Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2009/05

Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2008 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2009 01
[edit]
02
[edit]
03
[edit]
04
[edit]
05
[edit]
06
[edit]
07
[edit]
08
[edit]
09
[edit]
10
[edit]
11
[edit]
12
[edit]
2010 01
[edit]
02
[edit]
03
[edit]
04
[edit]
05
[edit]
06
[edit]
07
[edit]
08
[edit]
09
[edit]
10
[edit]
11
[edit]
12
[edit]
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 01
[edit]
02
[edit]
03
[edit]
04
[edit]
05
[edit]
06
[edit]
07
[edit]
08
[edit]
09
[edit]
10
[edit]
11
[edit]
12
[edit]
2012 01
[edit]
02
[edit]
03
[edit]
04
[edit]
05
[edit]
06
[edit]
07
[edit]
08
[edit]
09
[edit]
10
[edit]
11
[edit]
12
[edit]
2013 01
[edit]
02
[edit]
03
[edit]
04
[edit]
05
[edit]
06
[edit]
07
[edit]
08
[edit]
09
[edit]
10
[edit]
11
[edit]
12
[edit]
2014 01
[edit]
02
[edit]
03
[edit]
04
[edit]
05
[edit]
06
[edit]
07
[edit]
08
[edit]
09
[edit]
10
[edit]
11
[edit]
12
[edit]
Archive May 2009


This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Environments of ItalyEdit

Change to Category:Environment of Italy for consistency and grammer. --Alan Liefting (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


Done, obvious rename. --rimshottalk 19:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:DC World War I MemorialEdit

Reasons for discussion request: Rename to Category:District of Columbia War Memorial as this is the structure's formal name.[1] [2]Eoghanacht talk 14:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


Moved. Wknight94 talk 21:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Polistes dominulusEdit

P. dominulus does not exist but should be spelled P. dominula --Lycaon (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

While searching this spelling, i have found many other sites using this same name.. Which is correct.? --Ltshears (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
dominulus is Latin male and should be dominula female. Many sites still use the wrong form. Lycaon (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
would it be possible to at least have a redirect so that those who know it by the old name will be able to find the new page? I only ask that, because i have several times in the past tried to add an image to a category (or create a category) using the scientific name that a zoo used on their sign and so on, only to find it was under a completely different scientific name else where on commons.. --Ltshears (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Redirects for synonyms should always be an option, yes. Lycaon (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't a clue about the spelling, but I suppose the best course of action is to decide upon an authoritative source (or sources) to follow for spelling disputes and to document it somewhere. I have no objection to renaming this one, but can Wikipedia be trusted as an authoritative source ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Not really, this is why people add references to WP articles ;) -- User:Docu at 14:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Closing thread and completing rename. -- User:Docu at 14:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Das Cabinet des Dr. CaligariEdit

I suspect these are still under copyright in Germany because while Robert Wiene died 1938, Erich Pommer died 1966 and Hans Janowitz died 1954, so earliest PD-date should be 2036. Exceptions might be posters that were made in the United States using work wholly not derived from the film creators' work. --84user (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Question: every person in the crew must be dead before a film is in the public domain? The director is Robert Wiene (d. 1938). We didn't publish the screeplay text, so the writer Erich Pommer is not part of the question (anyway I dubt he retained the rights for the screenplay, it was not usual at that time). --Marcok (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Not every person in the crew. But the three main creators: director, cinematographer and screenplay. I read that this was the "custom" on Commons for German films, but now I cannot find where I read it. I am asking this on Commons talk:Licensing. 84user (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Carl Lindberg has kindly replied with this:

Article 65(2) of the German copyright law says: In the case of cinematographic works and works which are produced in a similar way to cinematographic works, copyright shall expire 70 years after the death of the longest-living if the following persons: the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogues, the composer of the music composed for the cinematographic work in question. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This means that these images are still copyright in Germany. (Cameraman Willy Hameister died in 1938, but screenwriter Hans Janowitz died in 1954, so copyright would last until 2024) 84user (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


Closing thread: there are still files in the category. If more should be deleted, please use the usual file deletion process. -- User:Docu at 11:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Book marketEdit

2001 Numbers of Titles published in the UK.png
ESTC-Title-count-1600-1800.png

The beginning: Category talk:Book market.

First of all, there is a direct loop between Category:Book market and Category:Literature.

