Hi, I'd like to invite everybody here to get involved with the discussion in [[:Category talk:Kurdistan]]. There currently is a confusion on what the inclusion criteria supposed to be.
At the moment unrelated articles such as airline companies, rivers, mountains, towns, cities, city squares, long dissolved countries, among other things are categorized under the same category.
Cool Cat
On 2/2/07, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I'd like to invite everybody here to get involved with the discussion in [[:Category talk:Kurdistan]]. There currently is a confusion on what the inclusion criteria supposed to be.
At the moment unrelated articles such as airline companies, rivers, mountains, towns, cities, city squares, long dissolved countries, among other things are categorized under the same category.
Instituting subcategories would probably quell many objections.
Do you have a scheme in mind?
- Cool Cat
On 2/2/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/2/07, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I'd like to invite everybody here to get involved with the
discussion in
[[:Category talk:Kurdistan]]. There currently is a confusion on what the inclusion criteria supposed to be.
At the moment unrelated articles such as airline companies, rivers, mountains, towns, cities, city squares, long dissolved countries, among other things are categorized under the same category.
Instituting subcategories would probably quell many objections.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 02/02/07, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Do you have a scheme in mind?
For subcats? Crib the system that most political entities use, is my advice - what do we do for countries? (I know Kurdistan isn't a country, but conceptually it's comparable)
"Places in Kurdistan" would be a good first bet - towns, etc, in here. Then "geographical features"? See what you have left after these.
Cool Cat wrote:
Do you have a scheme in mind?
- Cool CatOn 2/2/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/2/07, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I'd like to invite everybody here to get involved with the
discussion in
[[:Category talk:Kurdistan]]. There currently is a confusion on what the inclusion criteria supposed to be.
At the moment unrelated articles such as airline companies, rivers, mountains, towns, cities, city squares, long dissolved countries, among other things are categorized under the same category.
Instituting subcategories would probably quell many objections.
Presumably something like this, following the pattern of similar sub-categories for many other countries:
[[Category:Cities in Kurdistan]] [[Category:Communications in Kurdistan]] [[Category:Economy of Kurdistan]] [[Category:Education in Kurdistan]] [[Category:Environment of Kurdistan]] [[Category:Geography of Kurdistan]] [[Category:Government of Kurdistan]] [[Category:Health in Kurdistan]] [[Category:History of Kurdistan]] [[Category:Images of Kurdistan]] [[Category:Kurdistan stubs]] [[Category:Kurdistan-related lists]] [[Category:Kurdistani culture]] [[Category:Kurdistani law]] [[Category:Kurdistani media]] [[Category:Kurdistani people]] [[Category:Kurdistani portals]] [[Category:Kurdistani society]] [[Category:Military of Kurdistan]] [[Category:Organizations based in Kurdistan]] [[Category:Politics of Kurdistan]] [[Category:Provinces and territories of Kurdistan]] [[Category:Religion in Kurdistan]] [[Category:Science and technology in Kurdistan]] [[Category:Sport in Kurdistan]] [[Category:Tourism in Kurdistan]] [[Category:Transportation in Kurdistan]]
-- Neil
Firstly the issue is complicated.
I do want to point out few things:
- "Kurdistan" and "Iraqi Kurdistan" are completely different entities, we should not confuse the two. Iraqi Kurdistan is indeed a state in the Iraqi federal system. Much like how Michigan is a part of the United States. I am focusing on "Kurdistan" and not "Iraqi Kurdistan" - There is no entity that claims Kurdistan to be a country. It is not a political entity in any sense. - We do not know the exact borders of Kurdistan and there is no single authority to make such a claim. There are numerous contradictory maps on the internet defining "Kurdistan" and some of those maps occupy a very vast area while others aren't as impressive. Basically the borders of Kurdistan is defined by the last person drawing them.
If you disagree with any of those three points feel free to say so.
I do not believe tagging cities towns and other human settlements under "Kurdistan" is wise. That the [[Category:Cities by country]] scheme, something incompatible with geographic regions.
If we are going to treat Kurdistan as a geographic region, we should not tag cities and other settlements at all with Kurdistan since we categorize cities by country not geographic region. We do not even categorize cities by continent let alone a controversial and tiny (in comparison to continents) geographic region like Kurdistan.
