User talk:Auntof6/Archives/2011

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hi there! I've granted you rollback rights here as you seem to know what you are doing. I hope you keep around here, we need more experienced users. I've you've any simplewp related questions, just ask me. Best, -Barras (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

First Book

This editor is a Novice Editor and is entitled to display this First Book of Wikipedia.

Hi Auntof6, thanks for the work you have been doing in cleaning up the stub tags and other bits and pieces. You now have over 200 edits and this means you have earned your first book. Congratulations, --Peterdownunder (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Need a flood flag?


Thanks for all of the cleanup, that's great. But, you're flooding the Recent Changes Page Try this: Wikipedia:Flood_flag

Gotanda (talk) 03:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize I was causing a problem! A lot of the things I typically do would be like that. Where would I request the flag? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
It isn't really a problem, just a good idea. Sorry I forgot to tell where to ask for it. Go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions. I'd do it for you, but I'm not an admin. Happy cleaning up! Gotanda (talk) 03:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess there were no admins around. Might as well keep flooding if you want to do more AWB. It doesn't really hurt anything. Gotanda (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
That's OK. I'll just finish up the list I was working with (5 more articles) and call it a day for now. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah flooding is something that some people get upset about and others don't. It doesn't hurt to ask before you start if there is an admin around. But if there isn't don't worry about it and just go at it. Some people are too sensitive here about flooding new changes because they worry vandalism will slip through if you flood the new changes. But an easy way to prevent that is to go back through the new changes now and then while you are editing to make sure nothing may have slipped through. This is one of the many ways we are different from en, because we have alot fewer editors we have to be more careful about catching vandalism. And on en there is no way people could keep up with the new changes log anyways so flooding it with AWB is not an issue there as its moving at lightening speed already whereas ours often takes an hour or more to move through 50 edits so its more noticeable when someone goes on an AWB run. -DJSasso (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi there! I just deleted the category and the RfD page. If a category is empty, just nominate it for quick deletion (WP:QD#C1). Best, -Barras (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I put it under RfD because the quick deletion says the category has to be empty for 3 or 4 days, and I just emptied it. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, we usually aren't that formal and I never cared much. Being a rough admin is sometimes more useful than discussing anything to death. -Barras (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! I'll use quick delete next time. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, but please note that not everyone agrees with me and that there are people who like discussing all and everything, thought this seems to be uncontroversial. ;-) -Barras (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Complex tags...

We tend to use complex tags rarely. Our situation is quite different from enWP, in that we have few people actually writing content. We try to persuade contributors to make changes themselves rather that put up flags. Otherwise we should soon collect thousands of flags which would lie there for ages before anyone got round to changing them. I don't deny there are many pages which need simplifying. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Flood flag

I've given you the flood flag because you are making many small, uncontroversial edits and by doing so you are flooding RecentChanges. Some consider flooding a problem, others do not. But if you are going to do a run of lots of little changes, ask for it first. If no reply in 15 minutes then just edit at will. Thanks for your help! fr33kman 20:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks, and sorry for the problem. I hoped I was spacing them out enough not to need it. Shall I post on the Admin board when I'm through? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


The flood flag has been attached to your user account... please let us know on AN when you are done. Thank you, Jon@talk:~$ 01:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


No... I thought you were done. You did not do anything wrong :) I have added it back, and I'm off to bed. When you are done, let us know on WP:AN. Kindly Jon@talk:~$ 05:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


Be careful when changing from British to US spelling. The Manual of Style has a whole section devoted to the issue. Please read it. For example in Eugowra, New South Wales you changed gaol to jail. There is, and never has been, any such place in Australia.Peterdownunder (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I know about the British/American spelling issues. I thought I was simplifying when I made that change. I won't make that change again. Let me know if you see me make any other changes like this. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

your help

ty --Ujaj35 (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Nations at the Olympics

Just a note that, per there being so many of them, I've created and moved all the X at the Olympics articles into this new category. Courcelles (talk) 04:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll take that off my to-do list. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Courcelles (talk) 04:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


Do you need any help with the categories? --Addihockey10 e-mail 05:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, not specifically, but you're welcome to do the same kind of thing I'm doing. You appear not to have done a lot of changes, though, and category work is a little different from article work. If I'm wrong about your level of experience, or if you'd like to help anyway, respond here and I'll explain what I'm doing and, if you want, give you a place to start. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm more of a WikiGnome anyway ;-) Where should I start? --Addihockey10 e-mail 06:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, how about going to Category:American actors. (That's one I know off the top of my head that still could use a lot of work.) It's better for articles to be in the subcategories (African-American actors, American movie actors, American television actors, etc.) than to be just in the main "American actors" category. Look at each article in Category:American actors and see if you can tell which subcategories the person fits, then add those subcategories and remove "American actors".
If you want, while you're at it, you could make sure each article has a defaultsort and birth and death year categories. Do you know how to do that?
Any questions? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Nope - I'll start right away :-) --Addihockey10 e-mail 06:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Saint Lucia

I undid your removal of Category:Caribbean islands from Saint Lucia.  Hazard-SJ  ±  01:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed it because the article is already in Category:Saint Lucia, which is a subcategory of Category:Caribbean islands. It doesn't need to be in both. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'll revert myself.  Hazard-SJ  ±  01:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


Hi there! May I ask you why you removed the G8 category from Germany? I think it fits quite well and I don't see why the country articles shouldn't have the category. Mind explaining? -Barras (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. I removed it because it is in Category:Germany, which is already in Category:G8 nations.
I've been seeing a lot of places where a category such as Category:G8 nations contains both the article and the category for a country, like this did. I don't think both need to be there. It doesn't matter to me whether it's the category or the specific article. Is there any preference you know of? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, it isn't really important for me. I just was surprised because the category was good as it is, imo. Thanks for explaining anyway. -Barras (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess it just didn't look right to have both Germany and Category:Germany in Category:G8 nations. It makes it look like there's more there than there really is. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


