Category talk:Australian women journalists

non-fiction writers
journalism is non-fiction, so it is appropriate that be in the more specific  rather than the less specific, per Categorizing pages, "each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories". I do not think that "journalists" should a be a non-diffusing sub-cat of "non-fiction writers" ( is not), but if you think that it is, then feel free to add the appropriate template(s), rather than blindly reverting a valid edit. Alternatively, discuss the matter for discussion at WT:CAT. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Journalism is a type of non-fiction writing, but it is a different type to being a non-fiction author, which all of these people are. You've repeatedly demonstrated an inability to give any consideration whatsoever to the logic of these types of decisions (to the point where it often appears that the edits are being made by means of a bot), but if you're moving a subcategory out of a non-diffusing category, it's certainly not on anyone else to predict what category moves you might make and then pre-emptively prepare those categories lest you set either your bot or consistently non-existent judgment loose on them. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I note that no argument has actually been advanced for why women who were employed as journalists for a time but were also prolific authors of non-fiction throughout their careers should only be categorised as journalists besides "Mitch's bot picked up that the journalists category was a sub-category of the non-fiction category and automatically removed the parent without consideration and he gets mad when his bot's edits are challenged". The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I note that no argument has actually been advanced — An argument has been advanced, repeatedly (including in every one of my edit summaries), namely that SUBCAT explicitly says that the articles should be only in the more specific subcategories. The fact that you don't agree with the argument does not mean that it has not been presented.
 * If the women also belong in other sub-categories of "non-fiction writers", then please create the appropriate sub-categories and put the articles in them. I.e. help fix the problem.
 * If you think that the sub-category should be non-diffusing, then add the appropriate templates. I.e. help fix the problem.
 * If you think that WP:SUBCAT is wrong, or needs refinement, please raise the matter on that guideline's talk page so that we can discuss an appropriate change to the guideline. I.e. help fix the problem.
 * Mitch Ames (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you need to refrain from edits that change biographies from being logically categorised to illogically categorised, so that readers can no longer find articles where they would reasonably expect to find them. Your script highlights issues. It does not highlight solutions, and your go-to solution is wrong a solid 50% of the time. Once you see the script output, think about why it is in both categories and think about a rational solution that isn't "WP:SUBCAT says I can even if doesn't make any sense!". You could create additional subcategories, or make the category non-diffusing, in which case you'd be improving the encyclopedia, or you could remove people from the most appropriate categories for them for no logical reason, in which case you make the encyclopedia worse. If you opt for the last one in cases where it's obviously inappropriate, I'm going to ensure no harm done by restoring the status quo every time. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that removing the "editor" category, capitalising all of the occupations, and adding an unnecessary trailing comma, and changing an Australian article date format from dmy to mdy would be considered "doing no harm". Please be a little more careful with your "restoring the status quo" in future. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if your error ratio when making category alterations wasn't north of 50% (down a bit from the days when it was more like 80%), people would be less likely to make the occasional error when cleaning up after you. I'm not sure why you went to the trouble of advertising for other perspectives on whether it should be a non-diffusing category when you've still yet to make a single argument either way beyond "WP:SUBCAT says I can remove articles from the category even if doesn't make any sense!" The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you went to the trouble of advertising for other perspectives — Because it's a recurring disagreement between us, and we are not getting anywhere discussing it between ourselves. Input from other editors may help. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But you didn't advertise for perspectives regarding your bot-assisted editing, you advertised for perspectives regarding whether it should be non-diffusing, when even you're not arguing otherwise (apart from that a better structure of subcategories would also work as an alternative). The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * you advertised for perspectives regarding whether it should be non-diffusing — Yes, because if editors agreed that should be a non-diffusing subcategory of, and if the former were tagged as such, it would resolve the current discrepancy between the articles' categorisation and the MOS guidelines. An achievable solution to the issue that is the subject of this talk page section, per my original post, which would probably satisfy both of us. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear what you're actually suggesting there. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)