Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 8 August 10 >

August 9

[edit]

Category:Foldable smartphones

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 September 22#Category:Foldable smartphones

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not sure how it made it through bot approval, but this category was created so that a bot could add hundreds of thousands of soft-redirected categories to it (the bot is at >52,000 such edits and counting); every such category is already in Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories, so it is completely redundant to that one. If the bot is using this category, it should be re-coded to use Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories instead, and this one should be deleted. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (botop) Firstly, maybe you should have asked me? Just because a category is a subset (for now) does not mean it's redundant, it would be redundant if the categories were serving the same purpose, but they don't - in fact, the purpose of the category is quite apparent in the title itself, and that's basically to identify categories with no backlinks, basically of no use, thus making them eligible for WP:CSD#G6 deletion (this is also recommended to administrators in the category redirect template itself), making it more apparent to administrators when a category redirect is not useful (and it can be expanded to other types of categories in the future). --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but I have found you not very responsive to talkpage requests: Back in June I requested that you create a log of all pages that your bot tags for speedy deletion, which I think is critical for bots to do (and why Twinkle creates a CSD log for human users), and it is now August and no such log exists. And there is already a daily database report of G6 eligible pages, Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories, that does not require adding a category to hundreds of thousands of non-G6-eligible category pages. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had written the code to implement it back in June itself, it seems that there was an error (I just checked) because a non-string value was not getting converted into a string value before printing, leading to an exception every time the program attempted to log an edit. Since you didn't point out anything wrong after that, I assumed it must've been doing fine. It's really volunteer work, I have my limits and it's not possible to keep track of everything, I hope that makes sense? Also, that list is useful to some extent but it gives you no information if it has any other usage (i.e. backlinks), so it's not possible to use G6 without verifying the occurence of incoming links (which the template encourages you to verify/clean up before deleting). --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @QEDK:, if this is all about G6, then why is it tracking category redirects? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @BrownHairedGirl: See below? And as I've said before, the code was first written for category redirects (as a demonstration) but I am working on it to include other types of categories as well. --qedk (t 愛 c) 07:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • @QEDK: you have now successfully demonstrated that you can run a bot which populates this category. Well done.
              However, since you cannot demonstrate a purpose for the category, let alone which as consensus, it's tine to turn off the bot and delete this useless category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • @BrownHairedGirl: The consensus exists at the BRFA. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • @QEDK: Utter nonsense. The consensus does NOT exist at the BRFA, because A) you did not state upfront your goal of a mass cull of cat redirects; B) you did not even notify WP:CATP that you were planning this, so most editors who would be interested were unaware of the BRFA; C) BRFA has no authority extend WP:G6 in the way that you want.
                  Your disregard for effective consensus building has extended even to keeping the bot running while the category is under discussion here at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • And why should the consensus be at the BRFA? That's not what the bot is doing and the bot doesn't need consensus for fictional objectives. I didn't know WP:CATP existed so I didn't notify, AN/ANI is the common place to post for all adminbots and that's what I did, as is expected of botops to do, the onus is not on me to notify every possible place because it's just not feasible, so I notified the place with the most traffic, which is the most logical thing to do. No one is saying that G6 is extended... and the bot doesn't even have anything to do with G6-ing categories. As I've been repeatedly saying, and as you're choosing to conveniently ignore, is that administrators, can choose to G6 these categories of their own volition if they believe it to be under the ambit of housekeeping. I hope I was clear enough this time. --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                    • @QEDK: please have the civility not make a straw man. I did not suggest or imply that you should notify every possible place. I criticised your failure to notify any page specifically devoted to categories ... and since your bot's whole purpose is categories, that should have been your first port of call. WP:BRFA is explicit about this at section I, bullet pint:

                      If your task could be controversial (e.g. most bots making non-maintenance edits to articles and most bots posting messages on user talk pages), seek consensus for the task in the appropriate forums. Common places to start include WP:Village pump (proposals) and the talk pages of the relevant policies, guidelines, templates, and/or WikiProjects.

