Category talk:Heritage rail transport

 Oppose +  Comment I oppose renaming (or more to the point, deleting) "Heritage rail transport". It was JUST moved to said name by an admin, after having been accepted as an acceptable move. I assume you are opposed to the rename / deletion of the "Heritage railways"? As discussed, that has been reinstated and is not to be deleted anymore, I apologise for treading on toes there, and I accept that it has a useful function to cover images of specific railways. However, saying that "Heritage rail transport" is not a valid concept is wrong - it is perfectly logical in english grammar, and Commons categories need not be "the most commonly used".

It is also intentionally named to fit into the:

Category:Rail transport >

Category:Rail transport by function >

Category:Heritage rail transport structure, with

Category:Heritage railways as a subcat for specific railways.

Finally, it has a valid place for images that are not yet correctly sorted into a specific heritage railway category, and for elements like heritage rail museums, which are NOT a "railway", but fit perfectly into "Heritage rail transport".

I again apologise to people like User:ŠJů who felt I was making rash or wrong decisions. That was not my intention. Ingolfson (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose I think that indeed, both cats are needed. Lets first categorize all items properly and we will see. --Foroa (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right that there exist a heritage rail transport at current railway lines too, not only at the heritage railways. There is a valid reason for existing of this category. But the unsorted images related to any specific heritage railway should be inserted into the category "Heritage railways" directly, not into the superior category "heritage rail transport". --ŠJů (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

As said elsewhere, there will be images which can NEVER be sorted specifically, because the info is lost, and no one knows where or when the photo was taken. There will also be files which relate to heritage rail transport, but NOT to a specific railway (such as a wikibook, or a public-domain book about the concept of it). Also files/categories which show only a particular sub-aspect of heritage rail transport, such as, random suggestion, "People associated with heritage rail transport".

The fact that such files/subcategories may not exist on Commons right now would be a reason to not create a SUBcategory for them. However, as the "XXX rail transport" categories in Category:Rail transport by function are INTERMEDIATE categories, it is best for consistency for them to be created, even where they contain only other categories like "Heritage railways". This allows for a logical structure, and allows for "Heritage railways" to be found via EITHER the railways or the "rail transport by function" path. As long as it is logical and consistent, this provides redundancy, not duplication. Ingolfson (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)