User talk:Auntof6/Archives/2012

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


Hey Aunt! Sorry, I was away for a while. Hope you had a good new year's! Face-smile.svg I added that cat to the template. If you have any spare time... on that particular item, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on this and this...? Osiris (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind. I created {{Based on}} as an alternative anyway. Though I'd like to tag {{enwp based}} as deprecated or come up with some way to merge its functions and redirect it. Osiris (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Those wacky Brits

One thing to take into consideration when dealing with British territories is that many of them are technically countries of their own. Bermuda is the one that poked my curiosity but there are likely many others in the Overseas British territories that are both British territories (ie. they fall under the token rule of the Queen as members of the British empire) and also their own country in an international sense. The British Empire, United Kingdom, and British in general gets a bit sketchy on what is what at times. I tend to fall back on which cat definitions the English wiki favors for them and in the case of Bermuda, its listed as both an Brit overseas and Caribbean Island nation. (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I moved Bermuda to Caribbean Island nations. Keep keeping me honest! --Auntof6 (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Birds seem a little cockoo

I've been working on animal categories, mainly getting newer articles placed in their closest taxo-cats and I got to Category:birds and I think its possible I had a minor stroke (had 2 full ones already, this one was much less - no blindness, just a need to impersonate Homer Simpson..). Your category Category:Sphenisciformes is a copy of Category:Penguins, "Incertae sedis" basically means "We can't figure out what order to put these in" - it is not a bird order, Its not even always an order - the term can be used at any level. It is a catchall for confusing things including New world vultures, some plant and animal fossiles, types of sea anemones and pretty much anything else that gets them confused. Overall we have avoided clumping sub-cats "by taxo-level". Mainly because it seems to lead to issues with multiple cats for the same grouping. There is also not a large number of plant/animal cats where there are sub-cats not based in taxonomy so, for the most part, all subcats are likely to be taxo-based (although not always named for their taxonomy). (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly no taxonomy expert. I probably created Category:Sphenisciformes to match other categories that are named by order/family/whatever. This being Simple English Wikipedia, I would think we'd want the categories with the simple, common names, but that isn't what I was seeing. Feel free to redo it however you like! --Auntof6 (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, taxonomy makes cats for plants and animals much simplier than any are area - they come pre-categorized. With the taxo-box on the page its just a matter of starting at the bottom (usually the last blue entry works best) and just follow the cats already there. ie. click the last blue classification, look at the category it is in (on the off chance we have a lower level cat that applies but no article for it yet) and just place it there. The entire taxonomy system is the actual cat tree with a few changed in name to easier / more popular names (Angiosperms -> Flowering plants) The system does most of the work for us. (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I get that. I'm just thinking of the audience for this wiki -- people who don't have good English skills. I think that, for them, "Sphenisciformes" and the rest won't mean much. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Usually its the other way around. The "common" name is more for English speakers who understand the word. Some plants and animals are know by 3-4 different names in a single state, worldwide it gets worse. The scientific name is universal - its the same to pretty much all languages. (though we do tend to go with the common English name if available for animal categories - not so much for plants oddly..) (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if we're thinking of the same definition of "simple". I'm thinking of simple vocabulary, for example the 850 or 1500 words that are in Simple English. If you're thinking simple concept, then I would agree with you. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

QD of maintenance cat

Found and effectively resolved your problem. I left the details on Osiris's talk page with your question. (talk) 09:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was offline. Was this just a left-over from before we moved the "sinces" to "froms" or was it created recently? If so, there shouldn't be any problems with the templates. Osiris (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
That as a pointer to since/from situation at the time of the workthrough last night.

removal of information

These is one thing to take into account on your current batch of edits - You are pushing a president on what is valid. By selecting religion as a target and demanding a reference for its inclusion, there is no reason for someone to not come behind you and strip half the articles to <name> was a person. <stub>

Most of the articles you are doing it in not only aren't supported in that one fact, but also date of birth, death, nationality, any detail of their lives.. Your actions are making it fair game to delete any fact on those articles without a reference. Heck, I can challenge that its the persons real name. "Walter Mondale"? was that realy what his was born as? prove it. give me a reference. Was he american? prove it. Hard enough to get the current presidents birth certificate with the power of the national press behind the request. Pretty certain that degree of proof could be an issue and thats the given facts. Adding {{cn}} is one thing, but removing immediately since proof was not given only invites others to play it like a game and push those presidents. They can always reference you doing it and that makes it ok. Adding in a religiously motivated attack validation just fans the flames. --Creol(talk) 05:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I can see how this could be taken as a religiously motivated attack, but it is not. It is in keeping with the policy en:WP:BLPCAT. See also the guideline en:WP:EGRS. (Between those two, I believe living and dead people are covered.) Religion is just the area I happened to start with; I expect to get to other areas covered by that policy as well. However, as happened in the past when someone objected to me making this kind of edit, I have looked at the policy again. I now see it is specific to categories, lists, and information in infoboxes, not statements in the text. Thanks for making me look again. I will check all the edits I made today and put back anything I took out that wasn't in one of those areas, putting in {{cn}} instead. What issues would you have if I do that? Do you think it would be more acceptable if my edit summary were something like "remove potentially controversial category per en:WP:BLPCAT or en:WP:EGRS"? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


Note that there is a {{biology-stub}}. [1]. πr2 02:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, even better! Thanks for the reminder! --Auntof6 (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

'List of'

Why? Not necessary or helpful. Search 'lists' is done through categories. Nothing is added by putting the words it in the title (because it is super-obvious what the page is). It just delays the critical words which people put into search boxes. Longer titles = less readable titles. I think we should guard against too much formality, especially in titles, intros and sub-heads. What enWP does is not necessarily right for us. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I did it because other list pages here are named that way. It had nothing to do with enWP. I disagree that it's "super-obvious" what the page is. Without "List of" in the title, it could be an article about busy airports, not just listing them. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2012 (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.

--Katarighe (Talk) 18:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For all your efforts in categorising, stub sorting and copyediting. Keep up the great work. :) Orashmatash (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Orash! --Auntof6 (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Aviation barnstar

Aviation Barnstar.jpg Congratulations!
Thanks for all the work you did in making the Big Airport Weekend a success! Please accept this Aviation Barnstar. Your work is much appreciated. – Racepacket (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks you so much

Laurier hockey.png

Merci beaucoup pour vos corrections sur les pages Wiki. Ma langue anglaise n'est pas très bonne. Voici pour vous un honneur comme correcteur.Thank you very much for your corrections on pages Wiki. My English language is not very good. Here is for you an honor as a examiner. -- ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 12:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh oh

... Wait: what are we doing?

Osiris (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's easier to understand when the things are separate, so I often substitute the BD template. I've seen one other user (can't remember who at the moment) do big runs with AWB for the sole purpose of substituting it. Also, the doc for {{BD}} says "It should not be used to replace existing DEFAULTSORT and/or category tags." --Auntof6 (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah I see... didn't know. And I see that enwiki has bots that go through and substitute as well. So does that mean I should be adding pages to Category:Year of birth missing et al directly rather than through BD? Osiris (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Oddly, I put that line in the documentation to prevent the opposite of what is occurring now from causing issues not thinking that it would be used this way in response down the road. We had issues at times with users running up edit counts by AWB'ing minor changes that had no function such as shifting from the cats to the template. I didn't take into consideration people making the useless edits in the other direction when I make that addition. Actually dual edits.. since to get it consistant, the article should actually be edited a second time after the subst to get the defaultsort back up on top with the dates on the bottom where where they would belong. (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
A while back, enwiki decided they didn't want {{BD}} (or whatever it was called there... "lifetime", I think) used any more, because someone unfamiliar with it might not understand what it did when they saw it in an article. Enwiki did massive changes to convert it to separate items. I have AWB set up to substitute {{BD}}, but I don't think I've ever saved an article when that was the only change. I usually put the birth/death/living person categories separately, mostly because I'm usually using HotCat to do it. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
This is the same with me, until I discovered today the "year missing" categories that BD generates. I think I'll use it to add pages to those cats, but continue as normal when the years are given. Sorry for the interruption (I hope I haven't created a mess—I think I've only done about 50 pages)... Osiris (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Not a mess as far as I'm concerned -- just a difference in how we do things. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hugo movie

