((Isotopes))
there are 3310 isotope pages (name form: Chromium-67). -DePiep (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)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)
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)
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.
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)
Since all the content appears in the relevant "isotopes of" articleis 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)
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'.
Navigating is not a goal in itselfthe 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.
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)
Copy of discussion on Speedy page
|
---|
|
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)
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)
“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)