Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 14 August 16 >

August 15[edit]

Category:1952 establishments in Cape Verde[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This and many similar sibling categories have been emptied out-of-process by Markussep (talk · contribs), see [1]. It appears that in each case he only merged them to one parent, namely the decade category for Cape Verde. I am listing one here to seek consensus about which other categories should be added onto the former member pages. They can probably easily be found by checking the articles that are categorised directly in Category:1950s establishments in Cape Verde and its decade siblings. – Fayenatic London 22:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds pretty obvious that they should also be merged to the appropriate Portuguese Empire parent category and the appropriate Africa parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge as nom, as usual for small categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge- too small and specific to be really useful. Reyk YO! 09:31, 2 October 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:Political prisoners in Venezuela[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:Prisoners and detainees of Venezuela. Timrollpickering 14:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: POV category. See precedents:
  1. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_11#Category:Russian_political_prisoners
  2. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_24#Category:Puerto_Rican_Political_Prisoners
  3. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_29#Category:Political_prisoners_and_detainees_of_China GZWDer (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to read all of the previous discussions, but I'll need some time. For now, I have to say that unlike the three previous and deleted categories, the Venezuelan category includes political prisoners from dictatorships in Venezuela, such as Juan Vicente Gómez's and Marcos Pérez Jiménez's, which were in the 1920s and 1950s respectively. I should also note that the category is different of Category:Venezuelan politicians convicted of crimes because it also includes people that aren't politicians, such as students, poets, writers or just critics of the regimes. If there are POV concerns with including current Venezuelan prisoners during Chávez and Maduro's presidencies, these can be excluded without deleting the category. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:13, 15 August 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:Heritage railways in Japan[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same rationale as for Category:Heritage railways in Hong Kong. Disney attractions are not heritage railways, since as far as I'm aware the term usually refers to railways which are either actually old or, if not, whose primary purpose is to be an authentic reconstruction of a railway that no longer exists. Jc86035 (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Same reasoning as in related discussion for Hong Kong. Plus, the railway in Tokyo Disneyland uses actual steam locomotives, which is a hallmark of heritage railways. The fact that it's in a Disney park does not make it unworthy of being considered a heritage railway, and to suggest as much implies a negative bias towards Disney parks, Disney in general, or American pop culture in general. Jackdude101 talk cont 00:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine Nominations Unless steam vs. diesel becomes our dividing line, the outcome here should be the same as the HK one. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree on combining. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree on combining. Also, for the record, there are some heritage railways that operate diesel locomotives exclusively, so that's a non-issue. Jackdude101 talk cont 16:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion - a quick check of List of heritage railways showed two more railways that should be included in the category. It seems likely to me that there will be more as time progresses, especially considering the strength of the railfan community in Japan. Slambo (Speak) 17:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC) I found two more that were mentioned on https://travel.rakuten.com/campaign/ranking/steam-locomotive/ as regularly hosting preserved steam locomotive operations, so I added those two to the category as well. Slambo (Speak) 17:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep, and if only, because Narita Yume Bokujo narrow gauge railway is a non-disputably a heritage railway in the classical sense. I do not understand, why a useful category should be deleted, even if it has only a few entries. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not merge the templates and the articles. I am do not fully understand, why the track diagramms are not part of the article as in the German Wikipedia. I guess this has some advantages, when reading the source code. Thus it would be disadvantegous to put templates and articles into one category, even if there are only a few entries, in the case of Japan. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @NearEMPTiness: I'm proposing the categories for deletion, not the templates. If the categories are populated with at least that article and its template then I think they could both be kept. Jc86035 (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOTPAPER - does no harm. --Janke | Talk 20:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin/editor Please review the talk pages of contributors (including min of course) to factor in whether WP:CANVAS may apply. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was asked to offer my opinion as an editor who specializes in rail transport articles. I offered my honest opinion basing it on the merits of the deletion question. Slambo (Speak) 03:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional note to closing admin/editor There are now five non-Disney railways in the Heritage railways in Japan category and two non-Disney templates in the Japan heritage railway templates category. Hypothetically, if the Disney railways were not present, the categories would still be populated and hence are worthy of being kept. Jackdude101 talk cont 12:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unlike HK, there are clear members for this cat. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:42, 18 August 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:One-location films[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: convert to list. – Fayenatic London 13:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:One-location films to article List of one-location films
Nominator's rationale: As discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Category:One-location films, the feeling is that this category should be deleted, with the option to convert it to a list. At present few if any articles categorized as one-location films are discussed as being such, failing WP:CATVER. There are also concerns that in many cases this may not be a defining category. DonIago (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it is a valid category, I created the category and think it's fitting for inclusion on Wikipedia as a category. Neptune's Trident (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify there are so few films that meet the WP:CATDEF criteria of it being a defining characteristic of the film that it would bump into WP:SMALLCAT. A list article allows for context to a films inclusion. MarnetteD|Talk 20:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per MarnetteD, and the discussion at WT:FILM. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify While being set in a single location is undoubtedly an interesting aspect of the film I am rather dubious it is a "defining" feature. There doesn't seem to be any evidence to that effect in the articles themselves. I think a well sourced list with a clear inclusion criteria would be a better way of presenting this content. Betty Logan (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify. A list of these would be valid and interesting if properly sourced, but it's not a defining characteristic of the films for the purposes of the category system — this is not, for instance, a thing that gets analyzed by film critics and film historians as a class of films that are studied together on this basis. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 19 August 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.