Second, the categorization of literature based on the assumption that literature is, first of all, what is sold at the book market(?), doesn’t seem to me a very good idea.

User:Olaf Simons, the creator of the category page, put Category:Books, Category:Fiction and Category:Reading in it. I think if Books was a parent of Book market, or even when it is its child, such categorization is redunant.

I guess there are legitimate uses of the category, but at least about half of what it is now looks wrong to me.

--AVRS (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the category is supposed to be about the book market, that is, the commercial trade of books as such. This does not seem very useful, as it will contain almost all book-related categories. I would not mind a category "book markets", that does what I originally thought this category does, namely show markets for (used) books. --rimshottalk 06:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
First thing: This is a field of studies - book history, you can take courses at universities, secondly I began with it to cover statistics etc. like these. --Olaf Simons (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I suggest Category:Book market as the parent category of Category:Literature, Category:Publishing do not need a subcategory of that. But it is a sector of Trading. I will recat Category:Book market for this points/items. --Diwas (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
A lot of Literature (Drama, oral traditions) is not part of the book market. The book market is rather a commercial enterprise among other markets like car manufacturing, banking... --Olaf Simons (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you suggest Category:Literature should be the parent category of Category:Book market but not a subcategory of Category:Book market? It can be a good way. On the other hand, are all elements of the book market literature? --Diwas (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
"are all elements of the book market literature?" - that depends on your concept of literature. The book market is everything from fiction to sciences and religion. I'd say literature is part of the market. Yet literature is not entirely a sub-category, only part of the literary production is paper based, printed in books, and that part (basically fiction) is sold on the book market. --Olaf Simons (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
One way would be to put a see also to both category pages and uncat Category:Literature from Category:Book market. On the other hand, Literature as a knowledge sector is a object or subject of the study field book market and all literature is a potential object of the market sector book market. Are E-books and hear books parts of the book market? --Diwas (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
"Are E-books and hear books parts of the book market?" - good question. I suppose the book traders hope these things will remain their business. For the moment the publishing houses have the rights on most texts, and the publishing business is to a good extent a business of rights. --Olaf Simons (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Closing thread. The loop was resolved by Diwas on 2009 October 19 by removing Category:Literature as parent category from Category:Book market. -- User:Docu at 15:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:DesperationEdit

I'm not a native English speaker, but couldn't it be merged into Category:Despair? Or the other way perhaps? Or is it necessary to maintain both? --Eusebius (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Despair and desperation can be two different things. Despair is mainly when you've given up hope, and while desperation can mean the same thing it can also mean "extreme recklessness, reckless fury" and so on, usually "arising from despair". So I guess desperation is what happens when you've despaired and you're desperate? ... such a confusing language, English.
Point is, while it's possible for them to mean the same thing they can also mean different things. I guess category separation makes sense. -- Editor at Largetalk 05:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
OK for me, if you feel like it is possible to distinguish despair from desperation in a media file! :-) --Eusebius (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

closing old thread. see above. -- User:Docu at 15:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:DictatorsEdit

The equal category to this one has been deleted from Wikipedia a long time ago: see the deletion request. The final criteria was that "Violates POV by endorsing a subjective view, which could never have unbiased criteria as to what a dictator is". The same criteria can be applied here.

Note that this deletion request is ony about the category in itself, none of the images in it (as long as they have good licences) or subcategories by people's name are being proposed for deletion --Belgrano (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Commons has no POV restrictions as the purpose of categories is to find items in the first place. If the category dictators is not deemed "politically" correct, another name should be proposed as anyway, we need some sort of dictator category. --Foroa (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually: Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view states that the neutral point of view concept does not apply to images in themselves. For instance a stamp of Hitler and Mossolini is clearly favourable to them, and a comic book parody is clearly desfavourable; what the policy says is that such things are ignored and only the copyright is considered. However, it has never been stated that NPOV does not exist on Commons. That very same policy states that neutrality of description shold be aimed. And considering that categories are not an inherent element of image files but part of the structure builded around them, then I see no reason to allow them to be based on non-neutral criteria Belgrano (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
That was very well put. I agree totally. Samulili (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I am in favour of deleting this category for the reason that is is difficult to qualify who is a dictator, with the exception of Roman dictators who constitute a separate category anyway. Most categories on Commons are rather concrete, such as peoples' year of birth, occupation, where they're from and such, things that don't leave much to opinion. But for someone to qualify as a dictator all that is really required is a statement or accusation, right? Franklin Delano Roosevelt was accused of being a dictator; it's even mentioned on English Wikipedia article New Deal, yet he's not in the category for whatever reason. Who are the editors of Wikimedia Commons that some appoint themselves judges over who is and who is not a dictator? Essentially I endorse deleting it for the same reason as stated above "Violates POV by endorsing a subjective view, which could never have unbiased criteria as to what a dictator is." However it is not accurate to say that the dictator cateogry has truly been deleted from Wikipedia because although it has been deleted from English Wikipedia, it does exist on twelve other Wikipedias (a minority to be sure), namely Aragonese, Asturian, Catalan, Spanish, Basque, Finnish, Galician, Latin, Dutch, Romanian, and Slovene Wikipedia. Homo lupus (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - unless we are talking about certain Roman magistrates who unambiguously took the title of "dictator", this is too POV. Also, someone searching for a particular image is more likely to look in other ways. Jonathunder (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I am not really against the deletion, but knowing Commons, this category will reappear in one form or another. Maybe we could imagine to rename it to (in)famous leaders, contested country leaders, ... --Foroa (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I removed all files from this category Bulwersator (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, as per discussion. --rimshottalk 22:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Industrial rail transportEdit

