LaundryPizza03

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 26

Hi! There are a bunch of stub discussions now at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 26 which you started. Your response to the question at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 26#Template:Bhutan-tv-stub (and any discussions which you feel have particular considerations) would be very much appreciated :)

Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 15#Category:Deaths from food poisoning

Hi again. I don't know if you got my ping at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 15#Category:Deaths from food poisoning, but I would also appreciate your input there. Thanks!! HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Please stop your category revisions on Fiveling

I know you mean well, but you are putting in categories that are pretty irrelevant. The dominant relevance is in nanotechnology, and various aspects of chemistry and physics such as nucleation. Adding "five" as a category is not relevant, and these nanoparticles are of marginal mineralogical relevance. The article has seen expert review, and you hopefully recognize that major players have contributed, see for instance the talk page. If you really want to argue that your version is correct I suggest asking at WT:PHYSICS rather than creating an edit war. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: Again, categories need to be as specific as possible. Can you possibly come up with more specific categories yourself? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. Being very specific, while fivelings can be nanoparticles, they are also formed at larger sizes by electrochemical means, as already detailed in the article. The latter is materials science, as are other aspects such as disclinations. Please stop trying to put big concepts described in many thousands of articles into little boxes that don't fit. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't do anything new. I just removed two categories that are already covered by more specific ones. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

They are not. Please do the research, WP:COMPETENCE. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Deleting Ninety-Nines

Can you explain why you suggested the Category Ninety-Nines for deletion? As a new wikipedia editor, who is trying to improve the content for women's categories, I do not see why my contribution to building this new category was deleted on your suggestion? Nayyn (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Anglo-Spanish wars

I have readded the link to "Anglo-Spanish War (disambiguation)". Contrary to what you think, this does not create a circular link on the disambiguation page. In fact it is a trick used to fool the maintenance bots to think that the template does not link to a disambiguation page, while it is doing that. But without the redirect, the maintenance bots will start shouting that is is an incorrect link that needs to be fixed. So please, do not remove it again. The Banner talk 15:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@The Banner: Actually, it does create a circular link, and that is the problem. Is there a way to have it unlinked only on that page? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain to me where it creates a circular link on the disambiguation page?

I know that it creates a text like "Anglo-Spanish War >>> (Redirected from Anglo-Spanish War (disambiguation))" but that is not a circular link. It is just a link that shows how you got on that page. The Banner talk 18:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

In the transclusion of the template! Do you not know what a circular link is? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the issue. Templates with disambiguation links is a useful page to look at. The redirect prevents the template to show up there. But when you like to fix the problem in ten different articles... The Banner talk 18:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)