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 (equivalent to upmerge) (NAC). DexDor (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. SFB 09:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles are already in there so no upmerge is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:01, 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[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: Category containing one article, which can easily be added to cat's supercategories. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – this is how the supercats such as Category:Ambassadors of Russia are organised (container cats). Part of a subcat scheme. Oculi (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. SFB 09:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SFB's approach would call into question tons of other pointless categories beyond this nomination, but I'm in. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SFB and nom. And, yes, this has to start somewhere. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If deleted, must also upmerge to Category:Antigua and Barbuda–Russia relations (all parents, in other words). No strong opinion on merits, but since it's only a "list of" article that is in the category, I lean towards deletion. If there were articles about individuals, I might feel otherwise per Oculi. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:49, 11 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]
Oppose Every single article in this category is about a region in contemporary Ohio (not about Connecticut's history in this area). I don't think Connecticut Western Reserve is really the main article. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be open to that if kept. I'm also wondering aloud if this is a valid category at all, per the below. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:06, 1 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]
The term is still used in Northeast Ohio. People here recognize the area's New England heritage, especially at places like Hale Farm and Village. You can see some of its uses at Western Reserve (disambiguation). As you can see, Connecticut is almost always omitted from the name. The category shouldn't be renamed, and if we move anything, it should be the article. That said, placing all of the region's cities and townships in Category:Western Reserve is overkill. That's why I tagged it with {{category diffuse}} last year. - Eureka Lott 13:21, 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.