Hey I noticed some categories were African-American and others were African American - which one should we be using? :-) --Addihockey10 e-mail 02:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You sure you want to get into that? :) I don't know if there's a preference here. My take is that you'd use the hyphen if the "American" part is an adjective (as in "African-American actors"), but not when it's a noun (as in "Joe is an African American"). But that's just me -- I wouldn't change anything that's already set up without asking for consensus. If you're setting up something new, then I guess it's your choice. Is that noncommittal enough? ;) --Auntof6 (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Well I mean we have Category:African American actors and Category:African-American religions - but I think we should develop a community consensus on which (hyphenated or non-hyphenated) should be used. --Addihockey10 e-mail 08:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it's inconsistent. Go ahead and present that to the community. I'm not sure where you would do that here on Simple English, though. You might ask at Wikipedia:Simple talk. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Category work

Hello again. Is there any way I can help with the categories?  Hazard-SJ  ±  01:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You could do what I started another user on, 4 sections up under "Categories". If you want to avoid conflicting with that user (or with me, if I start working there again), you could start at the other end of the alphabet. I don't know offhand of any other categories that need that kind of work right now -- I'm sure there are some, I just don't know where. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay. I'll probably do that if I have some free time.  Hazard-SJ  ±  02:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


Somebody has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them!

here have some for helping me out. thank you. --Seaca (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

hope you enjoy them. lol --Seaca (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


...whatever happened to DTTR? Goblin 11:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Gordonrox24!

Didn't mean to offend. Those templates were only used by one article, hadn't been edited in a couple of years, and had only one blue link each. Nav boxes aren't of any use if they only navigate one article. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Don't disagree at all with the quick deletions, relics of when I was much less learnéd in the ways of Wikipedia, and a project I no longer have time to complete. Just didn't feel the QD notices using a standard template were warranted when I've been here since 08. Certainly no offence taken. Goblin 11:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man!
Sorry, I used Twinkle to do the deletes. I honestly didn't even notice that they'd been created by the same person. I'd also never heard of the DTTR thing before. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Amazon Basin

On your work on links last night, several changes from Amazon > Amazon River or Amazon Rainforest were better placed in Amazon Basin. You might review all the options before you start a run like this, else it just makes more work for the likes of me. Thanks Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. Sorry for causing you work. I've added Amazon Basin to the Amazon dab page, which is what I was working from. Are there any other pages you think should be added there? I'll leave it to you to revise my changes if you think it's needed -- you're in a better position to tell which ones you think need it. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

A question and a comment

Comment first: thank you for all of the category and other cleanup you've done--especially the categories. I'm afraid made quite a few mistakes with those early on. I'll try not to make anymore. If I get a better idea how cats work, I may be able to clean up some of my own mess.

And a question about redlinks. I've created some article and some disambiguation pages with lots of redlinks such as Bongo_(disambiguation) and Arthur_C._Clarke_Award. I don't think any of them are all redlinks. I noticed your recent change to Amherst_(disambiguation) to remove all of the redlinks. I can see why. It looks much better and is simpler to read. I tended to leave them in because even the redlink gave some information (e.g., Weird, there was an Amherst, Burma?) even if the link didn't lead to an article. Also, I hoped those links might eventually get an editor to make the articles. I ask because:

  • I don't want to make more work for others
  • Is this some guideline I missed?
  • Or, is it just a matter of making a decision when an editor looks at a page?

Thanks again, Gotanda (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. To me, dab pages are there to help readers find an article they're looking for, not to be that article. Any information on a dab page should be there to help readers figure out which of the listed articles is the one they're looking for. Redlinked entries don't help you find an article, because there's no article to find.
I think a lot of the dab pages here that have a lot of red links were copied over from enwiki, and the links are red because SimpleWiki just doesn't have all the articles.
So you say you've worked on categories before? What kind of work were you doing with them? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Redlinks however help tell you when an article needs creation, they are very important to leave on dab pages. -DJSasso (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with that for non-dab pages, but not for dab pages. See my comment in the next section. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

DAB deletion

Hey Auntof - first of all thanks for all the great work you've been doing behind the scenes - it's a massive task and I'm sure I speak for the whole wiki when we say that it's a great help and something that's needed doing for a long time! Anyway!

Regarding this comment, you are welcome to keep nominating each one for deletion separately, or you might want to list them as a mass nomination which could save time for yourself as well as those commenting either way. Basically the easiest way of doing this would be to create one RfD for the first DAB page you next come across, and then add all the other pages onto that as a list and state in the nomination that it relates to the list rather than just the named article. Add the RfD box to those pages but then just change the link accordingly. Hope that makes sense?

Keep up the good work!

Goblin 12:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Dendodge!

