User talk:The Banner/Archives/2024/April
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:The Banner. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Good faith
Please stop. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. --TadejM my talk 12:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- So, you are editwarring and calling that out is bad faith editing? Very interesting stance. The Banner talk 12:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Edit reversions
@The Banner Hi, can you explain why you reverted so many of my edits? Reverting all of my edits with an edit summary of "revert unexplained removal" is strange to me when all I was doing was categorizing articles properly. This feels very targeted. BaduFerreira (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- I did not revert al your edits, as some of them were correct. Beside that, you never explained your removals content-wise. You told what you did (removal of a cat) but not why. And made me feel targetted after you got some pushback from me. The Banner talk 07:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sure okay. Let's go through my edits that you've reverted. As to the template on Category:Dutch_words_and_phrases, "This category is not for articles about concepts and things but only for articles about the words themselves" and "this category (should be) purged of everything that is not actually an article about a word or phrase". Every article that I've removed this category from is from an article this is not about a Dutch word or phrase, but is just an article with a Dutch name. As an example, Niksen, Nozem, 't kofschip, and Buitenvrouw are appropriately categorized as these articles are about Dutch words or phrases. Articles such as Voorbereidend middelbaar beroepsonderwijs, Koningsdag, and Purple crocodile are not about Dutch words or phrases, so they should not be categorized as such. You've also consistently reverted my category edits to food articles which all aim to categorize the articles more appropriately. Let's take for example, three revisions you've made on Kaasstengels, Kue lidah kucing, and Bitterballen. I've created Category:Dutch cookies to better categorize articles about cookies from the Netherlands, so replacing Category:Cookies and Category:Dutch cuisine with Category:Dutch cookies is a perfectly valid change. Categorizing foods by their national origin is an established practice as can be seen with categories like Category:British pies, Category:Swedish pastries, Category:Hungarian sausages, so I'm curious what you believe makes Dutch cookies the exception? Still on the Kaasstengels revision, I've already explained why Category:Dutch_words_and_phrases is inappropriate for this kind of article. For Kue lidah kucing, the equivalent category for Category:Indonesian cookies is Category:Kue (From Kue article: "Kue is an Indonesian bite-sized snack or dessert food. Kue is a fairly broad term in Indonesian to describe a wide variety of snacks including cakes, cookies, fritters, pies, scones, and patisserie.") so removing the Category:Cookies category and moving this article to the most specific category makes sense. For Bitterballen, this article is about a food with a Dutch word not about the dutch word. Also, I don't appreciate you insinuating that I'm vandalizing as you did with this reversion. Vandalism is a serious offense and should not be used lightly, so I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Vandalism to understand the difference as Wikipedia:Bold editing is WP:notvandalism. Now that I've explained my edits, please revert the 22 revisions that you made to my edits on April 15. Thank you. BaduFerreira (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- When you read the article Kaasstengels, you can see that it refers to cookies. The same with Kue lidah kucing. So removing them from the category "cookie" is clear wrong. English language readers will not find it using an Indonesian term. Being pure is one thing, being able to find an article can clash with that. The Banner talk 17:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's incorrect. As to WP:PARENTCAT, "an article should be categorized under the most specific branch in the category tree as possible". I've created the category Category:Dutch cookies to group together cookies from the Netherlands, so this should be used as it contains Category:Dutch cuisine and Category:Cookies as parent categories. Doing so does not empty the Category:Dutch cuisine or Category:Cookies categories as you've claimed in the deletion discussion, this just better organizes the messy categories. Additionally, if you have any concerns with Category:Kue, I recommend you voice them at WP:CFD. This is not the proper avenue for discussion on its usefulness. BaduFerreira (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Too specific categories in fact only hide the articles. Over-categorization is a problem.The Banner talk 20:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for ignoring this discussion. The Banner talk 10:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Anytime
BaduFerreira (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- But still the purpose of hiding articles by over-categorisation alludes me. And the benefits for the readers is zero point zero. The Banner talk 13:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- The way I think about it is that subcategories help organize broadly-related topics into more closely-related boxes. Take for example Category:Apples. Without subcategories such as Category:Apples in culture, Category:Apple dishes, or Category:Apple production, all of the articles categorized within these categories would be in the same parent category (Apples). What would a reader do if they found a movie prominently featuring an apple, a dish containing apples, or an article about some countries apple industry and they wanted to find related topics? Without these subcategories, they'd have to sift through the hypothetical now massive Apple category in hopes of finding related articles. In short, the practice of creating subcategories does not hide articles but actually makes it easier to find related articles. To me that's at least ninety six point five percent beneficial, maybe even ninety eight point three :) BaduFerreira (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly, instead of easy to find you hide them in subcategories. The Banner talk 17:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Do you really think it would be easier to find related topics without subcategories? Continuing with the example of Category:Apples, there are 717 articles that trace back to Apples as a parent category. There are currently 36 articles in Category:Apples. Imagine trying to find anything in that massive category. Do you think that's a better experience for the reader than how it's currently organized? BaduFerreira (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- That apple-tree has a lot of branches that can be removed. A bit of a category should have at least 5 articles. Splendid example of over-categorisation. The Banner talk 20:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please nominate them for deletion then because I don't