FANDOM

Starstuff

Bureaucrat Admin
  • I am Female
(Difference between revisions) | User:Starstuff
m (RE Creature categories)
m (RE Creature categories)
Line 245: Line 245:
 
:It should allow for multiple child categories of the same Parent category. Looking at an easy-to-understand example, an article can have both [[:Category:Hufflepuffs]] and [[:Category:Sorted in 1992]], but any of the parent categories [[:Category:Sorted in the 1990s]], [[:Category:Sorted in the 20th century]], [[:Category:Hogwarts students by era]], [[:Category:Hogwarts students]], etc, or [[:Category:Individuals by Hogwarts house]], etc) are removed as being redundant.
 
:It should allow for multiple child categories of the same Parent category. Looking at an easy-to-understand example, an article can have both [[:Category:Hufflepuffs]] and [[:Category:Sorted in 1992]], but any of the parent categories [[:Category:Sorted in the 1990s]], [[:Category:Sorted in the 20th century]], [[:Category:Hogwarts students by era]], [[:Category:Hogwarts students]], etc, or [[:Category:Individuals by Hogwarts house]], etc) are removed as being redundant.
   
:As for [[:Category:Vampire]], I can't find where the bot removed [[:Category:Beings]] in the history - do you have a revision in mind? It removed "Non-Humans" which as a parent of "Creatures" was redundant, and then later removed "Creatures" as redundant given "Living Dead" is under "Creatures" via "Creatures by classification". It looks like it took two passes but both of the removed categories are parents of Living Dead, so are seen as redundant - all "Living Dead" are "Creatures" which are all "Non-Humans". Is there a need to have those direct links?
+
:As for [[:Category:Vampires]], I can't find where the bot removed [[:Category:Beings]] in the history - do you have a revision in mind? It removed "Non-Humans" which as a parent of "Creatures" was redundant, and then later removed "Creatures" as redundant given "Living Dead" is under "Creatures" via "Creatures by classification". It looks like it took two passes but both of the removed categories are parents of Living Dead, so are seen as redundant - all "Living Dead" are "Creatures" which are all "Non-Humans". Is there a need to have those direct links?
   
 
:Note that wikipedia makes the argument for a well structured tree without strict parent & child relationships and with articles appearing at the most specific category (i.e. as far down into the category tree as applicable), which is what the bot is trying to enforce (I can hunt down the article if you want). However, if we want to create exceptions to this rule of categorization that's totally fine by me, we just need to work out the exact rules as they will differ for each exception made (e.g. articles with "Sorted in 1992" can have the parent category "Hogwarts students", but not the intermediate parent categories "Sorted in the 1990s", "Sorted in the 20th century", etc...)
 
:Note that wikipedia makes the argument for a well structured tree without strict parent & child relationships and with articles appearing at the most specific category (i.e. as far down into the category tree as applicable), which is what the bot is trying to enforce (I can hunt down the article if you want). However, if we want to create exceptions to this rule of categorization that's totally fine by me, we just need to work out the exact rules as they will differ for each exception made (e.g. articles with "Sorted in 1992" can have the parent category "Hogwarts students", but not the intermediate parent categories "Sorted in the 1990s", "Sorted in the 20th century", etc...)

Revision as of 04:56, August 25, 2017

Archives
File-manager.png

Welcome back!

Have to chat sometime when it's not so late (or early as the case may be :) --Ironyak1 (talk) 10:05, November 20, 2016 (UTC)

It's been an eventful couple of weeks, hasn't it? Glad I'm Canadian. ;) Starstuff (Owl me!) 10:15, November 20, 2016 (UTC)
I wish you warm welcome back as well. I'm glad you decided to reconsider. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:20, November 20, 2016 (UTC)

