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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Hassan Rouhani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We general keep this type of categories for national leaders of prominent nations. Considering the level of focus on Iran, I think it is worth keeping the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a category likely to contain a lot more for the reasons given by John, above. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Supraorganizations in Science to Category:Scientific supraorganizations

Nominator's rationale: I have not nominated this for speedy renaming as Category:Facilities and organizations of science uses both science foo and scientific foo forms. Tim! (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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: there is no consensus for implementing this proposal right now (the categories were not tagged in any case), but there was some indication in the discussion that users would be open to and would welcome further discussion on this issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Rename Category:Novelists (and all subcats) and Category:Short story writers (and all subcats) to Category:Fiction writers (and subcats thereof, as appropriate).

Now that authors has been renamed to writers, we should also take a look at another subjective naming convention. splitting fiction writers merely due to the length of the fiction. Each of these trees have plenty of subcats: by genre, by theme, by ethnicity, etc. this just hinders navigation rather than helping it. If I am looking for Edgar Allen Poe, which should I look under? If I am categorising Edgar Allen Poe, should I have to categorise under them all? What if I miss one not knowing these other trees exist? What we have is a hodge-podge of subjectively defined categories.

Even the article on novel suggests that this is a subjective determination (here). And then of course, we have novellas and novelettes, etc.

And note: Poetry categorisation isn't split this way: Category:Poets. And this is regardless of the mere length of the poetry in question.

To reiterate and be clear, this ONLY includes categories of writers of written fiction where that fiction is only divided due to the length of the written fiction. - jc37 22:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all as nom. I volunteer to help with the implementation. - jc37 22:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  CfD = categories for discussion. That said, I can understand the concern that a time delimiter on this discussion could be concerning in this case. However, genuinely active discussions are rarely closed. And if one takes a look at the backlog going back to april, I don't think that time really is much of an actual concern. All that aside, venue shouldn't matter. It's easy enough to drop notes at VPs and appropriate WikiProjects if that is wanted. - jc37 07:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose This would impact a massive number of categories, none of which have been tagged, and cause more problems than it's worth. No problem with splitting them. Some people are known as novelists, others as short story writers, and others as both. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural oppose I have seen things like this done for some categories, where we delete/merge the parent, and then when we try to apply it to child cats the whole thing falls apart. Considering how many of the people in say Category:21st-century American novelists only wrote novels and not short stories, I would say that the overall can be overstated. What is 100% clear is we can not do the implementation unless the categories at the level of actual containing articles are tagged. So this nomination needs to be posted to way more places. Plus I Oppose the claim this is "only a division by length" is not really accurate. The main point is this is the way things are normally divided, that we generally describe people as a "novelist" or a "short story writer" or both. On the other hand people are described as "poets". So I just plain oppose this plan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Up until just now the novelist linked to the CfD for June 18th, I just fixed it so it links to this category. Realistically all 134 by nationality novelists sub-cats, plus many more should be tagged before we do anything. We should also tag the short story cats as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this bears thinking about and I'll be back with a !vote, but off the top of my head am thinking it might work. At one time there was a vibrant market for short stories (19th to around mid-20th century) so there's quite an overlap. Someone like Poe wrote only short stories - even the novellas were serialized as stories - because of the market in his time. Others such as Charles Dickens wrote both, again according to the market, and all of his novels were were serialized. From about the third quarter of the 20th century the short story market dropped off dramatically, though authors such as Stephen King still produce volumes of stories in addition to novels. As to the question of where to put Poe, I guess under the newly implemented categories, he'd be a 19th century writer, a male something or other, and a short story writer, so there is a place for him. It's the issue of novellas that's murky, and frankly has always been in academia as well as here. But undoubtedly these are all forms of fiction. To end with a question: would this apply only to American writers where the recent upheaval has changed the categorizations? Victoria (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose This is not only a difference in length but a difference in style of writing. Novels tend to have a larger scope in narrative, a larger cast of characters, and can feature multiple ongoing plots. Short stories focus on a "self-contained incident" (by our definition) and typically have limited complexity. From a readers' point of view they are very different animals. Dimadick (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until such time as this is thoroughly reviewed someplace where there isn't a time limit on the discussion. As others have mentioned, there are hundreds of subcategories which need to be reviewed first to make sure this isn't going to cause more problems than it's trying to fix. Since this involves a lot of different projects and a lot of different categories, perhaps a discussion can be started at the village pump where a list of all the affected categories can be made and discussion can be had on the best way to implement an effective and clearly-defined change. This just feels too rushed here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The nominator makes a good point about overlap, tho I am not entirely persuaded by it; some numbers might help. But even if we accept that case, the solution is wrong. "Fiction writers" includes poets and screenwriters and others, so the proposed merger does not just remove the distinction between the two nominated groups; it also removes them from any grouping of "writers of prose fiction for consumption by printed media".
  I agree with Nihonjoe that this needs wider and longer discussion than is possible at CFD.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Having the poets and playwrights et al as subcats is in no way prevented. There are innumerable examples in the occupation tree) and elsewhere) where the broad category has "exception" split-off subcats. But even that may be resolved using the word "prose" as noted below... - jc37 07:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The more I think about it, the more I think we need to repurpose or rename fiction writers. Lots of playwrights and screen writers clearly could be called fiction writers, but we really do not split those categories by specialty. However with Category:American science fiction writers a sub-cat of the fiction writers cat, it might make sense to have those who write science fiction screen plays in that category. I am not sure that we do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Overlap is better than a huge set of categories mixing everyone from Saki to JK Rowling. And no, this discussion has not been properly set up, and if it was done it would have to be the not very snappy Category:Writers of prose fiction to keep poets & dramatists out. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Or "Prose fiction writers" I suppose, though perhaps that might be considered a bit too prosaic? : ) - jc37 07:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This as written would not apply to Category:American novelists and its sub-cats, because they have not been properly tagged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.