Category talk:Lists of railway stations in France

Category name
Erm, this category should be called "Lists of railway stations in France", not "List of...". Each item in the category is a list, hence the category should be called "lists"...Stevage 13:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This category is a list of the stations in France. Since you seem to view the item the other maybe you'd like to rename fr:Catégorie:Gare de France into fr:Catégorie:Gares de France ? Had the article been properly named Railway stations in , maybe it would have been clearer. Captain scarlet 13:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The French wikipedia seems to obey a different naming scheme. Here, every category should be either plural if it's taxonomic (examples: Category:Snakes, Category:English footballers, Category:Operas) or singular if it's thematic (examples: Category:Paris, Category:Opera, Category:Computer science). Also, a category and a list are quite distinct - a category can gather together lists (as this one does), in which case it should definitely be plural. For some examples, see this. Stevage 22:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a plural, a list of stations. Captain scarlet 23:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, come on, stop this. The list of stations in Rhône-Alpes is "a list of stations". The category of all such lists is "Lists of railway stations in France". C'mon, click the link, do me a favour. Stevage 18:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of academic really as the category specified in each page was a mistake, I meant to add them into the 'Railway stations in France' category and wrote "list of" in front by accident. I thought I'd already corrected this but it looks like I haven't (I don't think anything's been reverted). I will change then all later on... For the record, if it hadn't been a mistake, I probably would have chosen "lists" rather than "list" but then I guess that dependeds on whether you still define a group of lists as a list. Interesting - I would never had thought of that before. :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.149.1.194 (talk • contribs).
 * Igonre the above, I now realise there was no original mistake and that it was edited. Again, for the record, there's no clear answer - and I don't mind nuch either way - so I'm going to keep out of this now. ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.149.1.194 (talk • contribs).