Template talk:Intro Special:UncategorizedCategories

Reverts due to misunderstanding

You again reverted my addition of the most useful way to find categories relevant for an uncategorized category and apparently still don't understand what is meant. How can I explain it better? Maybe with a specific example:

If Category:Decline in insect populations does not have any categories and you can't think of all or many and probably in any case one should check the linked Wikipedia article which is mainly en:Decline in insect populations. It has categories "Entomology | Environmental conservation | Insect ecology | Population ecology" so one would either copy these categories as text because the categories are probably named in the same way here or redirecting to the WMC equivalent or go to their category pages, e.g. Category:Entomology, and then from there go to the corresponding Wikimedia Commons category linked on it. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

If we don't "seem to have consensus" you should reply to my clear explanation here and apparently you misunderstood it earlier. If you don't reply that means I can make my change. I may have not waited long enough however. Please clarify why you remove this. This is the most useful way to find relevant categories and that is why it should be there on the page like with the points below it and your previous rationale was a misunderstanding what I mean. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I still disagree with your proposal. As said, Category:Animals isn't on any of the two lists, neither is Category:Decline in insect populations.

Please attempt to address points raised in the reversal explanation before expecting any additional feedback.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This was an example to explain my point. I did, you didn't. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

My point is that your example isn't relevant to the lists in purview. If anything I wrote isn't clear, please ask.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Now it's an explanation. I don't know why you're saying so little when it wasn't self-explanatory. Why would it not be relevant?

The example is that if cat Decline in insect populations had no categories other than the meta categories of the infobox which in this case is cat "Uses of Wikidata Infobox" then one could do what I described. It is an example. I hope I don't have to remove all the other categories from that category to make this a relevant example for illustration. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This is meant to be a practical guide for people working with these lists. We can reconsider the suggestion when Category:Animals or the other sample is on it.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This. is. an. example. for illustration. Could you please consider that. There is no reason why the point would not be relevant for items on the list. You certainly have not named such. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The point is not relevant because all the items on it only have an infobox that is empty. There I did it for you, would have simplified everything a lot if you simply explained it which can be done with a text as short as 12 words. Could you move the report to "Report UncategorizedCategories with empty infobox"? However, the point I added would still be relevant and very useful for Commons:Report Special:UncategorizedCategories. Maybe this template could be split so there is one specific to items that have empty infoboxes. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are aware of it, but WMF projects generally are not meant solely for chatting.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You are the one not addressing points. I think I may take you to AN/U because it seems like you try to provoke me either ignoring or making one brief incoherent statement instead of explaining and now accusing me of chatting after I answered my own question that you should have done and asked you concrete questions. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

If you don't want to answer my question I could also just go ahead and copy the template and the version that includes the point I've added to Commons:Report Special:UncategorizedCategories. Maybe that would be best. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I've added useful information how to categorize categorized categories and this time made it clearer and only show up on the Commons:Report Special:UncategorizedCategories. You reverted the edit. You did not explain why it shouldn't be there. So I will readd it and if you revert it again without replying here start a discussion at some noticeboard. Please explain why you removed this helpful info and don't make a problem or a lengthy discussion where no such is needed, thanks. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Despite being chatty, I think you still haven't respoded to Special:Diff/916915677 uf August 28.

Maybe you should reflect on why you are unable to provide a genuine sample from these lists for your advice on how to handle entries in this list.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I did not and do not understand what you mean with that category isn't on the list. However here is your genuine sample: Category:Rogerius (physician) is on that list, it does not have any categories, and it has a linked Wikipedia article which has categories "12th-century Italian physicians", Italian surgeons", "12th-century births", "1195 deaths", "12th-century Italian writers", "12th-century writers in Latin", "Medieval surgeons". Any other questions or can I add it now? Prototyperspective (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I dont' think anything needs to be done about Rogerius, it will automatically disappear from the list.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

So a bot already syncs the categories? I haven't seen that happen in other uncategorized categories but that would be best and it's why I put manually there explicitly as it would probably be best if sooner or later this was done automatically. In that case – if nothing needs to be done about that category, I think it may need either:

• another report where cats with linked Wikipedia articles are not included
• or a change to this report (to the query) so cats with linked Wikipedia articles are not included anymore
• or (at least) a column for whether or not the item has a linked Wikipedia article so human users can go through this report skipping these (e.g. by sorting by that column and skipping those with linked item)

Prototyperspective (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)