Isotopes by element[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, though leaning towards keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: All of the "Isotopes of X" categories are composed mainly of redirects to their respective main articles (Isotopes of X), and most fail WP:SMALLCAT when stripped of redirects. The elements whose "Category:Isotopes of element" categories currently contain at least one standalone article other than main are H, He, Be, C, N, O, F, Al, P, S (this has no standalone isotopes), Cl, K, Ca, Sc, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Se, Kr, Rb, Sr, Y, Tc (this has a 19-page subcategory desicated to one isotope and one non-main article not in that subcategory), In, I, Xe, Cs, Bi, Ra, U (this has an infobox), Pu (this also has an infobox), and Am. These categories should all be trimmed for redirects due to redundancy. Many of these may be small enough for upmerging, but that is best left for separate nominations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My counting says that under {{Isotopes}} there are 3310 isotope pages (name form: Chromium-67). -DePiep (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm somewhat unconvinced that we need all these redirects. But if we do, then we might as well have the categories to put them in. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The redirects are plausible search terms, ergo they should exist and be categorised. Double sharp (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SMALLCAT, all categories only contain one article. It is not unusual to have redirects in a category, but in this case within a category they all redirect to the same article, which makes the categories useless, you will not find any new content about the topic while clicking through the redirects. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, not "one article per category". See carbon-13. - DePiep (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Isotopes of carbon has not been nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
step 1: nom says: "These categories should all be trimmed for redirects due to redundancy". Step 2: nom says: small enough for upmerging (and Marcocapelle says: delete for SMALLCATS). Removing the redirects is not limited to the listed categories: consistency says that this should be applied for all the categoriesd, including the carbon one (note: all this so because deeper argumentation is missing). IOW, after removing all redirects, wikilawyers step in to claim smallcats and all categories are gone. That is what this CfD is saying. - DePiep (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And what is wrong with a category being gone if it contains only one or two articles anyway? How does a category like that help readers to easily navigate from one article to related articles? That is what SMALLCAT is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
what is wrong with a category being gone if it contains only one or two articles: see what you are doing? that is step 2 you apply. I object to step 1. I say: do not remove the redirects from the category at all (and so step 2 does not enter at all). Also, on top of this: current category scheme re isotopoes has a completeness. Removing redirects breaks this completeness. - DePiep (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I said: WP:SMALLCAT does not apply ("and so step 2 does not enter at all"). It is 3310/122 = 27 pages per category on average. SMALLCATS does not say anything about 'redirects do not count'. SMALLCAT does say this: Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members. I have yet to read an argument here that even disputes the definition of Category:Isotopes of X. Not one. Opposers jump right into the 'Redirects do not belong in a category' ad hoc opinion, skipping the category definition. - DePiep (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - it is possible to insert a named anchor so that a redirect goes to a specific point other than a section heading, which I have done for Magnesium-20. I would probably now consider this a useful redirect. Oculi (talk) 10:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet further comment - these redirects (around 2800 of them) and their categorisation were all created following a bot request. This is commendably thorough and there is indeed a completeness argument (per DePiep below) in favour of keeping. There is a useful tool which determines which anchors are broken, eg actinium. Oculi (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First of all, Category:Isotopes of carbon (22) is *not* just "one main article plus redirects only" (as nom and others seem to think writing 'solely'): it has content page carbon-13. Second, there is no redundancy: this is the only place where one can systematically find content articles of isotopes. Also, the number of known isotopes is limited (some 3000 in total?), and so the category is well defined (and has completeness), I add. I do not see why a redirect (which itself is not disputed here clearly), why a redirect is not category-worthy, nor how it would be "redundant"? Also, WP:SMALLCATS does not apply, as one can read. - DePiep (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Also, as I wrote, it is about completeness (all known isotopes in there). I'm still waiting for an argument that says: "Redirects are not cat-worthy". - DePiep (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the nom clearly states: "1. strip them of redirects, 2. then apply smallcats". That does include carbon then. -DePiep (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't as Category:Isotopes of carbon has a subcat with several articles. Redirects are not cat-worthy if they merely duplicate the target. Oculi (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Carbon is just an example. If you kill the example, the pattern stays. So I won't give you another example to show you are misapplying logic, you are invited to check it yourself. Also, still not read why redirects should be removed from a category; where does "merely duplicate the target", as a rule, stem from? You claim it actually applies here for all redirects? -DePiep (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep: Hello, thanks for asking so we can find consensus! The header at WP:CAT gives a good overview: categories are meant to help readers navigate between similar articles. If you think there is an administrative purpose to these groupings (and I have no opinion on that), you might want to look at the Category:Redirects from alternative names category tree. Thanks RevelationDirect (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, never