Oops! zorry partner,i not know,that is movie not film,zorry,per my weak spanish,all help with the movie is welcome,hugs & kisses, Do you need something? (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Está bien. Nadie sabe todo al principio -- hize la misma cosa en mis primeros días aquí. Espero que mi español es suficiente bueno. (Translation for others: That's OK. Nobody knows everything at first -- I did the same thing in my first days here. I hope my Spanish is good enough.) --Auntof6 (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

se nota que usaste un traductor,gracias,la verdad no sabia que es movie no film ,esta wikipedia es reducida en articulos no? Do you need something? (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

¡La traductora fue yo -- yo hablo español! Sí, tenemos menos artículos aquí, y los artículos que existen son mas cortos. Es difícil escribir sobre cosas complejas con el inglés simple. También, este Wikipedia, el del inglés simple, es mas nuevo que el del inglés regular. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

= que yo somos mujeres,en la otra wikipedia hay un impostor se hace pasar por mi,me tiene asustada un poco,en ingles protegieron mi pagina de usuaria y la discusion,perdon escribi con mi ip,no se como tiene todas mis contraseñas el tema me da un poco de miedo,me ayuda?

Not meant to be a problem

Thank you for notifying me that you put the qd request on the new Japan stub I had created. I've been out for today, but was planning to get back to it now. I understand you would like it to be deleted, but I hope I can convince you that it is in fact useful. I went ahead as the Bold page says and "If you see something that can be improved, do it yourself." The stub project seemed pretty much inactive, and I know that I can improve the wiki by doing this. I think I have already started to do so. Gotanda (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I respect that you were being bold. :) The stub project is not inactive as much as it is the practice not to add many new stubs -- the stub groupings do not need to be the same as the article categories. There is a question about how useful that really is. What do you see as the improvements that would come with having a stub for Japan (which, BTW, should probably be named "Japan-stub", not "JA-stub")? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


Hello Auntof6,

I have nominated the category Japan-stubs for a regular deletion discussion. You were the person who originally put in the quick-deletion tag ("Empty category" would probably fit). Just wanting to let you know. --Eptalon (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

British English

Please use British English on UK articles. You changed [[movie|film]] to [[movie]] on The King's Speech (diff). Film is the British term and it's acceptable for British articles, so please don't change it. Thanks, DJDunsie (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually it was discussed on simple.wikipedia that movie is a simpler term than film so we don't use film on this wiki at all. His bot was merely fixing the mistakes as it was requested to do. On en.wikipedia you would be correct that we would keep film as an acceptable version, however on we try to use the simpliest version possible and movies are called movies in most parts of the world so it was deemed the easier to understand word for people who don't speak English very well. -DJSasso (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
So many people hate the word. I guess movie is simpler by it's greater usage. I don't really care though so stop trying to make me cry because of my spelling—I know I'm out-numbered by more American spellers—so please don't bully me. DJDunsie (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I am not actually an American speller. I am a Canadian we take the best of both. Or worst depending on which you are lol. -DJSasso (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I only have one problem with using 'movie'. It is that it is mixing British and American spelling. If the community is arguing that 'movie' is simpler because it is used more, then 'color' should be used everywhere because it is used more than 'colour'. So really, what using 'movie' everywhere implies is that we should use American English everywhere too because American English is used more. Thoughts? DJDunsie (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The difference between movie/film and color/colour is that they are two different words. British people also use the term movie. Just not necessarily as much. I think it is also because movie only means one thing whereas film means many things which is another reason it is simpler. -DJSasso (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I see I'm a little late to this discussion, but let me throw in my two cents. In the United States, the word "film" is also used a lot. It's probably used even more than "movie" in formal writing like this, so I don't see this as an issue of what version of English is being used. I do know that people have done significant edit work just to change from "film" to "movie" -- not only in article titles, but in category names. It was in that spirit that I made that change. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Help with AWB

Hey Auntof6! I noticed that you somehow get a number to append to your change summaries with AWB. Would you mind explaining what it does and how to get it? This may seem a bit pointless but I'm just curious. Cheers! -Orashmatash (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not pointless if you're curious about it! Do you mean something like "(7852)"? That is the SVN number of the version of AWB that I used for the change. It didn't always add that number to the edit summary. I think AWB started adding it on its own, but I may have found an option somewhere to start adding it. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick deletions

Don't you think that you are going overboard on these. None of them are just a "copy and paste" from English Wikipedia. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Almost all of them if not all of them are almost identical to the en versions. I don't think you learned from the last time people got upset at you. You can't just change the odd word here and there. You have to rewrite entire sentences etc. -DJSasso (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say that I don't think I'm going overboard. In the ones I tagged, I see very little change from the enwiki versions. At most I'm seeing a few long sentences split into shorter sentences, or a sentence or two removed, but overall they're still pretty complex for here. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The key thing is to collaborate. "Getting upset" is really not productive. It is a shame if you can't find more effective ways to communicate or provide feedback than this. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
You can't say the community didn't give you a very stern warning in the past. Either way its been brought up on AN. -DJSasso (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not upset. I'm using the process that is in place for this situation. You're getting notified, and I see you're also using the process by tagging the articles with the "wait" template. I might be catching a larger than usual number of these right now, because I was offline for a few days while I was in the hospital. To me, the number doesn't make a difference, although I'm disappointed that so many of these were for the Big Airport Weekend. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you check Focus city when you get a chance? I had a bit of a go at it. Osiris (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

RE: Temple Run

Yes. --Jeffwang (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment on my talk tage regarding Urinary tract infection

Which one of the QD criteria apply here? Here is the policy page for you. I have removed the QD until you have come up with an answer. Thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

A great I have found the spot. You are concerned that this was a copy and paste. As it is not I have removed the inappropriate QD. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
If you disagree with the QD, please use the {{wait}} template. Users should not remove QDs from pages that they themselves created. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks like someone else has removed the template. If I remember correctly it should only be added once.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Since someone else disagrees, I'll leave it at that. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
To add my thoughts here: The article had previously been tagged as A3 by Hazard-SJ and rejected by Peterdownunder. So, Auntof6, the proper recourse would have been to discuss with Peterdownunder or seek WP:RFD. The rule of thumb, though, is that users should not remove quick deletion templates from articles they created, so, in the future, Jmh649, the proper way to object to possible deletion would be using the {{wait}} template and making comments on the talk page. Again, as I said in my removal of the tag, it's changed enough from the English article to not be A3, but it is still complex so I've left that tag on. Only (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't notice that it had been QD'd before. I'll try to remember to check for that before QDing articles in the future. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hokkaidō Prefecture

Please review the categories of this re-named article. As you may know, Hokkaidō is both an island and a prefecture -- Category:Islands of Japan and Category:Prefectures of Japan.

Both Simple Wikipedia and English Wikipedia have distinct articles about Okinawa (the island) and Okinawa Prefecture; but there is only one article for Hokkaidō.

In my opinion, the Okinawa example justifies the new article I created here in Category:Islands of Japan. What do you think? --Horeki (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I removed the island category from Hokkaidō Prefecture, and simplified all three articles a little -- the island, the prefecture, and the region. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Your feedback helps me make better guesses about how to handle island/region contexts like Shikoku and Kyūshū. --Horeki (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

High Culture Batnstar

Thank you for the barnstar! It looks great on my page! Oregonian2012 (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


Team Barnstar.png The Teamwork Barnstar
Thanks for taking part in the Big Artillery Weekend in February 2012. Seven editors created 38 new articles and made 319 edits to artillery related articles. Also, four new cats were created, and many others tweaked. Thanks for helping on the Category issues. Peterdownunder (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


Do I need to understand more about your diff here?

