Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 9

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< August 8 August 10 >

August 9

Category:Foldable smartphones

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

Category:Empty categories with no backlinks

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]
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,
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]
  • @Marcocapelle: I pushed it just now, it will take a while to propagate. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok then consider my delete vote suspended until it becomes clear what will ultimately be left in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 21 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]
  • Delete – We already have ways of tracking and categorising empty categories and category redirects. I've yet to see any reason why the existence or non-existence of backlinks gives any indication as to the usefulness of those categories. See further discussion at the link given above. M.Clay1 (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per bhg et al. Johnbod (talk) 11:49, 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

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

Category:Second Shō Dynasty

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

Category:First Shō Dynasty

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

Category:The Grudge (franchise) films

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

Category:Austrian noble families

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]
  • Fair point, Bohemian noble families who were (also) notable in the Habsburg Empire do not become Austrian for that reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:38, 12 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]
  • I purged most of them from the Austrian parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 14 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

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]
  • Support the current name is not per our convention. But I note from our article "Established by Norman Foster as Foster Associates in 1967 shortly after leaving Team 4, the firm was renamed Sir Norman Foster and Partners Ltd in 1992 and shortened to Foster & Partners Ltd in 1999 to more accurately reflect the influence of the other lead architects." A note with this should be added. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split to Category:Norman Foster, Baron Foster of Thames Bank buildings and Category:Foster and Partners buildings. Articles about buildings where the founder did not make a defining contribution should be moved, but the others should be kept where they are. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:57, 15 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

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"