User talk:HouseBlaster

Late Night Coffee and others

@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)

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)

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)

What limits do you have in mind, LateNightCoffee? I'm sure we can work something out :) HouseBlaster (he/they) 20:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster, I wrote a draft of some very detailed suggestions last week, but they are probably too detailed. The short version is: write less on my talk page, so it's easier to find the important things. Late Night Coffee (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the easiest guideline for Mason to follow, without drifting back into bad habits, would be to have a "one-thread limit" on my talk page. I want any messages that are not urgent to go somewhere else. The reason I ended up archiving the wrong thread (see below) was that we were also having a less urgent discussion in another thread. Late Night Coffee (talk) 08:31, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster, @Aesurias, @Jc37, @Liz, This restriction 23:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC) seems excessive and unhelpful. Is there a way to appeal this situation? Was there a time limit on this restriction? Is there something I need to do before editing in category space again? Late Night Coffee (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Conversation between HouseBlaster and Smasongarrison/other admins

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

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

@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)

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)

I have archived them now. I had already seen them and they were collapsed so not visible as such, but I took the collapse wrapping off before archiving them. Late Night Coffee (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Does this mean that "you going to stop editing in category space until HouseBlaster" thinks you're ready for editing in category space? ^SMason_Garrison 21:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I left the link to this thread. So I can find this easily. Late Night Coffee (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I like to put important links on my user page. It clears the clutter from my talk page while keeping the links super easy to access. You can even add links to your own talk page archives, if you want to keep track of the discussions.

I think you are gaining valuable experience in other parts of the project, which will serve you well when you return to categorization. What if you let me know by posting on my talk page if you want to create a new category, and I can give you my thoughts on the proposal? That we, we can take it slowly and talk through some real examples. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 01:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I was going to suggest something similar yesterday, I didn't see this until today. Late Night Coffee (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you tag me in replies to help me find them here please? Maybe I should add that to my signature, how do I phrase it correctly? Late Night Coffee (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

LateNightCoffee and Smasongarrison

From my talk page: "Definitely allowed, and frankly, encouraged. My request remains the same: : 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)

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)

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 ^SMason_Garrison 18:20, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I am not "dismissing" or "ignoring" you. I have been giving you all of my attention whenever you message me. I have usually been checking my talk page as soon as I see the notification, and if I don't check it straight away I pause editing until I check it. However, I can only find, read, and respond to one message at a time. You make it almost impossible to keep up, because sometimes you write very frequent messages in multiple seemingly unrelated threads. Late Night Coffee (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Please note that sometimes the notification becomes visible as I save an edit:

Step 1: You write the message and save it.

Step 2: I save the edit I was working on while you were writing the message.

Step 3: The notification appears on my screen.

This is a technical limitation of either Wikipedia or my device. Late Night Coffee (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I had stopped making new categories. This is what I thought we agreed that I would stop.

e.g. 16:12, 10 March 2026 (UTC), "Sorry, I was looking for Category:Religious terrorist incidents in 2009 and it didn't exist, so I picked the decade...".

If I was editing normally, then I would have made the missing category,

Late Night Coffee (talk) 10:40, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@LateNightCoffee The request was and remains much broader. It included that you stop making new categories, but it also includes ANY edits in category space."I asked you to stop editing [in] category space". ^SMason_Garrison 23:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@Smasongarrison, I acknowledge that you have said that now. I have now seen that you have said that. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Smasongarrison, As soon as I found your message, I stopped immediately, e.g.

I suggest making this list as a subpage, not a talk page. Talk pages are for discussion. ^SMason_Garrison 16:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I was trying to start a discussion about creating subcategories for that category: Category talk:Religious terrorist incidents in the 2000s § Can we have years? it's currently just a heading and an unfinished list. Late Night Coffee (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@LateNightCoffee:What is your goal with this most recent comment/quote? I don't understand why you are rehashing the sequence of events. I can pull diffs as well, but I don't see how it is productive to map out the timeline of events. ^SMason_Garrison 23:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Smasongarrison, I thought there was an "Incoming ANI filing" about me archiving the wrong message?

User talk:LateNightCoffee/Archive 21 § Incoming ANI filing

But I read that message again and I think I misunderstood? The person who started that thread is saying the "Incoming ANI filing" is coming from them that day, and it's been a week now, so they probably changed their mind?

When I first read that, I thought they were warning me about something you had submitted, because you replied to the thread. You seemed to be endorsing their plan? Why did you reply to that thread? Do you know anything about the "Incoming ANI filing"? Late Night Coffee (talk) 04:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Smasongarrison, Please don't reply to other people on my talk page. It is very confusing. Why do you do it? Late Night Coffee (talk) 04:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@LateNightCoffee The ANI was about your editing behavior more broadly. I encourage you to read it again. I understand that you find things confusing on talk pages, but asking someone to not respond to other people on your talk page isn't really reasonable. ^SMason_Garrison 14:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Please note, I may not have seen every message on this page. Especially if I was not named in the message. Late Night Coffee (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Conversation between HouseBlaster and LateNightCoffee

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

@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)

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)

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

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)

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

@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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

@HouseBlaster, some previous suggestions above. Has anyone else had difficulty communicating with Mason? I don't have problems with any other users. I have disagreements with other users, but I can easily find and I understand their messages about those and talk about them constructively. Late Night Coffee (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure Mason has had difficulty communicating with other editors, though that's not unique to her. Anyone who has done any sustained amount of editing will find a couple of other editors with whom they just don't "click". Doesn't mean you (or Mason) are bad people, or failing to communicate, or what have you. It just means some people communicate in a certain way, and some people don't work well with that. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 02:07, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

...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)

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)

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

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think Category: Berries would be a good default for most situations. I find it easier to understand a short analogy than a long explanation. An analogy from an unrelated topic also helps disambiguate cases where there might be a difference in knowledge or opinion about the topic as well as (or instead of) a category concept issue. Late Night Coffee (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree! Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 19:42, 18 March 2026 (UTC)