User talk:HouseBlaster

HouseBlaster is currently sick and is taking a Wikibreak in order to improve personal health. This user plans to return once healthy. Your patience and kindness is greatly appreciated.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 14 days are automatically archived 2 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Feminism and Folklore 2026 starts soon because this page is listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe.

A new page that I created called, "Draft:Baylor Scott & White Medical Center – Irving" received a "Speedy deletion" by "Dianna." Part of the reason provided was that it sounded like it was created by AI, but I created the page myself based on publicly available information, so I'm not sure what the issue is. --DataUpdates01 (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the page for violations of our copyright policy. You were notified on your talk page of the reason for the deletion. See User talk:DataUpdates01#Speedy deletion of Draft:Baylor Scott & White Medical Center – Irving. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, but the reason provided was that it sounded like it was written/created by AI, which it was not. I created it all myself and found several third-party references to cite. I was trying to mirror it off of a currently published location page for their Plano location: Baylor Scott & White Medical Center – Plano. I don't know what information triggered the issue, but I noticed that there are several missing entries for Baylor locations, so it seemed like a gap. DataUpdates01 (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DataUpdates01: Two different things happened to the draft. First, it was declined by Padgriffin for allegedly looking like an AI submission (I disagree with that decline reason; it sounds like you used your own words). Declined drafts are still editable and can be resubmitted at any time.

However, after it was declined, Diannaa deleted it because it copied sentences word-for-word from this source. That is a copyright violation, and we have to delete copyright violations to comply with legal obligations. The reason it was deleted has nothing to do with AI. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 19:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that additional clarification and context. I definitely want to follow the guidelines. Do I need to start from scratch if I want to try to get an entry for that Irving medical center published, or do I just need to revise the part that was the copyright concern instead of starting from scratch? DataUpdates01 (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DataUpdates01: I would recommend starting from scratch. The parts that are not copyright violations are not neutrally-worded. For example, Baylor Scott & White Medical Center – Irving has provided care to patients in Irving, Las Colinas, Coppell, Grand Prairie and the surrounding communities since 1964 sounds like what the center might write on their website. We want to say something like Baylor Scott & White Medical Center – Irving is a hospital in Irving, California which opened in 1964. Your writing should err on the side of being boring. I would highly recommend Help:Your first article for further instructions. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 16:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that advice. It definitely helps. Have a great day. DataUpdates01 (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DataUpdates01, thank you for reaching out! I agree with Dianna's comment above. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 18:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, welcome, welcome HouseBlaster! I'm glad that you are joining the March 2026 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Cielquiparle (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2026).

Administrator changes

• Brendanconway
• Calmer Waters
• Hut 8.5
• Joe Roe
• VersedFenrir

CheckUser changes

Ks0stm

Oversight changes

Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the web archival service archive.today has been deprecated; links to the site should be removed.
• A request for comment is open to discuss retiring CSD criterion R3 in favour of handling such redirects through RfD.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedy 9.1 of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been amended to limit TenPoundHammer to one XfD nomination or PROD per 24-hour period.
• Following a motion, the Iskandar323 further POV pushing motion has been rescinded.
• The Arbitration Committee has passed a housekeeping motion rescinding a number of outdated remedies and enforcement provisions across multiple legacy cases. In most instances, existing sanctions remain in force and continue to be appealable through the usual processes, while some case-specific remedies were amended or clarified.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2026 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: A09, AmandaNP, Barras, Count Count, M7, SHB2000, Teles and VIGNERON.
• An Unreferenced articles backlog drive is taking place in March 2026 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

MediaWiki message delivery 17:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hi --Bunbunboythegoat (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

