figures very highly in the cost-benefit decisions of car engineering, and has dramatic effects on the power curve of a car. More cylinders has benefits, but adds weight, cost, friction and complexity, all else being equal. Complaining that some cars belong to two categories because they had multiple engine options is like complaining that some biographies are classed as both poets and mathematicians. Many, many subjects belong in two or more related categories. No harm in that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: some law? Well there is WP:OVERCAT. When a Holden Commodore fits into four, six and eight cylinder categories it is hardly defining characteristic. Many of these categories overlap heavily. As far citing that engine configuration is cited in legal codes, so is the number of doors a car has. Are going to have the situation where a car like a Subaru Impreza which has been available in two, three, four and five door versions is cited with subcategories? Then add diesel engines as opposed to petrol. Turbo-charged, supercharged. Suddenly we have a large mass of additional widely overlapping categories. --Falcadore (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The vast majority of people are notable for only 1 field, if that. A very small number of people are known for many things. Some cars had three engine options, but most models only had one. Leonardo da Vinci is in 14 different career categories: painter, architect, inventor. etc. That is a consequence of da Vinci being extraordinary, not a flaw in the categories. Let alone a reason to delete Category:Physiognomists or any of the other 13. WP:OVERCAT doesn't say: delete categories with too many members. Category:Inventors would be filled with thousands of articles if it weren't broken up into 21 sub-categories, and any number of sub-sub-categories, down to Category:Italian inventors, where we find da Vinci. Category:Automobiles powered by 4-cylinder engines might seem too large if it were left as a flat category, but that is fixable by creating appropriate sub-categories. Category:Physiognomists is small and needs no subcategories, as with Category:Automobiles powered by 18-cylinder engines.

        There is no basis for deleting a category just because it has a lot of members. That would be like wanting to delete Category:Animals or Category:European people. If 4-cylinder cars is too large, fix it, don't delete it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        • I wasn't talking about what OVERCAT doesn't say, I cited two specific examples of what it does say and how it applies here. I now note that that four cylinder engine category has been subdivided further, however it has been done in a manner which does not necessarily help. By subdividing by method of engine mounting it is still creating large areas of overlap as multi-generational cars, of which there are many, will have different mounting methods. It is also a relatively obscure method of subdivision as the specificities of how an engine is mounted may be well established within the industry but it would not help the vast majority of Wikipedia readers who would not have the first clue about such things. It does sub-divide, not not helpfully. Additionally, is the technical variety of the Ford Cortina really comparable to Leonardo da Vinci?
          • To be honest with you, the technicality of the Ford Cortina is equally as important as Da Vinci. This is Wikipedia, isn't it? Don't just delete stuff just because it isn't in the "public interest". Wikipedia is for finding out about obscure, not-very-well-known things, not just all of the important things everybody already knows. Dennis Bratland has the right idea. Consider it instead of just brushing it off your shoulder. --LatestAutos→  •  Talk plz? 13:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would favor splitting up the 4 cylinder category by Category:Car classifications:, Microcar, Subcompact, Luxury. Moreover, TMTOWTDI. And the category should be split up more than one way; that's the beauty of categories. In any event, choosing how to clean it up is of no concern to CfD. It should be kept and fixed.

              The overlap is mostly a result of the way we choose to write articles; for example the 6-cylinder Ford Mustang (first generation) was a qualitatively different beast than the V8. The number of cylinders was a defining characteristic. But the article happens to make more sense if you cover the 6 and the 8 in one place. Hence, overlap between the 6 and 8 cylinder categories. It's a good thing. I really would like to know what is bad about having this car categorized in both.

              As far as comparison with da Vinci, the kind of car people drive is an important part of the lives of millions of people. Da Vinci is trivia in comparison. People care about the differences between cars, on both practical and emotional levels. I'd be happy to cite more sources demonstrating these facts if there is any disupte of it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