claimed an administrative purpose (nor did anyone else). They are in content space (is this another red herring?). And wrt the WP:CAT quote: well, methinks that lithium-5, lithium-6, lithium-7 are similar "articles". Since you are open for answering questions: why are Redirects not suitable for categorisation? (of course, as applied in these categories). - DePiep (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are perfectly fine in categories if they aid navigation by taking you somewhere different than the other articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Says who, referring to some kind of guidance? -DePiep (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Methinks that lithium-5, lithium-6, lithium-7 are similar 'articles'." Redirects are not articles, per WP:ARTICLESPACE. RevelationDirect (talk) 06:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes RevelationDirect. That is why I used quotes, duh. Now please explain why redirects should be removed from a category. - DePiep (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All There seems to be some confusion here that the actual redirects are being nominated for deletion and they're not. The question here is whether it aids navigation to have the same Isotopes of gallium article listed 35 times in Category:Isotopes of gallium. I'm unlikely to navigate from Gallium-64 to Gallium-65 to Gallium-66 because each will redirect me back to the same article and, if I did, I would keep looking at the same article. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename/Purge/Hide/Reparent but Keep Actually, just changed my mind. Rename all to "Redirect from Isotopes of Foo", remove the main article, make hidden, and reparent under Category:Redirects from alternative names. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • But they are not alternative names. Gallium-64 and Gallium-65 are different isotopes and the redirects are differently targeted (to eg Isotopes of gallium#Gallium-64) but the targets at present don't exist as suitable anchors have not been added within Isotopes of gallium). Oculi (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Within Wikipedia they're effectively alternate names until if/when a separate article is created but I'm open to other naming conventions for an admin category to help maintain these redirects. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support hiding as a maintenance category as a second best option, after deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I support outright deletion as the second best option. RevelationDirect (talk) 06:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a complete and well-thought-out scheme of targeted redirects which either link to an existing subsection (eg Lithium-4) or can be repaired via the addition of a named anchor (eg Magnesium-20 has a named anchor, Magnesium-19 does not). Adding named anchors might well be something a bot could do. Oculi (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This is a good illustration & description of why such a category set is OK. Don't forget to read other posts by Oculi in this thread. -DePiep (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions for nom LaundryPizza03. You argued: These categories should all be trimmed for redirects due to redundancy. Please explain what that redundancy is, why that is a reason for removal, and so why they "should" be trimmed i.e. why should the redirects (and only the ridirects) be trimmed. - DePiep (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same reason I proposed deleting these categories: They are unhelpful for navigation because they all point to the same article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, for deleting these categories you argue different in the OP: and most [categories] fail WP:SMALLCAT when stripped of redirects. And that difference is essential, because obviously SMALLCATS does not give grounds to categorise certain pages yes/no. In SMALLCATS there is no argument to remove Redirects from a category. Full stop.
For redirects, you only say what I already quoted (redundancy). However, arriving in a Isotopes of X page does help a reader to go to the page of an existing sibling isotope, either by redirect of to a content page (like carbon-13). For the Reader it is not a hinder but a help that pages are Redirect: they want to read about some other isotope. On top of this, the Reader is immensely helped by the foundation that all known isotopes are in that category. (A pity few people here respond to breaking this feature). What you propose is: 1. remove the completeness, 2. remove the category for being incomplete). -DePiep (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into a hidden Category:Isotope redirects. The redirects are all plausible search terms, so that the redirects should exist, but a mass of categories to hold them is not useful. Since all the content appears in the relevant "isotopes of" article, a category for each of them is not useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since all the content appears in the relevant "isotopes of" article is not correct, e.g. Carbon-13. And please clarify why such a complete set of pages-in-categories is to be broken up and discarded. Also, if the category/ies are to be hidden, i.e. mailtenance or 'administrative' only, there is no need to "help" the maintaining editors by prescribing the category organisatoin (into a huge one at that) you won't have to handle yourself. - DePiep (talk) 07:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more worry. There is another worrying trend in this CfD thread. That is: editors who are not involved in maintainance WP:ISOTOPES (nowadays through WP:ELEMENTS; present here are User:Double sharp and me, DePiep), those editors systematically skip or ignore the basic setup of this category set. Only from that omission, the arguing starts ("Let me tell how to clean up the category scheme for you, involved editors. You did it wrong"). This way, the whole input of content knowledge is unused. Next thing (a repetition by now here), is that there is no stable guideline on this wiki that helps us out -- no rule or general line has been quoted that says Redirects should not be used & categorised this way. It's just personal ad hoc ideas of editors that say "delete": should all be trimmed, Delete per WP:SMALLCAT (no, not in there), If you think there is an administrative purpose..., They are unhelpful for navigation, a mass of categories to hold them is not useful. The worry is, that a closing admin might come along and think: 'well, sounds reasonable, let's take the ad hoc arguments together as a single conclusion'.