Grindelwald image

Hi Starstuff. Is there any chance you could authorize a change to Grindelwald's main image? I think it's fairly obvious that the image should be from Fantastic Beasts, but apparently a vote from five years ago is preventing the image from being updated. I understand the need to establish consensus in most cases, but there should be exceptions, and this is clearly one. I think it's pointlessly bureaucratic to insist on holding another vote just to get the image updated properly... however if that is what needs to happen could you please set it up? Cheers. - Xanderen signature 08:58, November 21, 2016 (UTC)

What is the source of this image? As far as I know, there hasn't been an front-facing image of Grindelwald from Fantastic Beasts released through official channels, only the picture of the back of his head. And if it's something someone captured by taking a picture in a movie theatre with their camera phone, well, in most countries, photographing or filming a screen in a theatre is considered piracy and against the law (yeah, snapping a single frame of a movie is worlds apart from recording the whole thing, but them's the rules). Images obtained through such means present legal issues and probably wouldn't fall under the protection of fair-use provisions. So we should wait until an image becomes available from a legitimate source. And, even then, we should probably still hold a vote to establish consensus and prevent inevitable edit wars. There's no single standard for determining which image should be featured in the infobox of a character's article. Some prefer to use an image of the appearance from the most recent release (in Grindelwald's case, that would be from Fantastic Beasts); some prefer the most recent appearance in terms of the internal chronology of the franchise (in Grindelwald's case, that would be Michael Byrne, who appears in a scene set in 1998); and some just prefer to pick whatever image they deem most ideal in terms of quality. Discussions and votes are generally the best method of hashing out a consensus. Starstuff (Owl me!) 09:41, November 21, 2016 (UTC)

Credence

Sorry - JKR's comment was just my short-hand summary. The hint in the film & script is that a piece of the Obscurus is seen slipping away. The confirmation comes from Heyman in that there is a deleted scene of Credence leaving NY afterwards and that he is in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them - see the article ref for Credence in the cast list there. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 15:01, November 21, 2016 (UTC)

Talk Page

Can you give your two cents on the Theseus Scamander talk page? P.S. Welcome back. Kindly never leave again -- we have missed you! Please and thank you.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 15:16, November 21, 2016 (UTC)

Bakery timeframe

On Henry you have February 1927 as the timeframe for that scene - where did you get this from? I ask because Case of Beasts has some related props with March 1927 on them (Flour order forms and a calendar in the Bakery). I'll upload them later but figured I'd ask in case there is conflicting info to sort out. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:01, November 21, 2016 (UTC)

The scene heading of Scene 123 (the establishing shot of Jacob's newly-opened bakery) is described as being set "three months later" in the official screenplay book. The main part of the film is set in December 1926, so I just tacked on three months, or at least I thought I tacked on three months. Seems my math is as good as JKR's. :/ Starstuff (Owl me!) 18:07, November 21, 2016 (UTC)

Infobox themes

Just an FYI, I think the color themes for the Individual infobox may be hiding out in MediaWiki:InfoboxColours.css. Perhaps you could try changing a value there and see if that works? If so, it should be pretty straight forward to add the extra themes and we can complete the changeover (if not, the hunt continues). Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:26, November 27, 2016 (UTC)

Macedonia

Macedonia countri did not called MACEDONIA it called Former Y'ugoslav' Republic of Macedonia and if you doubt reed this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Macedonia at wikipedia.Ververisd (talk) 08:45, December 4, 2016 (UTC)

Both those links could and should have been in internal format, thus: Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia. And incidentally, open wikis such as Wikipedia are not valid sources, as they are only as good as their last editor. — RobertATfm (talk) 09:14, December 4, 2016 (UTC)

Angelina Appleby

I'm glad you accepted that picture. I have had it on my phone for the last two and a half years, and at one point wanted to upload it. But I think I misunderstood the guidelines to what you were allowed to upload, so I just never did. Glad I changed my mind.