Should I recognize this as something I should have done? In other words, is there something I should do differently in future? What is the "en:key" which I am expected to suppose I should know? --Horeki (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I comment, but I was wondering the same thing. I sometimes see categories layed out like [[Category:Foo| ]], and I wonder why it has a pipe and an empty space. -Orashmatash (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Glad to answer both of you. Here is some text from en:Categorization that explains it -- let me know if you'd like further info.
Often an article and a topic category will share the same name, as in George W. Bush and Category:George W. Bush, or occasionally similar names referring to the same thing, as with Mekong and Category:Mekong River. Such a category is called an eponymous category. Usually the article itself will be a member of the category (and should be sorted to appear at the start of the listing, as described below under Sort keys). A clear link to the main topic article from an eponymous category page can be created using the template {{cat main}}.
Use a space as the sort key for an article matching an eponymous category, or for a key article for the category. Typically, these eponymous articles or categories are best listed first even if they do not appear first in alphabetical order. For example, the article Barack Obama includes the category sort key [[Category:Barack Obama| ]]. This places the article at the start of the listing for that category. (Note: If the key article should not be a member, simply edit the category text itself to add it, perhaps using {{Cat main}}.)
Any questions? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Nope, got it. Thanks for explaining that! :) -Orashmatash (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I think I understand -- like Creol's diff here in 2006. --Horeki (talk) 02:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Kind of, yes. Creol did two different things there. First, a more specific category within Category:Entertainment. Second, adding the sort key. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Do I understand? Please see here here ... yes?

Does this show I understand here ... yes? --Horeki (talk) 02:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely for Capital of Japan. On the other, probably. I have a little trouble with the name of that article. I think "List of Japanese eras" would fit better, but that's a separate issue. I think it's close enough to a "key article" that the blank sort key is OK. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. As you suggested ...
I changed the name of the article about Japanese eras. --Horeki (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


I removed your QD tag from the article Stadtholder. The article was correct for the most part and just needed a little cleaning up to better explain the position. --Creol(talk) 23:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Watch Tower Society

Thanks for the "complex" tag at Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. It's the second article I've worked on at the SE Wiki and I'm still feeling my way. I have gone through the article, removed some sections and tried to further simplify the writing. I appreciate your feedback! BlackCab (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Japanese soccer

Do I need to explain what I'm trying to do ... or is it perhaps obvious? transparent? --Horeki (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. If it was a change I made, please tell me which one. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I created a new category with a projected 40+ new articles -- Category:Lists of Japanese football players.

Controversy about Category:Japan-stubs caused me to worry about the potential for an avoidable problem.

I want to smooth over any causes of conflict in advance. --Horeki (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem in that discussion wasn't the category but the creation of a new stub that hadn't been approved. People are free to create any categories needed (within reason) so what you have done should be ok. -DJSasso (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I see. I don't have any issue with that category. It seems like a reasonable category, and it has several articles in it already. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe the issue here is in reference to the comments on Talk:Sanfrecce Hiroshima about the usefulness of a player list on the team article and his moving that section of the article to the talk page. After the comment I made there, he followed the action up on sereral more articles. --Creol(talk) 23:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


Hey. I don't know what to do with these creations. I will leave a stern request on the user's talk page to clean up after himself. I've left the articles as they are in hope that my request will be fulfilled, but if you want to tag them then you should go ahead. Osiris (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Something to be aware of is that almost none if not all of them don't actually qualify for not claiming notability. Remember a claim to notability just has to be a claim it doesn't have to show actual notability. For example a page that says "X Show was a sitcom on the Fox Network." would be a claim of notability because it is a show on a national network. Another thing to remember, just because a show can be speedied doesn't always mean it should be. We want to encourage people to edit, not discourage after all. -DJSasso (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
That being said this particular user has been blocked indefinitely on for mass creation of articles and redirects, so his editing will need watching. -DJSasso (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, that's a good point about being on a national network. I know I'm sometimes quick to QD, so it helps to have these reminders. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Homare Sawa

Please explain your thinking here -- not because I disagree, but because I didn't understand how to parse the relevant factors.

Is it unimportant that there may be one and only one woman in Category:Japanese footballers?

Of course, there are other women soccer players in Japan; but I delay writing articles about them. I don't yet understand out how to create overview articles about the women's teams and leagues. In fact, I would have put off writing about Sawa, but she became part of what happened after the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. --Horeki (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

With so few articles on female footballers, especially female Japanese footballers, there would be no need to use her sex as a determining factor for categorization at this time. As such, the key points for categorizing the article are - Japanese (from Tokyo) - Nationality (location if needed) and footballer (profession/reason for notability) as well as the {{BD}} related cats. Being the only female in the category is not important. Even if she were the only actual female footballer in Japan (and not just the only article) it would not have an affect on the categories. Category:Japanese footballers is the lowest branch of the category tree combining her two key points and as such the most accurate place to place her (until such time it is needed to make a "Female footballers from Tokyo" category (which is not likely to ever be needed and is likely a bit to precise to be that useful.) --Creol(talk) 23:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
And personally, I try to refrain from Sex, Religion, Race, and Orientations based categorizing as much as possible anyway.. but thats a personal thing, I think. --Creol(talk) 23:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I always go for the most specific category available. "Footballers" is more specific than "athletes". I also agree with Creol about categorizing based on sex, religion, race, and orientation, unless it's particularly relevant. I haven't seen many places where I think it's relevant. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Ezo Spruce, 1925-2011
Thank you for helping me better understand the category tree. Please accept this bonsai as a token of appreciation. --Horeki (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, it's lovely! --Auntof6 (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Blood plasma

I just don't see why bots should skip pages like blood plasma, which not only has the same title as enWP, but credits the en article on its talk page! Surely such pages should have been picked up on routine overnight runs by bots.

I will gradually work through all 'my' pages to see they have some i/w link if possible. There are good reasons why some topics are arranged differently on this wiki, so a total 1:1 correspondence is not possible. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


Im actually looking at the +1 you just added to your pages just now.. odd timing. --Creol(talk) 06:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Not odd, considering that we're in the Big Bridge weekend! You go ahead and work on it if you want, I just added it so it wouldn't get forgotten. I wasn't planning on working on it right now. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

General Note

Hello Auntof6, just wanted to remind you that any autoconfirmed registered user with reasonable editing history can vote in the Requests for Adminship and Request for Bureaucratship process. I saw your vote comment at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Osiris and decided to inform you. Anyways, Happy editing :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the info! --Auntof6 (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
And actually, the main policy on which votes are generally acceptable sets the limit on accounts that were created before the application was made. It is still up to the deciding B'crat to pick which accounts are making valid votes based on their judgement (An account created 3 min before the vote may seem too fishy to them to count in a close vote when the opposes are all seasoned editors and the supports are all relatively new accounts) but someone with a highly active long term account such as yours should always be considered a valid opinion in the decisions of this wiki. With a little more research and reading of policy to back up your comments at times, you really should have little problems getting the mop yourself. The fact that your stated opinion in these matters could be overlooked is just unacceptable (and I fully believe the b'crats here would not / do not see that as acceptable - your opinion counts as much as anyone else. More than some.. ). --Creol(talk) 04:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Creol. I take that as constructive criticism and I appreciate it. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Red cats

I undid a number of your category removals recently. These were in the Cat:people from <city> format. Those cats were added to the articles for the larger cities I was seeing over and over while cleaning up Cat:American actors (separated by media and state) and its subcats. Rather than go back through them all again by city and pick out each one, it was easier and less confusing to just add the large cities as I went. This was/is a work in progress as American singers is next in line for the treatment and if I'm still around, musicians after that. While there is a potential for left over cats with only 2 people, the majority will be created in short order as they slowly fill up naturally rather then constant hunting for articles and trying to think of new cities that haven't gotten searched yet. Even if the cats are not filled enough to be created, it helps in the long run as the next article created could be that third or fourth one to make it worth creating. At that point, with the others already marked, it will be easier to see that there is enough for a category and no hunting would be needed to go find the others. Red cats are not always a bad thing when there is a high possibility that they can be filled out easily and people from the major American cities are fairly common articles here. These cats aren't hard to populate. --Creol(talk) 11:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. I won't delete any more of those in the near future. If I do look at them again, I'll try to populate them first. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Big Bridge Weekend

Team Barnstar.png Working together barnstar
Queensborough bridge nyc 1907.gif
Thanks for your contributions during the "Big Bridge Weekend" in March 2012.

