Category talk:Places by types

I can see how every other subcategory makes sense under this category, but fail to see how Transportation as a general notion fits within the category of Places by types. Because many constituents of transportation networks are very difficult to pinpoint in any one given location, e.g. roads, Highways, rail lines, etc., I am of the opinion that the Transportation category might be better suited as a subcategory of the Infrastructures category. What does everyone else think? EganioTalk 02:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. This was probably a mistake. The Infrastructures category would fit it nicely, but it seems to just be a copy of the Transportation category. We should only keep infrastructures (and make it singular) if there is more to go into it. I'm not sure there is, since utilities (gas, water, electricity) aren't really important. Gboyers talk 02:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As another point, the word "Places" shouldn't be used at all. This should be Category:Locations by type - as per the new locations categorising policy outlined at Category:Locations. I'll get the bot to do that... Gboyers talk 02:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, as I understand the term Infrastructure, it includes anything that is meant to exist in a prolonged state, providing a pre-ordained level of service, whose components are constantly maintained and renovated in order to provide such service. To me, this would include things such as dams (already in the category) and other waterworks, civil buildings and installations (such as city halls and other municipal and federal buildings), and recreation (public parks, piers, etc.).  Maybe I'm extending the definition a little, but to me, it seems there is a good deal more that could fall under the categorization of Infrastructure.  Of course, I'm not sure how much there is out there that actually has a name attached that could therefore be foreseeably included.  Thoughts? EganioTalk 02:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Makes sense, I suppose you're just saying 'permanent resources' then. I suppose that could then be subcategorised to transportation, public buildings, dams etc. That's fine, so long as it isn't just two subcategories (since that makes the navigation unneccessary).


 * Just to clarify, that would make bridges under the following category structure:


 * Grand Theft Auto > Geography > Locations > Locations by Type > Infrastructure > Transportation > Ground Transportation > Bridges


 * Although there IS a shortcut from Grand Theft Auto > Locations. I'll set the bot to do some renaming, if you could help with the Infrastructure part? Gboyers talk 12:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Believe me, I agree that two subcategories isn't worth anybody's time! :-) I'll get on the Infrastructure category tout suite and try to get it up to snuff. EganioTalk 01:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, is there a way to rename (move) categories, or do you have to get the bot to do that? As you mentioned, Category:Infrastructures needs to be renamed to Infrastructure. EganioTalk 01:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The only way to "move" a category is to use a different one instead. So go round every page and change to , and then manually delete the old category page, and add the text to the new category page. Or just ask User:Gtabot to do the hard bit for you. Gboyers talk 01:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)