Category talk:Icebergs by region
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I suggest this category be renamed to Category:Icebergs in Chile. I just added an image of an Chilean iceberg, in a lake, in Chile. Icebergs are not always off a coastline. Further, an iceberg that is off the coast of a nation -- beyond it territorial waters -- should be in the category for the ocean. Only list the iceberg in the nation category if it is within the nation's territorial waters... So, "in", not "off". Geo Swan (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree. Icebergs off the coast of a place are not in the place. Maybe we need both "off" and "in" categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- If they are within the nation's territorial waters, they are, in fact, both legally and geographically IN that nation. You do realize that territorial waters now extend 200 km? That is a long way. Any iceberg farther off the coast than 200 km should be listed solely in the category for that body of water. Geo Swan (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- OK, that's a good point. I suppose some images could even be in both types of category, in a country and in a body of water. Since both of the files currently in this category appear to be in lakes, there's no question about how far off the coast they might be, so I'm OK with renaming. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- If they are within the nation's territorial waters, they are, in fact, both legally and geographically IN that nation. You do realize that territorial waters now extend 200 km? That is a long way. Any iceberg farther off the coast than 200 km should be listed solely in the category for that body of water. Geo Swan (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Geo Swan and Auntof6: Do we have consensus to move everything in Category:Icebergs by region to Category:Icebergs in X ? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. In view of what Geo Swan said, we'd have to know exactly how far off the coast each iceberg is, wouldn't we? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- I thought consensus was that, if something is more than 200km off the coast of a country, we should just categorize it by ocean. I mean, something 20 meters off the coast of Japan is also, technically, off the coast of California, isn't it? =) So all the category names should be "in" even if that means some of the images are mis-categorized. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I see what you mean. That's probably best, although I think that many could be categorized both by country (or state, province, etc.) and by body of water. There are probably places with coasts of more than one ocean/sea where there could be icebergs: Antarctica, Russia, and Alaska come to mind. Actually, speaking of Antarctica, the 200-mile thing wouldn't apply, because Antarctica is not a country. Not sure what would be best there. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- I thought consensus was that, if something is more than 200km off the coast of a country, we should just categorize it by ocean. I mean, something 20 meters off the coast of Japan is also, technically, off the coast of California, isn't it? =) So all the category names should be "in" even if that means some of the images are mis-categorized. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. In view of what Geo Swan said, we'd have to know exactly how far off the coast each iceberg is, wouldn't we? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: Is that consensus then? The en:Antarctic Treaty System includes anything south of 60 degrees, so that should work for us. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Support for harmonizing to "IN", eg Category:Icebergs in Chile. Should be consensus--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Moved to "Icebergs in X" -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)