Acknowledging your work as one of six contributors who created 20 new articles and 13 new categories in a context of 309 changes in bridge-related articles. --Horeki (talk) 05:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you?

Regarding your worry about commenting on Osiris' current RFA, any person may comment on anything on simplewiki. fr33kman 12:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Further to what Creol said above, your opinion to me counts more than most on this project, and would never be overlooked on community decisions. In addition to being a general asset to this project, you were one of only a handful of editors who helped me find my way when I was new here. Osiris (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


An image suggested by Creol's term "cat-a-palooza" and the phrase "horde of cats that seem to be popping up" -- woodblock print by Utagawa Kuniyoshi (1798-1861)

In light of the horde of cats that seem to be popping up all over the American people categories, I tossed together a couple little things that may be of use. First is Wikipedia:Categories/US people. It is a self updating (if all the states are there.. which I doubt I got them all) tracker of which states (and some major cities in those states) have which of the big 5 subcats. States and cities are easy enough to add to the listing as they are all template based (to handle the heavy lifting on table creation). The other is {{US states missing}}. It has a full explanation on its talk page about its uses and usage. Working on cats so much, these might help out with keeping things in line and pointing to areas where we haven't gotten to yet. --Creol(talk) 08:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Very cool! Is it much trouble to add things? It would be helpful to add "Politicians from xxx", for example. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The adding would not be difficult. The main problem that stopped my adding politicians is things like Category:New York politicians vs Category:Politicians from New York City. The inconsistencies make it impossible/very hard to get it to work for some things. --Creol(talk) 09:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
And done actually. Thats the nice part of the templated setup- much easier to make tweaks. It won't track the politicians in the wrong format, but works fine in the "Politicians from XXX" format that is fairly standard for people subcats. --Creol(talk) 09:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. As far as I'm concerned, we could rename the other categories. I might do that when I need a new task to work on. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
In progress actually. --Creol(talk) 09:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
You might want to be careful with renaming things like that. Politicians from XXX and XXX Politicians mean two different things. The first means the person is from there. ie they were born there. Where as thede second means they are a politician representing that location. For example a politician who was born in New York but ended up being a Senator for California would be in the Politicians from New York category and the California Politicians category. This being that the Politicians from XXX is just a subcategory of People from XXX. Where as the XXX Politicians should be a subcategory of US Politicians. Two different cat trees. -DJSasso (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually politicians is the worst example to bring up, and American politicians just compounds it. The key point argued here is the claim of nationality and the selective wording chosen. You chose the technically correct wording from a nationality standard and then jumped away from it. Claims of "from state" are based on birth and notablility. Micheal Jordan is from North Carolina. Ask anyone. He is an athlete from NC. Technically and per birth records, he isn't. Jordan is a native of NYC. He was born there. He grew up in NC. His personal identity and culture is NC, but he is native NYC. This is not a nationality issue. That is based on defined laws with some exceptions on mainly dealing with expatriots from Canada (Jim Carey) and foreign nationals that are solely defined as living here since they were 7 but the exact paperwork on their citizenship status is questionable or missing (Mila Kunis). It has no bearing on US born ( and many naturlized) citizens as there are no laws defining who is from where. The Governor of California falls under "from California". He is also Californian. The two are equal. The difference was stated in the reply - " a politician for California". That wording would be valid for distinction, but would still get filed under "California" for categories and hence United States eventually up the tree which would argue that they were American when examining the entire tree as a whole. Our cat trees are not designed to to be examined as a whole. They (and en:'s) would be bizarre and un-duely complicated if they were. Sub cats for expatriots and foreign nationals would number higher than actual categories because 3 levels up (if the user chose to go that high to look for similar articles) would be an invalid entry). When a person want to know more about bands from Los Angeles, they want to see all the bands that were formed in Los Angeles and call it home. They don't need 47 sub-categories denoting that over half of these bands have members from from 17 different states and 34 different countries. There are other categories to denote that they have ties to other places. Other places are fine. Back to Micheal Jordan. Somewhere in the cat tree, he is tied to being from Illinois. He is tied to being from Chicago. He is a Chicago athlete due to falling under Chicago Bulls players. In the end, Micheal Jordan is notable for this precise fact. His actions as a Bulls player, as an athletes in Chicago, is why he is famous. Barack Obama (pre-election) is notable as a Chicago politician but in the strictest sense, that wording is wrong - he isn't a Chicago politician or a politician from Chicago. He was a politician in Chicago or for Chicago but any cat tree would put both into Chicago anyway and imply he was from there which is a blatant lie if only birth is counted.
tldr: From state is based on reason for notability, birth and self-identification as there is no local laws defining qualifications for people to be considered as from a state. Our cat tree takes certain liberties to place people into categories where the users can located similar articles more easily that at times presents issues farther up the tree that are not correct. What is in the best interest of the users is more important than being 100% correct through the entire tree as the complexity needed to be 100% is not validated by their needs. --Creol(talk) 05:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Lists of chemical compounds

Hey. On the list of pages without interwikis, there seems to be these lists of chemical compounds, and I wasn't sure what to do with them. I personally think they're redundant since each has a corresponding category of the same scope. Or we could merge them into their associated articles. Or we could convert the titles to lists and just accept that they won't have interwikis.

List of the offenders

Any ideas? Osiris (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I would go for door #3: rename as list articles. I would also remove the dab tags (they aren't really dab pages anyway) and add the articles to their matching categories. They do sort of duplicate the categories, but some people would rather work with articles than categories -- plus, in some cases the list does give a little info instead of just the name. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good. I'll do this right now. Osiris (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I was actually about to just start redirecting them since I had started doing that yesterday. -DJSasso (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, really? Either is fine in my opinion. Osiris (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Did you merge anything or just redirect? Osiris (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I think one or two I merged. But then I realized redirect probably is good enough. -DJSasso (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Doesn't really matter to me, but that is how en has those article names. And then there are sections talking about them rather than lists. Either way is fine with me...I think the easiest and cleanest solution is just to redirect them. But I am open to either. -DJSasso (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the best option would be rename to lists any that have any detail in them and redirect the ones that are simply straight lists with no prose? -DJSasso (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

That sounds fine. I redirected the zinc list, because Zinc had a section with all the same info minus the list (but it has a hatnote to the category). Osiris (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I should probably also note everything in Round 5 and about half of Round 4 in your interwiki list has been fixed. -DJSasso (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Cool. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

QD nom

This probably should be deleted but the author does just about assert notability with the lines "The project has a very big community and counts many contributors too[1]. Some developers are well-known authors of other free and open-source projects. For example, there are Eric S. Raymond[2] or Rusty Russell[3][4]." It should be taken to RFA. Cheers :) fr33kman 15:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As it stands now, I agree, but that wasn't there when I tagged it. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Daddy Yankee

We apologise for the edits made to the page "Daddy Yankee" under this computer. We try our best to ensure that people who use this computer do not engage in innapproiate activity. However with this being a school computer, there are several students who use it daily, and it is difficult to keep track of everyone all the time.

