Category talk:Rail transport
Then, it seems better to re-organize sub-categories of Category:Rail transport. I suggested a re-categorizing plan at Category talk:Japanese rail companies as follows.--Miya 00:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
a re-categorizing plan
- Category:Rail transport
at the same time （同時に）:
Hello Gürbetaler - thank you for your large amounts of work in the railway cats - but can I ask you please to not remove preempt sorting? There are a few types of subcategories that are intentionally at the very front of any category. These include mainly "Category:X by Y" "Categoy:X in X", where this category using the "by" or "in" descriptor is moved to the very start of the category listing - i.e. "Category:Rail transport by motive power" goes to the start of "Category rail transport". As you can see, this is not an arbitrary choice, but a relatively simply rule for the "in" and by" subcategories.
This is used everywhere on Commons (just look at the "by country" categories, or the subcategories of "vehicles" - so please do not undo these. This should be consistent to help users find the most important subcategories. Thank you. Ingolfson (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't find time for Commons a few days. I am very much aware of the usefulness of preempt sorting and I have done it in many places. But in the Rail transport category we have a total of only 28 categories but you have put 9 or one third before the A. We have 26 letters and the letters do help finding categories. But having one third before the alphabetical sort and only two thirds within doesn't help the user. Furthermore, your choice isn't logic, why should "Rail transport in art" be a more important category than Rolling stock? I think preempt sorting should only be used when it really helps to structure and in Rail transport it doesn't.Gürbetaler (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)