really understand what you mean. BaduFerreira (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly, you don't understand the concept of over-categorisation. The Banner talk 20:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- You're right 😔😔😔 I clearly need to devote more time before I become a real Wikipedia editor. BaduFerreira (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly, you don't understand the concept of over-categorisation. The Banner talk 20:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please nominate them for deletion then because I don't really understand what you mean. BaduFerreira (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- That apple-tree has a lot of branches that can be removed. A bit of a category should have at least 5 articles. Splendid example of over-categorisation. The Banner talk 20:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Do you really think it would be easier to find related topics without subcategories? Continuing with the example of Category:Apples, there are 717 articles that trace back to Apples as a parent category. There are currently 36 articles in Category:Apples. Imagine trying to find anything in that massive category. Do you think that's a better experience for the reader than how it's currently organized? BaduFerreira (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly, instead of easy to find you hide them in subcategories. The Banner talk 17:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- The way I think about it is that subcategories help organize broadly-related topics into more closely-related boxes. Take for example Category:Apples. Without subcategories such as Category:Apples in culture, Category:Apple dishes, or Category:Apple production, all of the articles categorized within these categories would be in the same parent category (Apples). What would a reader do if they found a movie prominently featuring an apple, a dish containing apples, or an article about some countries apple industry and they wanted to find related topics? Without these subcategories, they'd have to sift through the hypothetical now massive Apple category in hopes of finding related articles. In short, the practice of creating subcategories does not hide articles but actually makes it easier to find related articles. To me that's at least ninety six point five percent beneficial, maybe even ninety eight point three :) BaduFerreira (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- But still the purpose of hiding articles by over-categorisation alludes me. And the benefits for the readers is zero point zero. The Banner talk 13:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Anytime
- That's incorrect. As to WP:PARENTCAT, "an article should be categorized under the most specific branch in the category tree as possible". I've created the category Category:Dutch cookies to group together cookies from the Netherlands, so this should be used as it contains Category:Dutch cuisine and Category:Cookies as parent categories. Doing so does not empty the Category:Dutch cuisine or Category:Cookies categories as you've claimed in the deletion discussion, this just better organizes the messy categories. Additionally, if you have any concerns with Category:Kue, I recommend you voice them at WP:CFD. This is not the proper avenue for discussion on its usefulness. BaduFerreira (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- When you read the article Kaasstengels, you can see that it refers to cookies. The same with Kue lidah kucing. So removing them from the category "cookie" is clear wrong. English language readers will not find it using an Indonesian term. Being pure is one thing, being able to find an article can clash with that. The Banner talk 17:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sure okay. Let's go through my edits that you've reverted. As to the template on Category:Dutch_words_and_phrases, "This category is not for articles about concepts and things but only for articles about the words themselves" and "this category (should be) purged of everything that is not actually an article about a word or phrase". Every article that I've removed this category from is from an article this is not about a Dutch word or phrase, but is just an article with a Dutch name. As an example, Niksen, Nozem, 't kofschip, and Buitenvrouw are appropriately categorized as these articles are about Dutch words or phrases. Articles such as Voorbereidend middelbaar beroepsonderwijs, Koningsdag, and Purple crocodile are not about Dutch words or phrases, so they should not be categorized as such. You've also consistently reverted my category edits to food articles which all aim to categorize the articles more appropriately. Let's take for example, three revisions you've made on Kaasstengels, Kue lidah kucing, and Bitterballen. I've created Category:Dutch cookies to better categorize articles about cookies from the Netherlands, so replacing Category:Cookies and Category:Dutch cuisine with Category:Dutch cookies is a perfectly valid change. Categorizing foods by their national origin is an established practice as can be seen with categories like Category:British pies, Category:Swedish pastries, Category:Hungarian sausages, so I'm curious what you believe makes Dutch cookies the exception? Still on the Kaasstengels revision, I've already explained why Category:Dutch_words_and_phrases is inappropriate for this kind of article. For Kue lidah kucing, the equivalent category for Category:Indonesian cookies is Category:Kue (From Kue article: "Kue is an Indonesian bite-sized snack or dessert food. Kue is a fairly broad term in Indonesian to describe a wide variety of snacks including cakes, cookies, fritters, pies, scones, and patisserie.") so removing the Category:Cookies category and moving this article to the most specific category makes sense. For Bitterballen, this article is about a food with a Dutch word not about the dutch word. Also, I don't appreciate you insinuating that I'm vandalizing as you did with this reversion. Vandalism is a serious offense and should not be used lightly, so I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Vandalism to understand the difference as Wikipedia:Bold editing is WP:notvandalism. Now that I've explained my edits, please revert the 22 revisions that you made to my edits on April 15. Thank you. BaduFerreira (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Airlines
Question for you. Why would an airline need citation that was flying to Grantley Adams Airport for over 40yrs? Referring to Air Canada.
- WP:V, a policy. The Banner talk 23:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 62
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024
- IEEE and Haaretz now available
- Let's Connect Clinics about The Wikipedia Library
- Spotlight and Wikipedia Library tips
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 April 2024
- In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics and another wikirace on live TV
- News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law
- WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS)
- Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users
- Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem