Propose renaming Category:Escalante-Sevier region to Category:Escalante Desert-Sevier Lake subregion
Nominator's rationale: Rename. There is no main article here but the USGS apparently lables this region as Subregion 1603 -- Escalante Desert-Sevier Lake: The Escalante Desert and the Sevier Lake closed basins. Nevada, Utah. So at a minimum we should expand the description to include the desert and lake wording from the USGS. However I would more strongly favor an upmerge back into Category:Great Basin. Breaking the basin out into Regions, Subregions, Accounting Units and Cataloging Units is OCAT and would make navigation significantly more difficult. If anything we should have articles on these regions and subregions and they should be included in Category:Great Basin. If there is a need to navigate by hydrology areas of the Great Basin then we should use templates. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Rebuttal regarding (AGAINST) RENAME recommendation: This weak idea is a knee-jerk reaction to User:Vegaswikian jumping to the conclusion with edit 366670971 on 23:15, 7 June 2010, that the name Escalante-Sevier meant "Escalante Desert": "no source to show that this [ Old Spanish Trail (trade route)] is in the Escalante desert". Of course, after the fix of that user's invalid revert that deleted the valid article category, the user realized that the word "Escalante" doesn't mean "Escalante Desert", and to ease a bruised ego, that user concocted the lame idea to add both "Desert" and "Lake" to the filename for the category, even though the category's associated region is much broader than the desert and lake (the river drains the predominate portion of the subregion). Moreover, that user apparently wants editors to make the same mistake (jump to the desert or lake conclusion) by introducing those extraneous words in the title of the category so they appear at the bottom of wikiarticles that are so categorized. Finally, that user creates an unrelated slippery slope fallacy that since "Breaking the basin out into Regions, Subregions, Accounting Units and Cataloging Units is OCAT and would make navigation significantly more difficult", but of course not all Great Basin subregions have been, or need to be, categorized: only 8 categories are used to fully-categorize the 14 different Great Basin regions, and already-existing subcategories are the majority (e.g., counties, metro areas, etc.). Hence, the hyperbolic chicken little inference that a subcategory is required for each unit is preposterously, and blatantly, false. Even if that user's recommendation and rationalization were just poorly thought out fabrications (like that user's faulty delete of a wikiarticle's category), the failure to sufficiently deliberate caused them (recommend-first-and-apply-critical-thinking-later--or-never). Hopefully the user didn't instead knowingly make this beyond-dubious-and-questionable recommendation (and 2 others) to waste editors' time assessing its invalidity so that time would not be used for editing (e.g., the problems with the content that user has posted.) Out of courtesy to those other editors, this rest-of-the-story is provided; and the renaming recommendation can be closed as unnecessary and unproductive (a waste of time). 71.219.172.174 (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
RENAME IS A DUMB IDEA The preceding from Vegaswikian was more asinine bunkum, as none of those fallacious claims have anything to do with adding "Desert" and "Lake" to the category name, the topic of this discussion section. "You[who?] have yet to show[specify] how this improves navigate over a water basin template"[citation needed] is preposterously vague, false, & irrelevant, as categories are for grouping--& that user agrees the subregions are bona fide USGS groupings (he identified so in his recommendation)--so of course that valid categorization is how they improve the Great Basin category! Conversely, a reader navigates to a known wikiarticle or category using the name of the topic in which the reader is interested (there's a box in the upper right corner called "search" that allows only a part of the name to generate a list). Moreover, the preposterous Argumentum ad populum-style "Everyone knows"/"How many people" illogical claims are also irrelevant, even moreso for the latter as readers can (and will) be(come) informed when they open the Great Basin catmore, the subcategory pages, etc, and see the encompassing information and helpful introductory wikilinks. For example, had that user actually opened the subcategory for which he inaccurately assumed was for a desert, he would have seen that it was not described in any way as such, but that there were multiple ways to easily determine the scope of the subregion subcategory (e.g., read the description!). Again, the subregion subcategories are INDISPUTABLY THE BONA FIDE AND USGS-OFFICIAL GROUPINGS FOR THE SET OF WATERSHEDS THAT IS THE GREAT BASIN (Vegaswikian even cited the government source), so any more idiototic rationalizations by that user won't change the validity he identified for the subregion subcategories (but will continue to make that user look foolishly ignorant). But of course he will continue to do so... Debunkingly yours, (Hey, this is fun!) 71.219.172.174 (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)