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, redundant category layer, with only one subcategory and its eponymous article. It is not necessary to merge to Category:Spirituality as well, because the subcategory and article are more specifically parented already. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2021 (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, this is a container category with a hodgepodge of unrelated topics. At the very best we might keep Monism, Dualism and Holism together in a container category, but that container category would probably require a different name than Form. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2021 (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The result of the discussion was:withdrawn, somewhat agree with the counter-rationale provided — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avilich (talk • contribs)
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with main article's name (WP:C2D, though not asking for a speedy move here), and not all gentes were Roman. Avilich (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The title it has is clear, concise, and intuitive. Removing "Roman" fails to improve any of those qualities. Not all of the gentes originated at Rome, but they were all part of Roman culture, Roman history, and all of the peoples who had gentes in the sense used here became Roman, i.e. Etruscans, Samnites. Removing "Roman" could open up the category to the inclusion of entirely non-Roman topics that happen to be described using the word "gens". There's no need to "ambiguate" the category merely because some gentes are described as "Etruscan" or of some origin elsewhere in Italy that was subsequently integrated into Roman culture. P Aculeius (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2021 (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, as a redundant category layer, these container categories are very lightly populated while their parent categories have limited size too. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2021 (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.
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.
Delete for Now Only 1 article that is already under the Christianity and Joseon Dynast trees. No objection to recreating later though if it ever gets to 5 articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2021 (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:Chairmen of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation
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: Women have served in this position, so I suggest using "chairpersons" instead of "chairmen". "Chairs" would be another option. Good Ol’factory(talk)01:44, 5 June 2021 (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:Silent feature films from Georgia (country)
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: There is no overall scheme of separating silent feature films from silent non-feature films, nor are there enough articles about Georgian silent films to justify a subcategorization. I suggest upmerging. Good Ol’factory(talk)00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is not wholly based on SMALLCAT; it's also based on the fact that the nominated category is part of no overall scheme of categorizing silent films in this way. Good Ol’factory(talk)02:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I don't mind if the merge is supposed to be unavoidable. So do it if you think you must. -- OTOH I'd sort silent documentary films as different from narrating feature films. And Category:Silent films from Georgia (country) IMHO momentaneous contains 7 articles if you don't see a subcat as only one entry. --Just N. (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2021 (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:Monuments associated with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
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:ABC journalists associated with the Liberal Party of Australia
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.
These categories consists of either people who worked for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as young people and became prominent politicians and those that were already prominent politicians and were later part of an ABC opinion show. Most these people seem defined as politicians with passing associations to the ABC. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining. Just like people in any other occupation, journalists have been known to run for political office and sometimes win, and former politicians sometimes appear on the news as pundits and commentators — but that does not make the intersection of "network they were associated with in their journalistic work" with "particular political party they were affiliated in their political careers" a notable or defining characteristic in and of itself. The only possible justification for this category would be to set up a POV assertion that there's some analytical significance to be found in the fact that one of these categories happens to be somewhat larger than the other — but such things aren't the category system's job to concern itself with. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2021 (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.
