- It would have been right to say "Correctly renamed substitute of a pointless category". Since the names of every subcat following the naming scheme Category:"Brand" "model" engine it's only logical to create a parent category with the titel "by brand by model".--FAEP (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- For someone claiming an "advanced level of English", this "Category:Automobile engines by brand by model" name isn't even grammatical.
- "Model" is (per other category structures) considered as a manufacturer's designation, thus implicitly part of a sub-structure within the "brand" or "manufacturer" (we have metacategories for all three terms). Duplicating this as "by brand by model" is pointlessly tautological. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The name Category:Automobile engines by brand by model is not corresponding to the real content of the category. Such category names are intended for the second level of meta-categories, this category contain no meta-categories. The previous name "Category:Automobile engines by model" was more accurate. The contended categories are directly categories of individual models, they are not grouped into meta-categories of models by brand. If you would like to emphasize both levels in the category name, "Category:Automobile engines by brand and model" would be a correct variant. --ŠJů (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Btw, this category is redundant and causes needless overcategorization. Engine models should be categorized by brand, such "flat category" by model is not useful. --ŠJů (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)