SiriusLeeNott (talk) 21:54, December 4, 2016 (UTC)

RE:History vs. historiography

I know, "historiography" just seemed a more to-the-point term for a category encompassing "Historians" and "Archives": both the writers of History as a discipline and record-keeping seem, to me at least, to have to do with historiography, broadly speaking. Though I understand the semantic rub. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:49, December 5, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for The Tip

Sorry for adding pages to the wrong categories. That and I accidentally put Category:Spells of Unknown Incantation on the page for the Cushioning Charm / I miss took it for another page I was looking at. sup>(Aiden1700's)</sup> 14:19, December 5, 2016 (UTC)</span>]]</sup> 14:19, December 5, 2016 (UTC)14:19, December 5, 2016 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism in Harry Potter

I'll give it to you that no direct mention of the word 'Zoroastrianism' or "Zoroaster" is made in the HP canon, however I would like to point out that the root word "MAGI" (from which the modern English words "MAGIC", "MAGIZOOLOGY", "MAGICAL" and "MAGICIAN" all derive) comes from the 6th century B.C.E. Zoroastrian term for their followers, specifically, their priests who practiced specific rituals with the intention of invoking supernatural powers (what we today would refer to as 'magic'). They weren't the first to do so, obviously (cthonic gods and goddesses were worshipped by much older civilizations), but they were the first to codify their 'magical summonings' and other such practices in writing. Our westernized understanding of what magic is/isn't is primarily based upon Zoroastrian activities.

Ditto for the science of Astrological divination, which IS a course studied in Hogwarts (called merely "Divination") and upon which the Centaurs' entire social structure is based.

So, no, Zoroastrianism isn't specifically mentioned, but it's interpretation of the cosmos and in its practices of that faith are a primary influence upon the HP universe. Without Zoroastrian's defined brand of "magic" and the delineation of its practices carried down through the ages, all the way to JKR's belief system on the subject, HP would simply be a story about some people running around using modern weapons to stop a government coup by Nazi-like bigots.

Since Zoroastrianism hasn't been mentioned within Potter canon as we define it, even indirectly (say as "that monotheistic religion that starts with 'Z'"), it shouldn't be mentioned within the main body of an in-universe article. The main bodies of in-universe articles are for presenting canonical information about the Potter world from an in-universe point-of-view (i.e., as if the fictional characters, things, and places in the books/films actually exist, and as if the fictional events actually happened).
There's some leeway given in allowing the presentation of information not presented in canon in an in-universe article if it's necessary to define a subject, e.g. Detroit is never explicitly stated to be an American city within a canon source, but we can assume that the real world location of the city carries over to the Potterverse. Similarly, black holes (mentioned on the cover of A Brief History of Time, a book featured in the third Potter film) are never described/defined within a canon source, but we can assume what they are carries over from reality for the purpose of defining them. But this exception to the general rule only applies to things that are mentioned within canon, which Zoroastrianism isn't.
But it's fine to discuss the real cultural influences behind things in the books/films within "Behind the scenes" sections. You could probably work in a brief summary of how Zoroastrian religious beliefs and practices influenced the Western conception of "magic," and thus how magic is depicted within the HP books/films, into the "Behind the scenes" sections of magic, divination, or other relevant articles. Starstuff (Owl me!) 21:37, December 6, 2016 (UTC)

Goldstein's Bookcase

Hey - just wanted to let you know that the new Fantastic Beasts exhibit at the WB Tour in Hollywood includes a picture of the Goldstein sister's bookcase. Mugglenet has a low resolution version, but figured you might be interested to help keep an eye out for a readable version. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:29, December 13, 2016 (UTC)


Two Mistakes

Sorry for this but I accidentally added Spells of Unknown Incantation to the Cushioning Charm and Flintifors. I'll look at all of the ones I messed up with. I don't know how to undo it. But do you? User talk:Aiden1700's) 016:00, December 13, 2016 (UTC)--Aiden1700's

Case of Beasts template

FYI - I separated out The Case of Beasts: Explore the Film Wizardry of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them into it's own template {{CB}} as it's not a "Fantastic Beasts..." title. Also {{FB}} is going to get increasingly complicated with the future films, screenplays, games, etc so easier to keep these companion books with differing titles separate IMHO. Hope that makes sense!