This remembers me sadly of this CfD, where contributors that were not involved in editing the topic, concluded that it was not needed, for editors who actually did maintain the topic. Incidentally, apart from my name also Marcocapelle appears there too, with the same approach (i.e., not digesting input from actual content editors). - DePiep (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole input of content knowledge is unused? All content is in the article already. The category does not add any knowledge, it is just a means of navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to say: "input knowledge as present with the content editing editors (domain knowledge)". For example, and re your reply here: yes, the categories are a navigation aide: for the Reader navigating through all ~3000 known isotopes. -DePiep (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many non-isotope-maintaining editors here repeat, in various forms, like: 'Redirects are not needed for navigation'. -DePiep (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Navigating is not a goal in itself, reading articles is. Navigating is meant as navigating from one article to an other, not from one article to the same article. If you want to have lists (which is my best guess of what you are really aiming for), by all means create list articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are only narrowing this to hairsplitting over "navigation" (and no, navigation is not limited to 'from article to article'). Who are you to claim for others that readers looking for isotope articles do not need or use this overview & navigation form? - DePiep (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CAT says: The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining— characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics.. So A) I have not invented this myself. B) This is not hairsplitting but it is about the central goal. C) This is about sets of multiple pages. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • re1: Yes! First further splitting the hairs then: You wrote Navigating is not a goal in itself the CAT quote says "central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links". So within the cat system, it is a goal in itself (sure not for Wikipedia as a whole, but categories is what this is about). Also, you added: ...not from one article to the same article. Is not in the quote, is not defined anywhere (my GF tells me that you were thinking about navboxes when you wrote that, but still: is not an argument in here, no consequences). Third: you claim to know my argument (lists ... is my best guess of what you are really aiming for): why not ask? Why should I discuss you projection? "Speak for yourself", is the reply to this. These three are your personal impressions on what is/isnot an acceptable category system, is why I ponted to 'invention'. Enough hairs.
  • re2: Let us read the quote. I inject my [comments]: The central goal [incidentally, other goals are not excluded then] of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories [yes] which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic [these are the readers with knowledge of isotopes, I mentioned], can browse and quickly find [yes] sets of pages [yes, see also the completeness I mentioned] on topics that are defined by those characteristics [isotopes are defined as such indeed; 2d time "to define" is used].. Nothing in here is a hook on saying that the redirects do not belong in those well-defined categories on well-defined & complete sets of topics that readers-with-knopwledge want to browse & find. -DePiep (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sets of pages is pretty much plural, isn't it? It's not the same page endlessly repeated. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Sets of pages is plural (maybe you could tone down the paternalistic attitude and spend more time on argumentation?). 1. It says 'pages' not 'articles': redirects included. 2. That set of pages is: the category; sets in plural = multiple categories (sibling cats, parent cats, ...). 3. The reader with knowledge about isotopes can find that set. I still don't get why you claim that the reader does not need this kind of navigation. Why do you want to take away from the informed reader, like: "no, the list/set/category "Isotopes of X" you are looking for is removed because you don't need it" (paternaslistic and mistaking the reasonable search/browse route). You are saying to the reader, like: 'you are doing it wrong because I know the result'.
