Category talk:Lists of railway stations in France

Latest comment: 18 years ago by Stevage in topic Category name

Category name

edit

Erm, this category should be called "Lists of railway stations in France", not "List of...". Each item in the category is a list, hence the category should be called "lists"...Stevage 13:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

This category is a list of the stations in France. Since you seem to view the item the other maybe you'd like to rename fr:Catégorie:Gare de France into fr:Catégorie:Gares de France ? Had the article been properly named Railway stations in <region name>, maybe it would have been clearer. Captain scarlet 13:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
The French wikipedia seems to obey a different naming scheme. Here, every category should be either plural if it's taxonomic (examples: Category:Snakes, Category:English footballers, Category:Operas) or singular if it's thematic (examples: Category:Paris, Category:Opera, Category:Computer science). Also, a category and a list are quite distinct - a category can gather together lists (as this one does), in which case it should definitely be plural. For some examples, see this. Stevage 22:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
It is a plural, a list of stations. Captain scarlet 23:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Heh, come on, stop this. The list of stations in Rhône-Alpes is "a list of stations". The category of all such lists is "Lists of railway stations in France". C'mon, click the link, do me a favour. Stevage 18:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's kind of academic really as the category specified in each page was a mistake, I meant to add them into the 'Railway stations in France' category and wrote "list of" in front by accident. I thought I'd already corrected this but it looks like I haven't (I don't think anything's been reverted). I will change then all later on... For the record, if it hadn't been a mistake, I probably would have chosen "lists" rather than "list" but then I guess that dependeds on whether you still define a group of lists as a list. Interesting - I would never had thought of that before. :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.149.1.194 (talkcontribs) .

Igonre the above, I now realise there was no original mistake and that it was edited. Again, for the record, there's no clear answer - and I don't mind nuch either way - so I'm going to keep out of this now. ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.149.1.194 (talkcontribs) .