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: To match the main article. Note that there are many teams known as Al-Nasr SC, all of which, I believe, could have their name transliterated as Al Naser so confusion is possible. Pichpich (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems sensible.Le Deluge (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support the latter, delete the former. It doesn't seem worthwhile to keep up an eponymous category for just the main article and the subcat with players. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that too. Pichpich (talk) 17:16, 1 December 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.
Nominator's rationale:rename, because 'named' is a trivial characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed. When I first saw the category's title, I thought that the scope was "probability problems named after someone" but in fact it's just "probability problems that have a specific name". Clearly Category:Probability problems is a simpler choice. Pichpich (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming, as "named" isn't the main defining characteristic, "probability problem" is. --Mark viking (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename We categorize by what things are, not how they're named. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:58, 2 December 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.
Category:South Korean family television series[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: Nebulous category. —swpbT 19:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:South Korean television seriesDelete. There don't appear to be any other "family television series" categories and surely this just means 'appeals to all ages', which is rather vague and general. Sionk (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed 'vote', based on the presumption Bearcat has checked that all the articles are already in alternative sub-cats. Sionk (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; all of the articles are already in other appropriate subcategories of Category:South Korean television series anyway, so an upmerge would result in unwanted duplicate categorization. "Family" is not a genre of television series per se — it's a term that can be used in a few different ways, including an age-appropriateness rating (i.e. "suitable to watch with your kids") and a description of the show's premise (i.e. "is about a family"). Given that one of the entries here is titled My Wife's Having an Affair this Week, I'm going to presume that the intention here was the latter usage rather than the former — but the fact that the term can simultaneously mean two different and not entirely compatible things is another reason to consider it not a genre and notWP:DEFINING. Bearcat (talk) 05:48, 29 November 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 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:South Korean slice-of-life television series[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: Nebulous category. —swpbT 15:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Slice-of-life" is not a genre of television series; it's a term that describes any television series that's reflective of "real life" instead of being set in an invented science fiction or fantasy world, so by far the majority of all television series that exist at all could be described as "slice of life". Which makes the term not defining, and the category effectively unmaintainable. Bearcat (talk) 05:16, 29 November 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.
Category:10th-century BC establishments in Israel[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.
Comment Wouldn't we have a huge NPOV issue about a category stating in Wikipedia's name that there was a united monarchy at that time? The main article says "There is no direct evidence of a united Kingdom of Judah and Israel in the 10th century BCE". Doug Wellertalk 17:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a source first of all. The existence of united monarchy is very plausible based on biblical scholarship (analysis of Biblical texts in reference to regional history) and recent archaeological finds. The question is whether it was a significant regional kingdom or a tiny chieftainship in Judean and Samarian mountains. In any case, it did control Jerusalem and Shomron.GreyShark (dibra) 12:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Marcocapelle's suggestion. It is unlikely this category could expand to something useful. Dimadick (talk) 10:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere else. I'd suggest that it be something like "Establishments in ancient Israel and Judah". Splitting ancient Israel into pre-monarchy, united kingdom, Israel, Judah, and post-monarchy is rather unhelpful, largely because it doesn't go along with what we do even with contemporary countries. Look at Category:Establishments in Germany by year, for example: we have a single Category:20th-century establishments in Germany covering the entire century, without separating the pre-division country into Second Reich, Weimar Republic, and Third Reich. In the same way, there's no good reason to separate pre-Rehoboam Israel into united monarchy and pre-monarchy, which this proposal would do. If we had a lot of articles in the establishments tree, it would be reasonable to separate establishments-in-Israel from establishments-in-Judah (comparable to our trees for establishments in West Germany and establishments in East Germany), but since we really don't have specific years for most events in ancient Israel (even the Siege of Jerusalem, the most pivotal event, is generally dated to 586, and it's the raison d'etre for Category:6th century BC in Israel and its subcategories; I'm surprised that our article gives a different year), most of our articles about establishable things from ancient Israel won't be able to be put into this tree, so if we divide it any farther than "ancient Israel", we're going to be introducing a lot of extra categories that will only complicate navigation. Just create the single parent category for the few precisely dateable things, and everything will be okay. Nyttend (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Establishments categories are only useful as container categories to be diffused by period or type of establishment, not to host a single article as in this case Solomon's Temple. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Marcocapelle. For Ancient Israel and Judah we seem to have one establishment, Solomon's Temple and one disestablishment, from several centuries. One might add the establishment and disestablishment of the kingdoms themselves, but there is not (and is unlikely ever to be) enough content to merit any splits, by century or otherwise. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 4 December 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.
Nominator's rationale: this category is almost identical to the slightly broader Category:Racing drivers from South Australia. LibStar (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, racing drivers by city in Australia is an accepted categorization scheme, we have it also for Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane; and this Adelaide category by itself isn't a case of WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support upmerge. "Racing drivers from Adelaide" is overcategorisation. From WP:OCLOCATION: "in general, avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics". It makes no different to a racing driver's career if they from Adelaide or from just outside the city boundaries, so subcategorisation by city is not appropriate. I would support any nomination of similar categories from other cities. IgnorantArmies(talk) 09:25, 29 December 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.
Nominator's rationale: New category created November 13. Beyond the fact that in proper word order "female" should go before "fashion", there is no clear distinction in Wikipedia categories between models and fashion models. I can find no other national model category that distinguishes between fashion and regular models (thus it is is always "Category:American female models" or "Category:French female models"). Since there is already a "Category:Japanese female models", all those in this new category should be merged into Japanese female models. Michitaro (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom Unclear distinction in meaning. Dimadick (talk) 10:50, 24 November 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.
