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:Delete. Small category with no chance of growth. Categorization by like name. Note the articles are extensively categorized. Navigation is addressed by links in the affected articles and the navigation templates. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support upmerge to Category:Crossings of the Hudson River. This is a small category with little navigational benefit as there are so few articles and it is not part of a populous, wider "tunnels" tree. The content is better located with the fellow crossings. SFB09:47, 2 November 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:Ambassadors of Russia to Antigua and Barbuda
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.
Or – we categorise by defining characteristics. If X was the 'Russian ambassador to Antigua and Barbuda' then this is obviously defining (and a sufficient reason for notability). I personally think that the piece-meal dismantling of a coherent and comprehensive subcat scheme is tantamount to vandalism. Oculi (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There absolutely does seem to be a clear scheme to double-categorize (from/to) every ambassador article. That approach creates a myriad of 1-article categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a small category with little navigational benefit. This content would be better upmerged to "Ambassadors from Russia" and Category:Ambassadors to Antigua and Barbuda. I think the foundation of the many tiny categories needs to be challenged. I think a system where (a) "Fooian Ambassadors to X" categories are only maintained if they have a significant population (Category:Ambassadors of Spain to France for example) and t(b) he rest are grouped within the higher level categories, is preferable. I don't think maintaining on the point that this is widely used is a valid one – little navigational benefit is derived from category structures that overwhelmingly comprise small categories. SFB09:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I do not consider the deletion rationale presented above to be unreasonable, but this needs a wider discussion for similar Ambassadors of Foo to Bar categories (at WT:CAT, for example). I do not object in principle to the elimination of these small intersections, but I do object to the adoption of a piece-meal approach that could reveal a lack of consensus down the line. -- Black Falcon(talk)22:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having a wider discussion would also allow nominations for these types of changes (upmerging, not deletion) to reference the central discussion, as opposed to rehashing the same argument every time. -- Black Falcon(talk)22:16, 22 November 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:delete for now; may be re-created under a different name if there is a main article written about topic, but there is general agreement that categorization of every county within the area is overcategorization. Good Ol’factory(talk)08:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Ohioans: Do people in northern Ohio really identify their area as the "Western Reserve" or is categorizing every contemporary county in Ohio (and all their sub-articles) just an anachronism? RevelationDirect (talk) 09:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know if this can be fixed in the category space because what's really needed is a main article on the region in contemporary Ohio. That would clarify what should be categorized here and what to call it. If Koavf feels that a rename in the mean time would be helpful, no objection from me.RevelationDirect (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a term that doesn't lend itself to specificity and categories need to be specific or else they become junk collectors and fail WP:NPOV through non-static and subjective inclusion criteria. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep category and rename per nom We are not re-writing history or geography for the sake of some editors at WP to tidy things up and who generally want to delete everything that is brought to this forum. Hmains (talk) 23:34, 8 November 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.
