###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels:['no_consensus', 'delete', 'keep', 'comment', 'merge', 'redirect'] : ###Input:  Q30030713: Siligo (Q30030713) : chief town of the homonym municipality : ( delete | history | links | entity usage | logs ) Null page with no connection Euro know ( talk ) 19:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC) Keep real town, no reason to delete. VIGNERON ( talk ) 20:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC) Many items for civil parishes in England are combined with the village or town of the same name - it looks like this is the only town or village in Siligo (Q36198) so should they be merged? There are also deletion requests for Q30028540 , which is similar, and Q30026267 , which may be better kept separate as it contains places other than the one it is named after. Peter James ( talk ) 21:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC) @ Peter James : indeed, many item combine different things but I don't think this is not a good idea ; from experience, it only causes problem afterwards. « it looks like this is the only town or village in Siligo (Q36198) » is it really? And what about other things located in the commune ( Siligo (Q36198) ) but not in the town ( Siligo (Q30030713) ) like Chiesa di San Vincenzo Ferrer (Q29587337) , Santi Elia ed Enoch (Q30537422) or Casa cantoniera di Monte Santo (Q47485758) . Of course you may disagree but - at least for now - I stand by my point of view. Cheers, VIGNERON ( talk ) 11:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC) Many items for civil parishes in England are combined with the village or town of the same name - it looks like this is the only town or village in Siligo (Q36198) so should they be merged? There are also deletion requests for Q30028540 , which is similar, and Q30026267 , which may be better kept separate as it contains places other than the one it is named after. Peter James ( talk ) 21:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC) @ Peter James : indeed, many item combine different things but I don't think this is not a good idea ; from experience, it only causes problem afterwards. « it looks like this is the only town or village in Siligo (Q36198) » is it really? And what about other things located in the commune ( Siligo (Q36198) ) but not in the town ( Siligo (Q30030713) ) like Chiesa di San Vincenzo Ferrer (Q29587337) , Santi Elia ed Enoch (Q30537422) or Casa cantoniera di Monte Santo (Q47485758) . Of course you may disagree but - at least for now - I stand by my point of view. Cheers, VIGNERON ( talk ) 11:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC) @ Peter James : indeed, many item combine different things but I don't think this is not a good idea ; from experience, it only causes problem afterwards. « it looks like this is the only town or village in Siligo (Q36198) » is it really? And what about other things located in the commune ( Siligo (Q36198) ) but not in the town ( Siligo (Q30030713) ) like Chiesa di San Vincenzo Ferrer (Q29587337) , Santi Elia ed Enoch (Q30537422) or Casa cantoniera di Monte Santo (Q47485758) . Of course you may disagree but - at least for now - I stand by my point of view. Cheers, VIGNERON ( talk ) 11:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC) Keep per VIGNERON. -- Pasleim ( talk ) 17:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC) Many items for civil parishes in England are combined with the village or town of the same name - it looks like this is the only town or village in Siligo (Q36198) so should they be merged? There are also deletion requests for Q30028540 , which is similar, and Q30026267 , which may be better kept separate as it contains places other than the one it is named after. Peter James ( talk ) 21:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC) @ Peter James : indeed, many item combine different things but I don't think this is not a good idea ; from experience, it only causes problem afterwards. « it looks like this is the only town or village in Siligo (Q36198) » is it really? And what about other things located in the commune ( Siligo (Q36198) ) but not in the town ( Siligo (Q30030713) ) like Chiesa di San Vincenzo Ferrer (Q29587337) , Santi Elia ed Enoch (Q30537422) or Casa cantoniera di Monte Santo (Q47485758) . Of course you may disagree but - at least for now - I stand by my point of view. Cheers, VIGNERON ( talk ) 11:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)