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 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: Unnecessary eponymous category per WP:OCEPON at this time (only a discography page besides the very specific topic subcategories of albums and songs by the band. Also have found incorrectly categorized American writers on occasion due to ambiguity. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me01:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All bands that exist do not automatically get an eponymous category for themselves; these are created only when a band (e.g. Category:The Beatles or Category:The Rolling Stones) has a lot of spinoff articles that need band-related categorization beyond the standard eponym/albums-cat/songs-cat/discography scheme. It's a scheme that's restricted to relatively few bands of exceptional notability, not a thing that every band automatically gets just because it exists. And, indeed, I have also seen people incorrectly file writers in here; I distinctly remember having to remove at least one just a couple of weeks ago. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2017 (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: overcategorisation, per WP:SMALLCAT. The current coverage on en.Wikipedia of Rivers State in Nigeria nowhere near extensive enough to require a full set of by-year categories. The current setup consists of about 115 article categorisations over a 90-year period, spread over about 110 categories of three types: Category:Years in Rivers State, Category:Establishments in Rivers State by year and Category:Disestablishments in Rivers State by year. There are also about 15 container categories.
This nest of tiny categories is more of a hindrance to navigation than a help.
So this nomination makes two proposals to remedy the overcategorisation:
OPTION A upmerges the years, but keeps the decades. For example
I prefer option A, because the decade categories are just about big enough to be useful, but can expand significantly without becoming oversized. But the more radical option B would still be better than keeping this collection of tiny categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, Support Option A. However, the present states of Nigeria were only formed after the end of the Biafran War. We should not be having any categories for Rivers State before it existed. Instead we should be using the preceding provinces. Anything else is anachronistic. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to defer the wider issue until later, but the pre-state categories should not be closed under either option, but renominated for a different merger. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - modern Nigeria was created in 1960 (transforming from Colonial Nigeria, part of the British Empire), whereas the Rivers State was formed in 1967. The proposal is clearly not dealing with this issue of anachronism as mentioned by Peterkingiron. I wouldn't support anything which doesn't solve this.GreyShark (dibra) 21:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Greyshark09: Please can we try to solve one problem at a time? This proposal does not in any way impede a subsequent resolution of the anachronisms, and it actually makes that job easier. I take your point that we have anachronistic Rivers State categories, and that those should be eliminated. However, both these options significantly reduce the number of anachronistic categories. The remainder can more be dealt with by a separate nomination after this one closes, and the reduced number of categories can then be more easily tackled to remove anachronism. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, i would prefer keeping the decades, as it is a valid subdivision of Nigeria and we do have "Years in <subdivision>" categories. This is on the condition that we remove anachronisms later on.GreyShark (dibra) 17:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The issue is not how many articles are currently in these categories, but how many could potentially reasonably in these categories. Nigeria has a population of 184 million people. It is reasonable to expect that in any year hundreds of notable organizations/schools etc were organized, so splitting the category by state based on the states of Nigeria in a specific year is a reasonable proposal. The fact that Wikipedia is Amero and European centric should not cause us to kill such reasonable projects to prevent categories from getting unworkably too larger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2017 (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.