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.
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)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 מישהוOd Mishehu20:59, 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).
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)reply
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 מישהוOd Mishehu13:19, 19 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
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)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.
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
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)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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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)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 מישהוOd Mishehu20:59, 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).
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)reply
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 מישהוOd Mishehu13:19, 19 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
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)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.
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
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)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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.