User talk:Auntof6

Style......

Did a page for it but I personally think it is quite bad[Haha]. Your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Simplegoose (talk • contribs) 15:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tape 407

Take another look. I can't get the "scissor" more. Tell me if the article is ready. --Ravave (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry cos no make editions in these days, I had my computer broken. Well, I make another changes to the browse, if isn't perfect yet, you can edit. --Ravave (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Hi Auntof6, I was wondering when you have some time to spare, can you check the hooks. We haven't had an update for 17 days! We already have one hook. Can you check the rest. Thanks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will if you promise not to delete the section I comment on again, at least not without an explanation. I was pretty ticked off when that happened! --Auntof6 (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portals?!

We don't have "portals", do we? But we do have a category "Semi-protected portals"! Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't have them, it was being populated by an error in the code of the protection template. Not sure why that page was getting put in it. Either way the category is now gone. -DJSasso (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DJ. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Islands of Scotland

I'm not quite sure why you are removing pages from Category:Islands of Scotland and putting them under the general category of Scotland. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articles I did that with are not about islands. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stub sorting

If I may quote from Wikipedia:Stub: "However, stubs should not have stub [tag] on them for a long time. They should be categorized (put into) into stub categories." With the game show article, the examples given are all television programs and the article is in the "television game shows" and "television genres" categories. Also, logically it would be pointless for this Wikipedia to have stub categories unless it was expected for the articles to be sorted. (If it really bothers you that these categories exist, you could either nominate them for deletion or you could expand these articles, which would remove the need to sort them.) 138.210.194.18 (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mixes of national ancestry categories

Hey, I've closed WP:Requests for deletion/Requests/2014/Categories showing mixes of national ancestry (better late than never, I guess). Unfortunately I have very little time to dedicate to Wikipedia currently, but I will help out with the work as much as I can. :) -Mh7kJ (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thanks for closing. I don't mind doing the work myself. I think it could be a little tricky to have more than one person work on it anyway, because there are articles that have more than one of the categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

excessive cats continued...

I ran across Category:Agencies of the United Kingdom Government today. I'm wondering what its definition might be. I mean, the UK government pays for a lot of public services which are not agencies, or are they? Universities, hospitals... The Met Office has been effectively independent since its origin in the 19th century. How is it an agency of government? It is a public service or, in part, a commercial activity. It's different for the DVLC, which is doing exactly what it is ordered to do by the Dept of Transport. Further, I see the category was created by an inexperienced user. I feel editors should not be allowed to put up categories until they have a good understanding of what we are about. They can always ask an admin if they think a category is needed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with UK agencies, so I can't speak to what that category should include. Have you compared it to what's on enwiki, or maybe asked the user who created it? As for restricting new users from creating new categories, I understand your frustration, but I don't see that happening. It would go against Wikipedia's "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" idea. --Auntof6 (talk)

Ah, but what does that refer to? We already have restrictions on importer, rollbacker, deletion is for admins, and so on. Creating categories is not an addition of content to an article, it is a change in the framework which affects many articles. We have seen again and again that inexperienced users just don't understand the implications of the categories they create. Some of them deliberately run against our consensus because they just don't agree with the consensus. "Anyone can edit" does not mean "Anything goes"! Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It refers to different things, including restricting edits for a class of people (as opposed to individuals who have done something to merit the restriction). Importing, rollbacking, deletion, etc. are functions, not editing. They change article content, but there are other ways for people without those rights to do the same thing (with the exception of deleting, of course).

Aside from that, how would you propose we determine that a user has "a good understanding of what we are about"? I don't think we need another administrative process like that. In any case, I don't think the number of new categories we get is unmanageable. Remember, I do share your frustration, I just don't think a formal restriction is a good idea. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Auntof6. You have new messages at Reception123's talk page.
Message added 19:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget about me

I make a little edition in my userspace. Check it out if in this time is allright, if is not, you can edit, you have my permission. --Ravave (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't trouble to speak, but write seems a few hard. Well, I'm thinking in deleted the userspace page and start to zero. I guess I can make stubs about geography (for example), in those themes I haven't problems at all. Thank you anyway. --Ravave (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC) I'd be learn about the vocabulary in here[reply]

Category:Presidential Medal of Freedom

Hey Auntof6, should Category:Presidential Medal of Freedom be renamed to Category:Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. I'd still mention the article about the medal in a hatnote. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what's a hatnote? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a short note at the top of a page -- you've probably seen them without knowing what they're called. They are best done with templates. see en:Wikipedia:Hatnote for more info. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a logical suggestion, but I hate to see such a word as "recipients". With Nobel Prizes we use "winners", which is at least a word at the level of ordinary spoken English. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ceratosaurs vs Ceratosauria categories

Well, I agree the two categories should be merged. I rather favour using the root word in plural rather than the Latin suffix. The Linnaean system uses different suffixes for different levels in the hierarchy. Now that has these disadvantages:

It's less simple
Experts disagree about the levels of taxonomy. Different sources put a group into a different level of the hierarchy. Humans have moved from being Hominidae to Homininae to Hominini to Hominina. It's crazy, and just about incomprehensible to a non-specialist.
The whole Linnaean system may be on the way out. English wiki has largely moved to nests of clades, but still allows Linnaean if editors prefer it. On this wiki I have used the Linnaean system (its being more familiar) but have reduced the number of levels in the taxoboxes. And I have used the root term (eg "Ichthyosaur") for higher-level pages rather than the Linnaean term ("Ichthyosauria" or "Ichthyopterygia")

