Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 26

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. – Fayenatic London 19:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Upcoming video games scheduled for 2019 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: 2019 is nearly over, so there isn't much time for any more games to come out Most Horizontal Primate (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Category is not empty yet; contain Rape Day. Senator2029 “Talk” 08:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Rape Day isn't even a valid game for this, as it was removed from the Steam store earlier this year and has apparently just been abandoned since. At least, there is not recent source claiming the game is still expected to be released in any form in 2019. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Now empty except a notice about the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2019 (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: keep. MER-C 03:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Rivière des Prairies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale:

Eponymous category for a relatively minor river, which is really just a channel/tributary of other larger rivers rather than a genuinely important river in its own right. Of the 14 entries here, 10 are bridges that happen to cross it and an 11th is a list of those bridges -- and after that, what's left is the eponym itself, one power generating station and a cluster of very small islands whose main basis for notability has less to do with existing as islands (which could have been covered off by just naming them in Hochelaga Archipelago) and more to do with having once been incorporated as a town. So categorizing these things for a relatively minor river that they happen to be associated with isn't really all that useful -- there are literally millions of rivers in the world that would have to have eponymous categories if "there are notable things on, near or in it" were all it took to justify one. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Alternative: convert to Category:Bridges over the Rivière des Prairies. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to bridges category, part of
  Oculi (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Potential keep -- Even if the bridges are moved to a separate subcat, we will be close to enough items for a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• keep A decently populated category, with potential for subcategories as well. Dimadick (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2019 (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, also to Category:Fantasy characters. MER-C 03:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Warhammer Fantasy characters to Category:Warhammer Fantasy

Nominator's rationale: Only one article. TTN (talk) 14:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Double merge also to the other parent Category:Fantasy characters, as the nominator TTN has not explained why the member page should be removed from that hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 23:08, 2 January 2020 (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, also to Category:Fictional spacecraft. As of closure, the category has only one entry. MER-C 03:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Space Odyssey spacecraft to Category:Space Odyssey

Nominator's rationale: Only two articles, one at AfD. Redirects should be removed. TTN (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are six entries here, not two. Please do no assume that your AfD powers are so great that other editors have no input to the process. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Dual merge, also to Category:Fictional spacecraft. The category contains only 2 articles because the 4 redirects redirect to the article that is already in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2019 (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 02:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Space: 1999 spacecraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only one article soon to be a redirect again per AfD and a redirect. TTN (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a good look to be pre-judging outcomes of your AfDs, even when you're so prolific at them. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2019 (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: speedy delete per

