Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 24 June 26 >

June 25

Category:Railway stations serving hospitals in Norway

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is a trial balloon. There is a small collection of categories like this. I'm not convinced that, for the most part, railway stations are defined by the type of facility they serve. This potentially violates the spirit of WP:NOTTRAVEL. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, pretty much the same considerations apply in the other cases. Mangoe (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given the level of categorization for the UK the UK categories nominated here could just be deleted outright. Mangoe (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that as an alternative. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possible rename, unless we also get rid of the Category:Airport railway stations tree. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a defining aspect of the railway stations in question. Sports venues, campuses and hospitals are all facilities which generate a lot of patronage and are often the sole reason for the stations having been built or remaining in use. The point of at least the Norway categories is to place stations which have the campus/hospital/venue as their primary target, rather than a trains station which serve towns which happen to have such a facility in them. This is particularly evident in situations where the stations are named for the hospital/university/venue. All stations are already categorized by line/system/geographically so a merge to a high-level station category would serve no purpose. Arsenikk (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There may be some railway stations that are built exclusively to serve a specific facility, but many/most railway stations do not have a "primary target"; they are used to reach several/many locations (and use may vary by year, time of day etc). This will never be a comprehensive categorization scheme unless we create categories like "Railway stations serving mixed-use residential/commercial zones". IMO, the costs (e.g. in editor time arguing about whether a particular railway station has a primary target) outweigh the benefits of this categorization scheme. Introducing the name of the station into the equation would further complicate things. DexDor (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stub message boxes and subcategories

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: The messages consist of lines rather than boxes. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2014 (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.

Template:Asbox

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: Procedural close - This is a meta template, which is the base template that all other stub templates are using. As such, it does not fall under When not to use this page (which is for content-related stub templates only). Moving a meta template involves a lot more then a simple rename. This requires more attention, therefor referring to WP:RM without prejudice. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

per Wikipedia:Requested moves#When not to use this page

Nominator's rationale: It's a line rather than a box. Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2014 (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:Jazz-rock ensembles

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Jazz-rock redirects to jazz fusion, so the categories must follow their main articles accordingly. Λeternus (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2014 (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.

Some Sub-Categories of Category:Automobile transmissions

Nominator's rationale: These are 1 and 2 article categories. Two are with defunct manufacturers so there isn't room for growth; the other two can be recreated later if the article count grows. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we wanted to complete the set so that every name-brand transmission article had a "Category:Foo automaker transmissions" to place it in, we would need to create one-article categories for Hotchkiss, Borg-Warner, Automotive Products, Rover, Mitsubishi, Isuzu, and Alfa Romeo. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your point being? Are you saying that those companies had only one notable transmission? In any case, these are a part of a series. Yes, more small categories can be added, but being part of a series is a strong reason to keep. If you want to shoot small categories on sight, you have a lot of work in front of you. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The linked articles are the only ones that currently exist for each company. (Mitsubishi definitely has others that are notable; the other companies probably not.) Thank you for giving feedback on my nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_25&oldid=617927796"