Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 7 December 9 >

December 8[edit]

Category:Austerity in the United Kingdom (1939–54)[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: do not rename. MER-C 19:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Slightly wider scope, and matches the eponymous article. Rathfelder (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Austerity and rationing are not the same thing at all. Also the loss of the specific date range would make this category meaningless (or at least, of little relevance to the original scope). We need to distinguish this WWII austerity period, and the austerity period after the withdrawal of rationing, from other periods of rationing such as 1956 and 1973, or "austerity" under the current tory party. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's just the limitation of MediaWiki categorization being primarily navigational rather than ontologically defining. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 10 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.

Category:Galba[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: keep. MER-C 19:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCASSOC, this category only contains people somehow associated with Galba. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I suspect this misreads the policy and its purpose. The policy says that categories should not be created for "people associated with X" because "associated with" is a vague definition for a category; not because there is no reason for categories consisting of related topics, including people, to exist. All of the examples cited are titled "people associated with X"; but it also indicates that "family of X" could be appropriate because it is clearly defined. It does not say that only "family of X" is a valid definition, nor does it say that only categories with narrow definitions may exist; it concerns only the specific definition of a category to include "people associated with X". Now, many Roman emperors have categories under their names; we have Category:Augustus, Category:Tiberius, Category:Claudius, and Category:Nero, for example, all of which consist primarily of people, but which also include other things. If the only objection to Category:Galba is that it currently includes only people, then this nomination should fail because the category is not limited to people, but could include acts, buildings, writings about, letters of, artistic depictions of, etc. The fact that the only connected topics so far are other people does not seem like sufficient grounds to delete the category, nor would it be sufficient unless and until other topics are added to the category. The policy says that categories should not be created vaguely to include only people by association; it does not say that broad categories including associated people should be deleted if they happen to be populated entirely by people. The category is presumptively valid because it is broadly defined to include any topics related to Galba; it is not invalid because the only topics currently included are people. P Aculeius (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. He was no Augustus, nor even a Nero, but was probably noteworthy enough to have such a category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Lodged. Hmains (talk) 04:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just to be clear. P Aculeius (talk) 14:35, 18 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.

Category:Novels nominated for the White Pine Award[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. MER-C 19:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:CANDIDATECAT for an Ontario-only literary award White Pine Award Le Deluge (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - So, I read the link. This is the first category that I have created, so it's possible that I'm wrong in what they're used for, but I think it should be kept. I agree that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but novels that are nominated are verifiable. 10 are nominated every year, one book each year wins the award. This has occured since 2002, so there's approximately 220 books that have been nominated for it. A lot of the books nominated for this award are written by famous authors, like Kenneth Oppel, whose book Every Hidden Thing was nominated for the White Pine Award in 2018. Not every single book that has been nominated has a Wikipedia article, but I thought that the category could be useful for the ones that do. The White Pine Award is sponsored by the Ontario Library Association. I'm a high school student in Ontario that reads, so I know some of this stuff ancedotely, but reliable, independant sources do exist about this stuff. Clovermoss (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC) In addition, the White Pine Award is part of the Forest of Reading, which is the largest recreational reading program in Canada. Clovermoss (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have lists of awards and nominations by person, but I do not know of any other types of nominations lists. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen many articles about all kinds of awards. They usually include a list of winners, like this one does, but I have never come across a list of nominees. That's just not done. Anomalous+0 (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC) @Clovermoss:[reply]
  • @Anomalous+0: I feel like this could be an exception to the general rule, because of what it means for a book to be nominated. 10 books are nominated each year, and the book that receives the most votes from students (and over 270,000 participate, see the CBC article that I linked) is the book that wins the award. So WP:OCAWARD might not be applicable in this instance, because recieving the award is a defining characterstic (and so is being nominated for it). That said, I realize that the consensus so far seems to be to delete the category. I understand that this is not a vote, but a !vote. I'm just trying to discuss why I felt the category could be useful, or a list, or something. The reason I was asking about lists was because both criteria for deletion mentioned mention that lists can sometimes be used instead of categories, and I thought I should ask here for the input of others before making a list. Clovermoss (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Deletion - I appreciate your enthusiasm for the subject, Clovermoss, but I'm afraid this sort of category or list is just excessive. I assume you obtained the info from their website, so I would suggest linking directly to that page, either in the text of the article or perhaps in the External links section. Anomalous+0 (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Anomalous+0 I just wanted to say that it's not just their website that I have obtained information from. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, an independant, reliable source, calls the Forest of Reading the "largest reading award program in Canada" [1]. All of this year's finalists (including White Pine's) are mentioned there. Clovermoss (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've spent some more time thinking about this and have changed my mind, as others have pointed out different reasons why this wouldn't really work as a category, in accordance with policy. I was hopeful that, for WP:OCAWARD, that this might qualify as an exception for the award being considered a defining characteristic, but since I'm the only one considering it as an exception, it probably isn't one. In addition, exceptions are only explicilty noted for when recieving the award is a defining characteristic, not beig nominated for one, so my argument is flawed. This is the first time I have participated in an Cfd, so I feel like the rationales of people who have spent more time with categories are worth listening to. Clovermoss (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Clovermoss:I am sure your remarks are appreciated by all concerned, Clovermoss -- and I hope this experience hasn't dampened your enthusiasm for editing on Wikipedia! (I moved your comment to the end to ensure that the other editors would see it.) Regards, Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:40, 10 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.