                      You didn't make those notifications to talk pages of the relevant policies, guidelines, templates, and/or WikiProjects ... and now you are being sarcastically dismissive of complaints about that crucial omission.
                      And no, I am not choosing to conveniently ignore your comments about WP:G6. It does not allow category redirects to deleted as housekeeping. Go read WP:G6. So cut the carp of falsely accusing me of choosing to conveniently ignore something which you assert is fact but which actually just another example of your sustained disregard for consensus-building. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Was I not clear enough in my admission that I wasn't aware of CATP, nor was I told about it during the course of BRFA? You seem to critique me on not knowing it but no one seems to know or care about CATP enough to have told me to notify them, so what am I supposed to do? I apologize but turning back time is not a particular skill of mine. I wasn't sarcastically dismissive at all, I stated quite clearly and "obtusely" in fact, that I didn't know. And G6 allows for uncontroversial maintanence (a.k.a. "housekeeping") which can include deletion of categories, so what's your point again? --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I have seen no such admission or apology. What I do see is that you did not notify any category-specific page, not did you ask at BRFA for any guidance in finding one. You didn't ask in your WP:AN post. There is zero evidence that you made any attempt anywhere to find relevant pages to notify, so your defence of ignorance is no excuse: it's wilful ignorance.
                          Also, it seems that you have still not read WP:G6. When you do so, please identify the part which allows admins to delete category redirects through lack of backlinks. I look forward to you quoting the exact words of the relevant part. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I didn't know WP:CATP existed so I didn't notify is not admission enough for you? I notified the page with the highest traffic and wasn't recommended to bring it up anywhere else, that's not wilful ignorance, that's me doing my due diligence. You should WP:AGF instead of making baseless accusations. See below for answers to your other questions. --qedk (t 愛 c) 10:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                            • More nonsense, which studiously ignores what I actually wrote, and (as usual) inverts the reality of your own actions. Due diligence would have consisted you asking which pages you should notify. But you did not do that. Instead you were content in your ignorance, and made no notfiactions to any of the he talk pages of the relevant policies, guidelines, templates, and/or WikiProjects recommended by BRFA.
                              That complete omission to either do or ask is the exact opposite of due diligence. Your repeated determination to sustain your assertions of demonstrable falsehoods is bad news in any editor, but alarming in an admin operating an admin bot. Someone running an admin bot should be much more closely connected to reality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thanks to @UnitedStatesian for nominating this.
If this grouping of category redirects is needed, it should be called Category:Wikipedia empty soft redirected categories (as a sibling to Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories), and populated automatically by {{Category redirect}}.
I see no purpose in having a bot adding a category which can be populated automatically is needed (tho I don't see the need). OTOH, if the bot wants to track non-redirected empty categories with no backlinks, then it should skip the category redirects.
@QEDK: did you consciously choose for the bot to categorise redirects? Or did you just overlook their existence? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Can you explain how the category can be populated automatically? And as I've said before, the code was first written for category redirects (as a demonstration) but I am working on it to include other types of categories as well. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@QEDK: by adding one line to Template:Category redirect, as in this edit[1] which I just made to the Template:Category redirect/sandbox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And how does that template detect if it has backlinks? --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@QEDK: I don't think it can detect backlinks. But why on earth would you want to track the absence of backlinks to empty categories ... when the categories are all of a type which should be empty and should have no backlinks? What exactly is this for? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Category redirects with no backlinks are effectively G6-able, and while that's up to discretion, it's plausible. This shows up in the {{Category redirect}} template itself as a recommendation. So, this is for easier administrative cleanup (which I had always stated in the BRFA). --qedk (t 愛 c) 07:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, QEDK, now it's clear. This bot is basically drawing up a target list for mass deletion of category redirects ... but you have never sought consensus for that, and you did't even state that goal at WP:BRFA/QEDKbot. WP:G6 does not allow deletion of category redirects just because they have no backlinks ... and per my long reply to you[2] at WT:BRFA#QEDKbot, you clearly do not understand the purpose and usage of category redirects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Can you stop with the random conclusions that have no basis in reality? Some of the category redirects can be deleted is what I said. The bot doesn't delete any of those categories (or me), so again, that's a moot point. Mass deletion has nothing to do with what this bot does. And I do understand what category redirects are for and the bot's function is to basically find relatively "unused" (because they are orphaned) categories and track them - which is fundamentally different from the narrative you seem hell bent upon to impose. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, QEDK, my accusations are well-founded. It is you who lacks contact with reality.
The bot is not find relatively "unused" (because they are orphaned) categories. That is simply false.
What the bot does is to find category redirects, not categories. It assesses them by only one of the four uses that I can identify, and AFAICS that's the least significant of the 4 uses. Your strategy of measuring existing backlinks is naively absurd, because if someone patrols and regular fixes any links to a redirect, your bot will falsely consider it "unused". You are measuring what is easily measureable, rather than what matters. So this labelling of redirects without backlinks as "unused" is basically false.
And instead of making a dated report like other similar bots so, it adds or removes a category whose only purpose as identified by you is to facilitate their removal per WP:G6 ... even tho G6 does not permit such removal. This is wrong from to to bottom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make a report because the page would be too big and MediaWiki has a fixed limit on that. And, as I've stated, it will be expanded beyond category redirects, can we stop going around in circles? Deleting a category under the ambit of housekeeping is permitted under G6, you should look up WP:CSD#G6. --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. @QEDK: The circles are entirely of your own making.
  1. Many reports are produced on multiple pages, This one could also be done that way.
  2. If and when the bot performs this task for non-redirected categories, it should NOT include the contents of the current category, which consists solely of category redirects which are in optional condition: no backlinks and no contents. How long will it take you to grasp the point made to you by three editors that the fundamental problem with this category is that it is tracking the stuff which is working perfectly? Why are you unable or unwilling to accept that a redirected category should be empty> Why on earth do you think that there is something wrong with a redirect where the backlinks have been fixed to point to the tarhet?
  3. Yet again, I ask you to actually quote to me the words in WP:G6 which permit deletion of a category redirect due to lack of backlinks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not, you're just making things out to be different from the real scenario.
  1. How is that more convenient than having a single category to go through?
  2. I never said that there is anything wrong with such categories but that a lot of them might serve no purpose. So, yes, it's still a suggestion and one that is obviously true. You want an example? Let's take Category:4 ft 8½ in gauge railways in South Africa - who is typing the 1/2 symbol like that to use it? Obviously no one, but it exists anyway. I could find a ton more but I hope you understand what I am trying to get across and that is simply the point that it's plausible for a lot of these categories to have no purpose (and that I'm not advocating for their deletion but rather track their usage).
The words are "uncontroversial maintenance", the intent is also reflected in the template itself - Administrators: If this category name is unlikely to be entered on new pages, and all incoming links have been cleaned up, click here to delete. --qedk (t 愛 c) 10:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are the ONLY editor in this discussion who supports using lack of backlinks as the key indicator for deleting category redirects. 4 editors oppose your view. Yet you still persist in the notion that such deletions are uncontroversial.
And please re-read the text you quoted from the output of {{Category redirect}}: category name is unlikely to be entered on new pages. That's the key criterion, and lack of backlinks is only secondary ... but your focus on entirely on the secondary criteria.
This WP:IDHT problem is disruptive in any editor, but disastrous in a bot operator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, do you expect a bot to magically know which categories meet the first criteria? Obviously the second criteria is the only one that bot can calculate... hence leaving the first criteria for administrators to assess. I don't know what possibly makes you think that lack of backlinks is a "key" indicator because I've always stated it as an aspect of assessment, so your perception is either misleading or a purposeful misinterpretation. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At last we agree on something: viz. that you don't understand. The problem is very simple: the bot is assessing what is measurable rather than what matters. And that makes it worse than useless: it's actively disruptive, by encouraging editors to focus on the least significant criterion.
Your claim not to have treated backlinks count as a key indicator is demonstrably false: at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/QEDKbot you wrote this category is basically to track categories that basically have no utility[3].
I am delighted that you seem to have changed your mind about that ... but I am revolted by your refusal to acknowledge that changed. Instead, on multiple points, you repeatedly engage in the gaslighting technique of denying your previous position, and falsely accusing me of having a having perception problem. That is despicable conduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
QEDK has confirmed that they will NOT be removing the redirects from the category:[4] I will not be uncategorising category redirects because that does not fall within the remit of the bot's stated functions (and would thus be considered misuse of the bot). You were misled. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Veterans' affairs by location

