Misplaced Pages

• Comment/oppose Plan was to create similar subcategories for lakes and other geographic items currently in mountain range categories; in the regions involved (the Pacific Cordillera) mountain ranges constitute whole vast regions and their categories currently include many non-mountain items; political geography is a separate categorization than by natural geography and geographic regions that are not political; other large regions include the Interior Plateau and its subdivisions; some subcats already exist for other regions, such as Category:Hydrography of the Okanagan for both rivers and lakes; regions adjoining the Okanagan are the Thompson Plateau to the east and Okanagan and Shuswap Highlands to the east and northeast and the Shuswap region to the north; all are natural regions and there is no reason to suggest that geographic items like rivers should not be categorized by natural regions, which are also COMMONNAME points of reference in the very complicated geography of the province and the larger region it is part of i.e. the Pacific Northwest.
  • • in the context of regional geography a mountain range is a region; e.g. the central Pacific Ranges of the Coast Mountains has areas that are neither part of the Chilcotin Country to the east or the South and Central Coast regions of the province. they are a region unto themselves; as are the Boundary Ranges;
    • in fact, classifying lakes and rivers by e.g. regional district is not found in Canadian primary sources; GNIS in this region classifies by city/borough but BC Names/GeoBC, the geographic names office of the British Columbia provincial government, classifies them by Land District, as does the Canadian Geographic Names Database per example here for Mount Ratz. Land districts are the cadastral survey system underlying all land titles and descriptions.
    • The only source that comes to mind in British Columbia that would classify anything by regional district (i.e. "political geography") is the British Columbia Archives, a branch of the Royal British Columbia Museum, which classifies its photo holdings that way; not sure about their text resources as I rarely look there.
    • The British Columbia Ministry of Forests Forest districts of the day are often cited by scientific papers which can be found aplenty in the ministry's online library database, and the ministry itself often addresses research studies on forests by biogeoclimatic zone (names for some of which necessarily use mountain ranges as part of biogeoclimatic region names).
    • That ministry is one of the several overlapping tiers of the subdivisions of British Columbia, as are Ministry of Environment Regions (which governs provincial parks and protected areas while the Ministry of Tourism regions are different again; and necessarily provide geographic descriptions according to their own "political geographic regions".
    • Federal Canadian Ministry of Environment documents and reports/sources may use the Ecozone ecoregion system.
    • summing up classifying geographic objects by natural region is common fare, even if no other WP:WikiProject Rivers categories use mountain ranges as regions. But in British Columbia and Alaska and Yukon, mountain ranges are regions and a valid classification system independent of very changeable political geographic boundaries.Skookum1 (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Reply. There is of course a case for geographically categorising all sorts of landforms and other natural history topics by regions based on natural history, provided that it is done consistently. The category system is based on an interlocking tree of categories, where different attributes of topics are combined in different ways; what makes it work is choosing the same set of attributes. If we start categorising topics on a wide range of geographical bases, then all we is to split existing categories without creating the navigational structure which makes the categories useful.
        Do we have a list of the natural geographic regions of North America? Is it being used as the basis for existing categories. If not, then the decision to create such a set of categories should be taken in a systematic way from the top. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Note canvassing. Note that 5 Wikiprojects have been notified of this discussion. The number of projects seems unusually high, but project notification is acceptable per WP:CANVASS provided that notifications are neutral. That is not the case with the apparently identical notifications made to WikiProject Geography of Canada, WikiProject Alaska, the Canadian Wikipedians' notice board, WikiProject Rivers.
  @Skookum1:, please replace those notifications with a brief neutral notice using {{cfd-notify}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Why should notifying affected WikiProjects about CfDs which directly involve them seem (a) unusually high and (b) constitute "canvassing"? I am only enlisting people who write river articles and work with river categories all the time (which you do not SFAIK) and not really saying much else that I have not said here i.e. that mountain regions in this region of the North American continent constitute bona fide regions? You made no effort to contact or notify them yourself, so why should I not? I am not Polling, only informing editors who may be interested in commenting on this CfD (which you have now expanded with a misspelling "deleing") and not attempting to influence the vote in any way.Skookum1 (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Reply. Read WP:CANVASS. The message should be neutral. Your message is not neutral. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Neither is your CfD, which at this point also comes off as COI considering your against-wide-consensus/momentum closes of BC town articles and indigenous titles and your peremptory heavy hand against me despite a no-consensus verdict at the ANI. I've been told "not to take it personally" (this CfD) but given the last few weeks, that's not just counterintuitive but disingenuous.Skookum1 (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Skookum1, if you have a problem with a RM close, open a move review. If you believe that this CFD is disruptive, ask at ANI for an admin to take action. But stop WP:CANVASSing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment There is no guideline that I am aware of that stipulates that political geography and only political geography should be used to classify/category rivers with.Skookum1 (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • See my reply above, at 18:01. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    • And still you cite no guideline, don't even know if there's a list of natural physiogeographic regions of North America (there is) and you don't even know what other river/mountain/region subcats there are but you field a CfD anyway?? This is a nuisance CfD and in the light of your recent behaviour towards and actions against me can not be construed in any other way than what it looks like. These are regions beyond your ken in scale, or experience in real life or in Misplaced Pages; regional subcategories are needed and nowhere is it mandated that only political geographical subdivisions province/states may be used to categorize them. These may be mountain ranges but they constitute regions and "Geography of FOO" like "Rivers of FOO" is perfectly valid even when "FOO" is not a county or a city.Skookum1 (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Skookum1, Rather than assuming bad faith, why not point to the existing structure of categories of landforms by region if it exists?