And I would personally say don't delete them if there are any bluelinks on the page that is. Redlinks promote creation and do no harm. -DJSasso (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, I have conflicting points of view here. Here's what I think: I understand that redlinks can indicate articles that are wanted, and I don't remove them from regular pages. (In fact, the only page I've created here from scratch was because I saw it redlinked in a couple of places.) I think it's different with dab pages, though. Dab pages are intended to help readers find other pages in the wiki, so I don't think red links there should be counted when looking at how many red links there are to a particular nonexistent page. I suspect most red links on dab pages are a result of copying the dab page from enwiki, and don't necessarily indicate a need for the article.
Therefore, with respect to DJSasso's opinion, I think I'll keep removing redlinks from dab pages and proposing deletion for dab pages with no blue links, grouping them as Goblin suggests. DJSasso and like-minded folks are free to express their viewpoints in the discussion.
For the record, here's the process I've been using when looking at the dab pages:
  • If the page has no blue links, propose deletion
  • If the page has only one blue link, redirect the dab page there. Exception: if the dab page title contains "(disambiguation)", then request deletion instead
  • Otherwise (more than one blue link), remove red links
--Auntof6 (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Dab pages are possibly even more important to have red links than even articles. Specifically because we know if the dab page has a red link it is probably notable. Especially if its been copied from en. For example if a person types in a word and ends up at a dab page and sees that the article he is looking for is missing or another notable topic with an article is missing he might create it. You remove the red link and there is no longer a hint to the user to create the article. This has nothing to do with counting red links. If you keep removing them I will likely keep readding them... -DJSasso (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Category help, please

Hi, I thought you were the one to ask about this since you've cleaned up so many. I recently simplified Incubus_(1966_movie) from En, but was careful this time to remove non-existent categories. But... there is a redlinked cat, "Esperanto language movies", that I don't see in the article and don't see the +/- to remove. Any thoughts? Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It's coming from the template {{Infobox film}}. Whatever you specify for the film's language not only is displayed in the article, the page also gets put in the category "XXX language movies". When the category isn't explicitly coded with [[Category:xxx]], you can't manage it with HotCat. I wouldn't worry about it. If we get enough Esperanto-language movies, we can create a category. Does that help? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I should have realized that's where it was coming from. It may be a while before we get enough Esperanto films for a category though. Much appreciated, Gotanda (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
No problem, I'm flattered you asked. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


Jeff Mills has a QDA4. How could I improve this article before it gets deleted? QUICK!-- (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

First, look at the indicated reason for the delete request (notability). Put in something to say why he is notable, preferably with an actual reference. Format it like a regular article, instead of a list of facts.
Y'know, you've had so many articles deleted now, you really should try getting them in shape before creating them "live". A Wikipedia article is not supposed to be a workspace. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Like what could I put in? Tell me QUICK before a naughty admin deletes it!-- (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I told you what to put in -- something that indicates why he is notable. Why do you think he deserves an article?
BTW, please don't call folks here "naughty" for keeping things clean. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I put it in because there's a redlink in Axis Records.-- (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
That's not a very good reason to write an article. Just because there's a link doesn't mean the subject is notable. If you are going to write an article for that reason, then you need to research the subject to know at least basics about why people would care about him. If it were me, I'd rather put that effort into something I was really interested in. If you aren't very interested in the subject, it will be harder to write a good article about him. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll put a G7 on it-- (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Auntof6. You have new messages at's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


I think it would be very helpful to you and the communities time to read our quick deletion policy so you can QD pages as well as RfD them. Have a great day. Face-smile.svg CRRaysHead90 | Another way... 05:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe I am familiar with the quick deletion policy. What made you think I wasn't? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
The flood of RfD's on QD'able articles. In any event, this was just a friendly note. Have a good day. CRRaysHead90 | Another way... 07:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I just had to say....

You are a machine....good work on all that cat sorting. Certainly needed a lot of it. I am surprised you don't get bored. -DJSasso (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess when you don't have much of... what's that thing called... oh, yeah, a "life", you have a lot of time to do stuff like this. :) I miss doing technical stuff at work. Before I was laid off a couple of years ago I did technical work on mainframe computers; the harder and more technical, the better I liked it. That and the fact that I really, really like organizing make this fun for me.
BTW, thanks to you for saving us from a certain user, if only for 2 weeks! :) --Auntof6 (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Re Bruce Smeaton

Hi Auntof6, re Bruce Smeaton, he was not an entertainer, or performer, so he should be in the composer category.--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There was only one person in the composer category, where there should usually be at least three. I consider composers to be entertainers, but if you don't then you could put him directly under Category:Australian people. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, that seemed a little brusque when I re-read it. Didn't mean it that way! BTW, what part of Australia are you from? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I did not read it as brusque. I will put him in the composer and Australian people cats until I can get some more articles on Australian composers, I am sure there is more than one! I live in regional Victoria.--Peterdownunder (talk) 07:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Good, I'm glad I didn't offend you. I've been to Victoria. I went to Melbourne. I remember going to the zoo, and going to see the fairy penguins. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


I think we should standardise on Category:Chessplayers rather than 'Chessmasters'. That would mean deleting 'Category:American chessmasters' and replacing it with 'American chessplayers'. There is no benefit in having grades of playing strength in the categories. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That occurred to me when I was working with the chess player categories, except I think "chess player" is two words. :) I'll take care of that in a bit unless somebody beats me to it! --Auntof6 (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge in President Ronald Reagan Visits USS CONSTELLATION (CV-64)

I kicked up a discussion on the talk page. It should definitely be merged; feel free to add your support for the merge in the discussion. Orashmatash 13:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC) I like... Television!

Metric unit

Again, I started another discussion. Again, your vote is more than welcome. (In case you're wondering why I'm doing this, it's in case an Admin comes across a proposed merge page and wants to merge it, (s)he will see that there is a consensus for the merge). Orashmatash 23:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC) I like... Computer science!


Worth noting that 'alumnus' means a graduate, not just someone who studied there. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that. Do you think it would be better to remove the non-graduates, or change the categories to something like "People of XXX University"? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I do see now some slack web sites use the term more broadly. I still think it should not be used for people who only stayed at a university for a term or so. Keep the category, if only because sometimes it's difficult to find evidence of graduation. It took almost a hundred years to find out that T.H. Huxley had never graduated. I would suggest one year's study at an institution as a rule-of-thumb qualification for the term. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from a newbie

Hi. I'm a newby, so am not familiar with this community. I don't even know how I am going to read a response to this - I guess I need to set up some sort of page. I will tackle that after I've posted.