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 September 6#Category:Veterans' affairs by location

Category:Second Shō Dynasty

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 30#Category:Second Shō Dynasty

Category:First Shō Dynasty

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 30#Category:First Shō Dynasty

Category:The Grudge (franchise) films

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 30#Category:The Grudge (franchise) films

Category:Austrian noble families

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename as nominated except for new name Category:House of Lamberg. – Fayenatic London 22:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clearer, and in line with the anchor articles where possible, though some of them are only glorified disambiguation pages. Rathfelder (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This group includes Hungarians, Flemish, Germans ... as well. Johnbod (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only titled this set as Austrian because that is where I encountered them. I dont feel competent to unpick the noble families of the Austro-Hungarian empire. I wouldnt be surprised to find more, but this is a start. I dont think I am alone in finding, for example, Kinsky, as a category, rather mysterious.Rathfelder (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Norman Foster, Baron Foster of Thames Bank buildings

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Use the name of the firm's article Foster and Partners for the buildings sub-cat, as there may be member pages where the founder did not make a WP:defining contribution to the firm's design.
Background to current name: Foster's biography is now at Norman Foster, Baron Foster of Thames Bank and the eponymous category is therefore at Category:Norman Foster, Baron Foster of Thames Bank, since Norman Foster is ambiguous. The category for buildings has been speedily renamed likewise, but some readers may find this rather odd. Using the name of the firm rather than the person bypasses this problem. – Fayenatic London 08:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it would also get round the confusion of the cstegory possibly being for bank buildings. Grutness...wha? 06:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I rather doubt this is practicable on the information we have. plus we don't normally treat big architectural practices this way. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a category about buildings by an architects firm, led by Foster. We should follow the name of the firm, which has had a succession of names without altering its identity. We have a similar practice with alumni of renamed colleges and universities. The present name is an appalling mouthful. An alternative might be Category:Norman Foster buildings, but that would be less good in my view. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People with anxiety disorders

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 4#Category:People with anxiety disorders

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_August_9&oldid=986772237"