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)

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)

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)