help plz :( --Bunbunboythegoat (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bunbunboythegoat! What do you need help with? HouseBlaster (he/they) 20:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the old speedy notice on that category. For context, the nomination of the tree went to a full CfD and moved a different way. This one that (correctly) stayed the same must have been missed in the close and didn't have the notice removed. If you find any others still on there, that's why and they should be removed. Mclay1 (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense; thank you for the background :) HouseBlaster (he/they) 04:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While creating Template:Palnadu-geo-stub, I realised it was previously deleted as the relevant sub category had only one page. While there may be only one page now, there is a potential for more pages to be added, as Palnadu has currently only 64 out of potential 500 geo entities. So I would like to retain this template, as it will be helpful for editors to increase the focus on improving articles, when they are categorised at the district level. Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arjunaraoc! New stub types should go through the WP:NEWSTUB process. Personally, I believe that recreating the template, but not the category, is appropriate at this stage. The template can populate Category:Andhra Pradesh geography stubs to keep the stub categories in the goldilocks zone while allowing the subcategory to be recreated once more articles have been tagged with the template. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 17:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster, Thanks for your reply. I started Enwiki work on improving the Andhra Pradesh geo articles recently. In the last decade I worked extensively on Tewiki and as the community was very small, we did not have such restrictions. Now I became aware of the process and appreciate the insight behind the same. I will stop creating stub categories without due process. Arjunaraoc (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of collection development in management of information services and operation --Slimdoll (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slimdoll! I am a human, not a robot, so I am afraid I don't understand your question. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 19:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Contentious topics/topic specific standard templates has a line that says "No page restrictions editnotice". Given that links to the template for talk pages about page restrictions, I'm not sure why there's a "No" there? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:12, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, never mind, I'm blind as a bat it seems and missed the one for page restrictions just above! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Bushranger! I can easily see how this is a weird way to layout that template—I have proposed using a parenthetical (mandatory for an editor's first alert) or (mandatory for pages with active restrictions) to convey that these alerts are mandatory on clerks-l. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 22:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hai HouseBlaster I just looked on Gmail and it said you are my new mentor I do not know what that is I mean I know what a mentor is but I do not know what the mentor is on Wikipedia so let me know as soon as you can thanks ^^ >///< Oreoboi74 (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oreoboi out :D Oreoboi74 (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oreoboi74! As your mentor, I am here to answer any questions you might have about Wikipedia. Let me know if you need any help—we were all new once :) HouseBlaster (he/they) 07:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ok thank you :D Oreoboi74 (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, mentor!

Just navigating the world that is Wikipedia, and I do have a couple of questions :)

1. What should typically go on my user page? I have seen yours (which I LOVE), but what's a good starting point?

2. I primarily made this account to support the company I work for (Crown Worldwide Group) in keeping the Wikipedia page about it updated with the latest facts and figures. Of course, we have all of these internally to hand, but these aren't always citeable which I appreciate doesn't best help.

How are we/am I best to approach making updates to this WIki page without just saying "I work here, trust me!" (of course, not to add anything promotional, purely factual stuff like employee numbers or Key People). --PetrichorTears07 (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PetrichorTears07, and welcome to Wikipedia! Wikipedia:User page design guide can help you design your user page. I like to include a brief introduction and any links you want to remember for later, but that is up to you! There is a list of things you should avoid in your user page—most are intuitive, like no personal attacks.

Which brings me to our Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Because this is part of your job, you are considered a paid editor, and must disclose it. Tying in to the above, the easiest way to do this is on your user page: add {{paid|employer=Crown Worldwide Group|article=Crown Worldwide Group}}. To source simple facts, we often use a company's website. Simple things like typos are fine to fix yourself, but for anything more, I would recommend using the edit request process. Let me know if you need any additional help! Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 19:03, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseBlaster! It's been awhile since we've last chatted, and I hope that you're doing well and that life is treating you kindly. :-) I saw the edit that you made to the Wikipedia:Functionaries page yesterday, and I'm curious about your removal of the text, "must be authorized by the Arbitration Committee or the Wikimedia Foundation, and" from the page - as well as your edit summary, "ArbCom doesn't authorize new arbs to become functionaries, not sure what role accounts have to do with functionaries".

The text that you removed from the page (or at least what I translate or interpret it to refer to) only refers to the fact that the Arbitration Committee is who appoints new functionaries ("functionaries", meaning users who have checkuser or oversight permissions). I didn't see how it explicitly referred to (or even implied) that "ArbCom authorizes new arbs to become functionaries". That statement doesn't make any sense to me, since the community is who elects the Arbitration Committee's members (who become functionaries), and the Arbitration Committee is who can appoint non-committee members to the functionary team by granting them checkuser or oversight access.

I was hoping that you could elaborate and explain your thoughts behind the edit you made to the page and exactly what you're referring to with your edit summary. If anything, I'd like to resolve or fix any details or information on the page that are confusing, ambiguous, or incorrect, and I think that discussing this with you will help me to improve the page. :-) (When you respond, could you ping me so that I'm notified? I'm in the process of cleaning up my extremely and ridiculously huge watchlist, and I want to make sure that I see it) Thanks a lot in advance, and happy editing! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah, so good to hear from you! I'll take the blame for not being clear enough in my edit summary. What I'm trying to say is that newly-elected arbitrators (like me!) become functionaries without the approval of the Committee. But, on second thought, ArbCom itself wrote the procedure which says CUOS is given to incumbent arbitrators, so ArbCom does technically authorize all new functionary access, including for newly-elected arbitrators. I'll restore that wording, and thank you so much for reaching out :) HouseBlaster (he/they) 00:03, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, okay! I see what you were getting at with your thoughts and your edit to the page. Correct; users who are departing ArbCom following the conclusion of their elected term can either choose to retain either the checkuser or oversight permissions, elect to relinquish one or both of those permissions but remain subscribed to either mailing list, or relinquish the permissions and have themselves removed from all relevant mailing lists. You referenced WP:AC/P in your response with an interpretation that I totally agree with; while outgoing arbitrators have the ability to retain those permissions, it's well-implied (in my interpretation and opinion) that electing to keep those permissions is also provided that current ArbCom members don't object to it (and even if that's somehow "invalid", the committee can always just start a motion basically saying "no", or a motion to revoke the permissions). Anyways, I'm digressing... either way, good thoughts! Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:51, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi my mentor so what do I do here --Hallowed's Updates (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hallowed's Updates, and welcome to Wikipedia! I would recommend volunteering at the task center to get started. Let me know if you have any questions that come up while editing :) HouseBlaster (he/they) 20:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've been butting heads with a user (@LateNightCoffee) who is in the realm of WP:IDHT for categorization. I find myself being less patient than I usually am because it feels like I'm making the same request over and over. I don't want to color your perspective, but I would really like someone else to help them learn to listen to the ways of CFD. ^SMason_Garrison 01:02, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to learn and listen. Your feedback has been very long and very vague. You tell me to learn how categories work, I've read what you have linked. Nobody else seems to object so strongly to what I have done with categories.