PS Do you want me to add a page option so it can be cited as {{CB|27}} = The Case of Beasts ... page 27

PPS Do you have a copy now? It's another great MinaLima creation! Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:27, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

1. Good idea in terms of spinning off Cases of Beasts into its own template. Regarding future films, it would probably be easiest to create new templates for each film, i.e. {{FB2}}, {{FB3}}, etc.
2. The page option function is also a good idea.
3. I've had a copy for a while now. Best behind-the-scenes book about the films to date, hands down. :) Starstuff (Owl me!)
Good idea about {{FB2}} - will add that in soon as we already have FB2 appearances confirmed. Also I'll add in the page option on CB.
Yeah, MinaLima really outdid themselves! If I can coax some life out of my scanner there are many great images to capture for the book covers, bottle labels, pastry drawings (gotta love that Jacob put these in a loan application :) and of course the explanation for Newt's "expulsion". --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:02, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

Hey

Can you see the edits I made on the Cygnus Black III and Crabbe Family pages?--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:39, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

Those additions, to be completely frank, are reaching and unhelpful. Modern scientific research has greatly enhanced our understanding of genetics and largely outmoded the deterministic Mendelian model of inheritance. We now know, for example, that there's multiple genes at play in determining eye colour. The idea that male pattern baldness is exclusively inherited from the maternal line has also been debunked. And, even if Mendelian inheritance were still widely accepted, that doesn't mean it should be used as the basis for inferences about a specific characters' appearances and ancestry in articles on this wiki. It's the very worst kind of speculation in that it's spinning sweeping conclusions out of the scantest of canonical evidence. Starstuff (Owl me!) 03:32, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

Percival Graves

Starstuff, put at the page of Percival Graves (here ) the informations about his wand that we know in his wand page (here ).

thanks for your time

Ververisd (talk)

I'm not really sure what you're requesting of me. Does this have to do with his potential wand wood? If so, that was removed for a valid reason, because, as someone noted, "ebony" refers to the material of the prop wand, and may not be what Graves/Grindelwald's wand is made out of in-universe. Similarly, most of the prop statues and gravestones featured in the films are probably made from painted plaster (it's cheaper to produce and lighter to transport), but if they're supposed to be marble or stone in-universe, then that would be treated as their canonical material. Starstuff (Owl me!) 08:51, December 31, 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hello Starstuff, I was just wondering how do you become and Administrator? I am already a discussions moderator, so I don't know if that helps. Thank you, Harrypotterfreak233 (talk) 20:34, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

Cheers!

Happy New Year to you as well! Hope the holidays are treating you well. I'm half-way through reading The Case of Beasts: Explore the Film Wizardry of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them and the wikia to-do list just keeps getting longer. May have to say that MinaLima is too detail-oriented (blasphemy, I know ;) Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 05:19, December 31, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, CB|pages is on the to-do list (somewhere - like I said it's a bit out of hand ;). I've been using the format for citations knowing that once I add it in the extra info will get displayed. I'll update the template after I finish up fixing the poor Chocolate Frog Cards. --Ironyak1 (talk) 06:56, December 31, 2016 (UTC)
Christmas was pretty good, even though I'm glad 2016 is drawing to a close. Case of Beasts is an absolute treasure trove. It'll take us a while to mine it for articles, I agree, but consider it like a box of chocolates to be spaced out and savoured. :) Starstuff (Owl me!) 08:59, December 31, 2016 (UTC)

RE:Happy New Year

Thank you! Hoping this year'll be a great one to you and yours. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 16:01, December 31, 2016 (UTC)

Thank You

I just want to say thank you for replying to my question. I will definitely take your advice and wait until I have more edits. Thank you for the advice and have a happy new year! :^) Harrypotterfreak233 (talk) 12:50, January 1, 2017 (UTC)

