User talk:Bearcat/Archive 68

Removing categories from drafts and sandboxes

Rather than just removing the categories, could you please add a colon ":" inside the first bracket. This breaks the link, but leaves the substance of the category intact. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no rule that categories on draft or sandbox pages have to just be disabled and cannot be removed outright. If you want them there, then it's your responsibility to add them in disabled form off the top so that nobody else has to come in after you to do any cleanup -- but if I, or anybody else, does have to come in and get a sandbox page out of articlespace categories because you failed to disable them from the jump, then we're allowed to either disable or remove them at our own personal discretion, and don't owe you any direct consultation on your personal preferences before we do the cleanup in whatever form we please. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Your behaviour is going to cause editors unnecessary work when they bring their drafts and sandboxes to mainspace and have to figure out which categories to include all over again. So I see no reason why you shouldn't just disable the categories. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

And your behaviour has already caused other editors the unnecessary work of having to do anything about draft or sandbox pages being filed in articlespace categories at all — funny how you don't seem to be concerned about that, which is a much higher burden of unnecessary work placed on other people's shoulders, but seem far more concerned with "making unnecessary work for other editors" if you can use it to attack somebody else for something that mildly inconvenienced you than you are if you're guilty of making unnecessary work that hugely inconveniences other people.

Secondly, draft and sandbox pages are frequently also filed in categories that aren't correct at all, such as throwing an American writer directly into Category:Writers instead of Category:American writers or an article about a musician into Category:Parachuting on the tangential grounds that one of his music videos depicted skydiving, or in categories that don't even exist to have articles filed in them. So there's no value in just indiscriminately disabling categories that would be bad or invalid ones, because that would still create another form of unnecessary work for other editors (in the form of having to catch and refile them again after the page was approved) if they were just left on the page.

And thirdly, when I'm powering through a batch of several hundred inappropriately categorized draft and sandbox pages all at once, which is what I was doing today, I don't have a responsibility to take five minutes per page to investigate whether each page's categories are the right ones or not — I'm entitled to take whatever shortcuts are necessary to make each page a ten-second job instead of a five-minute job, so that the whole batch becomes a two-hour job instead of an eighteen-hour job. So when I'm doing cleanup on misfiled sandbox or draft pages, my job is not "investigate each individual category on each page to figure out whether it's correct or not, and then remove only the bad categories while just disabling the good ones" — my job is to "wham, bam, next" my way through the list as fast as possible. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, WP:DRAFTCAT states: Disable any categories by inserting a colon before the word "Category" . . . , or by using the Draft categories template. It doesn't mention simply removing the categories. So I'm not sure you are allowed to simply remove them. Is this stated somewhere? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

DRAFTCAT does not state that removing categories is forbidden. As I stated above, there are sometimes situations where removing categories is necessary, such as if a category would be wrong or doesn't even exist at all — and the job of cleaning up inappropriate categorization of draft pages does not require me to manually investigate each category's rightness or wrongness before I do anything. So, again, if you want to disable, then disable — but you do not get to clap back at anybody else who opts to remove instead, because we do not have a rule that disabling is mandatory and removing is forbidden. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

DRAFTCAT tells us to disable categories in drafts and sandboxes. It does not give us permission to remove them. Certainly not remove them all, en masse, as you have been doing. You seem to have made up that right for yourself without justification. Again, I see no reason why you shouldn't just disable categories (unless they are obviously deceptive or discriminatory). 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, you have a very condescending, officious tone: unbecoming of an admin imo. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The rules for draft pages are not different than the rules for userspace pages, and the rules for userspace pages explicitly do list removal as an option. I'm simply not "making up" any special rules for myself that are any different from what Wikipedia:Categorization explicitly says.

And there are a lot of reasons besides "deceptive or discriminatory" why categories can and should be removed from articles: sometimes people try to "file" drafts in categories that don't even exist at all, for example, and there's no value in leaving a category like that on the draft in disabled form. Sometimes people try to file drafts in overly general categories that aren't the most appropriate ones, like filing an American poet directly in the top-level Category:Writers parent instead of Category:American poets where it really belongs, and there's no value in leaving a category like that on the draft in disabled form. Sometimes people try to file drafts in irrelevant categories, like categorizing a musician in Category:Parachuting just because one of his music videos had skydivers in it, and there's no value in leaving a category like that on the draft in disabled form. And on and so forth: "category would be actively libellous to the subject" is not the only legitimate reason to remove a category from a page.

And again, the most important thing here is that if I'm powering through a batch of several hundred miscategorized pages all at once, I simply do not have a responsibility to make it into a ten-hour job for myself by investigating each individual category to determine whether it's a good or bad one before I can do anything. My only responsibility in that scenario is "get page out of category as quickly as possible so that I can get the batch done as quickly as possible", and there is no rule that just disabling a category is always required while removing it is always forbidden.

And I'm not interested in engaging in any further discussion on this. It is simply not a rule that improper categories on draft or sandbox pages must always just be disabled, regardless of any other considerations, and can never be removed outright. The categorization rules explicitly state that categories can be removed from pages. If you want disabled categories to be present on your page, then it's your responsibility to disable them from the start, and not anybody else's responsibility to consult with you about your disabling-vs-removal preferences after the fact if you didn't. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, fair enough. I don't see why you have to be so rude though. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) How about just wrapping all the categories and any stub tag(s) into a single comment to disable them? Hardly takes any longer than blanking, and leaves them there for some future editor, whether the original creator or someone else, to consider at a later time. It's a shame to lose Good Faith editing effort. (I have no idea what particular set of miscategorised drafts we're discussing here, just offering a possible least-worst option to disable the categories quickly without losing them altogether). PamD 20:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

That requires extra time to be taken with each page, because (a) first one has to find the categories in the page, which aren't always where they're expected to be (novice users do have a tendency to throw them in weird and counterintuitive parts of the page sometimes), and (b) then one has to manually type the wrapper code. If there are only a handful of inappropriately categorized draft or sandbox pages to deal with, that's not so bad — but if I have to power through a batch of hundreds of them, which was the case today as I already said above, then the extra steps involved add up to an unreasonable burden on my time. So I, or whoever else is having to deal with that batch of hundreds of pages, cannot be expected to invest any more time into each page than the quickest get-in-get-out solution possible, which is to click the minus signs in HotCat, hit save and move on.