I would prefer you raised objections in categories for discussion. This means you need to make a specific suggestion about a specific category. When you have done this I usually understand what you mean.

When you write frequent long messages on my talk page, I get more confused. For example, pne thing you repeated was "I told you to slow down" (or words to that effect). This made me think "fewer new categories" was what you wanted, but I think trying to follow that led to strange categories that were the opposite of what you wanted. Late Night Coffee (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LateNightCoffee I tagged you as a courtsey. My intent was for you to be aware that I was asking another admin, like I said [9] on your talk page. My hope was that Houseblaster would be able to explain the problem in a way that neither Jd37 nor I could. ^SMason_Garrison 04:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc37 (or @Jd37?) gave me information and I read it. They did not seem to think there was much of a problem. Late Night Coffee (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the links in the hope it would help. I'm sorry that I haven't responded to the pings til now, it's been a full week for me.

I think you are fortunate to have HouseBlaster here offering to help. They have been very active at WP:CFD, and they are experienced with categories. And due to other responsibilities they've been entrusted with, have experience in dispute resolution as well. I think think they made a very good assessment below, and am happy and content to defer to them. Though I'm happy to help or answer policy questions as I can.

I mentioned above that positive engagement to work things out is a good thing. I'm glad to see you're both still trying to achive that understanding, even if confusion or misunderstanding may occur. I wish you well. - jc37 11:47, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi both of you. LateNightCoffee, I'll start by introducing myself—I'm HouseBlaster (House or HB for short), and I love categories. I really appreciate your contributions, especially at 2025 Bondi Beach shooting. I truly appreciate all the work you've done for Wikipedia.

I've looked over some of your CFD participation and the most important thing I see is that you want to improve, both your own understanding of Wikipedia and the category system itself. No matter how we get there, I'm sure we'll come away better understanding everything.

I think I see two bits of confusion. The first is about WP:DIFFUSE. If a page is in a category, it should not appear in any of that category's "ancestors" ("parent" categories, "grandparent" categories, "great-grandparent" categories, etc.). We make some exceptions—WP:FINALRUNG is the most common one—but that is not applicable here, as far as I can see. I think the other one is WP:OVERLAPCAT, which discourages categories which substantially overlap but are not in a parent/child relationship.

However, I think the real problem is that you are both talking past one another. Mason, do you have any particular problem(s) do you see in LateNightCoffee's category editing? LateNightCoffee, what are you want to accomplish with your ventures into categories? I'd appreciate it if you could reply to me, not to one another, because I think will be far more productive. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 06:56, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc37 @HouseBlaster @Aesurias, I think I mostly understand categories, and I have found most people's feedback helpful. I'm just having some very severe communication problems with Mason. Late Night Coffee (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'm in the position to ask for this, but is there a way to ask for a limit or some boundaries or guidelines on communication? I think this will actually help me understand and follow the things Mason finds most important. Late Night Coffee (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to ask for it, and I'm very willing to try follow them. I don't like the dynamic either. But, I'd like to also make my own suggestion that I think will help. ^SMason_Garrison 04:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

