< March 24	March 26 >

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: No rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Political corruption in the United States to Category:Public corruption in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category should be renamed to reflect a slightly broader purpose. "Public" is better than "political" because there are some public officials, e.g. judges and employees of independent agencies, who arguably cannot properly be described as "political" but can still very much be guilty of corruption. Savidan 21:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Category:Corruption in the United States can be used for cases that do not involve elected officials or govt. There is sufficient demarcation between political and public public policy. Also there is a lot of subcats that will be adversely affected by a potential rename. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a sub-category of Category:Political corruption, and it makes no sense to widen the topical scope of a category beyond that of its parent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the argument that corruption of judges in the US involves something that is not political can only be made by ignoring the root meaning of the word, the way the word is used in the United States, and the fact that a good portion of the judges in the US are democratically elected.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as per WP:OC#EGRS. Nymf _hideliho! 18:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to both parents, i.e. Category:LGBT Jews and Category:LGBT people from Russia‎ (OK, the second one is not actually the parent, but Category:LGBT people of Russian descent‎ is the only by-descent subcat of Category:LGBT people by nationality). Apart from the WP:OC#EGRS issues raised by the nominator, this is an irrelevant intersection ... but the required action is upmerger, not deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not a relevant intersection. I see nothing in the category to upmerge. It may have been prematurely emptied? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split by year of birth and political association. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to any parent cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per BHG. Orderinchaos 09:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as per WP:OC#EGRS. Nymf _hideliho! 18:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The parent categ is Category:LGBT people by nationality, not Category:LGBT people by ethnic or national descent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and BHG. We don't have a scheme for LGBT people by ethnicity/national descent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GOF's reasoning. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is overcategorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as per WP:OC#EGRS. Nymf _hideliho! 18:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reason to have ancestry and profession intersect in this specific case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Upmerged & delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging Category:American pornographic film actors of Russian-Jewish descent to all of its parent cats

Nominator's rationale: A quintuple? intersection category of unlikely value. LeSnail (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. What next Category:11th century American pornographic film actors of Russian-Jewish descent??? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Alan above. Nymf _hideliho! 18:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Alan above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I might actually go along with some ethnicities here (minus the American) if it can be shown it's an actual adult video genre. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is either a 3 or 4 way intersection, which is not a notable and distinct intesection so there is no reason to have it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Upmerge & delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging Category:LGBT American people of Nicaraguan descent to all of its parent cats.

