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 with 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 exempted 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)
We did talk about it; consider it done. Congrats! --20:56, August 28, 2017 (UTC)
- Congrats, Madam B'crat with the empty profile! ;-) 21:02, August 28, 2017 (UTC)
- Also, fixed Longbottom family#Family tree. -- 21:23, August 28, 2017 (UTC)
- Ow, wow, what a surprise! Thanks everyone, especially Seth. :) ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 23:49, September 6, 2017 (UTC)
Bot went through and removed the redundant Wands category on the recently changed pages. I'm not sure what you mean about the "false positives" so need more info there. Thanks on the new rights! Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:11, September 7, 2017 (UTC)
- The bot only removes higher level categories, not same level categories, so that shouldn't be a problem. If you run across a bot edit where this has happened let me know as it may represent some oddly complicated situation I'm not aware of. As for Wands, the edits removed the parent category but left all the equal-level children categories like this. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:46, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
He contacted me on a smaller wiki I edit -- right here; I thought you, as the one who banned him (the second time, that is), should know. I told him I'd contact you about it, though, of course, you're not obliged to do anything at all. Cheers. -- 19:08, September 13, 2017 (UTC)
- Following an admin to another wiki they edit and badgering them to unblock you doesn't show reformation. It shows a refusal to accept a boundary that was set as a consequence of one's individual conduct.
- Danniesen contacted me on the Harry Potter Answers wiki earlier this year. "Remember me?" he asked. How was I supposed to take a message that, in my most charitable interpretation, read like harassment, and, in my worst, like a veiled threat? Maybe the creepy tone that came through to me was simply the result of poor phrasing. Whatever the case, it unsettled me. Especially since being followed to other wikis by irate blockees hasn't been an isolated incident for me. It's happened three other times. I'm tired of it.
- Do people you block here on the HP Wiki stalk you to other wikis you've edited? Do they stalk CubsFan? Because there's a pattern that's standing out to me that aligns with experiences I've had elsewhere.
- Danniesen had nearly four years of second chances on this wiki. Maybe he's changed. I'm not particularly motivated to sacrifice my comfort on this wiki to appease an indefinitely-blocked user's need for redemption. I drew a line in 2013. He needs to move on, as do the others. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 06:39, September 18, 2017 (UTC)
Just wanted to know if cursing was allowed on this Wikia. Because a friend named HarryPotterRules1 recently cursed me over Lucius Malfoy's death info. I would greatly appreciate it if you inform him that adding assumptions or personal point of view on any character or event related to any literary creation violates the copyright law. My friend believes that Lucius Malfoy was actually declared dead by the author herself owing to some specific valuable words of Draco in "Cursed child". It would be the world to me if you kindly make him understand that mentioning of a person in past tense, Doesn't actually make him Dead.
Hope you are having a nice day!