Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/09/Category:Towers in Iran
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This category is a child category of "buildings in Iran by shape", which seems clearly wrong to me because "tower" isn't a shape, obviously. Although when I tried to deal with that by removing the category a user @Orijentolog: reverted me because supposedly towers are narrow buildings and the word "narrow" somehow relates to a shape or some nonsense. Honestly I'm not really clear what they meant, but apparently they think it's fine to have categories as children of other ones as long as they are loosely related to each other somehow and their opinion is only that one matters in regards to anything having to do with Iran. So the question is should categories for towers be in for ones for "buildings by shape" or not? It seems pretty clear me that they shouldn't be, but maybe I just missed "towers" on the list of shapes when I was learning about them in kindergarten or something. Adamant1 (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's your opinion that it's "clearly wrong" or "nonsense", but I see this discussion as an utter nonsense, not worth discussing. Thousands are categories and meta categories treat towers under buildings by shape, and you will not ruin it just because of subjective opinion. Shape is a broad term and includes vertical forms, such as examples where the height is greater than the width, which is the case with towers. FYI I studied architecture and organized all of these towers based on strong scholarly sources (evidenced by references in Wikidata), and then you come and change things around, saying I'm doing and speaking "nonsense". --Orijentolog (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thousands are categories and meta categories treat towers under buildings by shape I looked through the categories and you seem to be the only one who is doing that way. And just like every other conversation having to do with how you categorized things your whole argument for keeping it just boils down to saying it's valid because you did it. That's not an argument. Nor is it how this works. So what actual evidence do you have that "towers" are shapes outside of just going off about how the categories valid because you organized them that way? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- False claims, bordering on harassment. Towers in Iran, Italy, Germany, France and so on are categorized as buildings by shape for many years. You have no arguments other than false accusations and personal opinion? --Orijentolog (talk) 05:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I was talking purely about "towers in Iran" because that's what this CfD is about and your the one claiming that you looked into it and there's sources saying "towers" are shapes. Although Category:Towers in Italy seem to have the same issues as this category. So it should probably be dealt with to. But that's not the point. Your the one claiming you read sources saying towers are shapes. So what sources say that and what evidence do you have that they are shapes? it's a simple question. So why not answer it instead of acting like me asking you for evidence of something your saying is harassment? It's not harassment to ask someone what sources or evidence they are basing their opinion on. Nice try though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- You spoke as if this particular categorization was "my idea", and it exists in numerous countries and general categories. Towers in these countries don't have issues, nor has anyone ever questioned it. It is not my duty to prove that the Earth is spherical, but yours to prove that it is flat. What is a tower defined by? Material? Height? Function? Only by shape. With a height greater than any width of the base. Finally asking, do you have any valid argument? --Orijentolog (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- You spoke as if this particular categorization was "my idea" Yes, this particular categorization was your idea because you created the categories in Category:Towers in Iran. If I create categories for dogs by location then it was my idea to create those categories. That's just how it works. Apparently there was a gun to your head or you were in a coma or something when you created the categories though.
- You spoke as if this particular categorization was "my idea", and it exists in numerous countries and general categories. Towers in these countries don't have issues, nor has anyone ever questioned it. It is not my duty to prove that the Earth is spherical, but yours to prove that it is flat. What is a tower defined by? Material? Height? Function? Only by shape. With a height greater than any width of the base. Finally asking, do you have any valid argument? --Orijentolog (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I was talking purely about "towers in Iran" because that's what this CfD is about and your the one claiming that you looked into it and there's sources saying "towers" are shapes. Although Category:Towers in Italy seem to have the same issues as this category. So it should probably be dealt with to. But that's not the point. Your the one claiming you read sources saying towers are shapes. So what sources say that and what evidence do you have that they are shapes? it's a simple question. So why not answer it instead of acting like me asking you for evidence of something your saying is harassment? It's not harassment to ask someone what sources or evidence they are basing their opinion on. Nice try though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- False claims, bordering on harassment. Towers in Iran, Italy, Germany, France and so on are categorized as buildings by shape for many years. You have no arguments other than false accusations and personal opinion? --Orijentolog (talk) 05:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thousands are categories and meta categories treat towers under buildings by shape I looked through the categories and you seem to be the only one who is doing that way. And just like every other conversation having to do with how you categorized things your whole argument for keeping it just boils down to saying it's valid because you did it. That's not an argument. Nor is it how this works. So what actual evidence do you have that "towers" are shapes outside of just going off about how the categories valid because you organized them that way? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- It is not my duty to prove that the Earth is spherical, but yours to prove that it is flat. I know you can't seem to do anything else except delfect from answer questions for some reason, but this conversation isn't about the shape of the earth. Why not stick to the topic instead of deflecting? Otherwise you clearly have no argument.