Again, we apologize for the changes that were made. — This unsigned comment was added by (talk • changes) on 08:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC).

random points

  1. brah-ha-ha!! you created Politicians from Chicago, so you get to go through the Illinois cat and find which ones to move down.
  2. Grr.. How did I miss the scientists from Jersey one.. I'm usually good at catching those at 3 and creating them.. nice catch.
  3. Poker players are people who play poker.. so should probably get a people cat. (and this falls under #2 as well.. I should have caught that one). While painful to say they are athletes (though they do play what is classified by many as a sport..), I think the sports people cat would be the best choice (with race car drivers). --Creol(talk) 06:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
LOL! OK, it's done. I found these by looking at the "Wanted categories" special page. As for poker players, I can't bring myself to classify them as athletes. Maybe just put them directly under Category:People until we have enough to group them by something like "People by association" or "People by pastime"? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


Make sure you are careful when using checkwiki and don't blindly follow everything it says needs fixing as it sometimes is wrong (some on would say very often wrong) and something that is being used is necessary or done on purpose. I just noticed this one where you removed html markup but didn't replace it with the wiki markup version. -DJSasso (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I do pay attention to that. When I was working on it yesterday, I bypassed quite a few things that were flagged. There are also whole CheckWiki error IDs that I just mark as done whenever they show up because they don't need fixing. I didn't replace the html in that case because I didn't think it needed it. I also didn't know about {{small}}, but even if I had I wouldn't have used it in this case. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

BHW work

Big Heritage Weekend

Thank you for helping us on the Big Heritage Weekend. I hope you like the barnstar! Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


Hi! I don't see how Jean Robieux can possibly be qualify as an QD:A3. For one it has been translated from French to English. fr33kman 22:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the chrome translation of the article on the French wiki, I would have to agree that its a copy/paste. The first section has only the minor cleanup from the auto-translation and the works section only had one word changed and a link or two. I put the translation in place in the second section to demonstrate this. --Creol(talk) 22:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, thanks! fr33kman 22:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Some transwiki's are sneakier than others :) --Creol(talk) 22:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Creol. Fr33kman, it was my understanding that direct translations from other languages fall under A3. I know enough French (and a couple of other languages) to tell when something is a direct translation. Besides that, machine translations from other languages are usually poor translations. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

IPs vandalizing Palm tree

Excuse me Auntof6 but we have some IPs that are doing vandalism on Palm tree. Can someone please have them blocked? I have a slow computer and it's hard to really keep up with them. Miss Angie aka September 1988 (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I reported it at WP:VIP. (You can report things there, too, y'know!) It will be up to the admins whether to block. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Refrain from removing the sourced material

You are again and again removing sourced statements from Waheed Murad which is not a good gesture from an experienced user like you. Please refrain from doing so. Haify2 (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed some text from this article because it was unencyclopedic, and because articles on Simple English Wikipedia do not need this kind of extra text. As I mentioned elsewhere, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Just because something is sourced does not mean it belongs in a Wikipedia article. If you had just put back that text, that might have been OK, but by reverting the entire change you also removed some tags that do belong there. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't bother responding, Auntof6. He's just labelled Pmlineditor as a "sock" and gone on a rampage reverting Pm's edits to various articles (and mine). I'll ask for a block on AN. I'd do it myself, but I'm involved. Osiris (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Noted. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


Hello, Auntof6. I have moved your listing of people named Don/Donald to Don (given name), and put a disambig page at don. It lists the russian river, the honorific, and various chemicals. --Eptalon (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. Thanks for letting me know. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I also shifted the list of people to both use existing articles and to be a bit more varied. --Creol(talk) 10:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Prime Ministers of Japan

Please look at the categories for Ito Hirobumi? Is there an arguable reason for both Category:Politicians and Category:Japanese politicians?

Is it one or the other, but not both? --Horeki (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Japanese politicians is under Category:Politicians in the category tree, so Category:Politicians isn't needed. I removed it. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I thought that was what should be done; but I was uncertain, unsure. Your answer gives me a tool for figuring out what to do with similar questions in the future. If I don't know what to do, at least I know who to ask. --Horeki (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Note that while this is true 99% of the time, there are some rare cases where people are in the parent and subcat for a reason. The biggest instance is cat:writers and sub-cat poets. (the American writers by state subcats helps make this a little less obvious by putting a lot of our writer/poets in separate parts of the tree - for example Emerson is in writers from Mass and American poets, but was listed as American writers and American poets as he was both an author and poet) It is very possible to be both a writer (novelists, bloggers, print journalists) and a poet. Another case is with musical genres. A band may play rock music, alternative rock, grunge and heavy rock depending on which song and stage of their career.. It is not uncommon for a to fall into multiple subcats and the main cat at the same time as each genre is a distinct genre although they are linked catgorically by banda common style. --Creol(talk) 04:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Norsk Bridgeforbund NB

Please put an infobox in this article Norwegian Bridge Federation. (talk) 12:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Took care of this for you, hope you don't mind. Osiris (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Please , could you put an infobox , in this articles Norway Chess Federation (Norsk Sjakkforbund) , New Zealand Chess Federation , United States Bridge Federation. (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

As of?

I followed this up at en:Wikipedia talk:As of and they don't seem to think there's much of a reason to keep these separated. I've merged our version and the version on enwiki will probably be merged in a few days, pending any objections. Is that okay with you? If not, let me know and I'll revert it. Osiris (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Merged with {{when}}? That's fine. I wouldn't want to see it merged with {{as of}}, though -- those have separate uses, even though the names are so similar. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


Just letting you know that I filled up Category:Category needed on an AWB run yesterday. Osiris (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, categorizing! My favorite! :) --Auntof6 (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
All done, including the uncategorized stubs. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Whoosh! Osiris (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Are these suitable?

I am new to the Simple English Wikipedia. I was wondering if Stranger with My Face and Plausible Prejudices: Essays on American Writing are suitably worded for simple English. SL93 (talk) 01:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The wording is simple enough, if that's what you mean. I do think those articles should include something about why the books are notable. In my opinion, just saying that the books were reviewed is not enough, even if they were reviewed by notable publications like the Los Angeles Times. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Now I'm wondering if notability is more strict here than the English Wikipedia. Notability is mostly just significant coverage in reliable sources which includes reviews. SL93 (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's more strict here. It's just that those reviews should be used as references for facts about the books, instead of just saying that the books were reviewed. Give a reason why we should care about the books. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
In other words, the articles should state why the books are notable, and use the reviews to support those statements. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll stick to English Wikipedia where reliably sources stubs are acceptable. I am autopatrolled, have rollback, and am experienced there. I hate how you are using should repeatedly when I don't have to do anything that fits one editor's belief that really does have no consensus. SL93 (talk) 03:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I will consider your proposals if you show me a guideline or policy here that says that notability operates how you say it does. SL93 (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


At Template:Timelines of nengo and reigns, I added keys in two of the categories. I don't have a vocabulary which describes this.

I can guess what this key does, I don't know how to explain it. --Horeki (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks OK to me. I see that you added sort keys to the two categories. In general, sort keys are used to control where things are listed alphabetically when you look at a category. When a template is in a category that is mostly for articles (like Category:Emperors of Japan or Category:Japanese eras), we use a value of "τ" for the sort key. That makes the template be listed at the end of the category. There are other special values for sort keys that are used for other things. You can read more about this at en:WP:SORTKEY, in the next-to-last paragraph there. When a template is in a category that is for templates (such as Category:Japan templates), you don't use that special value. I'm not sure if you had a specific question about this, but I hope this helps. Let me know if you still have any question. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Auntof6, thank you. I did wonder about the tau "small 't'" after I noticed your change here in October 2011. I did not recognize this key as Greek. I didn't know what to make of it. My thinking didn't crystalize into a question until now. --Horeki (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Where do you get that symbol from? I've been meaning to ask since I can never find it in the special characters dropdown... Osiris (talk) 03:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It's under "Greek". It's a lower-case tau. It's the 15th from last symbol, right after the upper-case tau that looks like an upper-case "T". I actually have it saved in a Firefox add-on called MyWords that lets me save frequently-typed text. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Now how did I miss that before?! I swear I looked for it about 20 times! Cheers! Osiris (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


"Books get reviewed because they are notable" - Sometimes a book is reviewed because the reviewer doesn't have high standards to only review notable works. :) A lot of reviews are pushed by publishing houses to serve as pseudo-advertisements. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

  • You're right, of course. I was speaking from the Wiki point of view that something with coverage in the press is, ipso facto, notable. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Awards vs competitions

The categories Awards and Competitions are a mess IMO. A competition implies an event, whereas an award does not. A Nobel Prize is not a competition, it is an award. It is not right for the Awards category to be under Competitions. Perhaps the wider concept of "Distinctions" should be used as a base concept. Anyway, it is better that you should decide whether or not to go into this. I just noticed it when looking for a place to put the Crafoord Prize. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Pest killer

Ah, thanks. I hadn't thought of the word "pesticide" for some reason! Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 14:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

New page patrolling

NPPbarnstar.jpg The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
For all the incredible and invaluable work you do every day. Without it we'd have quite a mess on our hands, and since I've never said a formal thank you- here it is. Osiris (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 07:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


This appeared to be a rather hurried QD. I love your work here, but let's try to be more careful when we tag articles. :) I honestly didn't see why it had "little or no meaning", and this kind of action may discourage editors. If you still think it should be deleted, please state your opinion on the talk page! Best, Bella tête-à-tête 09:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the feedback. I know I can be quick to QD. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again

Thank you once more for fixing the details on my latest editing. You have developed such a great understanding of cats and templates that your input is simply invaluable. --Peterdownunder (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi there! Thank you for improving the article "electrical filament" This was a project and you made it awesome! You finished it for us! Thank you!

Ae147smsb (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


I just noticed your edits in the new changes. But you are using a semi-automatic editor and edited very many pages. In order to keep the page more tidy, please request a flood flag, then your edits won't be visible. Thank you! --weltforce (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I have just finished. I have discussed this with the admins before. They asked that I request the flood flag if I would be making more than about 100 of the same kind of edit within a short time. This time, I am only a little over 100, and not all the edits are exactly the same thing (some are creating new categories, some are recategorizing, some are changing categories to redirects). Therefore I think I am within what the admins asked. I do flag many of these changes as minor, though, so you can hide them from the display with the "Hide small changes" option. Does that help? --Auntof6 (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah, ok, thank you for your nice answer and sorry for my mistake. --weltforce (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


Hello Auntof6! You tagged 3 empty categories for QD with reason C1. C1 is described as following:

Empty categories (with no articles or subcategories for at least four days) whose only content includes links to parent categories. However, this can not be used on categories still being discussed on WP:RfD, or disambiguation categories. If the category wasn't newly made, it is possible that it used to have articles, and more inspection is needed.

I'm a little bit confused now, because the categories were created today. Is there a special rule or something? Thanks for a answer! --weltforce (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Here on Simple Wikipedia, we want at least 3 to 5 entries in a category -- that's one of the ways we keep things simple. In the past, the admins have been willing to delete newly-created categories that didn't have enough entries. If they aren't willing this time, they can wait the 4 days. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah, ok! Thank you very much for telling me this :-) Have a nice day! --weltforce (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

cmt on hatnote template

My reason for not using the hatnote template on Herschel Space Observatory was to use direct English "Do not confuse" rather than indirect English "Not to be confused". It's quite clear that my version is simpler, and shorter. I would change the template if I could find it!. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I can change the template. Could "This is not the same as xxx" be even clearer? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Both seem to be of equal simplicity. I prefer mine as being shorter. Is brevity important? Yes, in a hatnote, because it gets seen before the intro. Intro sections are the most important part of the page, IMO. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, could you make a change to the template, please. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
We should probably try to use something that's a bit more passive, rather than speaking directly to readers. A passive voice appears more informative than telling readers directly not to do something. Osiris (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
That sounds right to me. What wording would you suggest? --Auntof6 (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Personally I think "Not to be confused" is still simple and its passive. Do not confuse is not appropriate because as you say it is speaking directly to the reader which we are supposed to avoid. -DJSasso (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, either keep it the same or go with "This is not the same as xxx" as you suggested. Either are fine in my opinion. Osiris (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Macdonald-ross? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

From a grateful teacher

Barnstar-abc.png The Helping Hand Barnstar
Thank you for helping my student and new SEWP editor, User:TMDnumahira with their first article. Your constructive edits are really helpful. My students need this kind of real-world use of language to communicate and create something that will last. ELTted (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
And, especially, thank you for coolly and quickly reverting one student's blanking and replacement of the content on Simple Talk. He got a bit confused between a Talk page and Simple Talk, I think. I tried to go back and add at least one category to each of the students' new articles, so I hope I haven't made any additional work for you. They really enjoyed working on the wiki this morning. We will go back and improve these stubs. Thanks again, ELTted (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thanks for the barnstar. :) Let me know if I can help, especially with the categories. I've done a lot with categories and can usually figure out the best ones for an article. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

RE PGA comments

Thank you for simplifying the remaining issues, do you now feel that the article is up to standards? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 12:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Pope Celestine IV

Please review the categories at Pope Celestine IV.

I'm not sure. --Horeki (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"Italian popes" is a subcategory of "Popes", so he doesn't need to be in both. I just ran through all the entries for popes of specific nationalities and took care of all the ones that were like this. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. --Horeki (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


I hope this is not asking too much, but could you give The Nutcracker a once-over for simplification and your assessment of its chances for passing GA? Thsnk you! Oregonian2012 (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. I'll do simplifying a little at a time. As far as its chances, I'm not really that familiar with everything articles need for GA. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Birth and Death categories

Hi, Auntof6. Thanks for adding the birth and death cats to Francesco Maria Piave. I saw a discussion on English Wikipedia about the Indian Education Project's latest plans and came here to find out what writing in Simple English is like. As an experiment, I created a couple of articles and rewrote/expanded another. It's fiendishly difficult. :) Anyhow, the reason I had assumed that the birth and death cats didn't exist here at SEWP was that I had only looked in Category:People. At EWP, these cats are in two parent categories People by time and Events by time. Might be a good idea to do that here too. It could be a help to inexperienced editors who work on biographies. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

PS I'll also make sure to use the {{Lang}} template. Didn't know it existed here either. Would it be a good idea to add it to Wikipedia:Manual of Style? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well done!

I agree with your reversal of Debastein. What behaviour! Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation and patience


I asked students today to concentrate on improving their existing pages. Sorry the super-short stub for Yamada Takao slipped through. I will make sure it gets some proper content. I think the student editor was trying but just ran out of time. (Class ended). Thanks again, ELTted (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sorry I didn't notice it was from your class until I had already QD'd it. I undid the QD. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

RfD problem

Hello Auntof! You showed up the problem that {{RfD}} may not be showing up the link to the RfD. I think I now found the problem. I created the discussion here. Thanks for your attention! Cheers, --weltforce (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Under-23 football teams

  1. I agree with what you said that it should be National and not International. I was thinking that myself before making it.
  2. I do plan to make more. As more teams begin to qualify for the 2013 AFC U-22 Asian Cup I shall make pages for them. Also I plan on making pages for all the under-23 teams in the Olympics this year as well. So I should reach that requirement of teams in the category easy. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

List of football players

Re: List of Pune F.C. players ...?

As context, please review the discussion at Talk:Sanfrecce Hiroshima#Is this section good for the article?

These types of articles are "lessons learned the hard way" beginning in 2010. The point is to keep all but notable "quarantine" names in a place which is not the article about the team.

In your opinion, what is the minimum number that would justify this kind of list page?

On one hand, this is a constructive response to IEP 2.0.

On the other hand, this is an attempt to solve a problem before it starts -- a structural response to an anticipated problem. Do you see what I'm trying to do?

This is also part of a larger picture.

