Category talk:Victims of war

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

War casualties[edit]

Why not move the contents of Category:Victims of war to Category:War casualties? Casualties includes fatalities. There are many subcategories of Category:War casualties also.

The most important of those are the specific war. "Victims of war" should not exist as a separate category. It is not much use because it is too general.

If people want to further break down the casualties of a specific war, then I suggest using something like "Civilian deaths of World War II". See Category:Casualties of World War II and its subcategories.

We can use Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot to move everything to Category:War casualties. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that fatalities of war don't merit separate cat, to be within the War casualties-demarcation. I however agree totally that with the current naming this one cat is very too general and confusing. Orrlingtalk 03:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose new name doesn't is not cleare in respect with parent category (casualties), follows Commons naming conventions (topic first) and matches generally the subcat names. --Foroa (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Orrling. I can tell you that either way whether it is named "Victims of war" or "War fatalities" it may continue to be a problematic category because you will continue to have 2 parallel category trees trying to categorize war fatalities by war. People will be dumping items either at the top of "War casualties" or "War fatalities". At least if you dump them all in "War casualties" there may be more likelihood of the items being further subcategorized by war in my opinion. I could be wrong. "War fatalities" is definitely a clearer name. That may help in getting stuff further subcategorized. So if this category is kept then I prefer "War fatalities". --Timeshifter (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes sure, our number one aim should be to expel any potential inconsistency and confusal, this should not contrast the need to still maintain a category dedicated to humans who kicked the bucket as a result of war (either soldiers or civilians), I'd bet it will not look right in most eyes to just have a "War casualties" with a designation to injuries, prisoners etc while items referring to those not surviving their injury/prisoning are dissolved across with no roof. As I said the cat cannot remain as currently named; you may further dismantle it into the Casualties-homebase if you want. But I'd think the better is sub-categorizing deads for each war within the fatalities-cat. Orrlingtalk 16:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
OK. I am happy with the continued existence of the category if it is named something clear such as "War fatalities" or "War deaths". But "Victims of war" has to go. It is just a duplicate name for "War casualties". --Timeshifter (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Exactly Orrlingtalk 17:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Foroa, the overall parent category is "War". The subcategory is "War casualties". A further subcategory would be "War fatalities" or "War deaths" since war deaths are war casualties. Just like war injuries are also war casualties. Victims include living people with war injuries. So "victims" is not a good name for the category. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I suggest "Category:Deaths from wars", as that would match the other subcategories in "Category:Dead people by manner of death"? — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sound better and easier to distinguish from casualities, but victims, deaths or fatalities makes no major difference. I doubt that we need a different class: most cases in casualities are deaths anyway, so bound for problems. I would rather merge them all into casualities. --Foroa (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Timeshifter that "Deaths from wars" should be a subcategory of "Category:War casualties" (or "Casualties of wars") since the latter is wider – it includes people who have been injured but have not died. Although most of the files in the category are currently of deaths, there is a high possibility that we may obtain files relating to injuries later on. — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the rename request. Category of victims is not a category of fatalities. --ŠJů (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I think most people are opposed to the rename request from "Victims of war" to "War fatalities." This is because victims can be either dead or only injured. If someone wants to create a subcategory for war deaths, then that is a separate issue. So I think this renaming can be closed, and a bot can move everything into Category:War casualties. Most of us seem to agree that "Victims of war" is a duplicate name for "War casualties". This discussion started Feb. 8, 2012. Here are some examples of how English Wikipedia categorizes war deaths in various subcategories:

Oppose, "Deaths from wars" is so worst. You can have deaths from poisoning, not "deaths from wars". And there we stay with the only sustainable name being, again as when we started this page, War fatalities. Can't see how this can be in dispute. Orrlingtalk 19:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Why this category should be renamed for War fatalities:[edit]

Current naming is general and confusing, even more when trying to tell it from category:War casualties which bares much sense of a duplication. Proposed name is specific and allows sparing category:War casualties for captives, injured and other damage and this one cat for deads, which apparently are entitled to own cat. Orrlingtalk 20:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"War deaths" versus "War fatalities"[edit]

Google searches:

In any case it is a subcategory of Category:War casualties. See the meaning of "casualty":

To summarize here is the meaning of war casualty:

A war casualty is a military person who is either killed, wounded, imprisoned, or missing as a result of war; or a non-military person killed, wounded, or imprisoned (civilian casualties). The term casualty is sometimes confused with the term fatality (death).

That is from the introduction of Category:War casualties. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, look at the situation at this moment: Category:Victims of war and Category:War casualties are two extisting parallel categories, and everyone just needs, apparently, to guess the difference between them. How anomalous. Orrlingtalk 17:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)