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]
Merge No conceptual objection to the category but it currently just adds a layer without aiding navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:06, 13 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]
Delete The current category feels like a random assortment. No objection to more narrow philosophical cats. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:08, 13 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The result of the discussion was:withdrawn, somewhat agree with the counter-rationale provided — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avilich (talk • contribs)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]
Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:10, 13 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:no consensus to delete, but rename to Category:Voice of India writers. This is without prejudice to a new nomination for deletion since there was no consensus on that point. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete, a publishing company is not a defining characteristic of writers. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to a subcategory Category:Voice of India writers. This is not any old publishing house, but an ideological movement. The books published under its title would not have been published anywhere else. See the page on Voice of India, which has plenty of RS describing the phenomenon. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:56, 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.
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]
Keep The situation has changed. The Christians sub-cat now has 13 entries. There is no good reason to delete such a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:45, 8 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[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: 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]
Rename per nom. Better solution indeed. --Just N. (talk) 19:14, 13 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)[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: 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]
Merge until if and when such a scheme is viable internationally. Grutness...wha? 02:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there are currently 5 articles in the category, so could this perhaps become a viable scheme? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd suppose it is viable and 5 articles beat the SMALLCAT rule. --Just N. (talk) 19:16, 13 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]
I take it back, it looks like there is a scheme, though it is unorganized (see below). Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:33, 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]
Build Category:Silent feature films, as 20 other countries have a sub-cat for it.[1] Then either keep or double merge this one; with 5 entries, I'd say keep. – FayenaticLondon 21:18, 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[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: Per WP:CATNAME and a loose reading of WP:C2C
These are not just associated with Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but quite specific to those two events. Most, but not all, of the contents of Category:Monuments and memorials use "monuments and memorials". I'm less sure on the preposition: "of" and "to" didn't feel right since these really honor those impacted, not the bombings per se, which may explain the current name. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 11:50, 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:ABC journalists associated with the Liberal Party of Australia[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.
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 intersections. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:26, 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]
Keep This is a category that serves the curiosity of users very well. Useful instead of trivial! --Just N. (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither serving the curiosity of users, nor useful, are a good criterion to keep, both are too subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a useful public interest categorisation. Observoz (talk) 04:48, 23 July 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.