Nominator's rationale: Strange triple intersection. I don't see why this intersection is more notable than other possibilities. LeSnail (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SMALLCAT and per the precedent set for the discussion of Category:Heterosexual Martians of American descent. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What does "upmerge" mean? And Alan, the "heterosexual Martians" category sounded like a joke, so I'm confused as to why you would compare this to that. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 20:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it was a joke, and I am not comparing Nicaraguans to Martians. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I too started out in a good joking mood with these categories but they go on and on.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Unless it can be documented that a large influx of LGBT Nicaraguans left specifically to the US to avoid persecution or some historical event, I don't see the intersection as meaningful. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. We generally avoid 3 way intersections.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note, for the record, that there are also parallel categories for LGBT American people of Cuban, Ecuadorian, Mexican and Puerto Rican descent in addition to this one. The Puerto Rican one is a bit of a special case, having survived a previous AFD on the basis that Puerto Rico's status as a US territory makes the question of Puerto Rican identity more complex and multilayered than most of the others — but the Cuban, Ecuadorian, Mexican and Nicaraguan ones are entirely unnecessary and unwarranted. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep & purge. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: *Delete per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OC. It is mostly about people associated with the Franklin Dam and therefore a case of overcategorisation. There is a dire need for a Franklin Dam case article (I created a redir) due to the importance of the topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, if you'd actually looked in the category, you would surely have noticed Commonwealth v Tasmania, which is a category member. Orderinchaos 07:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but there is a need to tie all the articles together. I chose that name based on google searches. A descriptive title such as Franklin Dam controversy is probably better. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reasons given don't appear to correspond with the actual situation - I'm not seeing a case for overcategorisation by having this particular category - I'd agree if there was only cause for 2 or 3 category members. Yes, most of the components are people associated with the development. But they were important to it (Franklin Dam, of course, is a constructed feature, not a natural one, so those involved with its construction should be noted) but that's no different to many other categories on many subjects. Orderinchaos 07:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
strong Keep - the category is another difficult name - the dam was never built for a start. the opposition to the proposed dam the subsequent political fallout in tasmania for years after was significant, so of course the category is mostly associated with the people who either supported the proposed dam or opposed it and the subsequent failure of the tasmanian government and the hydro to build it against.. hard to imagine whether the nominator knows anything about tasmanian state politics - smallcat and oc are misnomers - the potential expansion of this category is vast as the equivalent of over 3 different governments of tasmania rose or fell in the issues surrounding the proposed dam, with significant ramifications for tasmanian-commonwealth elations, as well as affecting the whole tasmanian population due the the referendum SatuSuro
- — Note to closing admin: SatuSuro (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of the category or not is in no way related to whether the dam was built or not. A category is to aid the readers of WP to navigate through the millions of articles. What you are trying to do is to use a category to do what it cannot. You are trying to to make it do what only an article can do. Assigning a bunch of articles to a category does not give a reader any impression of what you want to acheive. And please assume good faith. I am sufficiently familiar with Tasmanian environmental issues to make a judgement here. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Orderinchaos and SatuSuro. I don't see this as a case of SMALLCAT or overcategorisation for the reasons that they have laid out. Jenks24 (talk) 12:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are seven bio articles in the category. If they are removed it brings the number down to five, and at least one of those remaining does not belong in the category leaving a total of four. That sounds like SMALLCAT to me. So you may ask why the bio articles don't belong in Category:Franklin Dam. Take the example of Bob Hawke. Have a look at the categories assigned to the page. Notice something? Yes, Category:Franklin Dam is the odd one out. So why assign Category:Franklin Dam to Bob Hawke and not the hundreds of other things that he was involved in? Because That Is Not How It Is Done!. Imagine the mess things would be if that is how it was done. Oh, I forgot, there is a huge chunk of WP on which that is how it is done... Anyway, to be serious, over-categorisation is a is a big problem on WP. It pollutes the articles an the categories and makes it a less useful navigation system. