Category:Political corruption in the United States
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.
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.
Savidan21:27, 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.
Category:LGBT Russian Jews
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 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.
Category:LGBT people of Russian descent
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 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.
Category:American pornographic film actors of Jewish descent
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 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.
Category:American pornographic film actors of Russian-Jewish descent
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 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.
Category:LGBT American people of Nicaraguan descent
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.
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
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
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.
Category:Franklin Dam
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.
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.
Orderinchaos07:08, 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
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...
SatuSuro00:29, 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
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.
Orderinchaos04:37, 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
SatuSuro07:24, 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.
Category:Lake Pedder
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.
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.
SatuSuro07:49, 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
SatuSuro07:29, 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
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.
Category:Tasmania Wilderness sites
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 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.
Small community categories
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.
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 Lott01:49, 25 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.
Category:Wilderness Areas of Tasmania
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.
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
SatuSuro05:39, 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
SatuSuro06:14, 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.
SatuSuro06:26, 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
SatuSuro06:28, 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.
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.
Orderinchaos07:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Queryno 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
SatuSuro00:21, 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?
SatuSuro02:55, 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.
Orderinchaos04:39, 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
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.
Category:Political corruption in the United States
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.
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.
Savidan21:27, 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.
Category:LGBT Russian Jews
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 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.
Category:LGBT people of Russian descent
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 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.
Category:American pornographic film actors of Jewish descent
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 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.
Category:American pornographic film actors of Russian-Jewish descent
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 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.
Category:LGBT American people of Nicaraguan descent
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.
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
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
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.
Category:Franklin Dam
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.
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.
Orderinchaos07:08, 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
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...
SatuSuro00:29, 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
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.
Orderinchaos04:37, 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
SatuSuro07:24, 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.
Category:Lake Pedder
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.
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.
SatuSuro07:49, 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
SatuSuro07:29, 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
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.
Category:Tasmania Wilderness sites
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 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.
Small community categories
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.
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 Lott01:49, 25 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.
Category:Wilderness Areas of Tasmania
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.
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
SatuSuro05:39, 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
SatuSuro06:14, 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.
SatuSuro06:26, 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
SatuSuro06:28, 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.
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.
Orderinchaos07:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Queryno 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
SatuSuro00:21, 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?
SatuSuro02:55, 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.
Orderinchaos04:39, 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
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.