A list would be better than a category [[List of cities allegedly in Kurdistan]] or something along the line (name I chose is probably not perfect). I am not certain if we have something like [[List of cities in Europe]] however.
The scheme proposed by Neil Harris is fine for countries but Kurdistan is not a country as I stated above.
Any disagreements so far?
- Cool Cat
On 2/3/07, Neil Harris usenet@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
Cool Cat wrote:
Do you have a scheme in mind?
- Cool CatOn 2/2/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/2/07, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I'd like to invite everybody here to get involved with the
discussion in
[[:Category talk:Kurdistan]]. There currently is a confusion on what
the
inclusion criteria supposed to be.
At the moment unrelated articles such as airline companies, rivers, mountains, towns, cities, city squares, long dissolved countries,
among
other things are categorized under the same category.
Instituting subcategories would probably quell many objections.
Presumably something like this, following the pattern of similar sub-categories for many other countries:
[[Category:Cities in Kurdistan]] [[Category:Communications in Kurdistan]] [[Category:Economy of Kurdistan]] [[Category:Education in Kurdistan]] [[Category:Environment of Kurdistan]] [[Category:Geography of Kurdistan]] [[Category:Government of Kurdistan]] [[Category:Health in Kurdistan]] [[Category:History of Kurdistan]] [[Category:Images of Kurdistan]] [[Category:Kurdistan stubs]] [[Category:Kurdistan-related lists]] [[Category:Kurdistani culture]] [[Category:Kurdistani law]] [[Category:Kurdistani media]] [[Category:Kurdistani people]] [[Category:Kurdistani portals]] [[Category:Kurdistani society]] [[Category:Military of Kurdistan]] [[Category:Organizations based in Kurdistan]] [[Category:Politics of Kurdistan]] [[Category:Provinces and territories of Kurdistan]] [[Category:Religion in Kurdistan]] [[Category:Science and technology in Kurdistan]] [[Category:Sport in Kurdistan]] [[Category:Tourism in Kurdistan]] [[Category:Transportation in Kurdistan]]
-- Neil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Cool Cat wrote:
If we are going to treat Kurdistan as a geographic region, we should not tag cities and other settlements at all with Kurdistan since we categorize cities by country not geographic region.
In the _general_ case I disagree with this, there's no reason why cities can't be categorized under both country-specific categories and geographic categories. We could for example have [[Category:Cities in the United States]] and [[Category:Cities in the Pacific Ocean]] and have Honolulu be categorized under both of them (though this would probably be done by categorizing it as [[Category:Cities in Hawaii]] and then making it a subcategory of both). There may already be a system like this, I don't know.
In this specific case, though, as you point out there are no authoritative or widely-accepted borders for Kurdistan. So in this case I don't believe a geographic category is wise. A Kurdistan category should probably be limited to broader issues such as articles about the effort to create/suppress such a country.
We do not even categorize cities by continent let alone a controversial and tiny (in comparison to continents) geographic region like Kurdistan.
But there's no reason why we couldn't. Since cities are already categorized by country or province and most countries or provinces are located entirely on one continent it'd be quite easy to set up a parallel continent-based category tree by subcategorizing those.
We also have "geographic region" categories for many old, extinct countries such as [[Category:Babylonia]].
A list would be better than a category [[List of cities allegedly in Kurdistan]] or something along the line (name I chose is probably not perfect).
This would be better because each entry could provide the sources and support for that particular city's inclusion or exclusion.
The scheme proposed by Neil Harris is fine for countries but Kurdistan is not a country as I stated above.
Some of the categories look okay to me, but a lot of them don't make sense without the sort of unity that a real country has. Wouldn't "Government of Kurdistan" include the governments of Turkey, Iraq and Iran, and possibly others? That would be hard to make sense of.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
We could for example have [[Category:Cities in the United States]] and [[Category:Cities in the Pacific Ocean]]
Looking forward to global warming, are we? :-(
I'm a Canadian in the depths of winter, so yes. :)
(Not sure how else to phrase "cities located within the geographical boundaries of the Pacific Ocean" in a shorter manner, actually)
On 2/3/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
We could for example have [[Category:Cities in the United States]] and [[Category:Cities in the Pacific Ocean]]
Looking forward to global warming, are we? :-(
I'm a Canadian in the depths of winter, so yes. :)
(Not sure how else to phrase "cities located within the geographical boundaries of the Pacific Ocean" in a shorter manner, actually)
[[Category:Pacific Rim cities]]?
