User talk:HouseBlaster

ISIS ISIL IS categories: Reply

← Previous revision Revision as of 08:26, 19 April 2026 Line 66: Line 66: :::I think IS would be bad to use in category names, it's not clear or if context. [[User:LateNightCoffee|Late Night Coffee]] ([[User talk:LateNightCoffee|talk]]) 00:27, 11 April 2026 (UTC) :::I think IS would be bad to use in category names, it's not clear or if context. [[User:LateNightCoffee|Late Night Coffee]] ([[User talk:LateNightCoffee|talk]]) 00:27, 11 April 2026 (UTC) :::"Islamic State" is a problem on some subcategories. There are two about Afghanistan, that include things that might not be ISK. Using "Islamic State" in those is too easily confused with [[Islamic State of Afghanistan]], that became present day Afghanistan. [[User:LateNightCoffee|Late Night Coffee]] ([[User talk:LateNightCoffee|talk]]) 00:34, 11 April 2026 (UTC) :::"Islamic State" is a problem on some subcategories. There are two about Afghanistan, that include things that might not be ISK. Using "Islamic State" in those is too easily confused with [[Islamic State of Afghanistan]], that became present day Afghanistan. [[User:LateNightCoffee|Late Night Coffee]] ([[User talk:LateNightCoffee|talk]]) 00:34, 11 April 2026 (UTC) :@[[User:Mikewem|Mikewem]] You raise a really interesting point about how fine-grained these distinctions should be in category space. From a practical standpoint, it does start to feel like a “distinction without a difference” when the entities in question, ISIL and its affiliates like ISSP, are closely tied in origin, branding, and operational alignment. :At the same time, I can see why someone might want to preserve that nuance. ISSP, while linked to Islamic State, operates in a specific regional and organizational context that might justify separate categorization, especially if consistency is applied across other affiliates as well. :Maybe the question isn’t just whether ISIL and ISSP are “close enough,” but whether the categorization system is meant to prioritize conceptual clarity or structural consistency. If the goal is clarity, something like the former “ISIS-related” label might indeed capture that relationship better. If it’s consistency, then keeping parent vs. affiliate distinctions separate could make more sense. :The “berry” analogy actually helps highlight the issue, whether we’re grouping by core identity or by subtype. It might be worth aligning on that principle first before deciding how to categorize specific cases. [[User:Iambethanycox|Iambethanycox]] ([[User talk:Iambethanycox|talk]]) 08:26, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

=== New category request === === New category request ===