So, still unclear (a) by what inescapable reasoning or guideline you want to remove redirects (well-defined titles, in coherent sets) from categories (well-defined, coherent, complete too) and (b) how the category setup 'Isotopes of X' is convincingly *not* helpful for the browsing, searching, navigation by an informed reader. - DePiep (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you click the redirect you are returning to the same page, not to a different one. Furthermore, there is no information removed when the category is deleted, because all the information is in the one article that is currently in each category. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes many pages in the category lead often to the same page. That follows one of the features of a Redirect. No that does not make redirects superfluous. This fact is *not relevant* for the Reader who is looking for isotopes. That *you* know this Redirect's result does not imply that the Reader does not need the info or category. Wiki cannot say to the reader "Nothing to find here" when the reader is asking a sound (search-)question. And of course, removing the category *is* removing information, namely: the well-established category of well-defined isotopes. -DePiep (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A. I have never suggested that the redirects are superfluous. B. Categories do not contain information, only articles do. Categories allow navigation and there is no point in having readers navigating from one article to the very same article. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A. You want to have them removed. B. Au contraire. The fact that actinium-206 is in the category and actinium-205 is not is information. Also, stop flip-flopping, this time flopping away from my "for the reader, it is useful navigation" point. -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not. I want to have the category removed, not the redirects. The discussion is about the category! It seems that the whole conversation we had so far was based on a misunderstanding. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions. IMHO, all of these redirects qualify for {{Redirect with possibilities}}. Q1: Is there a reason why they have not been so marked? (I suspect not) Q2. Should this template be considered in evaluating categories consisting primarily of redirects? (I believe so.) YBG (talk) 04:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
re YBG Sure they qualify for {{Redirect with possibilities}}, with or without that template actually being present. And IMO, that is another reason to keep. Note that some redirects, like lithium-4, redirect to a #section i.e. the "possibilities" is already partly developed. -DePiep (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • New info. Just discovered: those redirects could also lead to a #section, like: Lithium-4 redirects to Isotopes_of_lithium#Lithium-4 (a dedicated section). This means the opening argument categories are composed mainly of redirects to their respective main articles (Isotopes of X) is incorrect for an unknown number of redirects. -DePiep (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is no new info. It leads to the same article. So a reader searching for more info on this topic (i.e. searching for different articles) will disappointingly end up in the same article all the time. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reader will end up in a dedicated section, i.e. right on topic—and as the reader expected & was looking for, I add. This is navigation working! The quote is still wrong in these cases. -DePiep (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All in all, Marcocapelle, we do not need your sarcasm. We, serious editors supporting WP:ELEMENTS including WP:ISOTOPES, are very consistent and sound. See this, this, and read editors R8R, Double sharp, YBG; please also check {{Periodic table by article quality}}. -DePiep (talk) 23:44, 23 September 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:Advocacy groups by continent[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only one article. Not enough in related categories to populate continent categories. Rathfelder (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - the creator of this category was perhaps distracted before their vision was realised. Oculi (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is for the initiator of a subcat scheme to flesh it out properly before moving on to other interests. Oculi (talk) 11:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate starting with the Europe category if it is renamed as proposed below. That could then in turn have the national categories for Belgium, France, Germany & UK added to it from Category:Advocacy groups by country. – Fayenatic London 22:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate. I absolutely second the above opinion. Lobbyists have long transcended national borders. There exists a hierarchy from the lower, local, to the absolute supranational including various countries on different continents. Those networks and their ranges are instructive to demonstrate and see. -- Kku (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that Kku created this category in 2016, and nothing has been added in 2 years, what is the time-scale for the development of this instructive network? Oculi (talk) 11:12, 16 August 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:Pan-European advocacy groups[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: rename to Category:Cross-European advocacy groups. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Many of the member pages do not advocate Pan-Europeanism as defined on the category page for the parent Category:Pan-Europeanism. The proposed name would be a start in populating Category:Advocacy groups by continent (see discussion above). – Fayenatic London 22:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This category was not originally intended for all advocacy groups within Europe but for advocacy groups operating at a European (as opposed to country) level. Many will be based in Brussels and mainly lobby EU institutions, but their operations will also extend to other Council-of-Europe countries, for instance (not just EU candidates, EEA countries and Switzerland). --Boson (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parent category Category:Pan-Europeanism, which should, in my opinion, be removed, was added several years later (no doubt as a result of the unintended ambiguity of the name). (@Mais oui!:) --Boson (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly rename to Category:Cross-European advocacy groups as a solution to previous comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 17 August 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:Converts to Roman Catholicism from Evangelicalism[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 broader discussion was also closed as keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Catholic Church, ultimately per Catholic Church, as well as Category:Evangelicalism - per Evangelicalism. Strictly speaking, WP:C2C: Category:Conversion to the Catholic Church/Category:Catholic Church, ultimately with WP:CONSENSUS as emphasised by Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_29.Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion on Speedy page
