- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Transit System Portals
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Skytrain is single system with three lines. To get to 20 pages you have to count all the stations, bridges and tunnels. It's an automated creation. Adds no value to the articleThe rest of these are bundled for exactly the same reasons. Unless you count the stations they are just portals about a single organization (a transit authority in this bundle). Also per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Chongqing Rail Transit were we deleted one similar portal Legacypac ( talk) 00:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC) (epdated nom statement to be more clear) Legacypac ( talk) 20:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete I fail to see any use in the SkyTrain (Vancouver) portal that isn't covered already by existing categories and navboxes. — Joeyconnick ( talk) 00:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- @
Legacypac:, please stop adding portals to this discussion. It's highly improper—people come here, given their opinion on the portals listed, and then you add entries and make it look like those who have already commented are providing their opinion on the whole batch. Any portal beyond SkyTrain one needs a new discussion and for the record, my comments only pertain to the SkyTrain portal. I have no knowledge of the appropriateness of the ones you subsequently added. —
Joeyconnick (
talk)
02:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- It is a catch 22. People want bundled noms because we are dealing with the same issues over and over yet it takes time to find parts of the bundles because portal space os so disorganized. Anyway I hope you can comment on the wisdom of having portals for mass transit in some cities vs others or that you will support dealing with these as a class of portals. Cheers. Legacypac ( talk) 02:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @
Legacypac:, please stop adding portals to this discussion. It's highly improper—people come here, given their opinion on the portals listed, and then you add entries and make it look like those who have already commented are providing their opinion on the whole batch. Any portal beyond SkyTrain one needs a new discussion and for the record, my comments only pertain to the SkyTrain portal. I have no knowledge of the appropriateness of the ones you subsequently added. —
Joeyconnick (
talk)
02:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete All. We don't need portals for local train systems. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-12-20T02:52:58Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 ( talk) 07:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Transit System Portals
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Skytrain is single system with three lines. To get to 20 pages you have to count all the stations, bridges and tunnels. It's an automated creation. Adds no value to the articleThe rest of these are bundled for exactly the same reasons. Unless you count the stations they are just portals about a single organization (a transit authority in this bundle). Also per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Chongqing Rail Transit were we deleted one similar portal Legacypac ( talk) 00:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC) (epdated nom statement to be more clear) Legacypac ( talk) 20:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete I fail to see any use in the SkyTrain (Vancouver) portal that isn't covered already by existing categories and navboxes. — Joeyconnick ( talk) 00:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- @
Legacypac:, please stop adding portals to this discussion. It's highly improper—people come here, given their opinion on the portals listed, and then you add entries and make it look like those who have already commented are providing their opinion on the whole batch. Any portal beyond SkyTrain one needs a new discussion and for the record, my comments only pertain to the SkyTrain portal. I have no knowledge of the appropriateness of the ones you subsequently added. —
Joeyconnick (
talk)
02:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- It is a catch 22. People want bundled noms because we are dealing with the same issues over and over yet it takes time to find parts of the bundles because portal space os so disorganized. Anyway I hope you can comment on the wisdom of having portals for mass transit in some cities vs others or that you will support dealing with these as a class of portals. Cheers. Legacypac ( talk) 02:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @
Legacypac:, please stop adding portals to this discussion. It's highly improper—people come here, given their opinion on the portals listed, and then you add entries and make it look like those who have already commented are providing their opinion on the whole batch. Any portal beyond SkyTrain one needs a new discussion and for the record, my comments only pertain to the SkyTrain portal. I have no knowledge of the appropriateness of the ones you subsequently added. —
Joeyconnick (
talk)
02:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete All. We don't need portals for local train systems. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-12-20T02:52:58Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 ( talk) 07:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.