The category name "Industrial rail transport" is an artificially created term which is no established generally. For specific type of railways (see en:Industrial railway) is the subcategory "Category:Industrial railways" full sufficient. For industrial rail transport in general the category "Category:Freight rail transport" is sufficient. The category:Industrial rail transport is a pointless intergrade. --ŠJů (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Industrial rail transport is rail transport outside of the "normal" rail network, such as on factory grounds, within a mine, etc... often without a railway line at all (such as just moving rail vehicles from one hall of a company to another). It is much more specific than the genereic "freight rail transport", and as such far from "pointless" (what is the deal with opposition against more specific categories - if a file also applies to a more generic category, it can still be sorted there too!).
Also it is a "concept" - industrial rail transport is not a specific Category:Industrial railways - and as ŠJů himself called for the top category "railways" to be abolished as a duplicate system recently, I do not quite understand why he feels it is okay to use a specific category like industrial railways here to replace the concept category.
Finally, "industrial rail" and "industrial railways" gets you loads of hits on google. The fact that this category is called "industrial rail transport" is a function of consistency with parent categories and not an "artificially created term" in the sense of "someone just made this up, it is not established generally". It is quite well established in Category:Rail transport and Category:Industry. Cheers Ingolfson (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Industrial railways are non-public railways. However, there have been many industrial railways that have finally become public railways. And, the term "non-public" depends on national legislation. Thus, a little railway turning its circles in a park or the like may be regarded as "non-public" from a legal point of view...
I think we should stick to the term "Industrial rail transport" but put an explanation on the category page.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ingolfson as to what an "Industrial railway" is, basically a works railway in the grounds of factories, port etc, so I have no problems as to what it is and what it should contain. However I disagree vehemently with the use of the term "Industrial rail transport" as its name. With regards to ghits "Industrial railways" produces 12000 ghits with the restrictive search terms whilst the same search for "Industrial rail transport" produces just under 200, which suggests that "Industrial rail transport" is the more generally used and understood term. My temptation is to simply echo with ŠJů and call "Industrial rail transport" an artificial construction in order not to use the word railway in the title, but I suspect that to do so will just fall on deaf ears. By the logic of being consistent with the Commons naming scheme Ingolfson is correct
I was directed here I guess because of what I wrote on Foroa's talk page, forgive me if I repeat myself a little here. Commons exists as a service to the various wiki projects, and the categorisation scheme exists as a tool to editors of those projects. Without being of utility to those editors however perfect consistent and logical the categorisation becomes then Commons and the categorisation scheme may as well not exist.
Names of systems, organisations, things have a semantic, cultural and historical weight which might not at all be logical and consistent, while every effort should be made to be logical and consistent what Ingolfson is trying to do is to try and remake the world in the image of Commons, rather then reflect the world as it is. Ingolfson allow me to ask you this, imagine for a moment that Commons did not exist and you was not the champion of this naming scheme. Now imagine that you wished to find a picture of factory, port, mine railways using google, what search term would you use? Industrial rail transport? are you sure.
The names we use should and where possible parallel those used in en:wiki (for bot categorisation if nothing else), they should be accessible to casual users of Commons looking quickly for a file to illustrate an article, they should not create an artificial nomenclature used on Commons but no where else and they should not be uglier then need be.KTo288 (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
p.s. Gürbetaler, I do it myself, but I think you have to agree, that any clarification in the intro as to how a category is to be used, points to an intrinsic weakness in the choice of name for a category.KTo288 (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
"that any clarification in the intro as to how a category is to be used, points to an intrinsic weakness in the choice of name for a category." So we can just have "railways" and "rail transport" both, and it will sort itself out, without explanation? Speaking bluntly, expecting a two/three word category name to always have to be totally un-ambigious is a very tall order. Ingolfson (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding my whole insistence on the consistency: I understand that "general usage" can diverge from a consistent system, because it grows organically, rather than logically. However, if we use that as Commons logic (i.e. we follow "general usage") then we need to rename the whole category structure. Outside of Commons, the usage is clearly "railways" for the whole shebang, rather than "rail transport". But we call it rail transport anyways, because we are an archival project that needs a more rigorous structure than one that has grown organically with all its inconsistencies.
Also, using categories "industrial railways" logically leads to more and more new "XYZ railways" categories popping up - which is already happening, to my frustration (such as Category:Double-line railways) often created by the same user who some months back asked for Category:Railways to be removed as a duplicate structure. Now it's all coming back. I once proposed to make a distinction between "rail transport" AND "railways" via explanatory text, and keep both, one sitting below the other. Also opposed - by the same user. Apparently, a muddle of both naming systems is better.
Now regarding the user-friendlieness issue. I see little problem with that generally - that are what redirects, explanations etc... are for. We have a technical structure in place that will easily move a searching user into the right direction. We can also assume that anyone who has an attention span worth dealing with will be able to navigate logically, and not be shocked and leave, upon encountering that on Commons, what he expected to be called "Industrial railways" is called "Industrial rail transpport". Ingolfson (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess that's the closest I'll get to an admission that Industrial railways' is the proper name for this topic, and be satisfied with that. I was in the process of writing of a rebuttal, which was just getting longer and longer and which on re-reading was just so much special pleading. Basically I find Industrial rail transport ugly, artificial and inelegant. And sorry about the cheap quip.KTo288 (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was no consensus to alter category structure. --Claritas (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Narrow gauge railway linesEdit