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - quoting above Anyway, to be serious, over-categorisation - it simply is not over-categorisation - either Franklin Dam or Lake Pedder - the fact that the categories are not fuller or expanded to illustrate the function of those categories is a combination of the relative quiet on the Tasmanian article front - some talk pages in Tasmanian articles have 1 year gaps if not longer - simply to wander through valid categories and dump them here in CFD is in itself misguided - few if any Australian editors ever seem to venture here (despite Lieftings careful notification at individuals talk pages which is a genuine plus) - to go from the interaction between self and liefting is in itself an inadequate summary of the issues (it is clear from our positions that further input should be solicited) - it should have gone to the Australian noticeboard first - but again the number of active editors with sufficient knowledge or understanding is drying up by the day... SatuSuro 00:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have said it before - categories are not used as a means of filling in the gaps due to a lack of an article on a notable topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Most of the articles now included in the category should be removed from this category, whether or not the category is deleted. For most of them, it is overcategorization and not central to their notability. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The inclusion of politicians (such as Premiers) who had some involvement with the controvery seems to me rather too like performace by performer categorisation. The fact that a person is linked from the article does not necessarily mean that the person belongs in a category. The dam project was no doubt notable, and a notable political controversy, but that does not mean that a category is needed. Other options should be conidered, such as merging related articles or linking them via a navbox. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Purge The articles I see as legitimately in this category are Franklin Dam, Tasmanian power referendum, 1981, Franklin River, Tasmania's Wilderness Battles (just added), and Robin Gray (Australian politician). That makes 5 though which is my cut off for WP:SMALLCAT. I don't see the rest as being related enough to be in the cat. Phillip Bennett's article doesn't even mention the dam ? RevelationDirect (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Doug Lowe, also. He was the Premier at the time of the referendum, and took a strong public stand personally to the point of quitting his party over it and winning his seat as an independent. Orderinchaos 04:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the nominator of this CFD has chosen to retire, and there are issues that I would have thought needed clarifying here - one of a group of 3 categories to do with Tasmanian environmental disputes that invaded the lives of the Australian mainland politics, not just Tasmanian. The way of perceiving the issue is (1) an environmental issue about a location and its fate - small cat perhaps, but (2) a political issue that saw a large range of political players win or lose relative to the issue - at federal, state , and local government levels (3) an iconic issue that even ended up in a high court legal case - combine the three and I really think the small cat argument is a false one. Pity the nominator chooses to retire while these nominations are still up, he did a large amount of good work around the place Satu Suro 07:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Any name change is best considered separately. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Only two of the articles are deserving of such a category and they are best treated with the actual article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep delete per smallcat is both denial of a significant Tasmanian historical item (politics and environment) a more WP:AGF move would have simply placed popcat at the category - there were many related people and subjects that belong in this category - interesting the UTG celebrations were in Hobart last week - which is one of many component parts of this subject. Satu Suro 07:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments on the Franklin Dam CfD. They apply here as well. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- — Note to closing admin: SatuSuro (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Purge The only two articles that really belong in the current category are Lake Pedder and Lake Pedder Action Committee. However, a quick search identified 3 endemic (or formerly endemic extinct) species which I just added bringing the total legit article count to 5. Another close call, but that is my magic number for the ovelry vague WP:SMALLCAT. Keep but get rid of the rest of the articles. (If anything, Lake Pedder should be in a cat for the electric company; each electrical generating station does not define the whole electric company.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - electric company happened to be a government authority The Hydro that interfered with Tasmanian politics for over 3 decades - I think like the Franklin issue above - the limited understanding of the actual context in Australian and Tasmanian political world is giving an excuse to play with 'small cat' - the actual long term impact on political, environmental law and green politics is well beyond what the discussion is dealing with Satu Suro 07:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Lots of energy companies are controversial. For a comparison, take a look at the also divisive Category:Entergy. Each of the generating stations is in the electric company category but, even if each generating station had their own subcategory, it wouldn't make sense to straddle the company article with a category for every dam, coal burner and nuclear reactor they own. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seem to be enough articles which genuinely belong in the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If kept Rename to Category:Flooding of Lake Pedder which more accurately describes the contents of the category. The other option would be to rewrite the introduction. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Wilderness areas of Tasmania. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tasmania Wilderness sites to Category:Tasmania Wilderness