G7 Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose deleting Category:Germanic cuisine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I'm seeking feedback on the validity of this category, created in the last day and of which I learned when it was attached to Faroese cuisine. We call modern peoples Germanic when they are the biological descendants of early Germanic tribes, the original Germans. We call languages Germanic when we trace their development back to a single theoretical language that we call proto-Germanic. "Germanic cuisine" implies foods that can be traced back to a German proto-cuisine, in the way that Hawaiian pizza, as different as it is from anything prepared in Italy, can be traced back to the Italian proto-pizza. But are there such foods? I doubt that all foods that modern Swedes eat (Flying Jacob? with bananas and Heinz chili sauce?) trace their roots back to early Germans. User:Krakkos placed under this category the cuisines of various countries primarily populated by people of Germanic ethnicities, and placed the category itself under Category:Cuisine by ethnicity, but, to me, the idea that foods eaten by people in Sweden and Denmark and Liechtenstein and the Netherlands are "Germanic" foods, even if invented many centuries after there was no longer a Germanic people and with no connection to foods eaten by early Germanic peoples, seems spurious and not meaningful or helpful. Largoplazo (talk) 11:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Germanic Europe, particularly Northern Germany and Scandinavia, has a very similar cuisine. There are plenty of dishes and drinks in common, such as
  Glögi, Kringle etc. Common Germanic dishes, such as Crispbread, share an origin from early Germanic times. Similar categories, such as Slavic cuisine and Polynesian cuisine, exist. A category for Germanic cuisine is helpful to Wikipedia. Krakkos (talk) 11:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support, even if
  Glögi, Kringle are common dishes among people who speak Germanic languages, the category does not help Wikipedia readers to actually find these common dishes. It is merely a container category by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support, per nom & Marcocapelle. Krakkos has unfortunately been celebrating Yule by creating a whole swathe of dubious Germanic categories, in particular the subcats of yesterday's new Category:Early Germanic culture (including a "cusine" one), as usual dismantling better structures as he goes. Others will need sorting. Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Marcocapelle & Johnbod. Germanic is not an ethnicity, it is a language family, and the intersection of cuisine and language family is not notable. Place Clichy (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2019 (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: do not merge. There is no consensus for an alternative name. MER-C 03:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Frozen Pension to Category:Pensions in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: 3 articles and a misplaced dissertation. Rathfelder (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This category shoukd not be recategorised - there are a number of new Wikipedia Pages currently being developed. a Frozen State Pension applies to 500,000 UK pensioners who live outside of the UK,so to recategorise wouod be a total misnomer. I am not sure what the misplaced dissertation is, so perhaps you could qualify this. i would ask for some time and patience which would allow this Category to be supported by more Wikipedia Pages. Thanks. The Retiree (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Which pages are being developed? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Retiree: please see above question. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I mean the category page is not the place for the extended note.Rathfelder (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I solved that just now. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• And the category is uncategorised. Rathfelder (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I solved that just now. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept, rename to Category:Frozen UK State Pension. The situation arises where a pensioner emigrates to a certain countries where there is no mutual agreement with the destination country for annual uprating. The present content is a main article; a case objecting to freezing; and a campaigner against it. There may be scope for populating it better; and the case and campaigner will not fit well in the parent: so weak keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If kept, rather rename to
  WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Do we know if the same thing happens in other countries? Rathfelder (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• There will be 40-50 Wikipedia pages that will be tagged with this Category. Currently, I have 6 pages in my Sandbox that are in the final stages of development. There are also some Wikipedia pages that need updating, and then tagged with this Category. There are over 500,000 UK pensioners who live in over 100 countries who are impacted by the UK’s Frozen State Pension. The UK is the only OECD country that has this policy. If Wikipedia users (and potential donors) were to google this, they would probably type “frozen state pension wiki” - they wouldn’t type “frozen state pension (UK) wiki”. In summary, I would definitely like to keep it, but rename it if you must. The Retiree (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to previous comment: regardless of whether people use google or the Wikipedia searchbar, they will arrive at the article instead of the category, so adding the disambiguator in the category name is irrelevant for that. Adding the disambiguator in the category name is safer in case editors categorize by means of e.g. Hotcat, without checking that Frozen state pension is exclusively about the UK. In fact I would not mind adding the disambiguator to the article title as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment -- I accept that this is rather too small a category at present. However are we sure that no other country pursues a similar policy? I understood that UK did not apply this policy where the destination country had a reciprocal arrangement. I suspect this all goes back to a period when most people collected their pension in cash from a Post Office, so that UK had for example to use the Australian Post Office as its agent and vice versa. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, since User:The Retiree does have 6 articles in draft. We might revisit this category half a year later. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much - this will allow me time to develop and publish a number of other Wikipedia pages that will have this category appended to them.The Retiree (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2019 (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 manually. MER-C 03:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Canadian film directors of Pakistani descent to Category:Canadian people of Pakistani descent
• Propose merging Category:American film directors of Pakistani descent to Category:American people of Pakistani descent
• Propose merging Category:British film directors of Pakistani descent to Category:British people of Pakistani descent
• Propose deleting Category:Film directors of Pakistani descent

Nominator's rationale: Triple intersections of nationality, occupation and ethnicity, not a

WP:EGRS. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support in principle but shouldn't it be a dual merge, also to e.g. Category:Canadian film directors? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The American category has 5 which is normally considered enough to keep; the British one has 4 (almost enough); only the Canadian one is well short of that. If deleted merge also to Category:Film directors of Pakistani descent, which should therefore be kept and have the (native) Pakistani category added. My view is that a triple, even quadruple, intersection is worth having if it can be adequately populated. Second or third generation Pakistanis are likely to retain their Pakistani (and Muslim) heritage and approach filming with that cultural background. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Film directors are defined by their nationality, not by their ethnic background. Per

reliable source coverage and analysis about it. Bearcat (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• @Bearcat: please comment on the dual merge question. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The people may already be in appropriate subcategories, such as Category:Canadian documentary film directors or Category:Scottish film directors, which would render the parent category into unwanted duplicate categorization. Obviously some care should be taken to ensure that the few stragglers don't get stranded, but a comprehensive "upmerge all to '[American/British/Canadian] film directors' alongside the ethnic parent category" is not needed. Bearcat (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• So it will require a manual merge anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom and
  WP:GHETTO says that they should be), but a check could not harm. Place Clichy (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2019 (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 02:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Biting insects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: There are several problems with this category - (1) It appears (e.g. by being placed under

bite humans (although some do pierce the skin). (3) This isn't part of a wider "Biting animals" category structure. (4) However this category is defined it's likely that the 85 articles currently in it are a tiny fraction of the articles that would be eligible to be in it. Articles about insects are well categorized by their genus etc (i.e. below flies, moths, bees etc) so categories like this are unnecessary. Note: It may be appropriate to move some articles in this category to Category:Pest insects. DexDor ^(talk) 11:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