              • You might argue that for the Mustang, and probably not successfully, but such a case for thew differences between a three and four cylinder Daihatsu Charade would definately not be significant enough for different articles. V8 and V10 versions of the Audi R8 would similarly not justify separate articles. Subdividing brad spectrum vehicles like Holden Kingswood which was available with four, six, eight and rotary engines would be ridiculous forking of an article. (Wankel rotaries brings up yet more categories splits: single, dual, triple, quad rotor engines?) The number of cylinders is a defining characteristic of an engine, not of a car. --Falcadore (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that Category:Automobiles powered by 4-cylinder engines is so broad as to be unworkable and would not object to its deletion. The same argument can be made for 6 and 8. However 16 cylinder? (and others) Those are precisely what categories are good at: they use a "push model" of adding markup to each article (where it's obvious) to indicate a clearly defined relationship that would be hard to maintain through list articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not much joy of 4 cylinder category, but over it its useful -->Typ932 T·C 03:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Categorising production cars in this will cause massive category clutter on many articles. For example, the Audi A4 has been offered with both 4 and 6-cylinder engines, while the Audi A6 has been offered with 4-, 5-, 6- and 8-cylinder engines. Even the mass-market Ford Focus has been offered at various time with 3-, 4-, 5-cylinder engines.
    If we want to categorise cars by engines, it's unclear that number of cylinders is the best way to go go about this. A 4-cylinder Mini with sub-1000cc petrol engine has very little in common with a 4-cylinder 2.1 turbo-diesel Mercedes-Benz W212.
    There are also several other defining characteristics of engines by which they could be categorised, such as by fuel (primary petrol/gasoline or diesel, but also LPG and CNG), or by whether they are supercharged or turbocharged. It's arguable that some of these characteristics are more significant than the number of cylinders ... but whether we try categorising by one or all of these characteristics, we are left with the same problem: that many production cars are offered in so many different guises that there will be massive category clutter on the articles, and huge overlap. The result is useless for navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Engines are not defining of most cars. Mangoe (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know how many citations I have to supply to demolish this notion that number of cylinders is not a defining characteristic. I'll start with only two and if that doesn't work I'll be happy to carpet bomb. See Total Automotive Technology, 4e (ISBN 9781401824761)

      Years ago, most manufactures built 8-cylinder engines (V8). Why is the V8 engine not manufactured as much any more and why has the in-line 4-cylinder engine become so popular? SOLUTION: In the 1960s and early 1970s, the V8 was a very popular engine. However, it is not designed to be very fuel-efficient. During and after the energy crisis in 1973, the cost of gasoline increased rapidly, [...] Today, engines are very fuel efficient, especially the in-line 4-cylidner engines. Cars with smaller engines cost less and make better use of the worlds limited oil reserves.

      Read the column at left for a more detailed discussion on the engineering differences between them. Note also that it tells us that the commonality of 4 cylinders is a recent phenomenon; it says V8s were once the norm. If most Wikipedia car articles are about 4 cylinders, it's because Wikipedia neglects history and has created too many articles about recent cars. That's fixable.

      There are innumerable citations available to show that there is an emotional/socioeconomic/marketing difference between cars with different cylinder numbers and configurations. Consider Golden Miles: Sex, Speed and the Australian Muscle Car "There's a sound you feel from a big V8. A hard, thundering throb that says you're on your way." Note the metonymy: the whole car is referred to as "a V8" or "a four"; a very common phrase.

      I didn't have to look hard to dig up these examples, because as WP:OVERCAT says, a "a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • This is becoming a content based issue, but I take issue with V8s ever being considered the "norm". Fours have always been the norm. It was not always possible to build eight cylinder engines. Four cylinder engine at one point expanded out to 15 litres in capacity to solve power problems prior to the technical ability to build six and eight cylinder engines being developed. And in every market other the the US have always been in the minority of production. I note you cite an Australian book in defence. V8 engines did not enter the Australian mass market until 1967 (yes they existed prior to that but only in small numbers in a mere handful of models like the Valiant [and only briefly] and the small volume import Customline and Studebaker models) and you cite the conclusion of the era as the 1973 oil crisis. Six years is a very small slice of the history of automobiles. So all I can suggest to you is your refence document is deeply flawed in its conclusions. --Falcadore (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I picked the Australian book solely because it happened to be the very first one of many, many hits I found. I'm happy to supply as many citations as you'd like to see. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • The BMW 5 Series (F10) is available with 4-, 6- and 8-cyclinder engines. How exactly is the car defined by such a widely-variable parameter? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • How? Because reliable sources use number of cylinders as one of many ways of defining cars. This isn't a collection of Wikipedia editors' likes and dislikes. This encyclopedia is a dilligent reflection of what we get from good sources. Second guessing our sources this way violates WP:V and WP:NOR. There is no one perfect universal means of definition. Why should we expect that there should be? Categorization need not be that perfect. That's why there's more than one way to categorized cars. Cars are complex.

