< December 17 December 19 >

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)[reply]

Propose deleting:

Rationale: I don't see how this feature is defining - should we also have a category tree for Category:Railway stations located abveground? 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
How would you define the MBTA lines mentioned above? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:42, 19 December 2016 (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: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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 | contribs) 11:56, 19 December 2016 (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: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)[reply]
  • 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)[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: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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support alt rename as a clearer category description. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2016 (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: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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support alt rename as a clearer category description. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2016 (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: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)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Democratic Party (United States) presidential debates, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Republican Party (United States) presidential debates, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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)[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.
More