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)