                Here's another batch of citations. I can go on and on like this. By the way, where is a citation to support the nominator's assertion that 70% of cars are four cylinders?

                • The use of engine cylinders as metonymy for the whole car:
                  • "Of the first 10 cars to finish in 1952, eight were six-cylinder jobs. Two of them were V6s. The Chrysler-powered Cunningham that finished fourth was a V8. The only other non-six-cylinder car was the fifth- place winner, the Ferrari V12." Popular Mechanics Jun 1953
                  • "For a while, I even drove a V8 made by Simca, the only one in Europe at the time." A Thousand Fathoms Under the Skin - Volume 1 Rolf R. Schroers
                • Defining characteristic: "By late fall of 1931, it appeared that another Ford four was in the offing." The Cars That Henry Ford Built - Page 94
                • Defining characteristic: "Felicitations came from almost every quarter except those loyal Ford owners who lamented the loss of the Ford four and the other auto manufacturers, who now knew what they were up against." '32 Ford Deuce: The Official 75th Anniversary Edition
                • Defining characteristic: "The new Chevy six had to have overhead valves. ... The production Chevy six. interestingly, shared its 3-5/ 16-inch bore with boih ihe new Poniiac six and Buick's overhead valve unit" Chevrolet: A History from 1911
                • Defining characteristic: "Shortly after the Indianapolis race Ralph De Palma drove a "Twin Six" Packard from Chicago to Detroit" Automobile Journal, Volume 39
                • In depth discussion of inline-6 vs V8, a defining characteristic. Ford Police Cars: 1932-1997
                • Number of cylinders and taxes:
                  • "Note that if you drove a four-cylinder ( or less ) car, you should claim only half of the amount shown on the table unless you can prove you paid more."Kiplinger's Personal Finance - Mar 1967
                  • "If all or part of your mileage was driven in a four-cylinder (or less) car, the deduction for that mileage should be one-half the table amount" The Pittsburgh Press - Jan 8, 1967
                • Want more?--Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I don't want any more of those, because are irrelevant to the question I asked. Please read my question again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Yeah, pretty much every time I get sucked into CfD, which I try to avoid, I run into a deletionist thinking that I find incomprehensible. Sources don't seem matter. The accepted categorization strategies at CfD are novel, i.e., they're original research. Hence my habit of steering clear of this forum.

                      But anyway, my answer is that the BMW 8 series is defined by 3 engines. Not 4, not 7. Da Vinci is defined by 14 fields. Not 20, not 100. 14. Fourteen might be a lot, but it's a definite number of categories. The BMW 8 series has 3 engine options, 4, 6 and 8 cylinders. No more, no less. One might think 3 engines is a lot, but that's mere opinion. Categorization should be decided by fact, not opinion. Moreover, what really should matter is following where the sources take you, even if some editors think they know better. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

