Category talk:Islands of the Wheatbelt (Western Australia)

Cat hierarchy
Re ...

WP:SUBCAT is quite clear on this: "A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category... "

Perhaps should not be a subcat of ? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Good point Mitch, there are some situation inside wp en (and very badly inside commons it happens all the time), if you trawled carefully enough, a large number of editors like to mix them to promote things, and only in some rare situations, there can be valid reasons to keep parent and child cats.

One small problem I have is the exact point where the coasts begin and end, and where coastal regions begin and end, and the exact locations where land regions begin and end, I have not yet found an easy quick ref for that, and have noticed historic fluctuations of where I think some online docs impute the boundaries between the coasts and regions. If you are able to sort that one out, it would then decide whether in fact the coincidence of the coast and the region.

Good point, needs further investigation before giving a straight answer. JarrahTree 13:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category... " My emphasis added.
 * Perhaps this is one of those rare occasions, and perhaps not worth wasting time on further discussion, on a point which seems to be fairly minor administrivium. Hughesdarren (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Rarely" is to allow for the exceptions that are well documented and explained, ie "non-diffusing" WP:DUPCAT and WP:EPONYMOUS. I don't see that meets either of those exceptional criteria, so I see no reason why we should not remove it from grandparent, eg as I did in  - if all the other categories are correct.
 * However, as I previously stated, I suspect that should not be a subcat of .  Would a better fix be to remove  from ? Mitch Ames (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No. Look at, and the details given, and then look at , then at looking at the details... and please leave as is. If that is insuffient proof to leave alone, I am not sure what might be. JarrahTree 12:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll believe you that should be a subcat of  — even if Turquoise Coast (Western Australia) doesn't mention the wheatbelt at all (The map on that article doesn't show the location, or the locations of the Batavia or Sunset Coasts, they being the only "definition" the article offers as to the location of the Turquoise Coast, so it's a bit hard for the reader to know where the Turquoise Coast actually is. The reader shouldn't have to chase through other articles to find out - surely if the article has a map - which takes up more space than the text - the map should actually have the location explicitly marked on it! See Talk:Turquoise Coast (Western Australia)), and Wheatbelt (Western Australia) doesn't mention the Turquoise Coast at all. But in that case there is still no reason why  should be in both  and  , contrary to WP:SUBCAT - so I've removed it again. If you still think we should ignore the general guideline of WP:SUBCAT, please explain why. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * sorry it is too hot to labour on this sort of thing. You feel happy with what you are doing. enjoy. JarrahTree 07:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)