However, I think the real problem is that you are both talking past one another. Mason, do you have any particular problem(s) do you see in LateNightCoffee's category editing? LateNightCoffee, what are you want to accomplish with your ventures into categories? I'd appreciate it if you could reply to me, not to one another, because I think will be far more productive. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 06:56, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks HB! I agree with your assessment. I do welcome their enthuasism and see a lot of potential for a good member of CFD. Hence, I've been putting in a lot of time. But, I'd really like them to stop missapplying those two guidances you pointed out, and slow down with creation until then. I find myself needing to add a lot of missing parent cateogries. From my perspective, the situation feels like a hydra. It feels like I can either spend the time to work through their misunderstanding or add the missing parents. I'd really like to only have to one of those at a time. I think that because I'm struggling to do both well; I'm finding myself more annoyed at the situation and less patient than I normally am. And most importantly, it means that I am less effective at following the communication suggestions that LNC has made. Their suggestions are for the pretty reasonable; it's just not an automatic approach. So sometimes I forget, then try to fix it, and it just makes more noise that doesn't help the situation.^SMason_Garrison 14:48, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster, @Liz is now in a similar level of exhaustion User talk:LateNightCoffee#PLEASE STOP! ^SMason_Garrison 01:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the editor's foot has moved off of the accelerator pad so mass production has ceased and a discussion is possible. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am in the process of writing a reply. Late Night Coffee (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, should I continue trying to fill the empty categories? Late Night Coffee (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked out how some of my errors happened. It wasn't a conceptual misunderstanding, just a procedural oversight. I know pages are not supposed to be in parent + child pairs of categories, but I've been removing only one parent for each category that I add. Usually this works, because usually any shared variables (e.g. year) are all a subcategory of something else. But I found one that had a different parent of the intersecting category at the other end of the list. I've probably often made this error? It didn't occur to me to check for that. Late Night Coffee (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LateNightCoffee Please focus on replying to @HouseBlaster. They asked " LateNightCoffee, what are you want to accomplish with your ventures into categories? " ^SMason_Garrison 18:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison: I think that makes sense, and I sympathize with your frustration :)

Besides the issues I identified below, do you see any other problems? Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 20:12, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just feel like from the conversation unfolding below; they don't seem to really recognize the big picture problem. One suggestion that they have made is to be concise and direct. That strategy has worked somewhat, but it requires a lot of repeating/rephrasing of the same policies and a lot of specific examples. It has taken an extremely large number of admins on a short timeframe to make any progress. ^SMason_Garrison 02:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, another problem is bludgening at CFD: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 February 20#Category:ISIS-linked attacks. They keep asking for everything to be nominated there, in spite of being told that that's not a good use of community time. ^SMason_Garrison 02:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to this statement by LNC "Mason is angry at me" is not even close to accurate. I was feeling frustrated at the situation, but at this point, I'm now feeling disappointed/mild defeat that categorization might be beyond their skillset. ^SMason_Garrison 03:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are so confusing to "newer" (and even more experienced) editors. It is not constructive to indirectly allege a lack of competence because they are trying to help clean up a mistake. It is clear that this user is competent, their contributions confirm this.

When they engaged with the discussion in question, as one normally does, you replied with "Why are you commenting up here?...please don't do that." Do you want them to engage or not?

It can be easy (and very understandable) to unintentionally assume that everybody knows general reply etiquette and other rules when you have almost 1 million contributions. I think it would be shocking if this didn't happen, so I don't think you should be criticized for it, but they can't know of a rule before they are told, and initiating your reply with what is essentially a reprimand is not helpful. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aesurias I understand that categorization is confusing. But, this user has asked me to be direct, literal, and concise. Hence my question and instruction. Questions of competence are not something I take lightly. I believe in WP:CIA. However, based on my experience, it's a question I wanted to convey as tactfully as possible. ^SMason_Garrison 11:55, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still in CIA territory. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 23:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I hope we stay in CIA territory. Take care of yourself re:Flu. ^SMason_Garrison 23:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster, @Liz, @Smasongarrison, my talk page is too full،, and messages are too frequent. Can I please remove the "do not archive until". There is too much there and I don't want to miss anything urgent. Late Night Coffee (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to stop editing in category space until HouseBlaster feels better enough to continure the conversation? I added the archive so that the warnings would stay visible on your talk page. ^SMason_Garrison 18:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From my talk page: "Definitely allowed, and frankly, encouraged. My request remains the same[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]: : please don't make ANY changes to category space in any form while the discussion is ongoing. ^SMason_Garrison 17:20, 11 March 2026 (UTC)" The talk quote doesn't work with the links. Late Night Coffee (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know that now but it was not clear from "The core message is still the same that you've been asked to stop" etc. Do you understand that repeating a message like that 13 times does not help? I haven't checked all 13, but there is a general problem of clear frustration and very unclear instructions. Late Night Coffee (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is better than I don't respond. You are welcome to think that 13 requests to stop over multiple days in response to ongoing edits is excessive. I encourage you to reconsider your workflow. This could have been prevented if you had actually waited like you promised [21] ^SMason_Garrison 18:20, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was agreeing to wait before doing everything in the plan I was describing above, 21:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC). I'm still not entirely sure what you mean by "sorting articles within categories". That could mean adding categories to articles, which I promised Liz I would do to fill the empty categories. Late Night Coffee (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was also paying less attention to your message than usual in that section, because I thought you were not supposed to be in that section? It was called "Conversation between HouseBlaster and LateNightCoffee". I didn't think I had the authority to repremand you, and complaining "she shouldn't be in my section" didn't seem constructive. So I was a bit dismissive. Maybe I'm wrong about which bits you were allowed to reply in? That's the other reason I didn't complain. Late Night Coffee (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really not understand the problem with sending me so many messages like that? Read the messenge, read what it says. "The core message is still the same that you've been asked to stop." Read it from the point of view of someone who has different knowledge to you and cannot read your mind, someone who remembers different parts of the conversation to the parts you remember. You are not telling me what you want to stop, and if you send 13 messages, I'm less likely likely to find the few where you tell me what you want me to stop doing. Late Night Coffee (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