                      • Dennis, the sources might matter if they addressed the specific issue here, but none of the sources you have offered deal with that specific issue.
                        First of all, you have provided plenty of sources which show that in some cases, writers noted the number of cylinders in a car. But they don't show how it compares in importance with many other attributes such as engine size, power output, country of manufacture, body style, cost, colour, or whatever.
                        Secondly, they don't address the question of the difft variants. It doesn't make much sense to say that X is defining characteristic if "not X" is also a defining characteristic, and "4-cylinder" clearly means "not 6-cylinder". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Number of cylinders needn't be the best way to categorize cars. There is no best way. Number of cylinders is one way of defining cars, and that's good enough. Cars are members of other categories as well, such as size or body style or fuel type, and each of these may do an adequate but imperfect job of defining the subject. That's how categories are supposed to work. And you're wrong about what the sources say: they don't only say, "this Ford has a V8", they say "this Ford is a V8", just as you would say, "this bear is a mammal" or "this mineral is a pyrite". If the sources said otherwise I'd have no argument to keep the categories. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • A very impressive list of citations certainly, however many of them seem to apply to engines themselves rather than cars. Many automobile engines have their own articles so perhaps the category is better applied to engine articles rather than automobile articles? --Falcadore (talk) 07:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- A few of the higher numbers may be worth keeping, but the numbers that are routine are too common to mention. Anyway, should we not be having articles about engines, not cars? Peterkingiron (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a crucial point. Cylinder count is a good way to categorise engines, but a poor way to categorise production cars (which may be fitted with many difft engines). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it would be kind of foolish to delete them. A lot of the articles in those catagories ARE notable, e.g the early Bugatti Veyron concepts in Category:Automobiles powered by 18-cylinder engines. I can kind of see why people would delete the Category:Automobiles powered by 4-cylinder engines though, and that is coming from the person who created it! Personally, I agree with Dennis Bratland's idea of spliting the catagories into subcatagories if they are a bit overcrowded. But don't delete them! A lot of articles need them. Calling them pointless is kind of...pointless. They are important catagories, and most people will agree with me. --LatestAutos→  •  Talk plz? 19:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The size of the engine, the number of cylinders in the engine, and the valvetrain configuration of the engine are all notable parameters of a car. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - So what categories are you proposing to represent engine size? Cars under 1000 cc? 1000 - 1200 cc? Over 6000 cc? Cars with OHV engines? Cars with multi-camshaft engines? You think we might be able to get up to three figures number of categories for some cars? --Falcadore (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have looked at this discussion. One argument is that these are notable. Well if we have an article, then the vehicle is notable. But are the engines? Are the other features included in the package that offered the engine notable and defining? How often is the engine offered in a standalone package? Most commonly it is part of the basic car and hence generally not defining or it is part of a model variation. Again, is that defining for the vehicle? Clearly this is best covered by a list that includes the package options that offered that specific engine. Were the transmission options as important? Some were only available with an aitomatice and others with a stick? Also were the 1970s Mercedes with their undersized 4 cylinder engines defining? How about the 5 cylinder versions offered to try and address the power issues? There is no way a category here can really do justice to the number of cylinders and how and why it was offered so it just becomes a collecting point for too many articles that just happen to share something. While a case can be made that some vehicles are really defined by the number of cylinders in their engines, they are two few and having the categories would require constant cleanup. That is something that has not worked in the past. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—These categories seem to be filled with makes/models/marques/brands of cars with a shared characteristic. What I can't see is articles about particular automobiles that are defined by the number of cylinders in their engines that would then fit into these categories. For example, the fact that General Lee (car) was a V8 isn't what defined it as an automobile. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - 16-cylinder cars are so rare that they could be listed in an article. Categories are a bad place to describe car's engines. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After reading all that, I have to agree with BHG and others that engines, not cars, are what should be categorised by cylinders. Also, while, there may be a lot of sources describing cars by their number of cylinders, it is also easy to find plenty of reliable sources defining cars by all sorts of other random things, including by their colour, or safety rating, or price range, or type of family expected to buy them. There has been no convincing argument that a car model in general (as opposed to a specific instance of that car model) is defined by cylinder count, especially when many cars come with a variety of engines. --Qetuth (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Number of cylinders is not required to be the ideal, let alone the only, way of categorizing cars in order to be a valid category. It is sufficient that a category be one means of defining the subject according to our sources. A number of editors have taken the position that these categories must be deleted on the grounds that they can name one car or another that isn't well defined by cylinders. But any category could be deleted on those grounds: some subjects are well-defined by one category, other subjects are well defined by another category. Some articles are members of many categories, none of which perfectly capture the subject. If we tried to enforce such a rigid standard, we'd be left with one and only one category per article, whose definition was identical with its one and only member article. Or we'd delete every slightly flawed category and be left with no categories at all. In fact, these cylinder categories are good enough for a significant number of automotive sources, and that makes them good enough for Wikipedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I think cars that aren't well defined this way are more than just rare exceptions. And my argument was that there are many many other features of a car which are used just as often as a defining-looking description by 'a significant number of automotive sources'. Out of curiousity I checked up on cats for my own car. The car article has 11 categories, all but one seemed sensible, and that one turned out to be because of another model in the same article. Yet the article for its engine has only 2 categories which really told me nothing. But that's not really relevant. Having just look over all the car mag reviews and newspaper review sources (but not say manufacturer press releases, recall orders, etc) on half a dozen modern car (21st century) articles, I note that the cars were not once defined by their cylinders, which actually surprised me. Many reviews didn't mention it, or only referred to cylinder count in a stat block which gave dozens of bits of info, or in a list of how features, price, performance differed over a range of engine choices, or in an 'engine' section of the review. The exception was reviews purely concentrating on something like fuel economy, in which the entire review was more focussed on the engine than the car. Maybe this is a more modern evolution though, I will try and do a more balanced survey later. --Qetuth (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2012 (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.