Please see new argument as presented in the original motivation Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is the new argument? StAnselm (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:C2C: Category:Catholic Church, ultimately with WP:CONSENSUS as emphasised by Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_29. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is stretching WP:C2C beyond breaking point. Oculi (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I beg to differ. There might still be some controversy over the naming of the Catholic Church, including the category tree under Category:Catholic Church (note the consistency at least in the top category so far) - but either way, I haven't seen any user advocate "Roman Catholicism" formula for like a decade here. That's kind of a relic argument around Wikipedia. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was 2 years ago, and I certainly opposed it. There is still Category:Roman Catholics. Oculi (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well, while the Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Catholicism)#Latin_Church naming issue isn't settled yet, at least I haven't seen in anyone credibly arguing for "Roman Catholicism" naming of any related entity for quite some time. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, what is your arguments for deviating from the Category:Catholic Church consistency in this particular branch of that tree? Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, the consistency is the other way around: the diffusion of many Catholic categories between Roman and Eastern Catholic subcategories is very consistently applied on many categories, including the ones discussed here. Therefore, this nomination changes the scope of the categories. Specifically, people in general belong to a certain rite (before or after conversion), not Catholicism at large. Place Clichy (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a negative. The scope of this one regards Category:Catholic Church, not Category:Latin Church, nor Category:Eastern Catholicism. It is too much to ask for better arguments if you want to convince us to maintain a Category:Roman Catholicism category title formula deviating from WP:C2C? Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:20, 27 August 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:Heritage railways in Hong Kong[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Hong Kong does not have any heritage railways, excluding the few hundred metres of track at Hong Kong Railway Museum used primarily to store trains. The Hong Kong Disneyland Railroad was opened in 2005 on newly reclaimed land and runs diesel trains which externally look like steam trains. Jc86035 (talk) 10:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nom. Whatever Disneyland is, it might be 'miniature' or 'park' or something, but it isn't heritage. Are there any trams or funiculars which are genuinely heritage and might class as railways? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andy Dingley: I don't think so. Every railway that's currently open has never been closed before, and every passenger rolling stock type is electric except for the Disneyland Railroad trains. Jc86035 (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think either of those are necessarily an exclusion. A line which passed directly from "everyday passenger transport" to "preservation for heritage and tourism" could count as such, even if it hadn't closed. Lines like the Snaefell Mountain Railway. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's happened yet. Jc86035 (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I believe we had this discussion before. Per the heritage railway article, a heritage railway is one which purposely recreates railway scenes of the past. Historic rolling stock or historic rights-of-way are not requirements for a rail line to be considered a heritage line. Jackdude101 talk cont 14:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I must have missed that epoch when giant mice ran the railways? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Condescending comments aside, the fact that it happens to be located in a Disney park is not grounds for its disqualification as a heritage railway. I hope that's not what you're suggesting. Jackdude101 talk cont 15:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, exactly that. Disney are many things, and it's not impossible that somewhere they'd run a heritage railway which was preserving some aspect of a historical railway. But that's not what they're doing here. The locomotives are stage props - a hollow box on top of a diesel engine, running around as a facsimile of some invented US Wild West. Now it's a great day out with the kids I'm sure, but this is no-one's heritage. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:C1, an effectively empty category. The only article here is Hong Kong Disneyland Railroad whose diesel trains were built in 2005. I don’t care who the operator is, but a reader looking for heritage railways is unlikely to be looking for this article. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @RevelationDirect: As I stated above, the age of the railway's equipment does not determine whether it's a heritage railway. Furthermore, WP:C1 covers categories that are officially empty, not ones that are effectively empty. Having just one article in the category officially means it's populated. Jackdude101 talk cont 16:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jackdude101: The locomotives' outward appearance don't necessarily determine whether it's a heritage railway. Most actual heritage railways don't feature bleacher-style seating, loudspeakers frequently announcing prerecorded messages, or fully-accessible platforms. There are a fair amount of amusement park rides featuring things that sort of look like steam engines (exhibit A). They're not really heritage railways. Jc86035 (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jc86035: None of those items are deal-breakers in terms of labeling it as a heritage railway either. I'm not saying that the HKDLRR is the most historically-legit heritage railway; I'm simply stating that it meets the bare minimum requirement to be considered a heritage railway, in that they purposely designed it to make it look historic. It's not just the rolling stock; all you have to do is take a good look at Main Street, U.S.A. station, which is based on 19th century American designs, to confirm it. Jackdude101 talk cont 19:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jackdude101: But the parent category isn't for fake heritage railways. If this is a heritage railway, then so is the Hogwarts Express in Orlando. Jc86035 (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jc86035:. You are right. The Hogwarts Express in a way could be considered a heritage railway. If anyone were to add that category to its article I would not be against it. Also, there is no criteria for how legit the heritage railway must be in order to be included. Jackdude101 talk cont 00:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, here is a heritage railway definition according to the British Office of Rail and Road (source: [2]): Minor railways and heritage railways are 'lines of local interest', museum railways or tourist railways that have retained or assumed the character and appearance and operating practices of railways of former times. Several lines that operate in isolation provide genuine transport facilities, providing community links. Most lines constitute tourist or educational attractions in their own right. Much of the rolling stock and other equipment used on these systems is original and is of historic value in its own right. Many systems aim to replicate both the look and operating practices of historic former railways companies. So, as you can see, in a very general sense, for the HKDLRR, and the Disney rail lines in question in the related Japan discussion, the heritage railway label is applicable. Jackdude101 talk cont 00:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SMALLCAT, as a category with only a single article about which there is also discussion whether it belongs in the category at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: Note the following from the WP:SMALLCAT page: Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. That last phrase is key. This category is part of the sub-categorization of Category:Heritage railways by country, and hence has a right to exist in that regard. Jackdude101 talk cont 16:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also weighing in the questionability of the belonging of the one article. It would have been a different issue if there had been less discussion about that. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: The difference in opinion on this issue lies with the fact that I am emphasizing that the HKDLRR meets the bare minimum criteria to be a heritage railway, and the nominator is insisting that nothing except the most 100% historically legit rail lines can be heritage railways. Read the British Office of Rail and Road definition of heritage railways that I posted above to see what I mean. Also keep in mind that Disney, especially on the topic of its presence outside the US, is a subject towards which some people have a negative bias, which may or may not be influencing some of the opinions that have been posted so far. Note that nothing about their rail lines in the US have been mentioned in this discussion, for instance. Jackdude101 talk cont 17:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't change my opinion. We should not have a whole category for one disputed article. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: Slambo added a handful of articles for other heritage lines to that category, as well as to the one for Japan, so the issue of these categories having only one listing has been resolved. I should also take this moment to address your concern about canvassing. The people I contacted are all knowledgeable on the topic of heritage railways and their opinions are their own, making their input in these discussions valuable. I kept the language in my statements on their talk pages neutral, as well. Jackdude101 talk cont 18:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concurring with Andy Dingley in the discussion further below where the same point has been addressed. About canvassing, it was User:RevelationDirect who addressed this concern. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: As I explained to Andy Dingley, Hong Kong Tramways is a heritage line, per a recent BBC article I found, which is now a source in the article. Its presence alone is enough to keep the category. Also, there are several non-Disney heritage lines in the categories for Japan now. The only reason the discussion has been focused so much on "what is and what is not a heritage railway" is because Disney lines were the only ones in the categories at the start of the discussion, which is no longer the case. Please take a moment to observe the categories again and acknowledge the presence of the non-Disney rail lines that fit the more conventional description of a heritage railway. Jackdude101 talk cont 12:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - a quick check of the List of heritage railways article shows two more railways that should be in the category. It seems likely to me that as time progresses, there will be more. Slambo (Speak) 17:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slambo: I don't really agree with the list's categorization, and I suspect the entries were probably added by someone wanting to give Hong Kong its own section. The Peak Tram uses fairly modern (1989) rolling stock and I believe it is soon to be modernized again, and almost every Hong Kong Tramways tram was built after 1980 according to that article (which specifically says it's not a heritage tramway). (Incidentally, this makes them slightly newer than some of the rolling stock used on the metro system (1979, 1980).) Jc86035 (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a tough category to really define. Peak Tram opened in the 1880s, and although it uses modern rolling stock, buildings that are part of the system are heritage listed. The Hong Kong tram system opened in 1904 but its double-deck trams are used by daily commuters and the rolling stock is relatively recent, but it is one of a very few examples of double-deck tram systems operating regularly around the world; several systems in the United Kingdom ran double-deck trams but retired them all in the 20th century. I think both should be included in the category because they are operating in much the same fashion as they did over 100 years ago, albeit with new rolling stock. Slambo (Speak) 18:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Slambo: The items were added in 2009 by an IP in this edit. The edit also adds the Ocean Express funicular at Ocean Park, which was opened after the IP's edit, is entirely in tunnel with walls lined with concrete, and has styling which is supposed to evoke a futuristic submarine. I don't think the IP really understood what a heritage railway was.
    I don't think being a century old is enough to classify them as heritage railways (otherwise a lot of railways like S-Bahn lines could be called heritage). The Peak Tram has been extensively renovated/rebuilt, for one thing, and has had a shopping complex built around its upper terminus. Jc86035 (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They both could be categorized either way. I think both should be included because of what they represent; the two lines were created as a regular means of transport but they both are more often seen and referenced today as tourist attractions. It is their general perception as tourist attractions that separate them from other systems like the New York City Subway, which also opened around 1900 and carries large numbers of tourists, but that system is seen more as daily transportation for local residents than as a tourist attraction. In my view, adding a shopping area at one end of a funicular is about the same as putting a gift shop at the exit of an art museum. The gift shop does not reduce the value of the museum, so a shopping mall also does not reduce the value of the funicular. Slambo (Speak) 18:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jc86035: In regards to the point you made about the Hong Kong Tramways article stating that it's non-heritage, it was mentioned once in the lead, no where in the article body, and no citation was given. I did a little digging and found a recent BBC article, which refers to it as a heritage transit system. In that same article, the managing director of the tramway describes it as a heritage tram builder. The wording of the lead in the Wikipedia article has been changed accordingly to reflect this finding with this source cited. This more than justifies Slambo adding the Heritage Railways in Hong Kong category to the article. Since these categories, and the ones for Japan, now have more than just the Disney railways in them, the original purpose of these discussions, to delete the categories, is now dead in the water. Because of this, I encourage you to withdraw your proposals. Jackdude101 talk cont 18:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jackdude101: While I could withdraw either set of nominations, the result would be no different to letting the discussions run their course; and in the case of this discussion I can't withdraw because others have already voiced their preference for deleting the categories. Jc86035 (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jc86035: I will ping the supporters of your proposals that may not be aware of the very recent additions to the categories (@Andy Dingley: and @RevelationDirect:) to see if they are willing to change their minds about deleting them (I already pinged Marcocapelle on the topic). Jackdude101 talk cont 18:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still delete
There is a small argument to be made for WP:ITSUSEFUL. But Disney Hong Kong is not a heritage railway, nor are the trams, and I'm finding it hard (much as I'm an inclusionist for categorization) to put the funicular in there.
