User talk:Web-julio

November 2024

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Dietrich Braess, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 21:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Smasongarrison it doesn't seem you tried to improve the categorization. Has he a disputed gender? It doesn't appear looking the bio. Is there a more specific category for German men in his field? Then subcategorize, but since you didn't provide an explanation nor pointed where I did something wrong and my edit follows that guideline, as I see he is not the only one directly in the German men category, then I boldly reverted as I think you didn't pay enough attention to this issue. Web-julio (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I reverted your change because German men is a container category. ^SMason_Garrison 23:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Smasongarrison So what's your suggestion then? Keep him genderlessly categorized? Web-julio (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Review WP:CATGENDER. ^SMason_Garrison 23:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Please read the instructions on Category:German men. ^SMason_Garrison 23:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I see, you're right, I didn't open the category page before categorizing. For me, containers were only categories with "by" in their name. Web-julio (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Smasongarrison is it right now? He is in the West German men category, which is a century category. Web-julio (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

That's the same problem. Any men categories that aren't intersected with an occupation are container categories. ^SMason_Garrison 23:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh the template isn't there. Web-julio (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Good to know -- I've added the container cat. But a good rule is to see if other pages are in the category if the categorization guidance is confusing. ^SMason_Garrison 23:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see, I didn't know they were unnecessary on enwiki. Web-julio (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Please stop adding red-link categories. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Magnolia677 Oh sorry I forgot to create before filling the category. Web-julio (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

You created a useless category. There is already a category for "Erotic dancers", so the category you should have created would have been a sub-category of this. What a mess you're making with all these wonky categories. I think User:Smasongarrison discussed this with you above. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, with this edit you added a category identifying her as "bisexual". Perhaps I missed it, but where in the article does it say she is bisexual? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Magnolia677 Not every LGBTQ dancer is an erotic dancer. If you dislike it, you can nominate it and its siblings (I didn't create Category:Lesbian dancers, for example).

While for Aline article, it is already in Brazilian bisexual actresses, Brazilian bisexual musicians, and Bisexual singer-songwriters, its infobox already tells she is a dancer (it is also on Brazilian female dancers and Afro-Brazilian female dancers).

The reasoning is already on intersection PSID. Web-julio (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

And forgive me, I honestly didn't erotic dancers shouldn't be in general dancers categories. I guess it's like writers vs songwriters categories case. Web-julio (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Web-julio please slow down. The conversation here makes it pretty clear that you're unfamiliar with norms/categorization on english wikipedia. ^SMason_Garrison 22:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I really think you should not be using speedy tagging tool, like quick categories. Like why are we making an intersection of gender+sexual orientation+occupation. Like how does this meet the criteria for EGRS? ^SMason_Garrison 22:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Also as I've worked my way through your edits, it's pretty clear that you've removed a lot of the category keys for LGBTQ categories (gay men and lesibians). Gay men and lesbians are supposed to be in both the main LGBTQ category and a gendered child category if it exists. There have been several CFDs about this. ^SMason_Garrison 23:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I was just explaining why I was doing so, I didn't subcategorized in a void or in bad faith. If the article was saying she is bisexual and a dancer, you were using the reversion tool abusively because all unsourced content should be removed, not just my edit. Web-julio (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I reverted because there was literally no mention of the word bisexual in the article. But you're really missing the point. The point is that you really need to slow down on categorization because you don't seem to understand that you are making categories that are inconsistent with categorization conventions. Like just look at how the German men conversation went down. I pointed you to policies and the category documentation itself and repeatedly asked you to read the policy. You really really really need to listen to what others are saying.^SMason_Garrison 05:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The German men is totally different as I learned something. Unrelated, I was being constructive, and the gender+sexuality+occupation are pertinent with EGRS as most categories like that exist. That's debatable? Ofc, but every time someone brings it up in CfD it's kept. Web-julio (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not "totally different". You reverted repeatedly and insisted that the reason be spoon fed to you. Instead of asking without reverting. ^SMason_Garrison 05:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I only reverted when I couldn't see an explanation or a easily thinkable/plausibly handy reason. And some edit wars are okay as long they are short (less than WP:3RR). And I say that occupation and sexuality are okay as I remember seeing this discussion. Web-julio (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