        The category I first nominated was not parented in any other category of rivers, so as noted in the nom I looked for other similar categories of rivers-by-physiogeographic-region, and didn't find any. I didn't proclaim my results as conclusive; on the contrary, I asked to be corrected if I had missed something. I remain open to the possibility of categorising landforms by by-physiogeographic-region if it is done systematically through a consistent structure of such categories.
        The fact that a category is not specifically forbidden by a guideline does mean that it is a appropriate to create it. There is a limit to the number of categorisation schemes which can be created without causing category clutter and properly maintained, and CFD regularly reviews new categorisation schemes to establish a consensus on whether they should be kept. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment There is no Category:Rivers of the Alps (yet) but there is Category:Lakes of the Alps, demonstrating that geographic-object categories of non-political geography categories already exist.Skookum1 (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Procedural note. I have just added to this nomination Category:Rivers of the Omineca Mountains, which was created several hours after its creator commented in this discussion. Please desist from creating more categories of this type until the discussion has established a consensus on whether type of category is appropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Note 3 more also created after by the same editor after its creator commented in this discussion. Please just hold off until a consensus is established. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    • There is no reason whatsoever to stop creating by-region rivers category because of this CfD; you're welcome to keep adding them but why don't we hear from some other editors first as to whether or not this CfD even has a leg to stand on?Skookum1 (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
• Merge all. We don't categorise rivers in this fashion. We categorise rivers by nation, and by state/province/territory, and occasion by riverine system, but we don't categorise them by a geographical area: that is WP:OC and can lead to pileups of narrow categories that only confuse the reader. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Question Can you clarify what you mean by "geographical area"? It could mean different things to different people. Thanks. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 03:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)\
    • In this case it refers to Category:Geographic regions of British Columbia (and subcats) and in some areas must necessarily include landforms such as mountain ranges and plateaus that constitute vast geographic areas of the province where the usual "country" used does not apply. The Rockies and the various subranges of the Coast Mountains and other large mountain groups in the north (the Cassiar Mountains/Cassiar Ranges, Stikine Ranges, Skeena Mountains, Saint Elias Mountains etc) constitute regions unto themselves and are used in regular parlance as such.Skookum1 (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Rivers of the Okanagan, Rivers of the Chilcotin and Rivers of the Cariboo. These are regions of BC and fall in line with other areas, see Category:Rivers of France by region, Category:Rivers of Ukraine, Category:Rivers of the Czech Republic, Category:Rivers of England, Category:Rivers of Quebec, Category:Rivers of Ontario by census division and my favourite Category:Rivers of Nunavut. Unsure about the others as I'm not clear if they are regions or not. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 03:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • they are, though their outer edges are part of other regions like the Okanagan etc. e.g. the Boundary Ranges verge on the Stikine Plateau and other landforms to the east; they do not so far as I know include the mountains of the islands of the Alexander Archipelago in Alaska. The ranges are so large that their core areas do not completely belong in any of the "ordinary" regions (of which only a few are "physiogeographic regions" e.g. the Lower Mainland is not a landform, but it is part of the Fraser Lowland landform).Skookum1 (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment re the claim of WP:Overcategorization I have consulted WP:WikiProject Categorization and found these items as goals of the project:
  • Structure categories and subcategories to improve usability.
    • That's the whole idea of creating these subcategories by recognizable names
  • Assist in category diffusion.
    • i.e. subcategorize categories with overwhelming numbers of articles, which is exactly what Category:Rivers of British Columbia is, though it is not listed at Category:Categories requiring diffusion (but should have been, likewise Category:Lakes of British Columbia and Category:Mountains of British Columbia.
  • Verify that categories used are relevant to the topic.
    • All of the above are very much so; the bulk of items within the mountain range/region subcategories were river articles within mountain ranges categories. Rivers subcategories were needed because of the massive scale of Category:Rivers of British Columbia as such items should not be in mountain range categories directly. Those mountain range categories which do not have many river entries I have not (so far) bothered creating categories for; higher priority are subcategories the usual geographic regions like the Lower Mainland, North Coast, Vancouver Island, Haida Gwaii, Cariboo, Okanagan etc.Skookum1 (talk) 05:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Ensure articles are not on both a category and its subcategory.
    • In the case of the Canadian Rockies subcat that category is in because some are in BC, some are in Alberta; and some like the Fraser are in several regions.
  • Ensure categories appear without annotations and are in line with WP:NPOV.
    • There is nothing POV about any of the category titles
  • Ensure categories are used in articles in an uncontroversial and self-evident manner
    • the only controversy here is being made by people who don't understand the geography of British Columbia or the necessarily terrain-based subregions thereof.Skookum1 (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I have been told in the past that categories with over 400 articles did not require diffusion; ~192 articles is (obvioulsy) well short of even that. That said, while I personally don't believe diffusion is necessary here, I won't be losing any sleep if the determination is the other way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose We currently categorise rivers by state, by drainage basin and by (large) region, including mountain ranges. Geographically speaking it is entirely reasonable to do so. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
• Procedural note. Rather than waiting to see what consensus is reached by this discussion, User:Skookum1 has continued to create new similar categories, which I will now ad to this nomination.
  This is pointless disruption. If the consensus is to keep this type of category, they can be created once the discussion is completed. OTOH, if the consensus is to delete or merge them, then their creation now is just wasted effort. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
• @CambridgeBayWeather: – Mmm...oogruk. @BrownHairedGirl and Skookum1: – You know, I would love to be more active on here. However, witnessing the recent back-and-forth between you two has led me to question the amount of time I have spent. Let's just say that a lot of what I've read is nothing but headache-inducing (Can you say "interaction ban"? Good, I knew you could.). Because Skookum made those notifications, it led me to browse around. I wonder how relevant Category:Rivers of Kenai Peninsula and @Rivers of Seward Peninsula: are to this discussion, even if outside of its scope. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 12:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Granular materials