Even if this gets kept, I can't see a case for putting the Disney amusement park ride in there. Maybe if the category was just renamed as "tourist railways" (and still parented under heritage)? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: As I was explaining to Jc86035 above, I was able to find a recent BBC article here: [3] that describes Hong Kong Tramways as a heritage transit system. This article also quoted its managing director, who said the following: “There is no better heritage tram builder in the world than us, so why not do it ourselves?” So, within the same source, you have a major worldwide publication referring to it as heritage, and a high-level official of the tramway referring to it as heritage. My point is that the existence of this heritage tram alone is enough to keep the category. Jackdude101 talk cont 23:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the Peak Tram's status as a heritage line is concerned, there is a large historical gallery at its lower terminus that includes full-scale mock-ups of the old haulage room and a first generation tram car. Also, the previous tram cars from the 1950s are formal static displays near either end of the line. Your average non-heritage commuter line will not go to this much trouble to put its history on display, so it's something to take into consideration. Jackdude101 talk cont 01:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still delete
It is fair to point out some gray area as to what level of historicity counts as a heritage railroad--I've been on ones that add old-timey elements that are inaccurate--and it's fair to ask how old a line has to be before it becomes "heritage". But the one article here and in the Japan one are not border cases: they're entirely new rolling stock over entirely new routes with entirely new stations. Building a category entirely around such an article seems likely to hinder navigation especially when we have Category:Railways of amusement parks in Hong Kong. You obviously feel strongly here and I'm sorry our discussion couldn't bring us to the same viewpoint. RevelationDirect (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: The categories no longer encompass only Disney rail lines; other already-existing articles have recently been added to them. Regardless of how you, me, or anyone else feels about the Disney ones, the presence of the non-Disney ones in the categories is enough to keep them. I should also take this moment to address your concern about canvassing. The people I contacted are all knowledgeable on the topic of heritage railways and their opinions are their own, making their input in these discussions valuable. I kept the language in my statements on their talk pages neutral, as well. Jackdude101 talk cont 11:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is obviously important to you. I guess I'm just not seeing the benefit here when the article already has
  • (edit conflict) Jackdude101, are you basing your rationale for classifying the theme park rides as heritage railways entirely on the British government's definition, or is there something I'm missing? Basically every railway listed at List of heritage railways and voy:Heritage railways has some actual history which doesn't involve a private company deliberately constructing it to look superficially old upon opening (although the former list doesn't define its inclusion criteria too well either). Jc86035 (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jc86035: There are historic rail lines with historic rolling stock that are not heritage railways (see: Ashmont–Mattapan High-Speed Line), and there are non-historic rail lines with non-historic rolling stock that are heritage railways (see: HKDLRR). The key is intent by the operator. Do they purposely want their riders to feel immersed in the past? If yes, it's a heritage railway; if no, it's not a heritage railway. As far as the definition is concerned, it doesn't say that a new line designed to appear old has to mimic a specific historic rail line; it simply says that it must mimic historic rail lines in general. Jackdude101 talk cont 19:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep - if tourists want to check, which heritage railways he could visit on an upcoming trip to Hong Kong, they will see quickly that the choice is limited. Even if the category was empty, it would not be required to delete it. It should just be kept in analogy to other countries, please. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you were canvassed, but why do the tourists matter in this scenario? It's not like tourists trawl through Wikipedia categories to find their destinations. An empty category can be deleted through CSD. Jc86035 (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOTPAPER - does no harm. --Janke | Talk 20:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin/editor Please review the talk pages of contributors (including min of course) to factor in whether WP:CANVAS may apply. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was asked to participate in this discussion. My editing history all the way back to my first edits in September 2004 will show a very strong connection to articles about rail transport as that is my area of interest. I offered my honest opinion in this discussion. Slambo (Speak) 03:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional note to closing admin/editor There are now two non-Disney railways in the Heritage railways in Hong Kong category and two non-Disney templates in the Hong Kong heritage railway templates category. Hypothetically, if the Disney railway was not present, the categories would still be populated and hence are worthy of being kept. Jackdude101 talk cont 12:49, 18 August 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:Imperial election[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: Rename. Timrollpickering 14:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, adding a disambiguator. Earlier this week I had boldly moved the eponymous article the same way. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold fire. The title of the main article was moved from "Imperial election" to "Imperial election (Holy Roman Empire)" but there is no need for the disambiguation as the former is now just a redirect to the latter. IMHO the main article should be moved back which would mean the category should also stay where it is. Bermicourt (talk) 06:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- There is the possibility that other Empires had elections, though I cannot think it likely. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 18 August 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:Graphs of vertices 32[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. Timrollpickering 11:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Somehow this one got missed in the CfD that got the similar categories deleted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:31, 15 August 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_August_15&oldid=1136462380"