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:Merge. Single-item category which thanks to gorram FOX will never expand. The article can live happily in the parent categories. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to both parents per nom. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:13, 18 November 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Categorizing articles based on the fictional characters that appear in them is an exceedingly bad idea. Star Wars alone could end up in dozens of such categories. The lead article on the character itself links all of this material together, as do any number of Star Wars articles, lists, templates and categories. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete sadly we don't have enough on r2 to merit an epon cat. Note that if we had films and books about r2, not just films starting r2, hen this could work, but it seems there is only one film about this little fellow - alas, delete.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No conceptual problem with category but it only has 3 prooperly included articles and is too small. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:46, 17 November 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.
Nominator's rationale: This category contains just the eponymous article which is already in a suitable category. DexDor (talk) 05:50, 11 November 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.
Nominator's rationale: Merge. All of these categories are small: none of them have more than five members, and if we merge them all into the nationwide category, it will have 33 pages: that's not enough to warrant splits by state. There are a few additional subcategories, which I've not nominated because they're larger (all have eight or more articles), but we're nowhere near having the "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" that's mentioned as an exception in WP:SMALLCAT. Remember that splitting a basic category like this only needs to be done if there are tons of entries in the parent (making navigation difficult because there are so many choices) or if there's a large enough subgroup with a common theme (e.g. the towers in Montana). Splitting the towers by miscellaneous state, as we've done here, makes them somewhat slower to find without substantial benefit. Finally, note that we don't get large numbers of new fire tower articles; WP:SMALLCAT's provision of "a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time" really isn't applicable here. Nyttend (talk) 05:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine to merge, but please ensure that the top categories like Government buildings in ... state, Firefighting in x state, etc, are put in the individual articles once the merge is completed. I would recommend keeping only Montana, Washington, New York and California as sub categories.Jllm06 (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. These categories have 5 parents One valid reason for categories is to manage the number of categories in articles. I don't consider upmerging to 5 categories a reasonable option especially given that these are a part of a larger series. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to Vegaswikian's very valid point, this is an established category tree; and WP:SMALLCAT has an explicit exception for such things. Despite the nominator's assertion that this is "nowhere near etc." it is, in fact; and merging some instead of merging all is cherry-picking that woould make the tree nothing but confusing. - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Iowa as not needed for only a redirect, neutral on the others except to note that SMALLCAT doesn't mandate small categories, it allows them. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The hierarchical category structure improves navigability. If the fire towers in Massachusetts and Missouri were mixed together with Oregon, it would create a mess when usually one is interested in only one region. The entries in the category do nothing to indicate where they are and that is as important a distinction as the fact that they are fire towers. —EncMstr (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is for the correct reasons listed above. Categories are for navigation and this structure provides this Hmains (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I find that having a bunch of small categories for states/provinces hinders my ability to find related articles because I have to click in and out of all the subcats. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment In cases where you have a small number of elements, you can use {{All included}} and dual categorize things in both the state categories while keeping them in the parent. This could be a win-win compromise perhaps?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:33, 17 November 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:no consensus to delete. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Another small eponymous category not needed for the material. The sub-category is appropriately categorized elsewhere. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are five articles in this category, and the potential for more. The category serves as a convenient navigational aid for all things Craig Vetter and saves us the ridiculous bother of creating a Craig Vetter navbox. Why dink around with a bunch of wikicode when you can put the same thing at the bottom of articles with the push of a button? We have better things to do with our time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are two articles and one redirect in the category, not five articles. There is also one sub-category which, as noted, is appropriately categorized elsewhere. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The three articles in the subcategory are members of the parent category. I'd be more sympathetic to deleting the subcategory, since it contains fewer articles and is less useful. And though we have many articles on Motorcycle designers, and many eponymous categories, we have no other 'Motorcycles designed by ...' categories.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even accepting the theory that the contents of sub-categories should be counted as contents of the parent (which I don't and which the deletions of scores of eponymous categories for musicians refutes), five articles is still a small category and the eponymous category isn't needed to navigate between them. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above, this is a notable and prolific inventor, racer, businessperson, and Motorcycle Hall of Fame inductee, making this category very likely to expand in the future. The redlink redirect Craig Vetter Fuel Economy Challenge is an example of potential or likely category expansion. — Brianhe (talk) 19:04, 12 November 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.
