Category talk:Electric power transmission systems
 | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Clarification
[edit]The category and its subcatecories need better guidelines, what electric power transmission system exactly means and what should be listed under this category. The main issue is if a single transmission line should be included in these categories or not (e.g. LitPol Link). Recently a number of single transmission lines was included here but I personally have some doubts if it is justified or not. Therefore, more precise guidelines are needed.
Other interrelated category which needs better clarification, is Category:Electric grid interconnections. Beagel (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- I fail to see how an individual line could be considered a system. It is more likely to be an interconnect and not a system. Yes, I was asked to comment and I have done some cleanup in this tree. Also I don't follow this talk page, so if anyone needs me to check here again, leave a note on my talk. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason for insisting on an exact classification. Adding one or two oddball articles to a category for a dozen or two doesn't hurt anything. Once a category has more than 3-4 dozen articles in it, it usually becomes clear how to split it up, how to sub-categorize it. The result of this is that one usually has a clearly-defined subcategory, and a few remaining articles that are still oddballs that don't fit well. Leave those in the parent category, until enough accumulate to put them elsewhere. linas (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Concur with Linas for the reasons given. The benefit of eliminating some sloppiness at this point is not high enough at this point to balance of the cost of introducing some rules that may be a mismatch in the future. The concept of power transmission was stable up until the 1990s but new technologies are destabilizing its meaning. -J JMesserly (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason for insisting on an exact classification. Adding one or two oddball articles to a category for a dozen or two doesn't hurt anything. Once a category has more than 3-4 dozen articles in it, it usually becomes clear how to split it up, how to sub-categorize it. The result of this is that one usually has a clearly-defined subcategory, and a few remaining articles that are still oddballs that don't fit well. Leave those in the parent category, until enough accumulate to put them elsewhere. linas (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)