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article and "sites" is redundant. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - suggest deletion rather than renaming it is an oxymoron Satu Suro 06:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would make the parent article an oxymoron as well? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about Category:Tasmania Wilderness World Heritage Sites? I don't like it since it unnecessarily long. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Wilderness Areas of Tasmania. There is no need for the categories to be separate, but there is a good case for *one* such category. Orderinchaos 07:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per orderinchaos Satu Suro 08:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Wilderness Areas of Tasmania per above. Oculi (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this is the category, with the name change that I am suggesting, that should exist. Category:Wilderness Areas of Tasmania has no defining characteristics. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as others have said. The distinction between "sites" and "areas" is too fine to justify having two categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Orderinchaos. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete the city categories, and upmerge the people categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: 02:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC): added Category:People from Dayton, Kentucky and Category:People from Wetumka, Oklahoma

Nominator's rationale: These categories each contain one article and one category and have little possibility for growth. The two cities have populations of about 6,000 and 1,500, respectively. Delete. - Eureka Lott 01:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The people subcats should be upmerged to their respective county subcats too. Oculi (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea. Added to nomination. - Eureka Lott 02:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the first two categories. Upmerge Category:People from Wetumka, Oklahoma to Category:People from Hughes County, Oklahoma. Upmerge Category:People from Dayton, Kentucky to Category:People from Campbell County, Kentucky. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Upmerge per Busghranger's nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep & rename to Category:Wilderness areas of Tasmania. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. "Wilderness Areas of Tasmania" is not an official designation and it is therefore open to being subjective. The five articles can be categorised in Category:Protected areas of Tasmania or Category:Geography of Tasmania if not already done so. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - (1) geography of tasmania is a parent category, i would not support closing down child categories for fear of subjectivity, it is very easy to put annotation in the category to clarify the context of usage and any issues that may concern the nominator or others (2) official designation ? - the franklin wild rivers national park exists..., (3) please indicate where they are not designated officially (4) protected areas again like the geography of tasmania has no semblance of association of the status of the areas identified Satu Suro 05:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will reiterate - there is no "Wilderness Areas" designation in Tasmania. There is Franklin-Gordon Wild Rivers National Park, South West Wilderness, Tasmanian Wilderness but there is no wilderness area as such. It may sound a bit pedantic but that is necessary in an encyclopaedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment lost large chunk to edit conflict - rubbish, look at http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=391 Satu Suro 06:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment - misreading the issue - the larger internationally accepted area is the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area which has component national parks Satu Suro 06:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You should be able to cut and paste to retrieve any text you enter to recover from an edit conflict. Anyway, Category:Tasmania Wilderness sites, which I have put in for renaming, covers the topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it does not in any way - the term site (which I did not create and would support deletion much more than this one) has no connection with the main category. Satu Suro 06:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment fundamentally the nomination as it is worded shows little or no understanding of the tasmanian wilderness world heritage area and should have some WP:AGF that the overall concept of the larger officially designated area has component parts and parks - but not sites - the idea does not make sense Satu Suro 06:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you tell me what "Wilderness Areas of Tasmania" refers to and how it differs from [[:Category:Tasmania Wilderness sites]. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This morning you spent time deleting wilderness areas that someone put against mountain ranges that lie within the south west of Tasmania, which happen to lie within the tasmanian wilderness world heritage area - I dont disagree with the set of deletions, and also as they are geographical features that have size and breadth within the larger area I would not consider them sites either. Site usually is implied as a discrete physical area, usually human scale, in my understanding. Wilderness areas of Tasmania is more specific about areas that are components of the larger officially designated wilderness area - usually much larger than human scale such as national parks.

Although in the edit history I originally supported the sites category, I now consider the title a misnomer. Satu Suro 06:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to lower case, as areas is being used here as a generic, not as a title or name. The existence of wilderness areas in Tasmania and their environmental, social and political significance is sufficient reason to have a category linking them together. The contents of the "sites" category should also be here, as I'm also not clear on the reason for a distinction or even if there is one. I think it is pushing the point to use some outside group's constructed definition of what a "wilderness area" is - it is wilderness, and it is an area on the map. Orderinchaos 07:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wilderness areas of Tasmania per Category:Wilderness areas. I don't otherwise grasp what the problem is. Oculi (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no official designation of "Wilderness areas of Tasmania" and it is therefore subjective. Subjectiveness is to be avoided with categorisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Query no official designation of "Wilderness areas of Tasmania" and it is therefore subjective - so world heritage, iucn, and state of tasmania designations of the south west world heritage area in your perception dosnt exist? please explain more fully, your short answers do not make sense SatuSuro 00:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tasmanian Wilderness is what the ~~IUCN~~ UNESCO define as the World Heritage Site in Tasmania, so that is what we should use. There is "wilderness areas in Tasmania" but who defines them? There is also protected areas as defined by government but that is a different argument. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - And no, I am not saying the "world heritage" (as in World Heritage Site) ~~and IUCN (which is not relevant in this discussion)~~ (I meant UNESCO) does not exist. As for "state of tasmania designations of the south west world heritage area" they appear to be the UNESCO name. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh dear, so you are trying to say here that the designation at http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=391 ? is not a valid state of Tasmania government designation? implicit in the state of Tasmania's naming is that it is a wilderness area or you have yet another variation of explanation for that as well? Satu Suro 02:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Well obviously it is valid but for the purposes of naming on WP "Tasmanian Wilderness" is better than "Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area" per policy/guideline/convention. Incidentally, I fixed up Tasmanian Wilderness because it was inaccurate. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        We seem to be getting very picky here about definitions. At the end of the day, I don't see any policy which calls for the letter of some quasi-official body's technicalities to be adhered to over and above common sense. It's wilderness. It's an area. Various places recognise it. Orderinchaos 04:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Category:Wilderness areas of Tasmania (with correct capitalisation). We do not need both the "sites" and "areas" categories (sites being another discussion today), but we certainly do need one of them. Being the other side of the world, I do not have any strong view on precisely whatthe name should be. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Rename per Peterkingiron. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

March 25

Category:Political corruption in the United States

Category:LGBT Russian Jews

Category:LGBT people of Russian descent

Category:American pornographic film actors of Jewish descent

Category:American pornographic film actors of Russian-Jewish descent

Category:LGBT American people of Nicaraguan descent

Category:Franklin Dam

Category:Lake Pedder

Category:Tasmania Wilderness sites

Small community categories

Category:Wilderness Areas of Tasmania