Abigail Brady wrote:
On 2/3/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
(Not sure how else to phrase "cities located within the geographical boundaries of the Pacific Ocean" in a shorter manner, actually)
[[Category:Pacific Rim cities]]?
Honolulu isn't particularly near the rim, though, and most of the cities that are Pacific Rim are actually on continents.
And it was just a quick hypothetical example I came up with to illustrate a more general point, too, so this is all kind of a digression. I don't actually want to create this category. My point was simply that one can have both region-based and political-based geographic categories existing in parallel.
I do not believe categorizing cities by geographic region is OK. Let me explain
There are a lot of geographic regions intersecting with each other and people wont be satisfied if we just use UN definitions. Not to mention, there is almost always a disagreement in the boundaries of geographic regions. If we use the UN and EU definitions alone countries like Cyprus Turkey, Armenia, Georgia will be problematic to tag for instance. Is parts of Texas really a part of [[Eastern United States]]? Then there is the matter on how small geographic regions will we consider worthy of tagging... Would middle east count? If so some cities will be tagged with oodles of categories.
Lists would be better in this case too. [[Eastern United States]] article for instance is somewhat a list (I would prefer to see two lists on that page, one for "traditionally accepted" and another for "others", with proper sourcing of course). Same goes for a [[List of Pacific Rim cities]].
- Cool Cat
On 2/4/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Abigail Brady wrote:
On 2/3/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
(Not sure how else to phrase "cities located within the geographical boundaries of the Pacific Ocean" in a shorter manner, actually)
[[Category:Pacific Rim cities]]?
Honolulu isn't particularly near the rim, though, and most of the cities that are Pacific Rim are actually on continents.
And it was just a quick hypothetical example I came up with to illustrate a more general point, too, so this is all kind of a digression. I don't actually want to create this category. My point was simply that one can have both region-based and political-based geographic categories existing in parallel.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Abigail Brady wrote:
On 2/3/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
We could for example have [[Category:Cities in the United States]] and [[Category:Cities in the Pacific Ocean]]
Looking forward to global warming, are we? :-(
I'm a Canadian in the depths of winter, so yes. :)
(Not sure how else to phrase "cities located within the geographical boundaries of the Pacific Ocean" in a shorter manner, actually)
[[Category:Pacific Rim cities]]?
Thanks, that's the one I was trying to think of.
Ec
So what do you guys think of the existing Kurdistan subcats following the "country" pattern. See Subcats of [[Category:Kurdistan]] such as [[Category:Cities in Kurdistan]] and etc
Should there be a mass cfd? If so would you mind initiating it?
Cool Cat
On 2/4/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Abigail Brady wrote:
On 2/3/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
We could for example have [[Category:Cities in the United States]] and [[Category:Cities in the Pacific Ocean]]
Looking forward to global warming, are we? :-(
I'm a Canadian in the depths of winter, so yes. :)
(Not sure how else to phrase "cities located within the geographical boundaries of the Pacific Ocean" in a shorter manner, actually)
[[Category:Pacific Rim cities]]?
Thanks, that's the one I was trying to think of.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
We could for example have [[Category:Cities in the United States]] and [[Category:Cities in the Pacific Ocean]]
Looking forward to global warming, are we? :-(
I'm a Canadian in the depths of winter, so yes. :)
That won't do me much good in the Mouth of the Fraser.
(Not sure how else to phrase "cities located within the geographical boundaries of the Pacific Ocean" in a shorter manner, actually)
"On" would at least keep us floating, or something like "along the Pacific shores"
Ec
Wait, arn't you an inactive user?
On 2/2/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/2/07, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I'd like to invite everybody here to get involved with the
discussion in
[[:Category talk:Kurdistan]]. There currently is a confusion on what the inclusion criteria supposed to be.
At the moment unrelated articles such as airline companies, rivers, mountains, towns, cities, city squares, long dissolved countries, among other things are categorized under the same category.
Instituting subcategories would probably quell many objections.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l