my last edit in category space was at 17:03 on 10 March

• 17:03, 10 March 2026 diff hist  +373  Category:Buildings and structures destroyed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant "That name is way too long" Tag: Reverted

My last edit in category talk was at 17:09 on 10 March

• 17:09, 10 March 2026 diff hist  −203  Category talk:Buildings and structures destroyed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant →Subcategories

Most of those messages that I've checked so far were after that? Late Night Coffee (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is not helpful to rehash this. I asked you to wait. You did not. I asked you to stop editing category space. You did not. I gave you a final warning at 16:27, asking if you understood. You ignored and reverted it. If you did not understand what stop means, you could have asked. Ignoring the messsages and continuing the behavior is not a good use of volunteer time. ^SMason_Garrison 21:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I *really* wanted to just wait for HouseBlaster to avoid this same loop. I wish this had played out differently. But you do have to find a way to attend to administrator and community feedback without dismissing/ignoring it. ^SMason_Garrison 22:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

However, I think the real problem is that you are both talking past one another. Mason, do you have any particular problem(s) do you see in LateNightCoffee's category editing? LateNightCoffee, what are you want to accomplish with your ventures into categories? I'd appreciate it if you could reply to me, not to one another, because I think will be far more productive. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 06:56, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster, I couldn't read it in the previous colour. Late Night Coffee (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster, I was away from the computer for a while and I'm still working on a more comprehensive response, but an example would help me respond. Can you give an example of WP:OVERLAPCAT? e.g. categories that I have made that overlap? and what they overlap with? Late Night Coffee (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster, I think I mostly understand the concept of WP:DIFFUSE. The problems with that have been a mixture of poor communication (on both sides) and accidental errors. Have any of the problems with that been in edits from the past ~24 hours? Late Night Coffee (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In more recent edits there were two things that Mason already nominated in categories for discussion today: Category:ISIL attacks on non-Muslims and Category:Political terrorist incidents. I acknowledge those are not optimal, they were a first attempt at something that fits both the category guidelines and the available pages. I also possibly misunderstood some of Mason's feedback. Late Night Coffee (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster, Before I get into too much detail about the possible misunderstanding and what I have changed to reduce errors, have I understood the problem? Those two categories, their subcategories and edits from more than 24 hours ago? Late Night Coffee (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There were also empty categories that @Liz notified me about. Those were unfinished. I'll fill those and check them before I create any new categories. Late Night Coffee (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LateNightCoffee: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 February 20#Category:ISIL-related incidents by year is an example of WP:OVERLAPCAT.

I haven't seen any WP:DIFFUSE errors in the last 24 hours, but I haven't been able to review all of your edits

To my understanding, it was the issues you mentioned plus the creation of empty categories. To avoid work for admins, I like to create a small number of categories (no more than two or three), populate those, and only then create more categories if more are required. Can you commit to doing that going forward? Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 20:12, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've found a better way to do it. Instead of empty categories I create or find ita suitable parent category and add a sort key (e.g. year) as I add them to a parent category. Then I can assess how to divide it. When I've seen what there's enough pages for, I go back and change "|" to "in" or whatever the suitable join is. Late Night Coffee (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to an example where you did this? I want to make sure I understand what you are saying :) HouseBlaster (he/they) 21:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The other option is to add red links. I don't know if that's better. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You physically can't put a red link into a category, and you shouldn't put a page into a red-linked category. HouseBlaster (he/they) 03:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did this on the pages in Category:Massacres in Myanmar, which I think might benefit from splitting by date? There's a lot of gaps in the dates, but they could fit in the date based sets with events at other locations. It's a bit more readable when most have dates e.g. Category: ISIL attacks on Muslims and Category: ISIL attacks on non-Muslims Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Edits like Special:Diff/1342389373. Smasongarrison, do you have thoughts on this practice? HouseBlaster (he/they) 03:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that as being helpful for readers looking to find the page. People expect pages to be sorted by name, not the year of the event. If they're learning about new events through exploring categorization, how can they be expected to know what year the event is. ^SMason_Garrison 03:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my reaction as well. I don't think that adding sortkeys by year is helpful, because they get lumped together under the heading "0–9", not sorted by individual year. Does that make sense, LateNightCoffee? HouseBlaster (he/they) 03:12, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LateNightCoffee please look at HB's comment about not adding sort keys. ^SMason_Garrison 23:30, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out, I missed it earlier. Late Night Coffee (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster

Not as a long term thing for readers. The idea was something I could do as a way to keep track of pages temporarily (for a few hours or a few days) while assessing suitable subcategories to create.