These comments are meant to be a positive contribution to discussion about the function of simple English wikipedia.

I understand your reasoning for deleting the link (in the "Leicester" contribution) to the wiki dictionary, for being "unencyclopedic text" but here we're dealing with "simple English" and people who do not have English as a first language. Including sound files is probably also "unencyclopedic" but is a useful additional ability rendered by modern tools.

Because of the restricted nature of simple English wikipedia it is not possible to link all words to other pages. As someone who teaches English to people who do not have it as a first language, it makes sense to me to include, within the text, information about how to access meanings of words.

I appreciate that a link to a wiki dictionary is not standard practice in contributions to simple English wikipedia. Perhaps it should be.

The important thing about wikipedia is the transfer of information and knowledge. "Rules", "standards" etc. which impede this should be abandoned.

Just my opinion and thanks for taking the time to check my contribution.

Hi, welcome to Simple English Wikipedia! Thanks for asking about the changes I made. What I objected to was having instructions in individual articles. If you want to do that, you should probably discuss it first at Wikipedia:Simple talk. Even though this is Simple English Wiki, it's fair to expect that the readers have some basic knowledge on how to use the software. As far as sound files, I think it would be the content of them that would be encyclopedic or not, and not the fact that they were sound files.
What I've seen here is that it's OK to have an inline Wiktionary link to a specific word in an article. You would code it like this:
The path was [[wikt:convoluted|convoluted]].
and it would look like this:
The path was convoluted.
When you click on the word, it takes you to the Simple English Wiktionary entry for the word, if it has an entry. This kind of link is usually frowned upon in the other languages, but fairly common here. Of course, it's better to use simpler words that wouldn't need such a link, but you can do it this way when needed.
Please feel free to ask if you have any questions about things here. By the way, Wikipedia etiquette is to sign your posts on talk pages by putting four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


Hi there, just wondering, can you give me some bulletpoints of when I should tag articles for cleanup? Because I may have missed that when I was patrolling articles... --Orashmatash 16:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC) I like... Television!

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you asking what kinds of things need to be cleaned up, or what kinds of things have cleanup tags, or something else? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
If I understand correctly what you are asking I can tell you right off the bat if you see a short two or three sentence stub with no references you don't really need to tag the article because everyone can see the references are missing for example. We try not to go overboard with using such tags here. Also remember the {{fact}} template is only for things that are likely to be questioned. You don't need to put it next to every sentence, only stuff that is likely controversial. -DJSasso (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


Patroller right granted per request. Peterdownunder (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


Hey there, I just created three episodes (maybe do some more). Maybe now it doesn't need to be deleted? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 01:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess. I wouldn't have created them just to keep the template, but if you really want to do that, go ahead and remove the qd tag. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Well its nice to create more articles here :) I'll remove it if you agree that it should not be qd. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 01:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's OK with me if you remove the qd tag. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Alright. Happy editing! Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 01:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Your bot

Hi Auntof6! Just letting you know, that when you are doing stub sorting and what-not, you can program your bot to do it for you. If you tell me what programming language it's written in, I can help you... Orashmatash (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Orashmatash. I use AWB with my bot, and I have a good handle on that. It works well for stub sorting, but not for a lot of the category work that I do. I can use AWB if I want to move all articles in a category to some other category, but it doesn't work so well for category diffusion. I'll keep you in mind, though, so thanks for the offer! --Auntof6 (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm pretty much hopeless with AWB. If you ever want to make a new bot for categories, I'm good with Java, Javascript, C++, Python and PHP. Just leave me a message and I'll be happy to help. Regards, Orashmatash (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. If you ever want help with AWB, let me know! --Auntof6 (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't have permission to use AWB, unfortunately. :( Orashmatash (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

A New Barnstar

Categorisation barnstar1b.png The Categorisation Barnstar
For Auntof6, the first person to receive this award on the Simple English Wikipedia. Auntof6 has done an amazing amount of editing of the category structure. Many thanks Peterdownunder (talk) 07:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, I'm very honored! --Auntof6 (talk) 07:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


