Talk:Iron Horse Regional Trail

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article lacks references.

It is requested that an a map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.

Cycling

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Dropping the City Cat's[edit]

I don't believe it is appropriate to put the Iron Horse Trail into the Pleasanton, California category. Few reasons. #1 - It only passes through. If it existed completely within the city limits - that would be a different story. #2 - Using the logic from #1 everything that passes through Pleasanton should be added to the cat. Including 580 & 680 - just for example. #3 - using the logic from #2 & #1 all the other cities that the Iron Horse trail pass through should have their cats added. On top of that - that goes for everything that passes through anything. There could be hundreds of categories added to every road, path, trail and similar article. --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 05:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here's my logic: if I go the category "Pleasanton, California," I want to know about things related to Pleasanton.

One of the things related to Pleasanton is the Iron Horse Trail, a notable recreational feature of the city. Therefore, I as a reader of the encylopedia would benefit by seeing it in the category. It's what a reader of the encyclopedia might expect to see in such a category, and the encyclopedia is built for its readers.

There are not "hundreds" of cities that the Iron Horse Trail passes through; there are seven. In the future, there will be nine.

Whether it exists "completely within the city limits" is not relevant either; as a counter-example, I note that this article belongs to stub cats for two counties, neither of which the trail completely exists within.

As for adding the major freeways, I don't find it as far-fetched as you do, but an alternative might be to do something like add Category:Transportation in Alameda County, California as a subcat to the Pleasanton category (this is equivalent to what was done for Category:Los Angeles, California, which has a few more freeways going through it than Pleasanton does... :-). I-5 passes through 16 counties in California, and it does belong to 16 county categories (and again, does not exist completely within any of them). But that would be a question for those articles, and the question at hand is this one. Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do see what you are talking about in terms of the Freeways and counties. But of course thats not city level. Of course the Transpo in Alameda doesn't seem like the place to put a foot trail. Regardless, Part of my problem was the seemingly "selfish" act of only adding it to the Pleasanton - I was mistaken on this as there is no categories for the rest of the cities in the area. Which I suppose I shall consider fixing. Go forth and muckery. --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 01:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]