For example, please recognize that the concept model for List of Pune F.C. players is Category:Lists of National Hockey League players Auntof6, how can we develop structural responses to problems which are likely in the future? Is this not a plausible step in a process? --Horeki (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I took the player list section out of the team article and added a link to the player list article under "related pages". I think the player list article is OK now that there are more players listed -- I don't know that there's a minimum number for that, but if there is one it's higher than one. (Of course, that's just my view.) Does that seem OK to you? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I am just wondering why the squad should not be on the main article. I mean I am on here now so I should be able to update the squad whenever changed (And from the looks of it, it needs a MAJOR REVAMP as the transfer season has already started in India and players like Subrata Pal and Lester Fernandez already left the club and new guys like James Moga signed. Dont use soccerway as a source as soccerway is still not updated in terms of Indian football. Even the Pune FC website is not updated. If you want to start a page like this than I reccomend for Pune FC you add the squad from the website than look at this page and edit that squad using that page (which sources every transfer). --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Also I already detailed all the Pune FC transfers this summer on here... User:Arsenalkid700/2012-13_Pune_F.C._season#Key_Events (With sources). --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I responded directly to this question at User talk:Arsenalkid700#Structural strategy in football articles; and I commented indirectly at User talk:Horeki#Indian football.

I wonder where is the best place to consolidate this discussion? Perhaps at List of Indian football teams? --Horeki (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Wherever you consolidate it, post something at WP:Simple talk so people know about it. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Simple WikiProject Football

Started User:Arsenalkid700/WikiProject Football so we can discuss what we should do with the articles pertaining to association football. Welcomed to join if you want. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyeditor's Barnstar

CopyeditorStar7.PNG The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thank you for your c/e skills on the Selena (album) article! Hope you have a great week ahead. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 15:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Jona! --Auntof6 (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

CopyeditorStar7.PNG The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thanks for copy editing the article Golden Sun: Dark Dawn!--铁铁的火大了 (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Wangxuan! --Auntof6 (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


Categorisation barnstar1b.png The Categorisation Barnstar
Thank you for your affords of cleaning up or category system! What would we do without you Face-wink.svg ? weltforce (talk) 08:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Weltforce! --Auntof6 (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi there!

Hey Auntof6, I'm BPositive. I was one out of those 13 volunteers who signed up on WP:Proposed Indian Education Program. I've started off editing changing on this wiki from the past week. I've created some articles as well. Could you please mind going through my changes and tell me how am I progressing? I've had conversations with User:Osiris before and have been seeking his help. Would be glad if you also review my changes before I change anything further. Thanks. BPositive (talk) 07:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'd be glad to do that, but I probably won't get to it until tomorrow. I'll get back to you after that. Happy editing! --Auntof6 (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response. No problem. No hurries. Cheers! BPositive (talk) 07:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I've looked at your edits a little bit. I made some changes to Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus. The changes were mostly to simplify, but I also added some information. I'll look at your other edits later. Look at the changes I made and let me know if you have questions about them. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I saw the changes you made on that page. Hmmm, got to learn something :) Thanks for it! :) BPositive (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, some of them were minor, like simplifying language. Some were just "nice-to-have", like adding the commons link and World Heritage Site info. Overall, I thought the article was better than a lot of articles we get from new editors. :) What else specifically would you like comments on? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I would like to know if I'm really keeping it 'simple'? It takes time to adjust over here after editing on Just wanted to know if I'm doing it right. BPositive (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I just looked at the other pages you made (Gandhinagar and Nagpur). They look fairly simple to me. There's room to make them even more simple, but to me they show that you understand how to make sentences simple. Congratulations! --Auntof6 (talk) 10:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Auntof6! Glad to hear that. :-) Will do better in my future edits. Cheers! BPositive (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


I know that doing well on Wikipedia. I'm not a beginner, I was on Wikipedia in 2010. year. Until a few months ago I made an account and since then, mostly real articles in Serbo-Croatian. Here, I made only three articles so far, did not speak English the best, and if you know the Serbian language that we will be best to communicate. I have one question for you: "Why there are two in the English language Wikipedia." Greeting! --Call me (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


What do you think of my edits to the Polanski article? Are they good?--RJR3333 (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sharon Tate and Nastassja Kinski articles

What do you think of the articles I've created and what I've been adding to them? Are they good?--RJR3333 (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I think they look pretty good. I just did some minor editing on them, but even before that they were in fairly good shape. Do you want me to look at anything specific? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


Some of the templates you are bringing over are far, far too complex and detailed for our needs. Template Toad, for example, has hundreds of red links and is far too large. We simply do not need it. If we have it at all it should be set closed not open. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you need AJona1992. Auntof6 just fixes the categories and documentations after they've been imported. Osiris (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm currently working on the Amphibian article. After I'm done, I will work on all of those redlinks. BTW the template is collapsible, it closes every time I go on the article. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 18:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The next Big Weekend – 10 to 13 August

You are invited to take part in the next big weekend, the Big Space Weekend, on 10 to 13 August. Our goal is to increase the number and quality of space-related articles. For full details, see Simple Talk. DJDunsie (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hendrik Verwoerd article

What do you think of the article I created about Verwoerd. Is it good? Is it well sourced enough?

It certainly has enough references. Here are my comments:
  • More internal links would be good
  • The text could be broken into paragraphs.
  • The article could be simpler. Some of the words could be simpler, and the sentences could be shorter.
What do you think of those ideas? Is there anything specific you'd like me to look at? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I added some pipelinks. I broke the text into paragraphs. I simplified some of the words and shortened some of the sentences. Does it look better now? There is one specific I'd like you to look at. I mentioned that Verwoerd was born in Holland and he and his parents immigrated to south Africa when he was two years. And I called it south Africa in that sentence, i.e. without capitalizing the s in south. Another editor corrected that to South Africa, i.e. with capitalizing the s, here But Verwoerd came to south Africa before 1910 and the country South Africa did not exist until 1910, so I think south Africa should have a lower case s in that sentence. Was that user correct or me?--RJR3333 (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
It's definitely better! Some of the sentences are still fairly long. In some places where you explain words, I think you could either link those words to the articles, or just use different words if there are simpler ones. For example, there are articles for apartheid, republic, and referendum.
I also think you could delete the sentence, "He was murdered in 1966 while still in office" because that is repeated a little farther down.
I understand the issue of south vs. South. I think using southern is a good solution. It will avoid confusion, and both human and automated editors won't keep changing it.
At some point, the article should have some categories. If you want, I can add some -- categories are one of myu specialties here!
Anything else? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I trimmed a lot of the long sentences. And I replaced the explanations of obscure words with pipelinks when I could. I still retained the definition of native as referring to the black South Africans, I don't know if that is necessary or not, what do you think? When I simplified my wording I replaced the word monarchy with kingdom when referring to South Africa's referendum on whether to retain the British monarch as its head of state or become a republic but I now remember a discussion I had on a wikipedia talk page about Elizabeth II a long time ago where one of the editors, called Tharkuncall, said calling Commonwealth dominions that use the British monarch as their head of state "kingdoms" is inaccurate because they don't have a head of state of their own, they just use the British ruler as their head of state for reasons associated with the former British Empire. Tharkuncall said "Indeed, why should not the provinces be referred to as "kingdoms", rather than Canada itself which is actually a fairly loose confederation? This just highlights the absurdity of using the term kingdom at all. Colonies do not become kingdoms - they are something different." If he is correct then kingdom will have to be reverted to monarchy, but if he's wrong I'd prefer to keep kingdom, as its definitely more common. --RJR3333 (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
That looks much better! I think keeping the explanation of native is OK, because it's a specialized meaning. All I would do now is add categories, a default sort, and a commons link. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but specifically, what is your opinion on whether the word kingdom or monarchy is more appropriate here? I guess I should assume based on the fact you didn't specify it that you agree with keeping kingdom, but because of Tharkuncall's criticizing me before for using it to describe Commonwealth dominions, I want to make sure. So could you answer that last question? --RJR3333 (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on it, but I'm not sure either word is accurate. How about just saying, "stay under the British rule"? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
"Stay under the British rule" would definitely be worse because when South Africa was under the sovereignty of the British monarch, it was, at least after 1931, also an independent country, per the Statute of Westminister, linked to the United Kingdom primarily through a shared monarch. The South African Parliament made South Africa's political decisions, not the British Parliament, at least after 1931. This was true to the extent, that in 1939, South Africa had a choice in the matter of whether to side with the United Kingdom in its war with Germany, or stay neutral, and the South African Parliament voted on the issue, with a large minority, led by J.B.M. Hertzog, opposing South African entry into the war, although Jan Smuts's faction supporting South Africa siding with the UK won. The point of that example is that South Africa, although under the sovereignty of the British monarch, was not under any kind of political control from the British Parliament, so "staying under British rule" would be worse than the two options I presented. --RJR3333 (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, then I guess I can't help with that question. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I added the categories, default sort, and wikimedia commons link. --RJR3333 (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I added a couple more categories and changed the commons link to be a little neater. Good job! --Auntof6 (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Alex Jones article