Hey Auntof6! I was granted AWB access, but it is only allowing me to use it on ENWP, where I do not have access. I can't find any options to change what wiki to use it on. Help? Orashmatash 17:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It's okay, I got it. But I don't have any idea how to use it. Could you tell me how to use it? Orashmatash 18:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations! You might want to look at en:Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/User manual, but I'll give you some basics here.
To me, the big advantage of AWB is that it can process a list of pages that you want to work on. It brings up one page, you make whatever changes you want, click save, then AWB saves it and brings up the next one. There are different ways to create your list of pages. The easiest way is to let AWB create the list for you. Start AWB, then find the dropdown box labelled "Source" in the lower left area and click on it. That shows you all the different ways that AWB can build lists. The ones I've used most are Category, Category (recursive), CheckWiki error, and CheckWiki error (number). If none of those options do what you want, you can create a text file with page titles, then copy and paste it into the box where the article titles go (the big box just above the "Remove" and "Filter" buttons).
When you have your list, click on the start tab (the last one in the group of tabs Options, More..., Disambig, Skip, and Start). You need to set an edit summary. IIRC, AWB comes with some predefined ones you can choose; click the "Summary" drop-down box to see what's there. If none of those fit what you're going to do, you can create a new one. To do that, go to the "Options..." tab at the top and click on "Summaries..."; you get an edit box where you can add/change/remove whatever you want. Add your summary, then click OK.
Now you're ready to process. Just below the summary dropdown box is the "Start" button. Click that and AWB will ask you to log on: enter your user name and password where indicated, then click "Close". AWB takes a little longer to load the first page, but it should come up within a minute. When it comes up, look at whatever changes AWB has done automatically and make sure you approve of them. Then make your changes in the edit window at the lower left. You can preview the changed page by clicking the "Preview" button. When you're ready to save, click "Save". AWB will then save the page and bring up the next one from your list. If AWB brings up a page you don't want to change, click "Skip" and it will go on to the next one.
Well, those are some basics. Work with that for a bit, then if you're interested I can help you with some advanced options such as those on the "More..." and "Disambig" tabs. Any questions? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks a lot! Can you please explain "Category (recursive)", "CheckWiki Error" and "CheckWiki Error (number)"? Thanks! Orashmatash 21:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Category (recursive): The plain Category option loads everything that's in a category (including pages and subcategories), but Category (recursive) loads everything that's in the category and all its subcategories, sub-subcategories, etc.
  • CheckWiki Error and CheckWiki Error (number): There a process that's called "CheckWiki" or "Check Wikipedia". It scans Wikipedia articles looking for various errors. Here's the list of all the current ones for Simple English Wikipedia. These two AWB options let you load pages that have been flagged as having a specific error. If you want to load all pages that have a particular error, use CheckWiki Error (number), and enter the numeric ID of the error you're interested in. If you only want a few pages loaded, use the CheckWiki Error option and enter a URL such as "". You can adjust the values in the URL for id, offset, and limit if you want. If you work on these, please mark the ones you fix as done.
One thing about the CheckWiki lists: just because the software is flagging something doesn't mean it really needs to be fixed. A good example of this is error ID 82, "Link to other wikiproject". Here on Simple English Wikipedia we do use links to Wiktionary, so those don't have to be fixed. (There might be links to something other than Wiktionary, though, and those might need fixing.) I've been trying to find the place to set priorities for the Simple English CheckWiki errors so we can change priorities or turn off some errors, but I haven't been able to find it yet.
Next questions? :) --Auntof6 (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
None for now, I'll just work with what you've told me. I'll come back to learn all the complicated stuff later. Thanks! Orashmatash 13:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Auntof6. You have new messages at's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

October 2011


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Auntof6. You have new messages at Orashmatash's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RE: Pikachu

Sorry for that. I apologize. I will refrain from doing that to the "Pikachu" Simple English Page.

Re: Family Guy?

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Auntof6. You have new messages at Chenzw's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for new category

Thank you for creating Category:Emperors of Japan. --Tenmei (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I didn't create that category. You did. I did populate it, though, is that what you meant? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Since you mentioned it, I checked the edit history of the category. It is clear that I started it; but I forgot. A simple mistake. --Tenmei (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


Hey Auntof6! I have worked with the basics of AWB for 3 days now, and I'm pretty comfortable with it, so, if you wouldn't mind, could you teach me about the technical stuff? Thanks in advance, Orashmatash 15:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but give me a place to start! If there something specific you're thinking of doing with AWB, we can start there. Do you want to learn about configuring AWB, or doing tasks with it? Here are a few places we could start:
  • Working with settings (did you know you can save them, and have different settings files?)
  • The various dropdown menus
  • The various tabs
    • Options: includes specifying your own find-and-replace strings
    • More: lets you add/remove/change categories or files, and append or prepend text
    • Disambig (if you work with disambiguating)
    • Skip: skips pages if various conditions are met
    • Start
But those are just suggestions -- what are you most interested in learning? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Probably the "More" and "Disambig" tabs. Thanks, Orashmatash 22:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'll talk about the "More" tab first. I need to organize my thoughts a bit before explaining the "Disambig" tag. I'll leave the info in new sections on your talk page when it's ready. In the meantime, tell me what your experience is with disambiguating, so I know how elementary I need to be. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Teamwork Barnstar

Team Barnstar.png The Teamwork Barnstar
For Auntof6, who took part in the big biography weekend in October 21-26, 2011. With help from 15 other editors, 48 new biography articles were created. Thanks for being part of the team. Peterdownunder (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Cory J W

Do you agree that the article should be deleted? I think it should be deleted. You fixed the page. Does that mean you think it's notable? [1] πr2 (talk • changes) 02:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I agree that it should be deleted -- I would have used {{wait}} if I disagreed. I fixed the syntax to clean it up and give reviewers a better look at what's really on it. No harm in editing a page that's being considered for deletion. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