Present status categories for persons[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't categorize persons by present status other than Category:Living people, which is important for collaboration and legal reasons. George Washington is still president and Lou Gehrig will always be a Yankee. It is useful to categorize institutions or ongoing events this way, but not individuals. There is a misconception that a only present status counts or somehow counts more than other statuses and that needs to be corrected. Cf. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_30#Category:Current_foreign_ministers, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_15#Category:Living_queens_consort, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_6#Category:Living_performers_of_Christian_music, etc. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these are the type of things that work well in lists, not categories. Actually some may be too changeable to even be good for a list, but they are not at all good for categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opposition to a delete. However, in this case it might be better to replace this with a template. I think the template in an article would better serve the navigation needs of readers. If the decision is to delete, I'll help create that template if that is where consensus winds up. At least for the first 2. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Articles or templates may well be useful. I'm honestly not sure how many persons want or need to navigate between the rotating president of Switzerland and the Thai monarch, but that's not for me to decide. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nominator and per the long-standing consensus against "current" categories, which will rapidly go out-of-date. No objection to navigational templates and/or list articles, if anybody wants to create them ... but note that per JPL's concerns, some of these topics may be too rapidly-changing to make viable templates or lists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Current FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives Per Previous CFD. This issue was already discussed and the result was Keep. Nothing has changed since then, so I see no reason to re-open the discussion and make a different decision. This category is automatically populated by the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives Infobox, so it automatically remain current.
  • Delete/Listify This is the kind of thing that should be achieved by either lists or navboxes. Even more so that the FBI most wanted effectively already has both. It was as far as I can see kept mostly on arguments of 'defining characteristic' which is really an argument for keeping its parent Category:FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, and on the existence/maintenance of the Infobox, which isn't really an argument at all. --Qetuth (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most ensuring that lists exist. The "FBI most wanted" category might be kept, but those who leave the list, because they are caught (or die) should remain categorised. We do not do Current/former categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We should get rid of the FBI category as well. That is probably the worst of the categories here. It just opens up all sorts of categories by being on short lists, which we avoid like the plague they are. The fact that a previous discussion was in favor of keeping a category that breaks all sorts of rules, should not force us to keep the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all current categories are disfavored and anything notable can be listified - some folks have done this for national leaders nearly every year. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is also a set of lists of religious leaders by year and another one titled I believe colonial governors by year (not nearly as developed as the national leaders lists). I have spent a lot of time expanding the 16th, 17th and 18th century national leader lists, and some on expanding the 19th century ones, but there is still a lot more that could be done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2012 (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:Health system in art[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete The category seems to be tailor-made for Luke Fildes. One of Fildes' paintings (showing a doctor) was used on a famous poster against an American proposal for nationalized health care. But health care doesn't define Fildes' work and it certainly doesn't define him. (This explains why we don't categorize artists by the themes they explored unless that theme is considered a genre) Pichpich (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a study of Fildes' work shows that health system is not a good descriptor. Another one of his paintings for example was "The Village Wedding". Even if its one article made sense there would be no point in having this category to hold one article, but it is even worse since the one article is only there because of how people chose to use the painter's work after his death.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2012 (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:Other Athletic Federations (No IAAF Members)[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge This is essentially a "not"-based category and that should be avoided. Pichpich (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom, we avoid "other x" categories in most cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge I am the creator and agree with the proposal.CroesJ (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2012 (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 Dark Wave musical groups[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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Genre names should not be capitalized. —Torchiest talkedits 14:53, 7 November 2012 (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:Komnenodoukai dynasty[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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It should be either simply "Komnenodoukai" (plural) or "Komnenodoukas (singular) dynasty", per the norm for families/dynasties. Constantine ✍ 10:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Straightforward and gets the point across Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The present name may be technically correct as the correct Greek plural, but that is too obscure for me. I also agree with nom's case. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2012 (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:England international footballers who also played Test cricket[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While a person having played for the England national football team is clearly relevant for categorization, and having played on the England cricket team is clearly relevant for categorization, I fail to see why the intersection of the 2 is relevant. In the odd case where some user, perhaps out of curiosity, would want to find the intersection, this tool is a good way to find out. And there is no reason, as far as I can tell, to prefer this specific intersection and not any other - and we don't need all possible combinations here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:28, 7 November 2012 (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.

