Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/10/Category:FN FAL in Libyan service
All of the shown rifles are used by rebells, s oas long as we don't have pics of gouvermental use, I'd suggest to delete this cat and move the files to the FN FAL parent cat. Sanandros (talk) 05:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Neutral No problem to delete this category. I prefered to have the rifles sorted by user but I unsterstand your remark.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep Not sure this category should be deleted. "In Libyan service" can mean any Libyan operator of a weapon--assuming it only means official government use is an unwarranted leap. Sub-cats can group these by specific named operators if need be. Take Category:Aircraft in Australian service, there sub-cats for airlines, government, military, police, and executive operators, as well as media of aircraft of private Australian operators. If any Libyan operator uses the FN FAL, then this category is warranted. Josh (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- The Small Arms Survery p. 49 says it's impossible to trace the origins of these rifles. So they could be from anywhere. Furthermore this cat is conncecete to Gouverment of Lybia over the Cats Military Eqiment of Lybia -> Military of Lybia -> Gouverment of Lybia. But we can't say that these weapons are linked to the gouvement of Lybia.--Sanandros (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- They may soon be seen in service with Libyan "governmental armies" (GNA or LNA), cf this tweet.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- Soon is not at time of photography. And Twitter is not a reliable source.--Sanandros (talk) 07:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- It is not the purpose of Commons categories to maintain the current service status of military equipment. Who has what is something that is constantly evolving and is not always publicly known with authority. Category assignments are not referenced with sources, so they cannot function as such. They only serve to ease user access to files maintained by the repository. Whether or not the FN FAL is officially part of the Libyan government's inventory or not is completely irrelevant to our category scheme. If we have a file depicting the FN FAL being used by a Libyan operator, then it belongs here or in a sub-cat of this one. I 100% agree that the overall tree is far too misleading, as pointed to by Sanandros (talk · contribs). If the category were Category:FN FAL in Libyan government service then it would be more restrictive. The entire category structure of weapons 'in Foo service' should be reviewed, but as it is currently implemented, this category is correct to have files of Libyan rebels with FN FAL rifles. Josh (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- If you want to change the category tree, you are free to do so. But if you want to include non govermental organisations, then you need to define how they are, in this case, Lybian, as Tuareg from Mali fought in the Lybian War. So are these Lybian or Malian usage of a firearm?--Sanandros (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- This is a deep rabbit hole, Sanandros (talk · contribs), when a South African working for an American organization is operating on behalf of the Iraqi government, who exactly is their weapon serving? If we want to restrict 'in Fooian service' to mean exclusively weapons in the official inventory of government agencies, there is nothing wrong with that per se. Apparently some users approach these categories with this exact presumption. However, it is not explicitly stated and thus there are also many users who do not apply this presumption. Hence, situations like this. If you want to set on overaching precedent for 'in service' categories, that would really need to be discussed at a much higher level (Category:Military equipment by country perhaps). But until that is decided on, the fact that this category does not meet a restrictive definition that has not been broadly adopted does not constitute sufficient cause to delete the category. Josh (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: OK I started another discussion ant the miltary eqipment cat which u linked.--Sanandros (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is a deep rabbit hole, Sanandros (talk · contribs), when a South African working for an American organization is operating on behalf of the Iraqi government, who exactly is their weapon serving? If we want to restrict 'in Fooian service' to mean exclusively weapons in the official inventory of government agencies, there is nothing wrong with that per se. Apparently some users approach these categories with this exact presumption. However, it is not explicitly stated and thus there are also many users who do not apply this presumption. Hence, situations like this. If you want to set on overaching precedent for 'in service' categories, that would really need to be discussed at a much higher level (Category:Military equipment by country perhaps). But until that is decided on, the fact that this category does not meet a restrictive definition that has not been broadly adopted does not constitute sufficient cause to delete the category. Josh (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- If you want to change the category tree, you are free to do so. But if you want to include non govermental organisations, then you need to define how they are, in this case, Lybian, as Tuareg from Mali fought in the Lybian War. So are these Lybian or Malian usage of a firearm?--Sanandros (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- It is not the purpose of Commons categories to maintain the current service status of military equipment. Who has what is something that is constantly evolving and is not always publicly known with authority. Category assignments are not referenced with sources, so they cannot function as such. They only serve to ease user access to files maintained by the repository. Whether or not the FN FAL is officially part of the Libyan government's inventory or not is completely irrelevant to our category scheme. If we have a file depicting the FN FAL being used by a Libyan operator, then it belongs here or in a sub-cat of this one. I 100% agree that the overall tree is far too misleading, as pointed to by Sanandros (talk · contribs). If the category were Category:FN FAL in Libyan government service then it would be more restrictive. The entire category structure of weapons 'in Foo service' should be reviewed, but as it is currently implemented, this category is correct to have files of Libyan rebels with FN FAL rifles. Josh (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- Soon is not at time of photography. And Twitter is not a reliable source.--Sanandros (talk) 07:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- They may soon be seen in service with Libyan "governmental armies" (GNA or LNA), cf this tweet.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- The Small Arms Survery p. 49 says it's impossible to trace the origins of these rifles. So they could be from anywhere. Furthermore this cat is conncecete to Gouverment of Lybia over the Cats Military Eqiment of Lybia -> Military of Lybia -> Gouverment of Lybia. But we can't say that these weapons are linked to the gouvement of Lybia.--Sanandros (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)