Hi! Hate to be a pain/burden, but would you mind explaining the notability thing to me? I understand what the policy is trying to say, but I can't really tell a notable and an un-notable article apart at the moment. Hopefully, that will soon change. Thanks! –Orashmatash 18:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll try, and you're not a pain! :)
You can think of Wikipedia as a digest of other sources -- there are no original ideas (or "original research"). Original ideas are great, but they're not what Wikipedia is about. Everything in the articles should be gotten from reliable sources. Here on Simple, a lot of articles don't have references (and that's a pet peeve of mine), but they should at least state what is notable about the subject.
As an example, I recently tagged the article Winifred Burkle for quick deletion because it didn't say why Winifred Burkle is notable. In case the article gets deleted before you read this, I'll quote it in full:
Winifred "Fred" Burkle is a fictional character ideated by Joss WHedon. The character is portrayed by Amy Acker.
Three things are stated about Fred here: she is a fictional character, the name of her creator, and the name of the person who played her. Now, I happen to know who Winifred Burkle is, and why she might be notable or at least interesting, and I think she could be a good subject for an article, but this article doesn't indicate any of that. Just being a fictional character doesn't make her notable. Being created by Joss Whedon doesn't make her notable on its own, even if Joss Whedon is famous. Just being portrayed by a particular person doesn't make her notable: lots of famous people have portrayed non-notable characters, and we're looking for notability of the character herself. The article doesn't even offer any sources to show that there is/was such a character.
Does that make sense? What other questions do you have? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Blah won the Nobel Prize in medicine.
Be notable? Would the "...won the Nobel Prize in medicine" part make it notable? –Orashmatash 21:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Technically it should have a reference, and a reference for something like that should be pretty easy to find. However, as I mentioned, I've seen many articles here on Simple that didn't have references. Sometimes it seems like articles are accepted here when they give specific reasons for notability, even when those reasons aren't backed them up with references. Of course, if it seems really unlikely that "Blah" would have won a Nobel Prize (Bugs Bunny? Don Rickles?), it will probably get challenged! ;) I know that's a pretty wishy-washy answer, but that's what I've observed here. Over on enwiki they're sticklers for references, but here not so much. So I guess the answer to your question is, it depends on who's looking at the article. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll stick an oar in here to say: Yes, a Nobel Prize winner is automatically notable, and it does not depend on any reference. All such people are already listed on the appropriate Nobel Prize page. The purposes of references here are to provide further information. Also, winners of any highly significant prize are automatically notable.
The problems of notability in biography come with people who are regarded as of high standing, but have not achieved any independently-awarded status. Then reference to reliable sources is necessary. The key to deciding the need for references is "would any reasonable person need reassuring about the claimed fact?" and "would a reference supply important background information?" There are some silly people on English wikipedia who go through adding flags whenever they see a statement without a supporting reference. This is definitely not required by guidelines, but it has led to some ludicrous over-referencing. Here, just do what you think is common sense. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with you. The issue I have is that anyone can put in a statement about a person winning a Nobel Prize. Are we to accept it just because winning the NP is notable? I worry about hoaxes creeping in. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Just while I have your attention, can you tag any empty categories and any un-used templates for deletion? –Orashmatash 18:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, of course you can tag anything you want; whether the admins agree and actually delete the things is a different question. ;) I like to look at when the category or template was created. If it was recently, it might just be that it isn't used yet; in those cases, sometimes I ask the creator if they plan to use it.
For categories, when I find an empty category, if I think it's a good one to have, I try to populate it. If I can't find at least 3 articles that fit, if it duplicates another category, or I don't think it's needed, I QD it. It's easy enough to recreate a category.
For unused templates, it's similar: if I think it's a useful template, I'll try to put it to use. If I can't, then sometimes I QD it and sometimes not -- I certainly could, but it's harder to recreate templates than to recreate categories.
Now this is just what I do; others may do things differently. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for all your help, I understand both things now. Cheers! –Orashmatash 18:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


When you create a category page, could you please look on the English Wikipedia and on Commons first. If there is a category on commons add {{commonscat}} like I have Special:Contributions/PiRSquared Flooder and here. πr2 (t • c) 23:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure! Does that need to be done for administrative categories (like cleanup and template categories), or just for regular article categories? When I'm doing category work, though, I might create a bunch and then go back and add the commoncat thing. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Just regular article categories. I don't think there is a picture of Unsourced articles from June 2006. Hope this helps. πr2 (t • c) 23:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Auntof6. You have new messages at Katarighe's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

did i get his name right or wrong?

Bedford Gunning J.R? or the other way around? --Crobau (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I assumed you got it right. I just added a "DEFAULTSORT", which says how the article should be sorted in the categories the article is in: The last name goes first, then the first name, then the "Jr.". For example, the default for Sammy Davis, Jr. would be "Davis, Sammy, Jr.". Make sense? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit Undone

I undid your edit of Category:Panamanian people from Nov 9. The change was undone to revert back to the practice of listing the tree from contintent to individual country (and associated sub-cats) and have it fall back in line with the other nationality categories. (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for letting me know! I understand what you're saying, but Panama is not in North America. It's in Central America. That's why I removed the category. If there are enough categories from other Central American countries, we could make a category called "Central American people". If not, then we don't have to be 100% consistent. What do you think? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
North America's southern boundary is defined as ending at South America. (southeast technically... the southern edge is the Pacific) Central America is a subsection of North America when dealing with the continental level of classification. While a host of Central American sub cats covering nationalities, geography and what-not would be a natural extension of the tree, they would still fall under the main North American categories. (Its one of those weird corner cases of sub-cats that usually only seems to pop its head up in cases of island clusters - The Caribbean Islands for example.) (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, I see now. Thank you -- I learned something, and I love learning new stuff! :) --Auntof6 (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

AWB question

Hello Auntof6. I see you use AWB regularly, and seem to be the resident expert, and I wanted to pick your brains? I have played about with it and have got the basics but I would like to know if something is possible. I have a list of articles which may or may not have {{stub}} in them. I would like AWB to run through the list and replace {{stub}} with {{Politics-stub}} where possible. Is this possible with AWB, and if so, how? Thanks in advance :) Normandie 12:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's how I would do that:
  1. Bring up AWB and log in. In the bottom half of the screen are three sections: the area for the list of articles, an area with several tabs (options, more, disambig, etc.), and the edit box.
  2. I don't know where you have your list of articles, but one way to get your list loaded is to copy and paste. First, remove anything that's already in the article list; you can do that by right-clicking in the article list area, going to "Remove", then clicking on "All". Copy your article list (as a plain text list of titles), then right click in the article list area, then click on "Paste".
  3. In the middle area, the area with the tabs, click on the "Options" tab. In the section marked "Find and replace", check the "Enabled" box (if it's not already checked) and click on "Normal settings". This will bring up a box where you can specify find and replace strings. On the next available line, under "Find", type in "{{stub}}" (no quotation marks). Tab over to the "Replace with" column and type "{{Politics-stub}}" (again, no quotation marks). Make sure the box under "Regex" is not checked. If you want, you can type a description of what this replacement is doing at the far right under "Comment". Click on "Done".
  4. Now click on the start tab, type in an edit summary, and click on the start button.
I'm sure those different parts of the AWB screen have "official" names, but I don't remember them so I hope I've described where to go well enough. If you need further help, let me know! --Auntof6 (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! I had found the "find and replace" option but wasn't sure how to work it. Thanks very much! :) Normandie 19:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