Lists of subdivisions of countries[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: Rename all but first three. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale. Rename all for better grammar and clarity. A lot of categories have recently been speedily renamed to use the compound word "country subdivisions", but we don't even have a head article of that name: country subdivision redirects to administrative division. That redirect is less than ideal, because not all subdivisions are administrative (e.g. the 4 Provinces of Ireland have no administrative function), and it is right that we should have a general grouping of subdivisions which is not restricted to the administrative ones.
However, while the compound term "country subdivision" may have some benefits higher up the category tree (tho I am not persuaded of that), at this level it has created some ugly category names and some tautology.
The phrase "country subdivisions of Nigeria" is silly, because Nigeria is country. Any subdivisions of Nigeria are subdivisions of a country, so the word "country" is superfluous. The 200+ by-country categories in Category:Country subdivisions by country all use the simpler format "Subdivisions of Foo" (e.g. Category:Subdivisions of Nigeria, Category:Subdivisions of Poland, Category:Subdivisions of the United States), and there is no need to introduce the tautology for the categories of lists.
Note that many of these categories have recently been created by the same editor, and they seem to be consistently poorly-parented. For example Category:Lists of country subdivisions of Poland is currently parented only in Category:Lists of country subdivisions by country; it is not in Category:Poland geography-related lists, nor is in in Category:Subdivisions of Poland ... which means that it is nowhere under Category:Poland. I will now fix that parenting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep first 3, rename others: the nominator is spot-on about the country-specific categories. However, as long as the parent is Category:Country subdivisions then I think the top three should keep their names which match it; the proposed longer names do not strike me as enough of an improvement to break the current consistency. – Fayenatic London 15:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all or most -- "country subdivision" is superfluous (except perhaps in parents): where we are dealing with one country "subdivisions" is adequate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all but top 3 per nom, but I don't think the argument given applies to those 3. I'm not sure if the suggested names for those parents are better or worse (both new and old names feel awkward to me) but I feel they should be discussed in connection with, and kept consistent with, the rest of the Category:Country subdivisions tree. --Qetuth (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2012 (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:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Roger Pearse[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: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The category was created by user Kalidasa 777 who was in dispute with user Roger Pearse months earlier over the Mithraic Mysteries article. User roger pearse stopped editing Wikipedia months earlier. Same user also made repeated accusations of sock puppetry for most of 2011 against the same user. Seems like obvious attack category. It's about a user, not about something of relevance to other users. 91.85.76.177 (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2012 (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:Gay male adult models[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 according to modified nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 5 was not to subdivide Category:LGBT models into L, G and B sub-categories. This goes even further and subdivides one of them even further. Upmerge to all parents BencherliteTalk 00:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete/merge as per recent consensus. Nymf hideliho! 07:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Is a model a sex worker? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment thus the question should be "is an adult model a sex worker".John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- A model may be a sex worker, but that is largely the result of a euphemistic misuse of the term. Something similar applies to the female masseurs. Appliying massage is not sex-related. I would further question whether being gay (or LGBT) is a significant characteristic in relation to being a model, whose fucntion is to be a clothes horse to display the latest fashions. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Models have roles beyond displaying clothes. "Adult models" is a term used for people who appear in magazines like Playboy. There is also a whole set of models who pose in photography where the goal is to show various situations, not the clothing. There are also models used by artists, so it is way more than just clothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per discussion and modified nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the problem with this category is that it may seem to apply that these people are modeling in ways that present them as homosexuals. However we do not categorize people by being presented as homosexuals but self identifying that way. That problem would be even more evident in Category:Gay pornographic actors, but I think it also applies to adult modeling issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2012 (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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_7&oldid=1138397209"