The category is only duplicate of Category:Narrow gauge railways. "Narrow gauge railways" can mean only "narrow gauge railway lines" (a railway company cannot be "narrow gauge" and it would be pointless to categorize railway companies by gauge). --ŠJů (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I agree with you that this is just a duplicate of Category:Narrow gauge railways. Since we (including your vote) decided that "railways" should be avoided, I have proposed a move of the Category:Narrow gauge railways over to --> Category:Narrow gauge railway lines. That would also nicely resolve our dispute over whether "railways"-name categories should be in the "railway lines" parent cat, because then we would have only "narrow gauge railway lines" as a name.
If you agree, can you say so on the Cfd for Category:Narrow gauge railway lines so the merge can go ahead as I have asked for on the Delinker? Thanks. Ingolfson (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It was decided (after the wikipedias) that "railways" categories should not prove umbrella categories of the whole theme of rail transport. But the world "railways" should be used in names of categories by type of railway ("industrial railway" is a clear terminus technicus, "industrial rail transport" is an incompatible and obscure neologism) and in names of categories which categorize specific railways by type.
The reason why the term "railways" was problematic is its ambiguity ("a railway line" as the authentic meaning and "a railway company" as the metonymic derivated meaning). I (as a no-native user of English) perceive a word "way" as clear base of the word "railway", but i can understand, that the original meaning of the word can be almost displaced and forgotten in some of English-speaking countries.
In case of categories of railways by type, there is no fear of ambiguity: the company cannot be "narrow gauge". "Narrow gauge railways" is an unambiguoous, exceptable and standard term. I never agreed to leave it. Category names shouldn't be superfluously euphuistic and complicated, if there exists some simpler and more established term.
The idea of formal unification of category names is useful, but it shouldn't be implemented ad absurdum, at the expense of idea of utmost simple, expectable and usual names. It is necessary to respect a common and technical language and not to create some "newspeak" here. In additional, it is undesirable to break the consistency toward en-wiki and other wikipedias (see en:Category:Narrow gauge railways) needlesly. I think, the category structure of en:Category:Railway lines at en-wikipedia is quite reasonable and we should result from it here. --ŠJů (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It is not always clear, what a "narrow gauge railway" is. Most people associate it with "narrow gauge railway company", e.g. Rhätische Bahn. This seems clear. But then, what is Berninabahn. It was a railway company once. Now it is a railway line of Rhätische Bahn. Should we list Berninabahn under narrow gauge railways together with Rhätische Bahn? And then, what is the Cerdagne line of SNCF? A railway or a railway line? I think, "railway line" is quite clear, "railway" may have different meanings but is nearer to "company" than to "line".-- Gürbetaler (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
So ŠJů - you are actually proposing that we keep Category:Railway lines after we have decided - as per YOUR request - to delete Category:Railways, but we are supposed to delete Category:Narrow gauge railway lines and keep Category:Narrow gauge railways? That makes no SENSE. Especially to then put that category "Railway lines". That is so inconsistent.
And to point to Wikipedia is no argument in my view - if we use inconsistency on another project to keep it inconsistent here, we will never remove this needless duplication. Which I in the past felt you were quite against, by the way. Ingolfson (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