Hey. Just letting you know that I fixed the template you brought up on Simple Talk. Cheers! --Orashmatash 22:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw your comment there, but when I look at the articles that use it, it doesn't look fixed -- there's a different problem now. Could it be because the <noinclude> near the end was moved? Note that this template doesn't have to be complete by itself -- it works with other code. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. That's strange, I definitely thought I had fixed it. I'll work on it. Thanks! --Orashmatash 23:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
It's definitely fixed now. I moved the <noinclude></noinclude> tags to different positions and I checked the transclusions and everything seems to be in order. If you find any more faults with it, leave me a message and I'll fix it. All the best! --Orashmatash 23:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Cat Issue - Category:Women soccer in Austria

As you seem to handle the heavy lifting in the cat department currently, I felt it best bring this issue to your notice. Category:Women soccer in Austria is a bit of an issue on two fronts, both in its naming. Grammatically, it should be "Women's" and culturally, it should be football and not soccer (even more so as it is a subcat of Category:Football in Austria). It is a fairly small cat (5-6 articles) so really doesnt need AWB action for the change, but figured you would have an easier time at it than me. (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

So you want it changed to "Women's football in Austria"? I can do that -- just please confirm that that is the name you want. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
That would be the more accurate (and consistent) title. Thanks. (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
This is done. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sports and entertainment

Small point: The main category:Sports is a subcat of category:Entertainment (both here and on en:wp) as sports is a form of entertainment (in addition to health and exercise), so the sports subcats would follow suit - ie. Sports in the United States would be a subcat of Entertainment in the United States. (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You must have seen the sports category that I took out of an entertainment category. I had been thinking that sports should be under entertainment as well, but in most of the country categories it is separate so I chose to be consistent. When I get finished with my current checks to see what new "Sports in" categories I can create, I'll go back and look at that. Thanks for your note. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Likely when I built the cat tree in that area, there either were not enough entries for most countries and they were added after I left or I just never got around to finishing up that section (there were a lot of parts I never got to complete.. lost track of a lot of it) (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Manzai and Xiangsheng

Thank you for suggesting that I try to work with something unexpected and tangential. --Tenmei (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Does that mean you thought it was interesting? So much the better! --Auntof6 (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Television cats

Need to point something out: Television channels are the independent broadcasting stations that carry the signals (locally in most cases) - local affiliates and such: WTVZ, WGPL, WFOX, (etc) and some of the larger ones with single main broadcast points: BBC2, WGN, and so forth. SYFY, Discovery, USA, NBC and such are television networks. There are a lot of cross over issues with Category:television networks and Category:television channels as most listed in both categories are all networks. (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

added - Channel=station (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
So should the channel and station categories be combined? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Channels and stations are different terms for the same thing, so yes they should be combined. En:wp chose to use Channel as the main and redirect station to it, but either one would be a valid choice I think. (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, well I need to sleep on that to get a feel for it. It doesn't help that so many networks call themselves channels! When I go back to it, I think I'll change the terminology in the individual articles, too. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

such a hard worker

you do such a good job. --Crobau (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :) --Auntof6 (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


I removed the QD from the portal due to the fact that it's transcluding the QD onto all the articles that use the portal. I talked to PeterSymonds about it on IRC and he suggests starting an RFD. When you add the RFD template to the portal, please wrap it in <noinclude></noinclude> tags. Thank you. -Orashmatash 21:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

My bad. I put it back inside noinclude tags (it doesn't need nowiki). That will stop the transcluding. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Category-related issue

Please help me figure out how to resolve a problem here. --Tenmei (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you want me to comment there or here? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


Globe-barnstar2.png The Geography Barnstar
Thanks for taking part in the Capital City Weekend which greatly improved the quality of articles. Thanks especially for sorting out some of the category issues which came up during the project. Peterdownunder (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

2013 Atlantic hurricane season

Under what circumstance is our article regarding 2013 Atlantic hurricane season up for deletion? We created that article and 2012 Atlantic season article because of how important these hurricanes' seasons are. Furthermore, we're in very active Atlantic hurricane periods, meaning we will have tropical storms matching Allison or hurricanes matching Andrew during certain years. (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2011/2013 Atlantic hurricane season. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Two, two, two tags in one!

Thank you. I'm not much of a sports fan. (Actually not a sports fan at all.) So, I didn't realize we had that very specific sports person stub. Much appreciated, Gotanda (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobel Prize