This and other subcategories of pest insects were intended for articles where it was mentioned that the insect is a pest and for some explicit reason. (Ideally, there wouldn't be any articles under Pest insects, there should always be some reason in the article why it is considered a pest.) Some articles explicitly state the insect bites. For example, "Bed bugs are a type of insect that feed on human blood, usually at night. Their bites can result in a number of health impacts..." Therefore, I think the answers to the above are, 1) Yes, though actually it was created under Category:Pest insects. 2) If the insect does not bite humans, livestock, or pets or the bite is not what makes people consider it a pest, then it should not be in this category. 3) It is under Category:Pest insects, which is under Category:Insects and humans. 4) If it were renamed "Insects with bites painful or dangerous to humans" then a more limited number of articles would belong in it. That might be too long a name for a category. I agree it is problematic that some of these insects are categorized here merely because they bite. I wouldn't see any value in that. Every article in this category should be identified explicitly in the article as being a pest and it should state something about it biting humans, livestock, or pets. --Brambleshire (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what you mean by "bite"? E.g. Some of the insects in this category sting or use a proboscis rather than actually biting humans. DexDor ^(talk) 20:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have any real knowledge of the subject. The perception of an insect as a pest is not based on the morphology of the insect, it’s an interaction. I’m not qualified to say if an insect bites. The article says it. If the article says the insect bites, the article can be so categorized. Sorry, I know that’s not helpful. -Brambleshire (on mobile)

• Comment, if kept it should probably become something like Category:Skin invading insects but the definingness of it is questionable. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all of the reasons already discussed and more.... For example, German cockroaches are not known for biting humans - and yet I can assure you that they do indeed bite or chew/feed on sleeping children. And I'm sure there are many other insects that will at times bite humans, even though they may not be known for that. In fact, I suspect it might actually make more sense to have a category for non-biting insects! Just sayin'... Anomalous+0 (talk) 12:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are many insects that may sometimes bite humans as a defense mechanism. The ones that we usually consider as "biting" feed on human blood. There is a category
  bedbugs, maybe human flea, that's about it). Some hematophagous insects may have increased medical significance as Category:Insect vectors of human pathogens. Hematophagous insects that feed on livestock may belong in Category:Agricultural pest insects, although all existing members of the category appear to be pests of crops. I'm not sure whether diet (hematophagy, herbivory, intestinal parasite) could be a DEFINING characterisitic of an animal, but very few animals are currently categorized by diet, so I'm not inclined to be in favor of developing any categories for human hematophages. Plantdrew (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above, by biting, chewing or blood-sucking. Johnbod (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• For info: There is Category:Parasitic infestations, stings, and bites of the skin (i.e. from the medical perspective). DexDor ^(talk) 08:26, 31 December 2019 (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: rename to Category:Hebrew script templates. MER-C 02:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia Hebrew script templates to Category:NEW CATEGORY

Nominator's rationale: For the sake of unification (see the other categories in its supercat), I suggest the category be renamed to Category:Hebrew script templates. Also, the subcategories should mention the word “template” in their names. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No objection. - Gilgamesh (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per
  WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:46, 26 December 2019 (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: rename. MER-C 02:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Veritas (political party) politicians to Category:Veritas politicians

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary and tautologous disambiguation. None of the other uses at Veritas (disambiguation) is likely to be mistaken for a political party. It has been stated that "it is customary to retain the dab in category names" but I have never found any naming policy to support this, despite asking for directions. Opera hat (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, similar nomination as on December 3. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  Oculi (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If this "naming policy" is so well-established, then why isn't it included in the guidelines at

WP:Naming conventions apply, and these include naturalness (the current title is ludicrously unnatural), precision (titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the [category], but should be no more precise than that) and conciseness (The title is no longer than necessary to identify the [category]'s subject and distinguish it from other [categories]). All of this is English Wikipedia policy. A custom that parenthetical disambiguation that is necessary for an article title, as in Veritas (political party), should be carried over to a category where it is unnecessary, like Category:Veritas (political party) politicians, is not policy. Opera hat (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

It is policy, determined by consensus at many cfds over many years, and is a speedy criterion.

