This case has been closed as unsuccssful by the Mediation Cabal. This case will be automatically archived; the case was closed by the mediator because: all but one parties refuse to participate in mediation, despite requests and extensive notification.

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Category:Kurdistan
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Cool Cat
Parties involved	Cool Cat, F-m-t, Bertilvidet
Mediator(s)	anthonycfc [talk]
Comment	Closed as unsuccessful - other parties blank ignoring case.

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Category:Kurdistan]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Category:Kurdistan]]

Request made by: Cat out 08:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

Category:Kurdistan

Who's involved?

Cool Cat, F-m-t, Bertilvidet

What's going on?

There is a dispute on what the inclusion criteria of Category:Kurdistan supposed to be

What would you like to change about that?

I feel there is a confusion on what Kurdistan supposed to be and how it should be treated. One of my peers wants to treat Kurdistan as a "geographic region" and the other wants to treat it as a "defacto country like Taiwan". However both of them seem to follow the [Category:Bla by country] categorization format. Kurdistan in my view is not a country and does not claim to be a country so should NOT be treated as one.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

No, I would prefer everything being available to public view.

• Accepting case - Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 20:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I invite all users to post a summary of what they see as the issue in dispute, and exactly what they would like to see change and why. "Why" should include relevant policies - see List of Policies and List of Guidelines. Regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 21:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please try to leave the top of this sub section alone and post comments at "discussion" section below it

Currently sub cats of Category:Kurdistan follows the following naming conventions which are used for countries and international organizations:

1. WP:NC(C)#Categories by country
   • WP:NC(C)#Landforms
   • WP:NC(C)#State-based topics
   • WP:NC(C)#Miscellaneous "of country"
   • WP:NC(C)#Miscellaneous "in country"
   • Category talk:Kurdistan has more proposed ideas that follows the above scheme.
2. According to Kurdistan, it is a mere geographic region and not a country. Kurdistan is also a controversial as a geographic region and does not have the acceptance like other geographic regions such as continents.
3. Kurdistan lacks any kind of defined borders. We cannot be absolutely certain if a lake, river or an urban area falls inside Kurdistan's borders so a machine generated binary list (Categorization) is problematic.
4. We do not categorize geographic objects such as lakes (ex: Lake Chaubunagungamaug, Lake Michigan, Lake Geneva (40% German, 60% Swiss)), or urban areas (cities) (ex: York, Seoul), rivers (ex: Trave, Maritsa (passes through three countries), Coosa River (passes through two US states)) based on geographic regions but instead use political borders such as states or countries. I already posted the guideline for this above.

Based on all that above, I feel categorization of Lakes, Cities, Rivers and etc under Kurdistan is not inline with existing guidelines and hence is very problematic.

--Cat out 12:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat: what exactly would you like to see changed? The Category deleted? Renamed? Please do give your honest opinion. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 15:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot (if not all) of the sub categories follow the "country" pattern as I mentioned above, those should be deleted as per guidelines. They were recently created without a proper discussion.

Also Cities, Provinces, Lakes, Mountains, Rivers and etc should not be tagged under "Kurdistan" or any subcat again as per guidelines.

The only thing we can tag is with "Iraqi Kurdistan" which is recognized as part of Iraqi Federal structure and not a part of Kurdistan. This subcat itself is a bit unnecessary since Iraqi categories are not overpopulated. See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_2#Category:Airlines_of_Kurdistan for an ongoing discussion on this end.

--Cat out 15:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting other user's summaries; editors are asked to please respect WP:NEHAMFTAY. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 20:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.154.181 (talk • contribs)

Good evening (GMT time); apologies for my inactivity. I will request for this category to be listed at CFD in 2 days time - I would normally opt for 5, but I think we've lingered long enough, and the "I want it deleted" post has been up for around a week.

If any editors have any objections, please post them below, and I will pull out of the deletion-nomination immediately, pending further discussion.

Kind regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have no reason to apologize, you are a volunteer and I should be thanking you for mediating.

I have nominated them for deletion some time ago in hopes of prompting a discussion here as per Category:Airlines of Kurdistan's deletion. #Category:Current governments in Kurdistan was deleted as a result of the nom. #Category:Settlements in Kurdistan is still in discussion though it should be closed soon. As for "others", I haven't touched them yet. They probably should be either renamed or deleted.

--Cat out 20:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will post a CFD nomination for the remaining subcategories in Category:Kurdistan in 2days time. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 21:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“

i have corrected the exact location of Kurdistan because i feel it is fair for Kurdish people to be recognized as being from a place in Kurdistan as opposed to turkey.

”

I believe edits like this is clear example why the used categories and references are problematic. Categorization and clasification is clearly based on editors "feelings" and not on any verifiable/credible sources. -- Cat ^chi? 18:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't see this thing moving anywhere. Even if the users agreed the subcats should be deleted, that's not grounds to call in an administrator and say "delete this" .. or at least, if I was in the admin's position, I wouldn't: there is no policy to back it up.

Would editors like to offer possible routes of action; otherwise, I will be forced to close this case as stale. anthonycfc ^[talk] 02:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody else but me (and you) is ignoring the debate. There is no agreement (or even discussion) so far. -- Cat ^chi? 02:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm determined to achieve consensus in this. I'll look around, and poke any involved parties again. anthonycfc ^[talk] 16:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right; any last-gasp ideas? anthonycfc ^[talk] 04:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunt, despite myself and Cool Cat'e efforts, other parties are blank ignoring this case; there's only so much I can do, and the absence of one side of opinion is not part of that category of workable cases.

Regretfully, I have to close this case as unsuccessful. If the other parties decide they wish to participate, please immediately contact me.

Otherwise, case closed.

anthony^[cfc] 16:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been closed as unsuccssful by the Mediation Cabal. This case will be automatically archived; the case was closed by the mediator because: all but one parties refuse to participate in mediation, despite requests and extensive notification.