Category:Regulatory fraud[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 23#Category:Regulatory fraud

Category:Doubly landlocked countries[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT which will only have two members, we already have Category:Landlocked countries. Le Deluge (talk) 18:03, 8 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.

Category:Greyhawk organizations[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 20#Category:Greyhawk organizations

Category:Medical licensing boards[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: merge. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The only place to use the term Medical licensing boards is the USA, which has its own subcategory. None of the articles use the term. Rathfelder (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I can't see how these categories are different. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:56, 8 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.

Category:Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 2 articles Rathfelder (talk) 16:23, 8 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.

Category:Banu Hasan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 20#Category:Banu Hasan

Category:Hanukkah film[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: speedy merge/delete. – Fayenatic London 17:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A duplication of Category:Hanukkah films. Gonnym (talk) 09:56, 8 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.

Fictional countries in real continents[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: merge. MER-C 19:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale, if it concerns a setting in a real continent, it does not really matter whether the country is unknown or fictional. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: several of these categories were previously nominated for discussion in February 2018 and September 2019. (They were kept.) - Eureka Lott 16:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I am less than convinced that the brief scene that happens in Wakanda is defining to Avengers:Endgame. More than that, this makes unneeded distinctions. Where do we draw the line between a fictional country and a fictional government? If the place is a real place, but the government is fictional, is the country fictional? Also, how do we distinguish between things set in fictional countries, and things set in unspecified countries? There are too many variables here for this fine of category breakdown to make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the past I have defended similar categories, but there are good arguments here for merging. Merge, but add {{Category see also}} links from e.g. Category:Films set in a fictional country to all of the continent categories. – Fayenatic London 12:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Setting is defining for a work of fiction. Dimadick (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, and the proposal does not deny that, it keeps the articles in an e.g. African setting category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The premise of your nomination is flawed, though. There's a big difference between works that are set in a fictional country and those that are set in an unknown country. Take Coming to America as an example. It's important to the plot that it's set in Zamunda, not an unidentified existing country. - Eureka Lott 16:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Zamunda important? It is just a random name. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name isn't the important part; the question is whether being set in a fictional African country is a defining characteristic of the film. In my opinion, it is. - Eureka Lott 18:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is still not clear why the difference between an unmentioned African country and a fictional African country is so important. In both cases the country can be a mix of African reality and the author's imagination. The random name of the fictional country is the only differentiator. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per JPL. Re Coming to America even if the distinction is important to the plot of some films that doesn't mean it's generally defining or a good way to categorize. DexDor (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:14, 8 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.

Category:Polish history websites[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: merge to parent categories Category:Polish websites, Category:History websites and Category:History of Poland. – Fayenatic London 14:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I created this by mistake, but it creates an opportunity for discussion. Most website categories are along the lines of "Fooish websites", but it's not always clear what this means. The history website categories I have made are mostly like "History websites of Foo", intending to mean websites based in Foo, not necessarily about the history of Foo. I have categorised all sorts of websites on the basis of where they are based, which isn't always the same as what they are concerned with. I'd like to know whether people think this is a reasonable approach, or whether we should switch them all the other way. Rathfelder (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While thinking of it, it is slightly odd to categorize websites by the country where they are created or the country where they are hosted. It may not even be visible when a website was created by American people of Polish descent rather than by Polish people. Categorizing by topic (websites about Polish history) definitely seems more defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some websites which cannot be assigned to a host country, but they are a small minority. But it makes no sense to delete just this one subcategory for that reason. We categorise companies and organisations by where they are based, not, in general, where they are concerned with. Most websites are emanations of companies. Where should they be treated differently? Rathfelder (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because websites do not have a clearly visible physical location. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • True. But they have some sort of legal existence and are subject to a legal jurisdiction, even if they do their best to hide. Rathfelder (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says it "is a Polish web portal dedicated to history". Rathfelder (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Insofar as country subcategorisation is desired, categorising by base of operations is probably the best option, since it's a factor that will determine how they do their business. However, this does indeed seem strange for websites with a global audience. (Lonely Planet being under Category:Australian travel websites, for example.) As for the nominated category, rename as proposed for consistency with the immediate tree, or delete. I'd point out, though that this tree isn't in line with most other website categories, which use Fooian topic websites. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to parent categories per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have half a dozen history websites by country, and it seems reasonable to expect more. Rathfelder (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from UK and US there are currently only 30 history websites articles, it is way too early to diffuse that over 200 countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per Marco. For the question whether this naming scheme is good in general I would say it is. It makes it clear what the scope of the category is and concise. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:09, 31 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.

