Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 18



Category:Railway stations located underground

 * 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. Cerebellum (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Propose deleting: Rationale: I don't see how this feature is defining - should we also have a category tree for ? Addtionally, we need to define the contents of these categories better - to handle cases like Old Mill (TTC), in which the platforms are each partly underground; and like Porter (MBTA station), where there is both a line on ground (the Fitchburg Line) and a line undeground (the Red Line). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Category:Railway stations located underground
 * Category:Railway stations located underground in Denmark
 * Category:Railway stations located underground in Norway
 * Category:Oslo Metro stations located underground
 * Category:Railway stations located underground in Sweden
 * Category:Railway stations located underground in the United States
 * Category:Railway stations located underground in Boston
 * Category:Railway stations located underground in Seattle‎
 * Keep per this earlier discussion. Of course we do not need aboveground categories, since that is the default. If part of a station is underground they would probably belong in these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And many stations are surface stations, and these are probably the majority of the stations - neither above nor below ground. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep A couple of hundred members ought to indicate that this is a real aspect for some stations, but also that it's rare enough to be exceptional and noteworthy.
 * I would though be happy to clarify the meaning here and potentially exclude stations on lines where the whole line is underground (as that categorization is implicit in the line). Andy Dingley (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * These categories are significantly underpopulated. Please also note that while there are some completely underround rail lines, most of the stations here belong to lines that are only partly unserground. For example, the Red Line (MBTA) is only underground north of JFK/UMass. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would not include stations here if they're on purely underground lines. Those are relatively common and the station is unexceptional for the line.
 * I'm undecided if partially underground lines (ie mostly underground lines with some surface) should have their underground stations listed (I think they probably ought to be, but this does introduce an inconsistency with purely underground lines).
 * The important stations for this category are those like Dingle, James Street, St James etc., where an overground line has rare examples underground. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep most -- But it needs to be precisely defined to cover only underground parts of railways that are primarily overground. The suburban parts of the London underground in fact run on the surface, but the system is designed as an underground railway.  Liverpool James Street and the city terminus of the Waterloo and City Line (which uses mainline rolling stock) probably belong in this tree.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please define "an underground railway". To take a borderline example: The MBTA's Red Line (excluding the Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line), Blue Line and Orange Line) have 55 current stations, of which 22 are underground; on the other hand, most of the Red Line (the most major of the 3), and all the downttown stations are underground. And if you include the Green Line (arguably a more major line than the Red Line), this adds 62 stations, of which 7 are underground (in addition to 4 overlap stations with the other lines, all of which are also undergorund); again, all the downtown stations are underground. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For the purposes here, an "underground railway" would be one where it's assumed implicit that its stations would each be underground too. Merseyrail and the Tyneside Metro are suburban electrified surface railways, but they dive underground in the city centre. I think those two are good example of not being underground railways in this sense, as their few underground stations are the exception and so warrant inclusion in this cat. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How would you define the MBTA lines mentioned above? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * keep for the reasons stated above and note that this nomination is about stations which are either underground or they are not. This is not about railways or railway lines.  It is just about stations. Hmains (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Fundamental categories

 * 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: Fundamentally Delete. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting fundamental categories


 * Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. In the previous discussion, one editor mentioned in passing that the category is based on an arbitrary classification. Because that previous discussion was about a proposal to rename the category, it didn't lead to any further reactions. So here it is back on the table. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * When categories were first added to the encyclopedia, the fundamental category was created as a natural root (looking back, it is analogous to Aristotle's First Discourse). The original citation was to Robert Pirsig. When I pointed out that the original 4 subcats could be pruned to 3, the original citer scoffed. But if there is no natural 'start symbol' as in language, we can only fall back on usage to create consensus. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 11:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support There is no such thing as a canonical or consensus set of fundamental categories; a look at the plethora of upper ontologies available today demonstrates this. Hence WP:SUBJECTIVECAT applies here and the cat should be deleted. --Mark viking (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But is this plethora for the ages? Logic says they will be pruned by usage. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 11:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. This has always kind of bothered me, and I've often wondered the idea that these were "fundamental" came from. It seems to me that Category:Main topic classifications can handle this just as well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking back, it came from Aristotle and Theophrastus. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 11:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's coming back now: my personal source back then was the syntopicon of Mortimer J. Adler, plus his 100 Great Ideas. I remember being thanked at Wikimania by an Italian researcher on the cats. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 13:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Sounds like a proto-WikiProject maintenance category. Whatever the origins, it doesn't aid navigation or high-level grouping today. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: in the previous discussion I suggested renaming this to Category:Fundamental topic classifications. If it is not needed as an alternative top-level alongside Category:Main topic classifications, then consider merger, which would mean adding Category:Concepts and Category:Physical universe to the latter. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding Category:Physical universe to Category:Main topic classifications sounds like a very good suggestion, whereas I'm more hesitant about Category:Concepts as this is an obvious subcategory under Category:Philosophy. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, gotta have something at the highest level, might as well have 4. they do sort of nest though: physical universe sort of contains life, a subset of the universe, which contains society (humans), which contains concepts, which are created by the brain, a part of the physical universe.  you could divide it into 2 if you wanted: objectivity (universe/life/society/concepts, that which we observe), and subjective (humans,that which observes) just having fun.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a highest level already, namely Category:Main topic classifications. The nominated category is a kind of competitor of it, but not a very good competitor. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:Roman fortifications in Snowdonia

 * 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 (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Propopse deleting Category:Roman fortifications in Snowdonia
 * Nominator's rationale The tree structure is by county / country / state. There is no similar structure by national park. Contents were already diffused to their respective counties. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * DElete -- one is in Category:Roman fortifications in Gwynedd; the other in Conwy. We do not need a national park tree for this (or for hillforts, the sibling).  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Biological pest control lepidoptera

 * 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:Lepidoptera used as pest control agents. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Biological pest control lepidoptera to Category:Biological pest control Lepidoptera
 * Nominator's rationale: As with its Diptera counterpart just below, Lepidoptera needs capitalization. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. How about ? Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support alt rename as a clearer category description. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Biological pest control diptera

 * 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:Diptera used as pest control agents. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Biological pest control diptera to Category:Biological pest control Diptera
 * Nominator's rationale: Considering it's a biological order, Diptera should at least be properly capitalized. (If a less awkward name for the category can be thought up, that'd be even better, though I couldn't think of one myself. Hence not listing it as a speedy.)AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. How about ? Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support alt rename as a clearer category description. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Democratic Party (United States) presidential debates, 2016

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting democratic party (united states) presidential debates, 2016


 * Propose deleting republican party (united states) presidential debates, 2016


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT with no potential for growth since they only contain one article. That article covers all of the debates, so this category is unnecessary. -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support No potential to grow. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support both articles are already in parent, so not need to merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.