Category:Egyptian people of Silesian descent[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.
The result of the discussion was:speedied as empty category. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: empty Rathfelder (talk) 23:22, 10 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:Educational organizations based in Canada[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.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. But as noted, whatever is done it should probably be done uniformly at least across Category:Educational organizations by country, which is not consistently one way or the other. (My personal opinion is that requiring "based in" for any organization-by-country category is a little bit pedantic. There might be a consensus for eliminating that more broadly, but it would require a truly broad nomination.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Consistency with other subcategories of Category:Educational organizations by country is more important in this instance than consistency with other subcategories of Category:Organizations based in Canada by subject is (especially since the latter has no consistency, featuring a jumbled mix of "based in", "in", "of" and "demonym subject organization with no prepositions at all".) Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Most of the content of the parent follows the form of the target, and the parent and most siblings should be renamed to match. The exception might be overseas aid organisations, based in Canada but operating in (say) Africa. However we should not allow such exceptional cases to dictate how they are parented. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I built a category Category:Charities operating in another country to deal with this problem, and the idea could be extended. But for organisations which typically operate in the territory in which they are based it seems sensible to allow consistency with categories which don't include the words "based in".Rathfelder (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hesitant to apply this as a common principle, because it may cause difficulties with regional organizations. They are based in a country but cover multiple countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, procedural oppose, we can't just change this in one topic in one country, it requires at least the nomination of all country subcategories of Category:Organizations by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 18 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.
The result of the discussion was:speedied as empty category. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Probably created by accident Rathfelder (talk) 22:15, 10 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.
The result of the discussion was:speedied as empty category. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty Rathfelder (talk) 22:14, 10 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:Fictional people by locality in the United Kingdom[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: C2C - bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. NeoBatfreak (talk) 17:49, 10 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.
The result of the discussion was:speedied as empty category. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty Rathfelder (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick scan to see if there was much of anything that could be added to this category to salvage it — but per our article on Middlesex, it's almost all basically just London now, rather than being its own thing that needs its own category. Accordingly, I'm going to speedy it as an empty category; no prejudice against recreation in the future if there's ever actually anything that credibly warrants being catted as based-in-Middlesex instead of based-in-London. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 11 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, 2½ out of 5 articles are about probability rather than about statistics. With the proposed name the category should become a direct subcategory of Category:Probability and statistics. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:39, 10 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:upmerge to both parent categories per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This upmerge is wholly appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 18 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:Green Bay Packers practice squad players[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.
The result of the discussion was:delete. While not expressed in such terms, I think everyone who commented was in agreement that the category should not exist. But as pointed out by some, a merge would not be appropriate, which leaves us with deletion. The people are notable because they were (actual) players on other pro football teams. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Regardless of whether or not a player has played for a certain team, we don't create categories that contain players who were only on the practice squad. I don't see any other categories that contain practice squad only players. – Michael (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-- If they did not play in the main team, why are these 109 people notable enough to have articles and be categorised as players? My preference would be merge,but I do not know enough to comment. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose practice squad players are not players, any more than every draft pick that "played" wearing the uniform but was cut from the team before the season commenced are "players". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "practice squad player" is not a defining characteristic and "player" is apparently incorrect in these cases. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 18 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.