My past request aimed to an elimination of a unreasonable duplicity. My requests here aims to the same goal. I think, the structure at en-wikipedia is consistent and suitable in this respect. It is absurd to blame the wikipedia from duplication: it is no duplication at wikipedia in it. You Ingolfson are who created many duplications and unconsistentness and needles complicacies here. Some railways aren't findable in the appropriate categories of railways (railway lines) because you are displaced them to the upon-category "rail transport" or you have deleted a category of some type of railways etc.
@Gürbetaler: The English word "railway" (or the German word "Bahn" or Czech word "dráha") means primarily the rail-way, i. e. a railway line. In cases where the word "railways" cannot be ambiguous, it should be used instead of some artificial and longer word construction. The company which operate a narrow-gauge railway isn't a narrow-gauge company. This seems clear, the the company cannot be narrow-gauge. Thus "narrow gauge railways" can have only one meaning. If some specific railway line is operated by the homonymic company, it is ordinarilly suitable to use one common category for both this railway and this company. Such category should by categorized as a railway (line) and simultaneously as a railway company.
There are many cases that some railway (line) was divided into two or more lines or that several railways (railway lines) was joined into one railway (which can have more branches). One numbered railway (line) can be composed from more named railways (lines) and several numbered lines can form one named railway. It is independent from the fact whether the appropriate category of railways is named "...railways..." or "...railway lines...". --ŠJů (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not yet that familiar with the category trees in wikimedia. But I have an idea to solve the Problem with this Gordian knot.
Let's categorize railway generally as railway companies. Specific railway sections can be collected in specific galleries. Those galleries can be categorized to the respective railway company (or companies, if there is involved more than one railway company, e.g. Glacier Express).
There are some advantages with galleries:
  • The gallery can be structurized (see Bird Care Centre of Castel Tyrol)
  • A short introduction can be added, which can include also links to wikipedia articles
  • The pictures can be organized – independent of the filenames – in the correct lineup (see Albulabahn)
Maybe that's the way we shall do it. --Lord Koxinga (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The categorization makes use of many categorization criteria concurrently, which are modulary linked at every level. We have railway categories by company already (Category:Rail transport companies) and separate railway lines should by categorized under the appropriate company. But we have categorization by other criteria as well - by country and region, by technical type and purpose etc. Categories which are here discussed are categories by technical type of railway (i. e. railway in the sense of railway line - a company cannot by "narrow gauge"). Gallery pages are an additional utility - they should by categorized, but they don't substitute a category. Generally, galleries contain only the best and most presentable of images, not all images of relevant subject. --ŠJů (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I have to come back to the start of this discussion. ŠJů wrote, "Narrow gauge railways" can mean only "narrow gauge railway lines" (a railway company cannot be "narrow gauge" and it would be pointless to categorize railway companies by gauge). I work in an office, a federal office, that deals quite a lot with railways. And I have to tell you, that I often hear talking about "Narrow gauge railway companies". I'm not happy about this, because it has two meanings: 1) Companies that only operate on narrow gauge (e.g. RhB) or 2) Companies that operate on narrow gauge (e.g. TPF). Thus, merging "Narrow gauge railways" and "Narrow gauge railway lines" may be correct in a scientific view. But it might be misunderstood by many users! -- Gürbetaler (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Merged: Already done. King of ♠ 17:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Last modified on 12 November 2012, at 18:02