• Propose deleting Category:Granular materials - Template:Lc1
  

Nominator's rationale: Virtually any solid can be granulated.Project Osprey (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• keep Seems reasonably well-defined as a high-level container category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; the various category entries really have little to do with one another: sugar and Pulse (legume)? A sugar is a crystal at room temperature, but a large sugar crystal can be granulated at room temperature and put in one's coffee. At high temperatures, sugar is some form of viscous liquid (just overcook some to see) and is certainly not "granular" in any common meaning of the term. Pulses are the seeds of various plants often used as foods (Lima beans, chickpeas, etc.) and when presented as this:

appear granular, but presented as this:

so do cars and people. 'nuff said. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I note that we have a head article at Granular material, so any debates about whether this exists as a category of materials should be addressed by that article. It's possible it needs to be purged, but as a category it should remain. (Note: I moved the image to the right for better formatting).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• I feel that the definition is arbitrary, in so much that any solid can be ground-up into small particles, at which point it will behave like a granular material. It's not really an intrinsic property, just something which has or can be done to it. In that regard I feel it's WP:NOTDEFINING, although I might simply be splitting hairs here. Project Osprey (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

True, any solid COULD become a granular material, but the category is for articles about materials that are granular. The article has a quote that states "Granular materials are ubiquitous in nature and are the second-most manipulated material in industry (the first one is water)". It seems this categorization is used by materials scientists and there seems to be a well-defined inclusion criteria. I think if we were to limit ourselves to technical literature that discussed some of these elements the fact that they are granular would indeed be defining.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Granular materials are a class of materials studied by physicists; they have properties different from solids or liquids and some of those properties are universal across different types of granular material. Some topics, like Gravel and Sand, are granular materials by definition, but may vary in composition. Really, it is no different in character than Category:Solids or Category:Liquids and is just as valid for organizing our topics. --Mark viking (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. This is "categorisation by overly-broad shared characteristic"; grouping sand, gravel, sugar, and legumes isn't a useful categorisation to the Misplaced Pages reader. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Anti-intellectualists

• Propose deleting Category:Anti-intellectualists - Template:Lc1
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. An obvious POV and BLPvio magnet, and pretty much inherently controversial. As a general rule, it's bad form to have a category whose very name is listed as a "pejorative term for people". FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• delete seems mostly to be used as a category to critique other groups. My question is, how did this survive so long? I don't recall coming across it...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. The OP spells it out very well why. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)