I am looking for a way to keep track of possible new categories that makes less work for admins, so I suggested this as an alternative to creating empty categories and then trying to fill them. Also, it's a way to plan more effectively, and create better categories from the beginning, instead of creating awkward poorly defined categories like Category: Political terrorist incidents.

After seeing what pages are available I can assess what categories can be created. Then, for example, I can change [[Category:Right-wing terrorist incidents|2019]] into "Category: Right-wing terrorist incidents in the 2010s" and then create the decade categories.

If there are not enough to divide into the categories that I was planning, I can remove the sort keys myself, or any other editor can. It is less admin work, and less work for other editors in general? It's a better workflow than creating empty categories or poorly defined "first attempt" categories?

Can I do the temporary sort keys method while I add pages to the currently empty categories? Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add the sort keys as a comment to the category instead? Or make a list on your own page. Either of those solutions would not impact other people using the existing categories. ^SMason_Garrison 03:01, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison, tag me in replies so I can find them please. Late Night Coffee (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments would not work at all. The information is usually on the page. The point is to put that somewhere I can see if all together. Late Night Coffee (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A list sort of works, but would be more error prone. Late Night Coffee (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LateNightCoffee I vote you do this one then. You could use table if you want to sort things. But I really think that changing how pages within a category are sorted would not be wise. ^SMason_Garrison 05:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

what are the rules for red link categories? Late Night Coffee (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LateNightCoffee Redlinked categories are not allowed. ^SMason_Garrison 05:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Late Night Coffee (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But the sort keys actually works better than red links. Late Night Coffee (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a draft category function. There's Category:Sandbox, but that doesn't have most of the functionality. The ideal answer would be a draft category template that goes on the actual pages, and can be used to plan complex data structures, but doesn't show up in normal category mode.

• Template for the page, could be invisible to readers, or visible but labelled. With space for a proposed category name and a draft category ID.
• A corresponding template that can be used in suitable namespaces (user, draft, category talk, etc.) to display the categories, based on the ID.
• Then useful but not essential, a bot that can be used to turn the draft category markets to real links or remove them. Possibly they should just expire and get auto removed.

But maybe this is already what red links do?

Late Night Coffee (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster can you explain why that is an overlap cat? Late Night Coffee (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Looking at their contents, Category:ISIL terrorist incidents by year contains 13 subcategories. Category:ISIL-related incidents by year contains 16 subcategories, including all 13 in Category:ISIL terrorist incidents by year. That is a very high degree of overlap. I'd also consider the theoretical contents of each category: what would go in one category but not the other? Are those common? I don't believe so. Therefore, I believe they qualify as WP:OVERLAPCATs. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 21:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

what would go in one category but not the other?

All of the things in Category:ISIL that are not in Category:ISIL terrorist incidents, but "events" fits better than "incidents". I haven't looked at every year, but there are 10+ from 2013 that are in Category:ISIL but are not "ISIL terrorist incidents". Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I estimate this if about half of the pages. The group are almost universally regarded as terrorists, but many of the pages are not an "ISIL terrorist incident", e.g. 2025 United States strikes in Nigeria is an attack by the United States against ISIL so that is in Category:Military operations involving the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and not "ISIL terrorist incidents". Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have understood almost none of what Mason has written on my talk page. It's not helping at all. I have told them several times to stop writing long explanations on my talk page, and instead pick an example to submit to "categories for discussion". When they do this I often immediately see their point, when I still don't understand someone else usually joins the conversation and rephrases it in a way that makes sense. We sometimes disagree, but I usually see their point. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see Mason's objection above that CFD nominations consumes lots of community time, and I think that is reasonable. Perhaps she could write concerns on your talk page in the form of a CFD nomination, if that makes more sense for you? (Example: I would nominate [categories] at CFD with the rationale [rationale].) I see Mason's other concerns about bludgeoning and conciseness. Do you have thoughts on those concerns? (Replying to these questions is a great opportunity to practice being concise .) HouseBlaster (he/they) 03:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That might help a bit, but could it be on the "Category talk:" page instead, please? Mason can put one notice on my talk page linking a discussion on the relevant talk page, and indicating how urgent it is, e.g. "please look at this when you get time" or "I need you to immediately stop doing anything in category space until we have resolved this". If the category needs to be deleted, the conversation can be on the parent category's talk page. If it needs urgent follow up then Mason can put a reminder on my talk page, but not every reply please. Late Night Coffee (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Category talk:" is somewhere others can find more easily if they are interested, but there is less obligation for admin follow-up? Late Night Coffee (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm a bit of a hypocrite, Mason and I are both prone to long replies. I'm trying to keep it short, but I'm not very good at it. e.g. I wasn't sure if I should delete this bit to make it shorter? I decided to include it for if it's needed, skip reading it if it's not? The reasons for Category talk:

