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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Just wait until an admin closes the discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:44, 10 May 2018 (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: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.
ℯxplicit 02:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Keep The article
Tourist trap exists and the category is not subjective at all.
Shyamsunder (
talk) 10:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)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: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. @
Lugnuts,
DexDor, and
Ojo del Tigre: 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)reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic. Information already exists in list form.
TM 23:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)reply
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. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 17:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)reply
It's no more defining than vegetarian/veganism or any other lifestyle choice.--
TM 01:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)reply
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) reply
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)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: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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Just wait until an admin closes the discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:44, 10 May 2018 (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: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.
ℯxplicit 02:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Keep The article
Tourist trap exists and the category is not subjective at all.
Shyamsunder (
talk) 10:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)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: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. @
Lugnuts,
DexDor, and
Ojo del Tigre: 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)reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic. Information already exists in list form.
TM 23:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)reply
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. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 17:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)reply
It's no more defining than vegetarian/veganism or any other lifestyle choice.--
TM 01:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)reply
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) reply
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)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.