Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 25

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

April 25[edit]

Category:Stations along the proposed New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail Line[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: split to new Category:Stations on the New Haven–Springfield Line (which has already been done) and rename what is now left to Category:Proposed stations on the New Haven–Springfield Line. – Fayenatic London 14:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was created long before the official name of this commuter rail service was known. I'd like to rename it to reflect the official name. Daybeers (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's why the creator included the word proposed. If you think there should be one for the physical line, I don't see why we couldn't have two categories: one for the line (Category:Stations on the New Haven–Springfield Line), and one for the service (Category:Hartford Line stations). That might make more sense, as the Hartford Line category would include not yet open or proposed stations. –Daybeers (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but categorizing by heavy rail stations by service would be atypical. I can't think of a similar example. Mackensen (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then if this is to be a category of all stations on the line, should we be including former stations on the line (no current articles, but a number of redirects)? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue with that is the proposed part. The Hartford Line has stations that are either not open yet or are proposed, so would they be included in the category if it's renamed for the physical line? Or should it just include the current stations? –Daybeers (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is a completely different question, the answer does not depend on whether we name the category after the railway line or after the operator. I would say, yes, proposed stations may be part of the category, or they may be put in a subcategory - but this isn't really the place to discuss this. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. What do others think about renaming this to Category:Stations along the New Haven–Springfield Line, and then creating a subcategory called Category:Proposed stations along the New Haven–Springfield Line? Or if we want it to be more encompassing, what about just Category:New Haven–Springfield Line, including all relavant articles and templates, and then have subcategories for stations and proposed stations? I would also be open to changing "along" to "on", ex. Category:Stations on the New Haven–Springfield Line. –Daybeers (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mackensen: Thoughts? –Daybeers (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Daybeers: Our practice is somewhat inconsistent. Category:Michigan Line is an example of the all-encompassing category, without subcategories. Compare to Category:Stations on the Northeast Corridor. I would note that station subcategories have generally used "on" and not "along". Mackensen (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mackensen: I think I'd be comfortable with making a few categories: Category:New Haven–Springfield Line for all related articles and templates, and then a subcategory for Category:Stations on the New Haven–Springfield Line with a subcategory inside that for Category:Proposed stations on the New Haven–Springfield Line. –Daybeers (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535: What should be done here? –Daybeers (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2018 (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:Tourist traps[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. ℯxplicit 02:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is too subjective and as a loaded term is inappropriate to be applied to articles. – Gilliam (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They (tourist traps) exist, are well documented and exist in reality - there is nothing subjective or loaded in criminal or fraudulent activity - it happens JarrahTree 00:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article Tourist trap exists and the category is not subjective at all.Shyamsunder (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the term, like Category:Military brats (which after a few deletion attempts, was kept Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_5#Category:Military_brats - the focus being more on whether one's upbringing was defining rather than the possibly pejorative nature of the term), is no longer loaded; the concept is clear. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, or maybe rename. Nothing in the category is a "tourist trap" in the normal sense of the word: they are all scams typically worked on travellers to Thailand. Assuming that the latter should be categorized, then rename; but certainly the category shouldn't exist in its current state, and while one could arguably put Wall Drug and South of the Border here, the edges are extremely vague. Mangoe (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category is redundant to the less POV Category:Visitor attractions.– Gilliam (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Confidence tricks, initially I was planning to propose to rename, per Mangoe, to Category:Confidence tricks but then found that the target already exists. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no universal set of definitions that would allow us to consistently say yes or no that a specific place is a tourist trap.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2018 (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:People who follow a straight edge lifestyle[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 to rename, but there is consensus to purge and to add text clarifying the limits of the category more clearly. @Lugnuts, DexDor, and Ojo del Tigre: I will leave implementation to editors' discretion, hopefully you are willing to assist. I'll list this at WP:CFDWM as well. The late rename proposal hasn't been discussed in depth, there is no objection against an early renomination of this. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic. Information already exists in list form. TM 23:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but prune. It's def. a defining aspect of several individuals (Ian MacKaye, for one), but I suspect several people in the category don't mention this in their article. Note that lists and categories go hand-in-hand, so having a list is not a reason to delete a category. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's no more defining than vegetarian/veganism or any other lifestyle choice.--TM 01:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For info: Vegans CFD. DexDor (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2018 (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/2018_April_25&oldid=1073191550"