Category:Oklahoma City Dodgers[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: keep. MER-C 19:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not needed category. It has two subcategories and the team only. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has two subcategories and the team only.... Correct! The reason why you need a category. Do not delete. If we're continuing to go down this road, I think we should eliminate all minor League baseball categories. I want to make Wikipedia harder to navigate and less user friendly. Let's make it harder for people to find the information they're looking for. All baseball should be in one massive category. Maybe make Wikipedia like a puzzle. Once you figure it out, then maybe you'll find the information you're looking for.... or not. Spatms (talk) 2:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Minor league categories with this amount of entries should be deleted. There is no need for them. Your saying all minor league categories should be eliminated is plain stupid....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, sportsclubs should have a template, similar to the artists template, that automatically links the players category with the managers category, without the need of a parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Templates are supposed to link articles, secondly if a subject doesn't have enough links, there is no need for a navbox?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears to be a nice solution when it is always the same type of subcategories that are related to each other. In case of artists, the templates ensure a direct link from songs of that artist to albums of that artist and vice versa, so that an artist parent category is no longer needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have a strong view either way, but this comes up a lot with (association) football teams. They can have up to 6 or so categories - players, managers, seasons, templates etc plus just enough in the top category to justify its existence - main article, stadium and badge as a minimum. Given that sports editors tend to over-categorise, I'm not that bothered by having a top category - personally it's things like club template categories that irk me more. That's not to say a sportsclub equivalent of {{albums category}} would not be helpful.Le Deluge (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Part of a well-organized standard category structure, and parent category to the two subcategories, as noted. In addition, it also presently contains three pages and two media items, in addition to the two subcategories. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:36, 12 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.

Category:Science fiction portals[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: merge to Category:Entertainment portals for now. MER-C 19:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge to both parents per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains just one item, Portal:Doctor Who. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete outright. @BrownHairedGirl: I'd recommend assessing that portal's notability because we've held at MFD that super-huge franchises don't get portals. ミラP 18:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Miraclepine: I agree about the portal, but CFD only decides about categories. So long as the portal exists, it needs to be categorised ... and deleting the category (rather than meting it) will leave the portal improperly categorised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:14, 8 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.

Category:K-class ferries of BC Ferries[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: merge to Category:Ships of BC Ferries. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Propose up-merging to otherwise empty parent to match other BC Ferries ferry-class categories (C-class, I-class, N-class, S-class, T-class, V-class). I suspect the reason for this duplication is the ambiguity of "K-class ferry", due to the presence of the unrelated Sydney K-class ferry. In light of that, if "Category:K-class ferry" is deemed too ambiguous, I'd also be fine with the reverse merge.—Ketil Trout (<><!) 02:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: I didn't know that subcategory existed, but yes, I'd support Category:Ships of BC Ferries in lieu, but in that case, we should also add Category:Ferries of British Columbia, no? So, call it a double or triple upmerge (depending if Category:K-class ferries is included) to Category:Ships of BC Ferries, Category:Ferries of British Columbia, and Category:K-class ferries. Marcocapelle, what do you think of this amended result? Doug Mehus T·C 14:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note Category:Ferries of British Columbia likely includes articles about ferries built in British Columbia shipyards and inland ferries operated by the provincial government's Ministry of Transportation, not BC Ferries which, while government-owned, is a separate entity. That's likely the reason for those two categories. Doug Mehus T·C 14:50, 6 February 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.

Category:Agrarian theorists[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 manually, recategorizing where needed. MER-C 19:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, hardly any of the articles in the category is explicitly about an agrarian theorist. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) I am not against Peterkingiron's alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 11 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.

Category:Bookstores of the Faroe Islands[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: keep. The question of renaming is deferred to a future discussion. MER-C 19:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category with no possibility of expansion for such a tiny country. Shyamsunder (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This ought to be merged, rather than deleted, but the bookstores parent is a container only category. The Faroes are a Danish dependency, so that there might be a Denmark target, but on the whole, it may be better to keep it.Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or upmerge to all parents. Oculi (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as any plausible upmerge would both disadvantage the Faroes' status as an autonomous territory, it would also be useless for any practical purpose, Copenhagen being rather distant from the Faroes. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to Category:Bookstores IN the Faroe Islands - There are currently 43 subcats of Category:Bookstores by country, and more than a dozen of them have only one article. One in particular, Category:Bookstores in Greenland, stands out because it, too - like the Faroe Islands - is part of Denmark. Oddly, there's no subcat for Denmark at the moment - though I'm fairly certain that people do read books there. In any event, the Faroes are far removed from the Danish mainland, and warrant their own subcat. The only real issue is the word "of", which should be changed to "in" -- along with all of the other misworded subcats. Anomalous+0 (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for renaming is very simple: "OF" implies that the thing in question is either owned by or part of the governing entity -- which is certainly not the case for the typical bookstore. These subcats are all about geographical location, so "IN" is the correct word. Anomalous+0 (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's following Category:Companies of the Faroe Islands, standard in Category:Companies by country. My own preference would be 'based in' per Category:Business organizations based in the Faroe Islands but that would require a bulk nom. Oculi (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly rename per Anomalous+0. As for having only one article, that's not uncommon for a by country/city/state theme like this. In any case, who knows? Maybe Bókabúðin or Føroyaprent bookstores will eventually gain an article! Grutness...wha? 03:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my remarks directly above. Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:33, 9 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_December_8&oldid=944223406"