Found there were so many Americans under chemistry that shifted gears and started separating them by discipline already (Category:American Nobel Prize winners - Chemistry) some of the smaller ones may not have enough to fully split, but the larger ones most likely will. (talk) 07:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Grr.. wont work without extra work.. I forgot the Nobel template put in their own category. That would lead to both the subcat and main. (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Would it be worth changing the template to do the category differently? I don't know enough about template programming to do that myself, but someone else might. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
There are 2 ways to work the template around it. Neither seems like a good idea
  1. Remove the built in category - This creates way too much work as all pages that were not separately categorized would need to be changed. Some people let the template supply the cat, others added it manual in addition to the template.
  2. Modify the template to accept a nationality argument. Several issues on the implementation of the change and would still require all articles to be changed. This could be an option for down the road and the current Category:American Nobel Prize winners (when finished) would serve well as a list for an AWB edit-a-thon making the change over smoother.
At this point, neither plan sounds like a fun idea, but leaning towards #2 over all. The first just isn't doable. (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I see. I hadn't actually looked at the template, and I was thinking it was an infobox that would have a nationality parameter. As far as option #1, how many Nobel Prize winners do we have articles on anyway? I don't think it would be too hard to have AWB (my automation tool of choice) add the category explicitly. There are fewer than 300 articles under Category:Nobel Prize winners. I wouldn't mind taking care of that. I'd just ask permission to do it with my bot account. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
If we went that way, It would be best to do it before any changes to the template so that they are pre-sorted by category still. Just run through each group adding Category:Nobel prize in <area> winner then run through the American section and add the American winner in <area> cats and finally shift the template over. The Template would only add a second copy to the non-us article and affect the US articles for a short time that way but nothing should get lost in the change over. As such, Ill stop shifting at this point (only physics and medicine left) and wait till after the shake up to finish off the move so we dont cause extra edits for no real reason. (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I made the bot request. BTW, which kind of dash is that in the category name? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I was never a fan of the long dash as it couldnt just be typed, but its your domain now, so your call on the naming traditions of the cats. (I'm just back here to point out issues and such, not to deal with policy any more -hence why I don't log in) (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
FYI, no bot approval yet, but one admin has opined that this doesn't need to be done. See here. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Noticed that so decided to go ahead and finish my pass on that area. All appropriate articles should now be catted as US nobel winners. At least all those that got the main cat to start with. I saw one that wasn't in there (thanks to checking new adds from the most wanted list) and got it in there also. While I was at it, I let loose and kicked out Geneticists, American geneticists, physiologist, biochemists, Amer. biochemists, Amer. biologists and cleaned up a bit of others... pretty much went ballistic and and flooded out RC (kept an eye on it for vandals as well since I could hide my changes and watch easier than others could). (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Got your message!

I got your message. Thanks for telling me; I never knew! Have a good day! The Pikachu Who Dared (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


All of a sudden, you are making big changes to the categories in biographies, changes which I think are not justified. Categories (assuming they are true facts) do not all have to be justified in the text; if they do, show me the rule, please.

I think if someone is Jewish (or whatever) then they are Jewish: that's not an opinion, and may have nothing to do with their religious beliefs. If someone qualified as a Russian scientist, then they qualified as a Russian scientist, full stop. It does not need to have a special mention in the text. All biographies are referenced, and attributed to enWP and other sources.

Multiple categories for nationality &c. are widespread in enWP, and are absolutely essential for understanding a biography. Even if you don't agree, you should first argue the case in Simple talk. Please have a think about all this.

Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

In cases of biographies it is commonly held per WP:BLP that if you put ethnicity/religion type categories on a page that they have to be justified in the article with a source. Nationality is a bit trickier and usually isn't scrutinized to the same degree as ethnicity/religion (ie Jewish etc). That being said, it doesn't have to be a notable part of their life to be mentioned. It just has to be referenced. -DJSasso (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, under BLP/ Where BLP does and does not apply/ Deceased, it says, immediately after discussing categories, "This policy does not apply to edits about the dead". Most of my biogs are about dead people, so I think that gives me a good deal of leeway. Once a (usually) reliable editor puts something in, I think it should not be taken out unless there is reason to think it might be wrong. The chances are that, right or wrong, something taken out will not go back. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
To be fair the onus is on the person wanting to put the information in to proove that it is correct if it is challenged. I would take the removal as a challenge. -DJSasso (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Damaging Hurricane Category

You voted delete for the Damaging Hurricanes category we created. Is there something wrong with the category? Also, Damaging hurricanes was created for storms that did certain amounts of damage or caused high death tolls. The Univ of Northern Iowa class at school IP (talk) 06:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The reasons people have for deleting this category are on the discussion page. Please keep the discussion there. Also please understand that this is not personal. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If a new edition of a print encyclopedia were published today, would you expect it to have an entry on a hurricane season that's two years in the future? No one is saying that it's not worth writing about, just that it isn't appropriate for this encyclopedia this soon. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't we redirect rather than deleting

Those 2013 hurricane pages: couldn't we redirect those two pages instead of deleting them? And please consider that 2013 is within thirteen months beyond now. We think that redirection is better than deletion sometimes. Univ of Northern Iowa school class at (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Leaving messages about this on individual users' talk pages is not helpful. Please keep the discussion on the discussion pages for the articles in question. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template

I must be going crazy. Are you seeing thousands of pages in this category? And can you see it shown at the bottom of any of those pages? Osiris (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

More than likely the job queue. Nothing really to worry about, unless it's still there in a couple of days' time. Goblin 17:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!
Oh, good. I'll keep an eye on it then. Osiris (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Definitely job queue; the number of articles in the category is slowly dropping down. Basically, just view pages and don't make edits and it'll happen faster! One of the rare times our queue isn't zero due to a large alteration and a seemingly slow period in terms of views. Goblin 19:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!
Ah, I see it! Good news, thanks for that :) Osiris (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
...Very slowly... Osiris (talk) 08:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll null edit them, 1954 pages see what we get. Rich Farmbrough, 22:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC).
That leaves 80 pages, many may need a dated category. I'll see what can be done. Rich Farmbrough, 23:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC).
Fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 00:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC).

Thank you

Thank you for helping with the new articles I created. :) --LauraHale (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


Hi! You're flooding recent changes. Might I suggest the flood flag? Cheers, Orashmatash (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

  • You might, but for the specific task I'm working on, I was told it was OK as long as I don't do more than 100 changes (see this diff). I'm only up to 30. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Yet again, people are getting far too worked up about a 'flooding' of new changes. This isn't a big deal and please don't make it one. Goblin 20:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!
Ah, okay. Sorry. --Orashmatash (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)