Chocolate Frog Cards

Yeah, I thought about the last name sort, but it's probably going to be one of those refinements that has to wait (for me). Upon digging into the cards I've come to realise that there was (and still is) a lot of missing info. I still need to finish getting images from POA|G PC, then POA|G PS2 (which are mostly unique - See Gringott), review the portable versions of these games for differences/new images, hunt down the HBP|G NDS cards, and look at the real-life cards from Hasbro, Jellybelly, and Marks & Spencer in the UK. Honestly, I'm not even sure how deep this rabbit hole goes :) --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:09, January 2, 2017 (UTC)

Romilda Vane image

Hello Starstuff, I was just wondering if I would have permission to change Romild Vane's character bio image? I don't feel it captures what she looks like, and a better image would be of her in the library in the Half Blood Prince. That is al, thanks you Harrypotterfreak233 (talk) 21:10, January 2, 2017 (UTC)

Category:Patronus forms

Yep - no problem. I'll let you know when it's done. --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:50, January 17, 2017 (UTC)

Category:Patronus forms is done, but it only found 50 pages to move. Is there a naming issue as Category:Patronus Forms is now empty?
The Albania Map is tough as it's a small reproduction in Harry Potter Limited Edition - A Guide to the Graphic Arts Department: Posters, Prints, and Publications from the Harry Potter Films. I can try and see what is possible, but it is blurry to the eye so not sure the scanner is going to do much better. I wonder if this image shows up in any other book source at a larger size? --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:31, January 17, 2017 (UTC)

Protection of policy pages

Hi, Starstuff!

I've seen you protected some policy pages. I do understand you. But have you seen the text in Template:Policy which is to be seen on every page?

PROCLAMATION: Educational Decree No. 24 This page is considered an official policy on the Harry Potter Wiki. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that everyone should follow. Except for minor edits, please make use of the discussion page to propose changes to this policy.

Wouldn't it be better to change or delete it then when all are protected?

 Harry granger   Talk   contribs 17:12, January 17, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Starstuff (Owl me!) 03:06, January 18, 2017 (UTC)

Hawkworths

Hey - I was editting on my phone and the mobile skin doesn't give allow for an edit summary (?), but there is a clue given in the game - a pin has the initials E.H. and Ernest says that it belonged to his father and grandfather so it lends some notion to them all being E. Hawkworth. I'll put this in a ref when their pages get made. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:43, March 8, 2017 (UTC)

That's pretty much proof that Emmett was his paternal grandfather, then. :) - Starstuff (Owl me!) 19:49, March 8, 2017 (UTC)

Scamander biography

Snitchseeker did release a report yesterday. Apparently Amazon Germany had made the foreword of the 2017 edition of FB available for a short time. Do you think we should already add this infos into the wiki? It also talks about President Piquiry.

http://www.snitchseeker.com/harry-potter-news/newt-scamanders-new-fantastic-beasts-book-intro-teases-dumbledore-relationship-more-106857/

--Rodolphus (talk) 11:30, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

RE:Image sources

Hi. I always add the source as category. And I did it for Wu Han Po. In this case, FB1 film, meaning from the film Fantastic Beasts. Lady Junky 05:35, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry if you don't see it, but if I am telling you I took the poster thanks to a screenshot from the film... then that's because I took it from a screenshot of the film ^^ And I know the difference between a book and the film. So, there is no point to put my word in doubt because you did not find it personally ^^ I don't find that quite friendly personally. Lady Junky 14:37, March 9, 2017 (UTC)
Now I get why you thought it was a book ^^ Yeah, I got a digital copy of FB. Well, I'd be happy to show you at which moment I took this screenshot once you got your film :) I'll try to remember about the source thing in the future ^^ Glad we fixed the issue, thanks ^^ Lady Junky 21:01, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

Templates & Categories

I had made FB|C based on the name - ie Fantastic Beasts (...and Where to Find Them, ...Cases from the Wizarding World, etc) but agree that it is its own beast ;) so a separate FBC template makes sense.