In an ideal world, of course, there would be a bot which would automatically disable categories on draft or sandbox pages, so that human editors never actually had to waste our time on that gnomery at all — or even better, a technical mechanism by which draft and sandbox pages didn't display in userspace categories at all, so that nobody even had to care whether they had categories on them or not anymore. But those have both been asked for before, and not followed through on by the developers — so as long as human editors still have to look after it manually, we have to be allowed to get it done as quickly as possible, and cannot be expected to invest two or three minutes per page on each and every one of 500 pages if there's a quicker alternative that allows us to power through the batch in one hour rather than five.

I'll grant that it probably looks different to an individual sandboxer, who only has one or two pages to worry about, than it does to the person who's actually processing the batch, who has 500 or 600 pages to worry about. But when I've got that many pages to deal with, I have to be able to get in and out of each page as quickly as possible.

Similarly, the argument has also been attempted in the past that instead of tagging an uncategorized page with the uncategorized article template, a person who's working with uncategorized pages should just add a category themselves. But that works the same way: that certainly sounds perfectly reasonable from the perspective of a person who's only seeing the one uncategorized article that they were personally interested in — but it's not at all reasonable from the perspective of the person who's having to process a batch of 500 uncategorized articles in one shot. Bearcat (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Qatari film producers

A tag has been placed on Category:Qatari film producers indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Bullying and Initimidation by special page user

Hi, I am a new to wikipedia and its ways, my first article has been subjected to vandalism and there have been attempts of intimidation. Please check if i'm being over sensitive as [[1]]is insinuating or there is an attempt to initimidate here [[2]]. I smell something fishy here. Is he connected to [[3]]? I went to the noticeboard and the banner at the top suggested I can approach admins directly to skip the drama. If it is wrong to write here, my apologies. Shatbhisha6 (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft: greatest top 10 list

Hi there. I was just wondering what I need to do to my article to get it approved? I am very new and learning, so any help would be much appreciated. Thanks Twisted boxes (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Pik-Shuen Fung for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pik-Shuen Fung is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pik-Shuen Fung until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Bushxingu (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Bias for Review

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia writing so I'm not sure. The comment on the article I wrote seems to add alot of bias to anyone who will. Review it, is this allowed? It implies I'm like a paid person or something, is this how wikipedia always works? I'm a bit confused. CelesteRaynolds1 (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Film cats

Hi Bearcat - hope you are well. I see you've been removing the top-level country category from film articles. I vaguely recall a discussion that was started a while ago, but I lost track of it to be honest. Was there a consensus reached on this, and if so, please could you link me to it? Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Candidate Articles

I want to commend you on your attention to getting candidate articles deleted. Wikipedia articles cannot become campaign commercials (either positive or negative). It strikes me as weird how for certain candidates, there end up being a bazillion keep votes. I think people are trying to keep articles for candidates they like. Do you think that, in the interest of keeping non-notable candidates off of Wikpedia, the inclusion of Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing would be helpful to dissuading supporters from voting to keep non-notable articles? Your thoughts are appreciated.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Theresa_Nyabeze

I went to create a draft about her only to find it already existed and you rejected it at AfC, giving feedback about her not very notable awards.

However, I think she meets WP:AUTHOR on the basis of:

1. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/underground-mining-adventure-1.4124184
2. https://www.thompsoncitizen.net/local-arts/former-thompson-resident-publishes-childrens-book-about-mining-4286981

But I don't know what to do in the context of someone else starting it, it being rejected etc

Would you have any objections and do you think it is OK for me to improve it and move it into article space on this basis? CT55555 (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Homophobic bias

@User:Bearcat, I have noticed that the category for "Pedophile advocacy" is mostly composed of various gay men and bisexuals. Note that gay men such as Foucault and Ginsberg and bisexuals such as Paglia and David Thorstad are listed for advocating age of consent law reforms, but heterosexuals such as Jean-Paul Sartre, Gilles Deleuze, Jean-François Lyotard, and Jacques Derrida are not listed even though they shared the same views. It's also interesting that while both Foucault and Sartre have been accused of sexually preying on children, Wikipedia mentions the abuse allegations against Foucault but the article on Sartre doesn't mention anything. Despite the accusation that both Sartre and de Beauvoir worked together to target girls, the Wikipedia article for the heterosexual Sartre doesn't mention it but the article for the bisexual de Beauvoir does mention it. Thoughts? I think there is a double standard at work here rooted in homophobia. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

EDIT - I noticed that the section in the Foucault article talking about his views on child sexuality no longer mentions the abuse allegations against him in Tunisia. I guess that part was removed. But I think my point still stands. Why is it more notable when gay and bisexual people advocate these views or face these allegations than when heterosexuals do? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Deletion Explanation

Hello!

I totally understand why the deletion is justified. I am just wondering what I could do to improve the article? Any thoughts are greatly appreciated, thank you! JohnDVandevert (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)