Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/11/Category:United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan (Northern Alliance)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Category:United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan (Northern Alliance)[edit]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

I am suggesting this category be renamed Category:Northern Alliance -- the name the coalition is most often known by. --Geo Swan (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you are definately right that the term Northern Allicance is more commonly known. When I made the category I looked at the name on En-wikipedia. As a matter of fact United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan is the official name (actually the official translation of the name).
Maybe we could rename the category to Category:Northern Alliance (United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan). I would not use the name Northern Alliance only because there are also other northern alliances in addition to the one, which we are talking about and I fear that some other files - which have nothing to do with Afghanistan - would end up in the category. (f. ex.: [1]). --Zaccarias (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Geo Swan.--Officer (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I acknowledge that there are other organizations that might be called "Northern Alliance". But they are all "slso-rans", merely deserving a footnote.
I think this is an instance when practicallity should over-ride a strict compliance with literal transliteration. Over on the wikipedia we have an article on w:Mark Twain, not w:Samuel Clemens. Similarly, the article is on w:Joseph Stalin, not w:Lavrenti Djugvali. Inhabitants of the country we call w:Germany call their nation w:Deutchland. But we don't have Category:Tugboats of Deutchland, we have Category:Tugboats of Germany. Category:Northern Alliance can have a note at the top telling readers that "United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan" is the literal transliteration.
A fact for you: a dozen or more Guantanamo captives had their continued detention justified due to their membership in the "United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan" or one of the organizations within the United Front, strongly suggesting that the Guantanamo intelligence analysts were unable to recognize which groups within Afghanistan were on their side and which were allied with al Qaeda. I see this as a strong argument for using the usual name. Geo Swan (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Well ok. If you want to use Category:Northern Alliance that would be fine for me too. I tought it might would be helpful to also keep the official name, so I suggested Category:Northern Alliance (United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan). If you say, other Northern Alliances are not relevant, that's also fine with me. (I didn't really check the relevance of these factions.) I think we should just go ahead and rename it, instead of making endless discussions here. --Zaccarias (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename to category:Northern Allience. Reasons: 1)Keep it simple. 2)Do not create complex neologisms unnecessarily. "Northern Alliance" is what it is widely and commonly known as in English, and other things called "Northern Alliance" are unlikely to generate confusion. It may well be officially called "United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan", but I doubt it is called "United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan (Northern Alliance)" nor "Northern Alliance (United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan)". Such compound phrases with parenthesis not in common use outside of Wikimedia should not be created unless actually necessary to disambiguate. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Northern Alliance can be anything (see en:Northern Alliance (disambiguation)), "Northern Alliance, Afghanistan" seems acceptable. This is not en:wikipedia, see COM:CAT basic rule: "The category name would be enough to guess the subject" which is clearly not the case, except for countries that are intensively involved in the Afghan war. --Foroa (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, would it be possible for you to rephrase your position? I am afraid I find your last sentence, "which is clearly not the case, except for countries that are intensively involved in the Afghan war..." unclear. WRT to en:Northern Alliance (disambiguation), I suggested above that all the other organizations listed there are also-rans, non-entities, worthy of a footnote, at best. I'd be very interested in your counter-point to this point. Geo Swan (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Till a couple of years ago, Northern Alliance could mean anything as can be seen in en:Northern Alliance (disambiguation) and when looking here, on the en:wikipedia, Northern alliance is very much present apart from Afghanistan. Moreover, it is perfectly possible that in other languages like Chinese, Arabic, Russian, they have items that will translate in Northern Alliance. For example in Italy, this would create confusion as it would in Germany de:Nordallianz.
Since a couple of years, the war in Afghanistan becomes more and more in the news headlines and slowly, Northern Alliance became a popular shortname for "United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan", especially in the countries that are heavily involved in the war. But that is not necessarily the same wording or name that will appear in Russia, China, Japan or in countries that have nothing to do with that war. It is possible for example that in a couple of years, a war or political party develops around Russia that have their own "Northern Alliance" involved. On Commons, we cannot afford to state that other items are "also-rans, non-entities, worthy of a footnote, at best" because we have to make a classification system for the whole world, not a system that provides the best possible hitrate when entering some vague name that is very much present in the current headlines but might disappear in a couple of years. So, we avoid a lot of confusion and mistakes by using a disambiguation term such as in "Northern Alliance, Afghanistan". --Foroa (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
For completeness, When I see the term "Northern Alliance", for some reasons, I think in the first place on en:Lega Nord --Foroa (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Where could you find your cited basic rule, "The category name would be enough to guess the subject"? I can't find that in the guidelines.
First paragraph in COM:CAT --Foroa (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Considering this rule, your statement sounds logical. So which name should we use?
  1. Northern Alliance (United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan)
  2. Northern Alliance, Afghanistan
  3. United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan (Northern Alliance)
  4.  ?
I suggest to use #1. I don't want to keep the current name, because the term "Northern Alliance" is more commonly used. --Zaccarias (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Any other opinions? If nobody comes up with something different here within the next week, I will move it to Category:Northern Alliance (United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan) and close the discussion here. --Zaccarias (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Afghan Northern Alliance is more widely used and I think that's much better and easy to find.--Officer (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
On commons, we are not using terms that start with the country name, as "Afghan ...", Standard notician for disambiguation is "xxx, place". --Foroa (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Category:Northern Alliance (Afghanistan) is a group of warlords and Category:United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan is the name of a political party which was formed sometime around 2007.--Officer (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Good point. Then break into 2 cats, which looks like this has been done. FieldMarine (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Category was split. — Scott talk 15:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)