On the 20th Century births category cleanup, I was wondering if there are any examples categories in which both a parent category and a child category should ever be on the same article? For births, only the most specific is added e.g. 1971 births, not 1971 births & 1970s births & 20th century births,) same for geography, and any category that I can think of. If this is true, then I can add a clean up option to the bot which removes any parent category from an article that has a child category already added. If there are categories that need to be handled specially let me know. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:34, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

The move from Category:Second War casualties to Category:Second Wizarding War casualties is done. Page counts (53) and subcategories (2) all look to be accounted for.
The bot should be able to sort categories alphabetically as part of its edits. I'll start there as a general fix and then expand it to check for and remove redundant parent categories as needed. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:57, March 10, 2017 (UTC)
In testing the bot category sorting, I ran across Blast-Ended Skrewt which appears to have both the parent category as well as children categories. Thoughts on keeping this arrangement or should it be cleaned up with only the child categories? This organization seems very common for Category:Creatures so let me know if it is an exception to the rule. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 06:51, March 10, 2017 (UTC)

Light up the Starstuff signal

In working through having the bot remove redundant categories (eg no need for Hogwarts students when Hufflepuffs is already there - all Hufflepuffs are Hogwarts students), I found the Category tree has many, many issues that need to be fixed first. As I've seen you hack your way through the categories, if you are around, can you please weigh in on the forum discussion before I fire up the chainsaw and start pruning? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:28, April 26, 2017 (UTC)

Hey, sorry I've been MIA for so long. I'll give the forum discussion a gander, if it's still active. Starstuff (Owl me!) 00:59, July 29, 2017 (UTC)
Happy you're back! Glad my guesses at the family categories were on target and liked the new hat articles :) Have to chat sometime. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:42, August 3, 2017 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

HagridBirthdayCake
Happy Birthday, Starstuff!
Have a good day!
 Harry granger   Talk   contribs 16:26, May 26, 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Even though my reply is woefully late! :) Starstuff (Owl me!) 01:00, July 29, 2017 (UTC)

The Generation Game

Thanks for the edit on The Generation Game, I found out that info from IMDB, though I always wonder what episode it was playing in the movie. (Hobbiton777 (talk) 22:53, July 30, 2017 (UTC))

It's a good catch. I'd always wondered what game show the footage was taken from. I didn't imagine the production team would go to the trouble of filming a mock game show just to use as a background detail. The show had a long run, so it would be difficult to pinpoint an exact episode, but based on the hair and clothing styles, I'd say it was from the 1990s. Starstuff (Owl me!) 23:00, July 30, 2017 (UTC)

Question

How come this user hasn't been banned? I normally wouldn't ask that, it makes me look impolite, but he is a remorseless rule breaker and Ironyak (and possibly several others) are constantly cleaning up his messes. Would you look into the matter? I might be wrong, but he has a bad history and present. Zane T 69 (talk) 23:42, August 22, 2017 (UTC)

I regret to say that I don't really know the history here. I haven't been as active on this site over the last year, so I suppose I'm not as aware of what's been going down. I'll look into it. Starstuff (Owl me!) 00:08, August 23, 2017 (UTC)

If it helps, I noticed this, and action is way past needing to be taken. That "final warning" gives you cause to infinite ban. It's now impossible to scan his 2100+ edits and ensure that they are high quality and comply with policies, that's why I'm obsessive about policing every edit on my home wiki. If you don't check them as they occur, then the work just keeps piling up. I'm not trying to seem rude, bossy, or condescending, but just sharing my experience in that regard. Zane T 69 (talk) 01:30, August 25, 2017 (UTC)

