Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Category talk:Archaeological sites on the Golan Heights

This is a Geographical regions category not a political category, Its include categories such as Category:Hippos that was never part of Syria. People that are looking for this category are most likely search it in Category:Archaeological sites in Israel not in Syria. Commons should make it easier rather than looking for political agenda. Hanay (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Avoid OVERCAT Orrlingtalk 07:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
This is not overcategory. This is giving correct information. You are motivated by political agenda. Hanay (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll explain to you so you'll understand: When an item is tagged with Category:Archaeological sites in territories occupied by Israel, it's already classified inclusively under Category:Archaeological sites in Israel. Therefore, there is no need for an additional "Archaeological sites in Israel"; we call this overcat, and it's an unwanted pattern, since Wiki's categorizing scheme requires that only the direct parents be used for a subcat, and not those higher uptree. For this reason, please avoid twice-tagging with "Israel" where a deeper parent applies. Thanx, Orrlingtalk 13:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll explain to you so you'll understand, Category:Archaeological sites in territories occupied by Israel is political name not geographical name. Do not mix your political agenda with geographical regions in Israel. this is another family. People who are looking for archaeological sites by geographical regions will not look under the category of occupied territories because it is not geographical. For this reason, please do not force your agenda on Commons, and please do not treat user that do not agree with you as stupid. Hanay (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Please, leave this category (and other categories where your views are declined) in the fashion it has been before engaging in the current dispute, so that you can continue discussing here or elsewhere on the topic that you're unhappy with. As I reckon, the full explanation was given to you and, if you shall desire any further clarification, don't hesitate to set it forth and you'll be answered. You may post a Villagepump query or invitation to this page, so editors other than I could share with you a second opinion regarding Overcat and your remaining difficulties. Regards, Orrlingtalk 18:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Not all Golan Heights are an occupied territory, so the 2 categories that Hanay added are most needed. I would suggest to Orrling to start reading history and geography good books, so he'll have a proper knowledge about what really goes on in this area, and he wouldn't have to invent non-existing facts out of his own mind. Kooritza (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
You do not have ownership on this category. You ignore totaly my arguments. As I see it, you are the one that your views are declined. I am not the one that was blocked several times. Again there is no overcat here. this Golan Heights is a geographical region in Israel. I know that you do not like this idea, but as a geographical region it should be sub categorized under Category:Archaeological sites in Israel. Category:Archaeological sites in territories occupied by Israel is a political category. If you are so worry about overcat, you can remove the political category. Please, leave this category Hanay (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Dear mister, I'm afraid I need to say this now but your tone and temper are unfortunately not within our codes of conduct here on Wiki. As frustrating for you as it might be, if you wish to constitute a helpful discussion for your cause you must employ a different ratio of usage of reasonings vs personal attacks and show that you roughly understand how the Wikimedia environment works. For now, you appear to disagree with the elementary need to leave unchanged the version(s) you're discontent with (which are the older ones) until achieving agreement by means of a transparent discourse. In this light, I'll have to ask for administrative help in locking this category since you demonstrate failure to assume the Commons preference to avoid editfights. Orrlingtalk 19:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Archaeological sites in Israel has been added back to this category, given that not all the Golan heights are occupied territory, it is not a case of simple overcategorisation. Given that a large part of the Golan heights are occupied territory, Category:Archaeological sites in territories occupied by Israel. is an appropriate category.

If this is not acceptable. I suggest the following compromises (however as with all compromises these would have problems of their own)

--KTo288 (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with the current Cotegories
  1. Category:Archaeological sites in Syria
  2. Category:Archaeological sites in Israel
  3. Category:Archaeological sites in territories occupied by Israel
As I wrote before this is a geographical category, we do not live in a perfect world. We need to help people to find information in way that it is easier and make sense. By the way about Category:Hamat Gader Ancient synagogue, this area was part of Israel according to the border in the British Mandate, and was conquered by syria army in 1948, so for 19 years it was Archaeological sites in territories occupied by Syria
To Orrling that warnte me, I am not the one that was blocked so many times. It seems that you don't know how Wikimedia environment works. Hanay (talk) 09:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Thankfully edit warring is rarer here than elsewhere, its one of the reasons I prefer Commons to WP.--KTo288 (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Plain-sense speaking no one would put any differentiation on possible minor parts of the Golan Heights Per-Se located within Israel's recognized borders, there's ultimately no such observation as in the international and universal acknowledgement the region called "Golan Heights" is as one-piece a 1967-captured territory of Syria. since there is apparently altogether only one entry of Israel-proper on this discussion (Category:Hippos) this whole issue is fantastically marginal. It would therefore be preferable to run the 1st one of the two proposals. Orrlingtalk 09:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Return to "Archaeological sites on the Golan Heights" page.