Using Category talk pages means the conversation can last as long as needed. Mason keeps changing my archive settings trying to have long conversations. I worry I'll miss an urgent message from someone else if my talk page gets very full and I get frequent notifications.

Moving the conversation to Category talk will also help make the conversation calmer and more constructive. When I get the big yellow talk page notice I worry it's urgent, so I check it straight away. Getting that for every reply leads to a heated and stressful discussion. If I get the urgent notice just once it will be easier to slow down and think about it, instead of immediately checking and giving rushed frustrated responses. Late Night Coffee (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've actually got further away from the category guidelines by attempting to follow Mason's instructions. The only meaning I got from all of those messages was:

• Mason thinks I don't understand the category guidelines
• Mason wants me to make fewer categories
• Mason wants me to work more slowly
• Mason is angry at me

Based on the first two points, I have been trying to do everything with the smallest number of categories. The repeated signal to make fewer new categories made me create them as if I had a new category ration and needed to use it sparingly. Then recently Mason nominated one of my categories to be split and I realised that "fewer new categories" was not the point. Late Night Coffee (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Mason wants you to ration your category creations. I think she wants you to slow down while you are learning the norms of categorization, which sounds similar, but is different in spirit. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 03:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I gathered "while I learn" was the point, but nothing else that Mason wrote made much sense, so I focused on using the minimum possible number of categories ahead of other things sometimes. I ended up doing some strange things that probably made Mason even more convinced I didn't understand? Late Night Coffee (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For example, if I wanted a new category I would look for an existing category that I might be able to rename, instead of making something new. Late Night Coffee (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also kept trying to sort everything in the Category: ISIL in just one set of "by year". Every name I thought of was "non-defining" and thus a sign I didn't understand categories and needed to make fewer categories. I now think that part of the problem is that it needs more than one set? But this is 14 years × however many sets it needs didn't occur to me as as option because the loudest message was "stop making so many new categories". Late Night Coffee (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to write a short sorry for this bit? It feels weird not to.

Contrary to this statement by LNC "Mason is angry at me" is not even close to accurate..

Late Night Coffee (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! HouseBlaster (he/they) 23:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I already did on my own page. Late Night Coffee (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that was the reality, only my perception. I misinterpreted almost everything Mason was saying. The meaning, and the tone, and the intent. I think a very big misunderstanding at the start was the cause of most of the problem. Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

...what are you want to accomplish with your ventures into categories? 06:56, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• Sort the pages in Category: ISIL by year, including all of the pages in Category: ISIL that can be sorted by year, not just Category: ISIL terrorist incidents
• Sort all of the pages in Category: Terrorist incidents by ideology, intersecting with by year and by decade. Preferably in a way that means even unusual ideologies are visible in a "by decade and ideology" category, alongside other ideologies.
• Add some other sub-categories to Category:ISIL, and a few other small things, but those are probably best discussed on a case-by-case basis in categories for discussion.

I don't know how much detail you want? Late Night Coffee (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough detail. I also have just found out that I have the flu. I know, terrible timing—I was vaccinated (@talk page watchers: get your shots!) so with luck it shouldn't last too long. I hope to resume this conversation sooner rather than later, but I have to put my health first. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 23:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I hope you feel better soon. Late Night Coffee (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LateNightCoffee some of these goals can be achieved within category space. However, please wait on creating or sorting articles within categories until HB is well enough to resume the conversation. ^SMason_Garrison 23:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn't intend to rush ahead. I was just answering HB's question from earlier. My first few attempts to write this were way too long, and it took me some time to put it clearly in something shorter. Late Night Coffee (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster, What is "CIA"? sorry I replied in the wrong section by mistake. I deleted that and I'm asking here instead. I presume I'm allowed to read the section and respond here? Late Night Coffee (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Totally allowed! CIA refers to comptetence is acquired. The idea is that with time and support editors can help contribute to the project. Hence, these conversations involving multiple admin to help get you there. ^SMason_Garrison 00:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've worked out what went wrong. This is too long, sorry, I've been unsure how to talk about this bit, but I think it might help Mason understand why I was so confused for so long.