Oculi (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Perhaps I should have been clearer: it is not

WP:POLICY. Opera hat (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per Oculi, to match Category:Veritas (political party). Consistency of naming makes categories much easier to use. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom -- The article has to be at Veritas (political party), because Veritas (Latin for truth) potentially has other uses. However there is no reason why the disambiguator has to be carried into the politicians category, as only a political party will have politicians. We have Birmingham categories at Birmingham, West Midlands, so that Birmingham, AL articles are not added by mistake, though the article is at Birmingham. This is the converse situation, where a disambiguator is unnecessary for the category, though needed for the article. The party only existed for about 10 years as a splinter of a small party, so that its further population is unlikely. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. The redundancy is useless here, unlike the parent category. Place Clichy (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2019 (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. Consensus is that this category shouldn't exist. If coverage improves of this subject, then Peterkingiron's alternative then recreation should be considered. MER-C 03:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Diplomatic missions in Liverpool to Category:Diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article. Rathfelder (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- this page lists over a dozen consulates in Liverpool. No country would have an embassy there, because these are almost invariably in the capital. WP includes consulates in diplomatic missions, but they are not concerned in diplomacy but in helping their citizens deal with the authorities in the host country and (for example) merchants from the host country deal with their own. There may be scope for renaming to Category:Consulates in Liverpool and seeking to populate it, but often consular service is provided by an individual (Honorary consul or vice-consul) from an office that also performs other functions, so that I am not sure of the merits of encouraging such articles. WP is not supposed to be a directory, but the parent of the page cited suggests that a consulates tree could spawn dozens of not very useful articles for UK alone. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• There are plenty of consulates, but few are notable and there are very few articles about them. Rathfelder (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• now Delete for reasons in my comment above. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Peterkingiron: didn't you mean "merge" instead of "delete"? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As a major port (both for trade and because there is a resident population) Liverpool has historically had a large number of consulates. So have Bristol, Newcastle and a few other similar ports. The idea of "only one article" (seriously?) as a definition is nonsense, because the population of this cat should be based on what exists, not on what WP has articles on. Also it would be quite reasonable to create these consulate articles quickly, as redirects to a section within the national embassy articles.

Merging to anything either national, London, or including London would be useless, as London then swamps everything else. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I changed my vote to delete, because it appeared unlikely that other articles would be created to populate this adequately. Part of the problem is that we have List of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom and similar lists for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but none for England. The reason for this is no doubt that the English list (and a related category) would be swamped by Embassies and High Commissions in London. As pointed out there are consulates or consulates-general in many cities, but perhaps not enough in any one city to merit a category. Perhaps I might offer an alternative option of renaming to give it a wider scope to Category:Consulates in England or Category:Consulates in provincial England. The latter is intended to exclude London, though I doubt there will be consulates in London, because consular business in and around London will be done from the main diplomatic mission. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2019 (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 02:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Comedy in London to something else

Nominator's rationale: The category is currently populated with TV series set in London, which is already a different category (Category:Television shows set in London). I'm not sure what this category is for. Fuddle (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete rather than rename. It is too ill-defined and unique to be of use. Sionk (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest Category:Comedy TV series in London. Series is probably better than shows, which is an Americanism. The present category would also have scope for Comedy Club (a dabpage), a London venue, but that would not fit well with the rest, but it does not seem to have its own article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If kept it should at least become set in London. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator's flip-flop: The two articles that aren't TV shows are adequetly categorized and the TV shows have their own category. I'm changing my vote to delete. Fuddle (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• (after EC) I agree with Marcocapelle, with a slight rewording. Something like Category:Comedy television shows set in London makes sense. Currently it could mean anything from films like Love Actually to night clubs that have stand-up. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Then probably Category:Comedy television series set in London, per Peterkingiron. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We'd be establishing a precedent, not that there's anything wrong with that. I don't think there are any Category:[genre] television series set in [place]. Are we heading towards
    WP:SMALLCAT? Fuddle (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• No, it is meant to be a sibling under a British name, per
  WP:ENGVAR. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2019 (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.