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.
Support split. I think Peterkingiron has a good idea but frankly these are so rarely traversed that I think it's overkill in terms of categorization. I'd prefer all by years in one place for simplicity. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt split per Peterkingiron as categories with 1.000+ subcats ae hardly manageable. However I don't think the wording "by year then country" resp. vice versa is a significant improvement over "by year and country" resp. vice versa. --PanchoS (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2016 (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, move images to game/franchise/series category, if needed (many are already where they need to be). Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nominating Category:Images by video game and all subcategories for deletion. Per WP:NFCC we are limited on the amount of video game images we can included on Wikipedia. So each subcategory is small with no potential growth. Furthermore, categorising images by individual games is dumb and pointless, equivalent to having a unique category for each video game, it is an obvious example of over-categorisation. Images should be placed in corresponding franchise/series categories. The1337gamer (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on nomination overall. But concerning Category:LittleBigPlanet images, if 12 sibling categories are treated in a certain way, I would also deal with the 13th sibling the same way (even) if it has 10 articles, just to be consistent. In this particular case, a single category with 10 articles may still fall under WP:SMALLCAT; the guideline doesn't give an absolute minimum, after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2016 (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. MER-C 12:08, 15 February 2016 (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:merge for now. – FayenaticLondon 21:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT, these categories concern three small former countries (Colony of Aden, Aden Protectorate and Kingdom of Yemen), each with very little content in the colonial period: there is only one article per year (very occasionally two articles) in every of the nominated year categories, while many years do not have anything at all. The proposals aims at merging the years of the three former countries each to (20th) century level, each country with a century establishment subcat, while keeping Category:20th century in Yemen and Category:20th-century establishments in Yemen on top of the three former countries. After these mergers a lot of parent categories will become empty, these have been nominated for deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I may be in a minority, but I think that Asia is too big an area to be a target. I would prefer us to have the target as a Middle East sub-continent, defined as the area bounded by Egypt, Turkey, and Iran with various seas. This contains a multitude of small states, making this definition of the Middle East an appropriate parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reaction, presumably you mean to insert a whole additional tree of millennia, centuries, decades and years between continent level and country level, throughout the entire history. It would be nice if someone would like to implement that but I'm not so sure of anyone volunteering. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - you cannot move those cats to a non-existing country. Yemen today refers to the "Yemeni Republic", which had not existed until the end of North Yemen Civil War.GreyShark (dibra) 22:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above nominations concerns a move from the Aden Protectorate to Yemen, or from the Colony of Aden to Yemen, so this is a really strange reason to oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Greyshark is taking the bottom-up view, which says that the categories should reflect the exact name of whatever national entity existed at the time, even if that means you end up creating a whole load of redundant category hierarchies. Personally I take more of a top-down view, which regards categorisation as being primarily to make it easy to find stuff rather than being 100% accurate on historical names - it also makes it easier on templates if they have a simpler category tree to work with. So I'd always tend to drop the nuances like Kingdom of Yemen in favour of simply "Yemen" pre-1967 - that was its WP:COMMNONAME in any case, the only reason the article name is at Kingdom of is to distinguish it from the modern-day state, whereas for categories it's desirable to unify names as much as possible. Likewise I'd go for "Aden" cats rather than "Colony of Aden" and "State of Aden".Le Deluge (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support for now If some of the target categories get too large, we can figure out a way to split them out. That said, I really think we should use the non-Eurocentric term "West Asia".John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trouble is "Middle East" is the WP:COMMONNAME in English so I'd always go for that. "Arabia" might work better as a neutral name, it's a fairly well-defined area culturally and geographically, that has had a bunch of bitty little emirates over the years.Le Deluge (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support for now but as above, my preference would be to drop eg "Kingdom of Yemen" cats in favour of simply "Yemen" etc. Incidentally, those interested in this kind of thing might like to look at this report once it has run in an hour or so, most of what's left in it are categories needed for establishments in former countries. Le Deluge (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Naming the category just "Yemen" instead of "Kingdom of Yemen" could be a bit confusing because the kingdom of Yemen was a lot smaller than the current country Yemen. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2016 (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. MER-C 12:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one article, Ukrainian American Veterans, along with the logo file from the same article's infobox. (I don't see much room for growth, but no objection to recreating later if we can get up around 5 non-biography articles.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I would prefer to see American people of Ukrainian descent as the parent category for the whole tree. The two church categories might not fit comfortably in that, but since they are probably composed of people of that descent, it is not all that bad. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need to divvy up American veterans by ethnicity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2016 (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.