Ironyak and I discussed this on chat. She believes we may be dealing with a person with cognitive issues. I've enacted indefinite bans before at my sole discretion and taken some heat for it, so I fear overstepping. Starstuff (Owl me!) 01:47, August 25, 2017 (UTC)

I've checked their activity on their other known wikis and it seems to be exclusive to this wiki, so I didn't just suggest it out of hand. Maybe talk it over with another admin? Ideally Seth Cooper, as he gave the final warning. Zane T 69 (talk) 01:57, August 25, 2017 (UTC)

I've put a one-year block in place. If we're dealing with a young person, or someone who isn't a native English speaker, hopefully that will be enough time for them to gain the skills or temperament necessary to contribute constructively. I think Seth is mostly unavailable due to school. I won't really be available over the weekend. So that should keep a lid on the problem until Monday, hopefully, and allow productive users get back to business as usual. Starstuff (Owl me!) 02:07, August 25, 2017 (UTC)

Chat?

I'll be around for the next couple hours if you want to chat. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 00:45, August 23, 2017 (UTC)

RE Creature categories

Hey - so the bot removes any parent directory if a child (or grandchild, or great-grandchild, etc) category is present. As Category:Patronus forms is in Category:Creatures it sees Creatures to be a redundant Category on those articles - any Patronus form article is by definition a Creature and already in that Category tree. Options to address this could include:

  • Add a new, more easily found, Creature sub-category (e.g. Creatures by traits, etc). Note that the bot would still remove the Creatures category as being redundant.
  • Create exceptions to this categorization rule - Creatures, Actors, Hogwarts students are ones that come to mind, article in which now reside only in the lowest most leaf/leaves of their category tree (e.g. Patronus forms, DH2 actors, Sorted into Hufflepuff, etc...) This would be a loose category tree or a blend between categories and tagging systems.

I discussed this automated enforcement of child-only categories with Seth, but I don't think some of these nuances were clear at the time. If you have ideas, let me know and I can see about adding them to the bot for automated inclusion & correction. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:20, August 24, 2017 (UTC)

The bot runs on command - usually I run it about once every week or two and it is normally set to check the 500 most recent edits, and then up to 5000 random pages (depending on how long I leave my computer on at the time).
It should allow for multiple child categories of the same Parent category. Looking at an easy-to-understand example, an article can have both Category:Hufflepuffs and Category:Sorted in 1992, but any of the parent categories Category:Sorted in the 1990s, Category:Sorted in the 20th century, Category:Hogwarts students by era, Category:Hogwarts students, etc, or Category:Individuals by Hogwarts house, etc) are removed as being redundant.
As for Category:Vampires, I can't find where the bot removed Category:Beings in the history - do you have a revision in mind? It removed "Non-Humans" which as a parent of "Creatures" was redundant, and then later removed "Creatures" as redundant given "Living Dead" is under "Creatures" via "Creatures by classification". It looks like it took two passes but both of the removed categories are parents of Living Dead, so are seen as redundant - all "Living Dead" are "Creatures" which are all "Non-Humans". Is there a need to have those direct links?
Note that wikipedia makes the argument for a well structured tree without strict parent & child relationships and with articles appearing at the most specific category (i.e. as far down into the category tree as applicable), which is what the bot is trying to enforce (I can hunt down the article if you want). However, if we want to create exceptions to this rule of categorization that's totally fine by me, we just need to work out the exact rules as they will differ for each exception made (e.g. articles with "Sorted in 1992" can have the parent category "Hogwarts students", but not the intermediate parent categories "Sorted in the 1990s", "Sorted in the 20th century", etc...)
Hope all that makes sense - as we figure out the rules, I'll have the bot add back the extra parent categories to those articles with a related sub-category (e.g. all "Hufflepuffs" will also be in "Hogwarts students", all "DH2 Actors" will also be in "Actors (real-world)", etc... Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:56, August 25, 2017 (UTC)
*Disclosure: Some of the links above are affiliate links, meaning, at no additional cost to you, Fandom will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase. Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.