User talk:Kuanpern86


 * I'm not sure what the problem is with these categories, but I do know that I am not convinced by your edit summaries. In many of these articles "machine learning" is actually discussed and seems to be quite relevant as a category. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, Thanks for the feedback. I've browsed through the undo list and I am generally okay with that. Though I'd still provide the rationale for the edits.


 * "Machine learning" is an overarching topic and find many applications and usages in different fields and domains, can would become too general if all distantly related articles are tagged with the category. In this case the sub-categories (e.g. Artificial Intelligence Applications, list of datasets etc) would provide more accurate and relevant information about the articles (I've kept these sub-categories or added new ones when appropriate).
 * There are a few promotional articles which editing rationale were obvious.
 * There are a few articles where the topics at hands is of even more general nature than machine learning (e.g. "time series") and should not be categorized as such.
 * There are a few articles which are stubs which provide no relevant information to determine if a category is appropriate or otherwise - a few should be merged with other articles (which I will do so when I find the time).

The following pages, in my opinion, is still not relevant enough to be tagged with the category
 * Astrostatistics: a stub page, and is of more general nature than machine learning.
 * Automation_in_construction: a stub page, which itself could be a sub-category. There is no mention of machine learning anywhere in the article.
 * 80_Million_Tiny_Images: should be merged with List_of_datasets_for_machine-learning_research
 * Ball_tree: is a data structure and has no relevance with machine learning. There is no mention of machine learning anywhere in the article (reference should not count)
 * Base_rate: should be merged with prior probability