Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 25



Category:Stations along the proposed New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail Line

 * 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  L ondon 14:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Stations along the proposed New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail Line to Category:Hartford Line stations
 * 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)


 * Support Obvious technical move. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Hartford Line is a service and every station on it is located on the physical New Haven–Springfield Line. Category:Stations on the New Haven–Springfield Line would mesh with existing line-based categorization. Mackensen (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Move either as proposed or to Category:Stations along the proposed New Haven–Hartford–Springfield commuter rail line, that is, with dash and case fixes; or delete if it's not needed. Dicklyon (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As the article about the railway line is at New Haven–Springfield Line, the category should obviously be renamed to Category:Stations along the New Haven–Springfield Line. By the way, in the United Kingdom we have Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom by train operating company because operating companies operate on a network of multiple interconnected railway lines. But that is not a problem here so we do not need to create a duplicate category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Thoughts? –Daybeers (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Is the category for stations that are about to be served by the commuter rail service (the Hartford Line), or stations that are located on the railway upon which the Hartford Line and some Amtrak service runs (the New Haven-Springfield Line)? I would say the answer to that question would indicate the preferred name of the category. MikeTheActuary (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've created Category:New Haven–Springfield Line and a subcategory of it, Category:Stations on the New Haven–Springfield Line. I'd propose moving Category:Stations along the proposed New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail Line to Category:Proposed stations on the New Haven–Springfield Line, a subcategory of Category:Stations on the New Haven–Springfield Line. As I'm the one who first proposed this move, should I change the proposal to reflect this? It has also been more than seven days, so would it be alright if this move was done? I can't do it, as I'm an involved editor, correct? –Daybeers (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What should be done here? –Daybeers (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just wait until an admin closes the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2018 (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:Tourist traps

 * 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. ℯ xplicit  02:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting tourist traps


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Keep The article Tourist trap exists and the category is not subjective at all.Shyamsunder (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the term, like Category:Military brats (which after a few deletion attempts, was kept Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_5 - 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)


 * 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)
 * Comment Category is redundant to the less POV Category:Visitor attractions.– Gilliam (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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

 * 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.  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)
 * Propose deleting people who follow a straight edge lifestyle


 * Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic. Information already exists in list form. TM 23:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * It's no more defining than vegetarian/veganism or any other lifestyle choice.--TM 01:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * For info: Vegans CFD. DexDor(talk) 19:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

 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)
 * Delete (or rename, add text to restrict and purge) per WP:NONDEF and (essay) WP:DNWAUC. Even the Ian MacKaye article (referred to above) makes no mention of "straight edge" in the text and is well categorized by Category:American indie rock musicians etc. DexDor(talk) 17:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete non-defining, and would probably describe the average devout Mormon, Muslim, or Seventh-Day Adventist (no alcohol, no drugs, no promiscuity). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename to Category:People who are straight edge or Category:Straight edge people and only for people who has prominently identified with it. It's a defining characteristic of many people, including CM Punk, Karl Buechner, Toby Morse, Davey Havok, etc. Because the list already exists it doesn't mean that the category should be deleted (WP:CLN). Being straight-edge is not the same as being sober or teetotaler, as Carlossuarez46 pointed out, but is a subculture rooted in hardcore punk and particularly its ideals, such as DIY, anti-commercialism, anti-corporatism, environmentalism, non-conformity, etc., so it would be much more reasonable to compare it with a complex set of ideas such as religions than to simply not smoking or not drinking (see List of people who follow a straight edge lifestyle). Another thing that makes it especially worthy of having its own category and not clustered with others like Category:Punk people is that there are many people who identify themselves as "straight edge" and don't play punk rock or hardcore, such as Joe Mulherin, Hopsin, Sage Francis, James Hetfield, etc., or even people who do not play (or listen to) music at all, like Hal Sparks or Ben Myers. Ojo del tigre (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2018 (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.