The problem was that for a very long time, I thought we were having a conversation about terrorism. I got very stuck on this misconception because the first few changes that Mason made to my work superficially resembled things other editors do for completely different reasons. Mason moved Category: ISIS-related incidents by year to Category:ISIL terrorist incidents by year using speedy rename. I had been working on articles, and in that context people have very long and heated arguments about adding or removing the word terrorism. In these conversations it's about the meaning of the word, and the appropriateness of the word to describe the event. So, when Mason added the word "terrorist" to ~14 of the ~20 categories I had made, I jumped to the conclusion that the thing Mason felt strongly about was the word "terrorist". I now know the actual reason was to make it match the tree Category: Terrorist incidents by year, so that it connected to the other intersecting categories. But because it's such an emotive word, that a lot of people have strong opinions about adding or removing, I completely missed the real reason to put it on every category name. I read every word of every message, but I completely missed the point, I kept looking for "the important bit" and I thought that was terrorism. One of the only memorable messages was this.

I also removed: Category:Military operations involving the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant from Category:ISIL terrorist incidents by year because again this doesn't make sense as a parent category of "by year". Maybe for ISIL terrorist incidents ? But I don't really think even that's appropriate because it implies that all the terrorist incidents are military operations. ^SMason_Garrison 23:09, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

An uncontroversial example would help there. I think the issue is that I had done the equivalent of making Category:Berries a subcategory of both Category:Kiwifruit and Category:Raspberry? But you had moved it already, so I was saying raspberries were a subcategory of kewi fruit? With an unambiguous uncontroversial example, I can see what's wrong with that? The thing I was confused about was what I thought you were expressing a moral or political opinion about the conceptual relationship between terrorist incidents and military operations, when you were actually making a point about a functional constraint of categories. Late Night Coffee (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LateNightCoffee Thank you for this explanaton. That is extremely helpful. Because you are right that my goal was to make sure your categories fit within the existing scheme For the example with berries, I think you're really close, but instead of "Category:Raspberry" think about it like "Raspberry by color", instead of ISIL terrorist incidents by year. ^SMason_Garrison 05:21, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I realised I was missing the second variable, but I couldn't think of an example. Late Night Coffee (talk) 07:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My questions probably didn't make sense, because I was trying to ask what you were saying about terrorism. Late Night Coffee (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military operations involving the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, has over a hundred pages, that's more than enough enough for it's own subtree by date? Then a Category:ISIL (all the pages) by year to join it to the renamed tree? It could be Category: History of ISIL by year within Category: History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. You put the renamed terrorism by year tree in the history category. So maybe that fits? Late Night Coffee (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you added a sort key to my adding it, but you seem to think it belongs. Late Night Coffee (talk) 08:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it very difficult to understand abstract explanations about new topics. When explaining categories please give an example about a topic that's unambiguous and uncontroversial. If you don't want to spend time finding one, just make up an "Alice" + "Bob" + "person" example, or use berries every time. I'll probably understand that in about two sentences. Sometimes the disagreement might be that we actually are defining a concept differently, e.g. the definition of a word used in the category name. But a simple example on another topic will help identify that much faster. Late Night Coffee (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the key observation: we need to talk in hypothetical examples (perhaps accompanied with a brief the official guideline is at WP:XYZ), rather than abstract concepts. Right now, are there any category concepts you want explained with an example? HouseBlaster (he/they) 21:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HouseBlaster,

I have a question about Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 23#Toys by decade.The closure clearly says not to delete the nominated categories that were under discussion but some editor(s) have emptied all of these toy categories (see Category:Toys by decade), leaving the CFD tags on and I'm not sure what the next step should be here. Thoughts? Suggestions from you or your talk page stalkers would be helpful, Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz! I looked through the removals and they all seem appropriate (for example, Category:1800s toys used to contain only Category:Board games introduced in the 1800s, which is in line with the close). I think removing the CFD tag and adding a C1 tag is the appropriate course of action. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 06:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 18:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseBlaster,
I temporarily recreated this page as signature links under my old username were broken. For now it redirects to a disambiguation page. Could you please email me a copy of the content so I can refine the redirect? Thanks! (I'm sending you this message as you're in a category of admins willing to provide copies of deleted articles.) TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 03:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

{{ygm}} :) HouseBlaster (he/they) 04:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Are there any other revisions or is that the only one that ever existed? (If that's the case, I'll just redirect it.) TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 05:00, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If there are more revisions, you don't have to email them to me individually. Just a revision restore would be good enough if possible. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 05:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are two more revisions: after the revision I sent you, you completely blanked the page, and then you added a {{db-userreq}} tag. I can restore those if you want, but there is nothing substantive. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 16:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. Not worth restoring. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 16:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]