I regret we do not have consistency. Where possible I think we should use the noun in plural without its latin ending for categories above genus, so in this case I would choose "Ceratosaurs" and soft redirect Ceratosauria to it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Château de Lunéville

Hi I do not know why this happens. But could you move the User: bit from the title;e of the following page.........User:Château de Lunéville �Thank youuuuuuu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplegoose (talk • contribs) 07:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean move it to articlespace? I could, but it might get deleted because of the umsimplified part from the enwiki article. Even the other parts of it need simplifying, for vocabulary and long sentences, and there's a whole empty section. I'd recommend that you work on the article some more first. In the meantime, I've moved it back to your userspace. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right sorted it out a bit. Would you mind moving it now please it will not let me and its making my blood boil to be honest haha Simplegoose (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you got it taken care of. I suspect general users aren't allowed to do cross-namespace moves. It does still need simplifying, though. Maybe you could take care of that before you do too much else? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Richardson need to be rewritten

I think that one article is poorly written. I have found some evidence that you would like to look into, and I think it should rewritten and understandable. I have done alot of homework on different studys. Cmacmore1987 (talk)

Why do you think it is poorly written? I think it is very easy to understand. It has been nominated to be deleted, though (see here). What evidence are you talking about? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it need to written correctly because who ever written the article needs to state all the details and facts. Evidence the individual was also a voice actor in two cartoon series. I done some research and found this please check here voicechasers.com Cmacmore1987 (talk)

The fact that something is missing doesn't make it incorrect. If you think something is missing, why not add it to the article yourself? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I will help rewrite the article. Can you assist by correct verification in the text. If I send you what i have written and discover? Cmacmore1987 (talk)

Sorry, no. The articles about this person have been deleted or proposed for deletion at other Wikipedias as well, and that's a good sign he isn't notable enough for Wikipedia's purposes. If you are going to update the article, you should probably do it soon because the RfD is scheduled to end tomorrow. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

House of Colonna

right fair enough I had not simplified it but there is a need to give me a chance to actually do so before you delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Simplegoose (talk • contribs) 12:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it was a little quick, but how much time do you need? Quite a few of your recent articles weren't simple enough, yet you went on to create more without simplifying the existing ones. The goal here isn't the number of articles, it's having articles in simple language. My view is that articles sbould be simple from the start. If you need time to work on them to get them simplified, that can be done in userspace.

By the way, please sign your posts on talk pages. First because it's considerate, and second because archiving bots don't archive sections without datestamps. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Zion category

Thank you anyway !. פארוק (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP POV

I just saw you mass delete those pages. He/She just created another page, should we also block, this user? Enfcer (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. They just got the new page in before I could do the block. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just didn't want to step on toes, when I saw the other edits come through after your delete, and take additional measures. Enfcer (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It doesn't hurt to ask, even though I was already taking care of it! --Auntof6 (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was a lot of pages. I had seen a lot of those on the log but did not realize He/She made that many. Enfcer (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sure was. I was going to try to wade through them, but the last straw was when they started having a lot of emotionally-charged language related to political situations. I think we lost some that weren't problems, but it's not worth picking through them. There were probably even more, because I don't think the mass delete function deletes any that were edited by anyone other than the creator, and I had edited quite a few already. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cold War figures

Hey Auntof6, it's been awhile. I recently created a new template titled Template:Cold War figures. I was wondering, if you have spare time, you can help me add this template to the pages it relates to and add Category:Cold War figures. Just asking. Also there are some sections in the template that don't appear on the page. Is there a limit on templates? Thanks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's really necessary that large templates are set as collapsed. The template was larger than the content of the page! And if we have the category, why do we need the template, and vice versa? Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mac, are you planning to do anything else with the template? I was about to start looking at it, but there's no point if someone else is changing it at the same time. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no intent to do more. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TDKR, I discovered the reason that some of the data doesn't display. The underlying template, {{Military navigation}} has a limit of 15 groups. I will update that template to match the enwiki one. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's fixed. As for the rest, Mac asks a good question. In the spirit of trying to keep things simple, do we need both the template and the category? I'm sure there are other navboxes that more or less duplicate categories, but that doesn't mean we have to make more of them. I see we already have a category for Cold War leaders. Maybe that's enough, maybe we don't need one for all Cold War figures. What do you think?

By the way, what are the criteria for being included in the template? It would be tempting to include anyone who was in government during the Cold War, but that would quickly get out of hand. What determines whether a person is a "cold war figure"? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re redlinks

FYI, I have raised a question about redlinks at Wikipedia talk:Red link. S. Rich (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what was incorrect about "under" on Cassadee Pope

Excuse me Auntof6: what was incorrect about using under on Cassadee Pope? Sometimes I can't always find better words to substitute. Angela Maureen (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Under favorable reviews" just isn't a correct way to say it. You could say "to favorable reviews", or say it the way I did. I did it the way I did for two reasons. First, it let me make the sentences shorter. Second, "to favorable reviews" is a little idiomatic and therefore harder for a non-English speaker to understand.

I've seen you use the word under incorrectly in other contexts as well, but I don't remember a specific example right now. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Permalink/4791795

Surely we have to categorise the category somehow? —Microchip08 (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]