Category talk:King, Ontario

Um, is this category really necessary? Bearcat 06:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it was a little early to introduce it, but there are (or will be) plenty of articles that will be added to it. Unfortunately, so far I'm the only person working on articles for this township, so it's a slow process. Since I also contribute to other articles outside the scope of this township, the process is really slow. I guarantee this: it will grow. Mindmatrix 13:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It just seems to me that a township (not even a town) of less than 20,000 total population doesn't merit its own category when most cities in Ontario don't have their own special categories, and when Category:York Regional Municipality, Ontario already serves the purpose adequately. YMMV, I suppose. Bearcat 08:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * A few points:
 * the fact that some cities in Ontario don't have categories devoted to them has little relevance to this discussion, in my opinion; I think it reflects the fact that nobody has gotten around to organizing articles related to such cities
 * related to the above, just because a township has a small population doesn't imply there isn't a sufficiently broad set of articles which can be written about it
 * Category:York Regional Municipality, Ontario captures York Region articles - this category is designed to allow someone to find articles specific to King; if someone reads the King Township article, and wants to find other related info, they're more likely to find it in this category, not the York Region cat.; I'll add regionally significant articles to both cats (there shouldn't be many, though)
 * I think there are plenty of useless categories in Wikipedia. I don't think this is one of them.
 * I've got a list of over 250 potential articles that I can think of adding to this category, most of which don't yet exist. I just don't want to add too many stub articles at once, since I may not be able to guarantee their growth at this point.
 * In my opinion, the third point is most relavent, but I think the others are valid too. (BTW: my apologies if this post sounds a tad snarky.) Mindmatrix 20:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)