No -- edit wars aren't ok. It's a waste of volunteer time. Just ask if it's not obvious to you. You really need to recognize that you are learning so not everything will be "easily thinkable/plausibly handy reason" ^SMason_Garrison 06:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Category:Lesbian Jews, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Don't just revert as a minor edit and demand an explanation. There is a long-standing norm and several CFDs pointing towards nesting lesbians. ^SMason_Garrison 05:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

But the Category:LGBTQ people is a grandparent of Category:Lesbians so they should follow up if a layer exists. Web-julio (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I will try to stay in tune with enwiki redundancies, that's not common in my native-language Wikipedia. Web-julio (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Smasongarrison But where is the policy regarding lesbians specifically? "Norm" isn't a thing. Web-julio (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

That is not the convention. I have literally explained this to you several times. The category is not fully diffused. I am going to restore the status quo. The point is that you are not familiar with the norms. I am happy to explain things, but only if you stop making disruptive changes. Ask first don't just revert. The are several CFDs about how to handle LGBTQ nesting. ^SMason_Garrison 05:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually how about you revert your revert, so that we don't get into an edit war. ^SMason_Garrison 05:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Please revert your removal if you want me to dig up the CFD. ^SMason_Garrison 06:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, you said you wanted status quo, so you should automatically open up a CFD on Category:Jewish LGBTQ women because status quo implies this category shouldn't be there as well. Web-julio (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

You know what I meant, there is no need to be snarky. This case resulted in adding sort keys: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 2#Category:LGBT people by identity But there are several others related to it that have resulted in being merged to center LGBTQ identities, such as:

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 30#Category:People by sexual orientation

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 21#LGBT by gender and sexual orientation. ^SMason_Garrison 06:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that I know what you meant, but I usually like to point out the fact of literalness that makes the first impression on me Web-julio (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you want to actually learn how this works? Or do you want to just be snarky and waste up volunteer time? Literally -- you are not making this a rewarding experience. I have asked you nicely to slow down because you are making a lot of time wasting edits. I have pointed you to resources, and proposed a less damaging approach to your edits while you learn. ^SMason_Garrison 06:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry I sounded dismissive because I answered quickly before checking those CfDs. I confess that I was anxious to answer but at the same time I felt that I needed to explain why I did that comment, which I'm also sorry if that sounded rude. Web-julio (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It's fine, but my point still stands. I am happy to help you learn, because I'm always excited to have new editors who are interested in categories. But I don't want to fight you or have to battle/edit war to get you to actually listen. ^SMason_Garrison 06:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I just looked these CfDs. It doesn't seem the issue you brought is really addressed. Following 96z's consensus, they disregarded it. If a metacategory (container layer) existed, they would be in the same level, according to this comment, but this never happened, but in the last CfD, Marco issued again but the consensus turned different. Web-julio (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This was an extremely mess series of CFDs the recreator was warned for it. It was eventually sorted out. You are welcome to dig more into it. ^SMason_Garrison 06:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

But the key point was that this closed with merge all to Category:LGBT people" and resulted in sort keys. ^SMason_Garrison 06:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm heading to bed. But I encourage you to also chat with @Omnis Scientia as they know a lot about categorization as well. ^SMason_Garrison 06:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay thank you. I think categories are cool, and I thought they were guessingly easier to manage.

About the sorting, I thought they were a case of a figuring out thing. Anyways, thanks again. Web-julio (talk) 06:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Yep -- categories are actually pretty complicated once you dig into them. One suggestion to get you started might be to work on diffusing an existing category like an occupation that needs to be diffused by nationality or a century that needs to be diffused by occupation. I think that will help you get more familiar with how categories work. What kinds of categories are you interested it starting with? ^SMason_Garrison 00:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

So I'm going to take your comment at the RFD as you being uninterested in learning. I have to admit that that's fairly disappointing, given our conversation here. ^SMason_Garrison 02:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Smasongarrison is very kind to say so! I've been inactive in categories for a while as I undertook a rather ambitious project related to Major League Baseball which has taken up a lot of my editing time! So I'm not as up to date as I would like. However, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. :) Omnis Scientia (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect

Hi! I saw your comment here. I didn't close that discussion, so won't be re-opening it, and I deleted that redirect because it was created by a WP:sockpuppet, so will not be undeleting it either. But you're perfectly free to create a new page at that title if you believe it is needed. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aceflux, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asexual.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)