Last modified on 25 January 2013, at 14:10

Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/01/Category:IMO 6125398

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:IMO 6125398Edit

The category is empty and it will ALWAYS be, because this IMO number is false/impossible (it's not self-consistent because its checksum is wrong). It's also a misleading category: the false number is being mistakenly assigned to a Navy ship (Military vessels do not have IMO numbers) Windroff (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. Generally used to refer to a specific ship. Not all IMO checksums validate. --  Docu  at 19:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Please provide evidence of your "not all IMO checksums validate" claim. Windroff (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Check the category. --  Docu  at 03:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you referring to the dozens of false IMO numbers in the "Ships by IMO Number" Cat? Windroff (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
No, I was just refering to does in the related category. What do you mean with "dozens of false IMO numbers"? --  Docu  at 03:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
There's an index called "IMO checksum failed" full with false IMO numbers. IMO database engines can't look them up, returning either "invalid IMO number" or "no ship found" instead. Windroff (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
It's a category I built. What do you mean with IMO database engines? --  Docu  at 03:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Like this one Windroff (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • After all that exchange User:Docu has failed to provide any proof for his claim that "not all IMO checksums validate". There are 70 categories for false IMO numbers (the ones failing their respective checksums). Because they are false, they are not accepted by the ship database engines (you can check this for yourselves), so they are useless for ship identification. This is just one of them. Windroff (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • is just a website like others. If it says "ship not found", this is equivalent to Commons not returning any results for most IMO numbers. If you read the introduction at Category:Ships by IMO number, you will probably understand why some the subcategories don't validate.
    None if this is particularly relevant to this discussion though. If people look for "IMO 6125398", we just need to make sure that are pointed to the ship this may refer to and that they are aware that this number is not an official one. --  Docu  at 05:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Database misses in and Commons are not equivalent: is exclusively dedicated to vessels and uses an automatically generated database from primary sources; Commons is a wikipedia-based storage site maintained by volunteers mostly from secondary sources and as such it's error-prone. Other automatically generated databases like,, don't accept false IMO numbers either: all of them return "ship not found" or "invalid IMO number" for checksum-failing numbers.
IMO numbers are emitted by a single source: IHS Fairplay (previously LLoyd's Register Fairplay), so all IMO numbers are "official". By definition they validate themselves by checksum. Those which don't are not IMO numbers, they are either made up numbers or typos.
You can't just use false IMO numbers as categories without clearly stating their falseness; you can't even call them "IMO" because they are not: wikipedia is not entitled to lie. Pointing to a clarification note is a bad choice: readers may never get there. Windroff (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I understand that you seem to feel very deeply about the "La Libertad" issue, but if there are issues with Wikipedia, please use use the talk pages of the associated articles there. They may ask you for references for your various statements though. --  Docu  at 07:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Let this discussion stay in focus and consider just the problem as it is, without appealing to motives. Issues with IMO numbers in the ship articles can be solved quickly by just correcting the number there; it's fixing the categories named after false numbers which is burdensome, since renaming/deleting them requires a lengthy discussion. So special care should be kept when creating these categories.
A category under a false IMO number is simply misinformation. Wikipedia has some credibility because up to some extent it is assumed to be peer reviewed, so accepting false IMO numbers as a methodology ends up creating confusion and propagating mistakes: an IMO number typo is made in one web page, someone copies it to wikipedia, then the error is everywhere.
If these fake numbers must be kept anyhow to ease searching, then every IMO number category failing the checksum test should be renamed to something like "IMO xxxxxxx (Invalid)". This would make finding false IMO numbers easy while making also immediately clear that the number does not exist. Windroff (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I see the point Windroff is making as being made in the light of the legal case against the ship. Here on Commons we just make it users as easy as possible to find images of ships. It has nothing to do with the legal case. If someone is looking for a ship that in the past used an IMO number (even wrong, of false) he/she finds the images of that ship here on Commons with that number. Strong support for the solution of User:Docu. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • So you are willing to keep this empty category indefinitely, waiting for the extremely unlikely chance of someone making just one particular typo among millions of possible combinations so finally it ends up containing a misidentified ship? This is against wikipedia rules for categories, see Criteria for speedy deletion of categories C1. Windroff (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Now to this case: this category is empty. No known ship had, has nor will ever have this fake IMO number. Most likely it will be empty forever, since the chance of someone making this number up among millions of possible combinations is negligible. It should be speedy deleted in accordance with Criteria for speedy deletion of categories C1. There's no excuse to keep this. Windroff (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep As reason given: to support information. The business of Wikipedia. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • So far you have given no "reason". Publishing false data is not "supporting information". The "business of Wikipedia" mandates obeying its rules, so I repeat my question to you:
Are you willing to keep this empty category indefinitely, waiting for the extremely unlikely chance of someone making just one particular typo among millions of possible combinations so finally it ends up containing a misidentified ship? This is against wikipedia rules for categories, see Criteria for speedy deletion of categories C1. Windroff (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
You gave the right reason. I am not - in Dutch - a "letterknecht" and support the easy use of finding information. If someone looks for images of "IMO 6125398" they can be found this way. That is where the category was intended for (look for the history, I opened it). Ad hominem. By the way: I realy wonder why you insist. Are you a legal officer of Argentina? Your only "contributions" are this issue --Stunteltje (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
If I gave the right answer, as you say, then you should vote for the removal. I showed that there's no "information" here. Besides it's not even practical to keep this fake number: Libertad is not an average, "anonymous" service vessel but a highly famous one. People looking for her will search by name, not by an obscure lengthy false number. Windroff (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Please answer the question Ad hominem. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
IMHO, we can re-added Libertad to the category. What they do or don't do at English language Wikipedia isn't relevant to this discussion at Wikimedia Commons. --  Docu  at 09:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't start to go in circles: no wikipedia sub site is entitled to lie or spread false information. This is not a place to collect external mistakes, much less to use them as global categorization method. Windroff (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Are there any issues with the description at Category:IMO 6125398 that would need editing? --  Docu  at 07:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

✓OK From the category description: "IMO number 6125398 is not allocated. [1]". The sentence seems to be supported by the reference Windroff provided. --  Docu  at 09:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

✓OK From the category description: "Sometimes the Argentine school vessel Libertad was identified with this number. [2]". This seems to be supported by the reference Windroff provided and the declaration of Argentine ambassador Castro mentioned at [[3]. The talk page at Wikipedia about the ship mentions also other cases where the number was used with reference to Libertad. --  Docu  at 09:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not OK From the category description: "6125398 is not a valid IMO number, as it is not constructed according to the IMO number specification nor was issued by the IMO number emission authority, IHS Fairplay (previously LLoyd's Register Fairplay)". I removed this as no reference was provided. --  Docu  at 09:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not OK Windroff added "Contrary to common belief, IMO numbers do not play any role in Argentina-Ghana contentious issue over ARA Libertad as Ghana never cast any doubt about the military role of the vessel". It seems that Argentine ambassador Castro disagrees with Windroff .. as an article about Castro mentions the IMO 6125398 number .. [4]. I prefer my previous summary, but I don't mind if we remove the reference to the Ghana incident entirely. In any case, this sentence would need to go. --  Docu  at 09:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleted: Empty. Can be recreated in needed. Yann (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)