- What is a tower defined by? Material? Height? Function? Only by shape I'd say a tower is defined by all of those depending on the tower. That's not really the point though. I'm not asking how towers are defined. I'm asking if "towers" themselves are shapes, not if they have shapes since your the who put a category like Category:Towers in Abarkuh in Category:Buildings in Abarkuh by shape. My contention here isn't that towers don't have shapes, it's that Category:Towers in Abarkuh doesn't belong in a category like Category:Buildings in Abarkuh by shape because "towers in Abarkuh" has absolutely nothing to do with the shape of towers. I'm sure you get the difference. If the category were called "Category:Square towers in Abarkuh" then cool. It would make sense because "square" is an actual shape. A generic category for "towers" that has nothing what-so-ever to do with the shape of the towers in Abarkuh doesn't belong in a category for objects by shape. It's simply wrong. Apparently basic concepts like that are beyond your ability to understand for some reason though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- In other words, you don't have valid arguments. Only continuing with accusations, even insults. Therefore discussion is closed. --Orijentolog (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think that was a totally reasonable and valid example of the issue. We'll have to agree to disagree though. Your taking this whole thing way to personally. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- In other words, you don't have valid arguments. Only continuing with accusations, even insults. Therefore discussion is closed. --Orijentolog (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- What is a tower defined by? Material? Height? Function? Only by shape I'd say a tower is defined by all of those depending on the tower. That's not really the point though. I'm not asking how towers are defined. I'm asking if "towers" themselves are shapes, not if they have shapes since your the who put a category like Category:Towers in Abarkuh in Category:Buildings in Abarkuh by shape. My contention here isn't that towers don't have shapes, it's that Category:Towers in Abarkuh doesn't belong in a category like Category:Buildings in Abarkuh by shape because "towers in Abarkuh" has absolutely nothing to do with the shape of towers. I'm sure you get the difference. If the category were called "Category:Square towers in Abarkuh" then cool. It would make sense because "square" is an actual shape. A generic category for "towers" that has nothing what-so-ever to do with the shape of the towers in Abarkuh doesn't belong in a category for objects by shape. It's simply wrong. Apparently basic concepts like that are beyond your ability to understand for some reason though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Discussion was opened on irrational objections and the user has only accusations and insults. No reason for anything else but
Keep. --Orijentolog (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC) - If this is intended as a general non-deletion discussion of whether towers are shapes, Category:Towers has been a subcategory of Category:Buildings by shape since 2006.
- It seems like a reasonable subcategory to me. Wikipedia's first sentence definition of a tower is a tall structure, taller than it is wide, often by a significant factor, which is defining it by its shape. There are also subcategories like Category:Symmetrical buildings and Category:Buildings with flat roofs which don't fit Adamant1's literal kindergarten reading of "is it the name of a shape", but which describe key aspects of a building's shape. --Belbury (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- There are also subcategories like..which don't fit Adamant1's literal kindergarten reading of "is it the name of a shape" @Belbury: Yet somehow at the same time there's Category:Towers in Iran by shape, which contains subcategories like Category:Round towers in Iran, Etc. Etc. What I don't see there as a sub-category is Category:Towers in Iran. Gee I wonder why that might be? My guess is that's because it would be overcategorization. Aside from also just being idiotic circular nonsense. Regardless, you'd have to admit if "towers" were a shape themselves there'd be zero point in Category:Towers in Iran by shape.
- Oh wait, it looks like the category was created by Orijentolog to. weird, I can't image why they would have done that instead of just using Category:Towers in Iran if "towers" were a shape to begin with. Obviously there's a difference there. Otherwise say I induldge you, then what's your solution to categorizing things here since your apparently smarter then me? Put both categories in Category:Buildings in Iran by shape causing overcategorization, get rid of Category:Towers in Iran by shape, or maybe just do it my way by removing Category:Buildings in Iran by shape from Category:Towers in Iran and add it to the actual category for towers "by shape" instead? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- "literal kindergarten reading" is a response to your opening comment about how you just missed "towers" on the list of shapes when I was learning about them in kindergarten or something, I am not making a judgement on your intelligence. Belbury (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Cool. You didn't answer my question though. Should Category:Buildings in Iran by shape be a parent of Category:Towers in Iran or Category:Buildings in Iran by shape? There's a simple answer here that has absolutely nothing to do with what grade I'm reading this at or anything else aside from which category should be a child of Category:Buildings in Iran by shape. Just pick one. It's not that difficult. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it seemed like quite a strange and aggressive tangent, so I decided to ignore it. Belbury (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- You clearly ignored it because you have no answer. At least not one that wouldn't involve admitting I'm right. Category:Buildings in Iran by shape obviously wouldn't exist if "towers" were a shape instead of them having different shapes. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it seemed like quite a strange and aggressive tangent, so I decided to ignore it. Belbury (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Cool. You didn't answer my question though. Should Category:Buildings in Iran by shape be a parent of Category:Towers in Iran or Category:Buildings in Iran by shape? There's a simple answer here that has absolutely nothing to do with what grade I'm reading this at or anything else aside from which category should be a child of Category:Buildings in Iran by shape. Just pick one. It's not that difficult. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- "literal kindergarten reading" is a response to your opening comment about how you just missed "towers" on the list of shapes when I was learning about them in kindergarten or something, I am not making a judgement on your intelligence. Belbury (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oh wait, it looks like the category was created by Orijentolog to. weird, I can't image why they would have done that instead of just using Category:Towers in Iran if "towers" were a shape to begin with. Obviously there's a difference there. Otherwise say I induldge you, then what's your solution to categorizing things here since your apparently smarter then me? Put both categories in Category:Buildings in Iran by shape causing overcategorization, get rid of Category:Towers in Iran by shape, or maybe just do it my way by removing Category:Buildings in Iran by shape from Category:Towers in Iran and add it to the actual category for towers "by shape" instead? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)