Category talk:Rivers of British Columbia by region

List of regions

Please provide a source for the set of regions used. Presently, it appears to be:

• Boundary Ranges‎ (not specific to British Columbia)
• Cariboo‎
• Central Coast of British Columbia (specify location?)
• Chilcotin (Chilcotin Country, Chilcotin Ranges, ...?)
• Kitimat Ranges
• Lower Mainland
• North Coast of British Columbia (specify location?)
  • Haida Gwaii
• Okanagan
• Omineca Mountains
• Pacific Ranges
• Vancouver Island

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Your question marks re e.g. Chilcotin Country vs the Chilcotin Ranges indicate you haven't even read the articles or looked at their maps....and this demand for a source for a "system" I have asked you to point to what policy or guideline says that, and instead of answering you wanted to launch a discussion about geography you haven't taken the time to learn about and instead are invoking a rule which you have yet to point to where a "set of regions" for category diffusion is required and not subject to the FifthPillar - "there are no rules".
  
• "Specify location" hmpf, why don't you read the articles first?? The North Coast and Central Coast are currently only sections on the British Columbia Coast article and are very COMMONNAME usages for subregions of the Coast, which is one of the two main divisions of the Mainland (the other being British Columbia Interior, and which also includes Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands and the Discovery Islands. Skookum1 (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
• WP:CAT says "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." Cites exist or are available for each article in question as to why they are in the given categories, there is nothing in the guideline saying that the the category "system" has to be citable. That extrapolation from the guideline is a conjectural and IDONTLIKEIT objection. Such over-elaborations of what people claim a guideline says vs what it actually says are getting more than a bit tiresome, and fielding discussions like this, from someone who hasn't taken the time to learn about the subject matter first, is genuinely un-wikipedian and disruptive and not productive in the slightest; rather it is destructive in nature.Skookum1 (talk) 05:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

For non-diffusing categories, there is no need for the category system to be (even potentially) citable. For diffusing categories, there is such a need. And you obviously intended your regional categories to be diffusing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

"North Coast" and "Central Coast" are undescribed sections of the British Columbia Coast article. I'm sure you know where they are, but I'm not sure you can describe the locations. You certainly have made no attempt to do so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Your impatience about all this - "you certainly have made no attempt to do so" -which comes off as contemptuous AGF...but then so is your whole line of argument/dispute/content here- , considering you're just showing up on BC geographic topics, is not welcome, particularly because you've made no attempt yourself to research those. I've been busy making long-needed titles and am not at your beck and call to fulfill your pressing demands that citations MUST be produced, as if NOW. BOTH of those are VERY well-known region designations in British Columbia, though they have slightly different contexts/boundaries depending on whether it's a Forest District, Electoral District, or whether reports or newscasts or any of 20 other possibilities. This discussion is a nuisance/AGF discussion, as was the CfD, and you are out of line, mister. Do some research and try and add some citations yourself, instead of impugning me for "you have made no attempt yourself"; those North and South Coast (and Central Coast) designations were going to be gotten to when I had time to create separate articles...... I'm not the only one working on that article, which I haven't worked on in a long time.......your AGF about this, and your misquotation of the guidelines to demand things the guideline doesn't even ask for, is taking up time and energy; I see no goodwill on your part, only hostility and a deletionist desire to get rid of what you don't understand and refuse to learn about, despite all the cites and links provided already on my own talkpage and on the CfD. Skookum1 (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)