Do you like my changes to the Alex Jones? Are there any problems with them? --RJR3333 (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


all my articles are removed by osiris (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Chris Hansen article changes

What do you think of my changes to the Chris Hansen article? I want to be VERY careful with this one because my handling of it was the reason I got blocked from regular English wikipedia, so I would like input from other people. --RJR3333 (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Big Olympic Weekend

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Man's Barnstar
Thank you for the contributions you made during the Big Olympic Weekend. You made over half of the total changes! Tbennert (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Accountancy article

What do you think of my changes to the accountancy article?--RJR3333 (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


Can I give you the flood flag? Only takes 2 seconds and means you can go as fast as you want...? Osiris (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, sure. I keep thinking I'll just do one more decade, but then I look up and it's a couple of centuries later! :) --Auntof6 (talk) 04:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
You've got it! Leave something on my talk when you're done. Osiris (talk) 04:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Will do -- thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Just saw your request on AN. Still need it? Osiris (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Done. I'm about to log off, but will check back in about a couple of hours. Osiris (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
OK. Let me know if you'd like me to leave a note at AN instead of your talk when I'm done, so whoever is online can take the flag off. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Depends if you see me doing stuff on RecentChanges. If I'm not there, yeah, leave something at AN and I'll check it when I get back. Thanks, Osiris (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Want it again? Osiris (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, sure. I only have about 40 more of these to do, but then I might find something else. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Cool, done. Osiris (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

6th century births and deaths

In my opinion, your changed categories at Emperor Kimmei here and Emperor Bidatsu here and Emperor Jomei here are mistakes -- not wrong, but a bad choice in a fuzzy logic context.

We can see that your decision-making is mirrored in de:Kimmei and en:Emperor Kimmei.

Please give some thought to these sentences

Historians consider details about the life of Emperor Kimmei to be possibly legendary, but probable. The name Kimmu-tennō was created for him posthumously by later generations.
The conventionally accepted names and sequence of the early emperors were not to be confirmed as "traditional" until the reign of Emperor Kammu, who was the 50th monarch of the Yamato dynasty.<:ref>Aston, William George. (1896). Nihongi, pp. 109.</ref>

Please compare the less specific categories at Emperor Yōmei, Emperor Sushun, Empress Suiko?

Your changes are justified, of course; but there are also good reasons for more general categories for the births and deaths which are not really known for the early Japanese emperors.

More broadly, this general question is not just about the emperors, but also about the many historical figures in the early Japanese histories. --Horeki (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I changed the categories to match what the articles said. If that is wrong, feel free to change the article to be more accurate, and change the categories to match. The only reason I didn't change the ones that still say 6th century is that I stopped working partway through the 6th-century entries. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for this response. My inquiry was awkwardly framed. Is your most important sentence this one?
I changed the categories to match what the articles said.
I wonder if my questions put the cart before the horse. Do you know this expression?

When I began this thread, I conceived of articles and categories as something like horses pulling a carriage of understanding. This metaphor perhaps caused me to consider questions which were unhelpful. It is less confusing to conceive of the categories as developing from the substance of the article.

Have I got this right? From your perspective, was this obvious or taken-for-granted? If so, I may have been examining the wrong issues. If so, this would have caused me to stumble in trying to parse what is relevant and what is not. --Horeki (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your metaphor, but yes, the sentence you mention was my main point. I try to put articles into the most specific categories possible. Categories for individual years are more specific than categories for centuries or decades. For birth and death categories, sometimes articles are put into century or decade categories when a category for the actual year doesn't exist yet. I've been looking for articles like that and creating the categories for specific years. In other cases, a person's year of birth or death is uncertain, so they can't go in a specific year category. Does any of this help? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. --Horeki (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


Thank you so much for c/e the article. Best, Jonatalk to me 01:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I only did the intro section. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I know, but you still deserve a thank you =) Best, Jonatalk to me 02:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Medical articles

Has been simplified and we are working on it further. Give us a few days. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Taxobox categories

Hey. So... the taxobox thing carries a total of 35 content categories for the various "status systems" that can be specified:

  • 9 categories for IUCN classifications
  • 6 categories for EPBC classifications
  • 7 categories for NatureServe classifications
  • 6 categories for NCA classifications

If no system is specified it puts the pages into one of 7 general (parent?) categories, as you mentioned, and also into those maintenance categories. I'm not sure how many of the content categories you want to create, but the full list is here. Osiris (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Most of the redlinked ones don't have any entries, so I don't think I'll create them right now. I do think I'll put something in the template doc to explain how this works, though. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

World Bible Center

In English wikipedia i wrote all this. it is ok if i can copy it to here ? . פארוק (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You can bring articles here from English Wikipedia, but you must simplify the language. It is not enough to just leave out parts of the article. You can read Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages to get more information on this. Also, if you bring an article here from English Wikipedia, please put a notice on the talk page using the template {{enwp based}} or the template {{Based on}}. Does that help? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

also this articles: Specialized city + Jerusalem Historical City Hall Building + World Bible Center + Kiryat HaLeom‎ i wrote by myself. so why i can't copy it to here. פארוק (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You can copy them here, but you have to make the language more simple. This is Simple English Wikipedia. Our articles use simple words and sentences, so that people who don't know English very well can understand them. Take a look at the pages on how to write Simple English, and the other link that Osiris gave you on your talk page. If you have questions about any of that, just ask! --Auntof6 (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Historiography of science

Do we need this category? I don't think we do. We can handle everything under History of Science or Philosophy of Science, so I suggest deleting it. Next question: do we need category Historiography at all? I think that's a no as well. The funny German topic can go to Archaeology or History of Germany. It is a nuisance having categories with virtually no content and whose meaning is obscure and seldom if ever used on Simple pages. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Did you want me to take care of it, or were you just looking for another opinion? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
You go ahead, please. I've arranged article "Philosophy of science" as being in a) Philosophy by field, and b) Science. I notice in passing that Categories Science and culture and Science in society each have only one page at present. Science and culture seems not needed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, I think I've taken care of it. The empty categories are tagged for quick deletion. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Monte Fitz Roy

Good night which is problem with the page Monte Fitz Roy and is the second we posted that I delete under this excuse if this will continue and continuing to tell me not cooperate more with this Wiki, I lost a good time writing and taking ideas of various websites. Honestly I think it is an abuse of you. Bye. --Veronidae (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. This is the Simple English Wikipedia. Articles here need to be written in Simple English. That is so that people who don't understand English well can understand the articles. If you copy an article from English Wikipedia, you need to make it more simple. Articles from other Wikipedias are usually too complex for this one, and they often use templates, categories, and other things that we don't have here. You might like to read Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia and Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages for more information about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Simpler than what I wrote I doubt you can, but I see that you continue in your wrong position. Do not cooperate more. : ( --Veronidae (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Some cookies for you!

Chocolate chip cookies.jpg Weltforce has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them!

Thank you for all the hard work you did! You have now been here for four years, and I think many agree that you are one of the most dedicate Wikipedians here! --weltforce | talk 23:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, wow, it was your wiki-birthday on Saturday!!! Face-grin.svg Osiris (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Weltforce and Osiris! --Auntof6 (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


Could you have a look at {{uw-emptycat}} and see what you think? It's a note handed out so often to new users, a polite template could make things easier. I'm trying to make it as un-bitey as possible. Osiris (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It could mention the name of the category(ies). --Auntof6 (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I've made it so that you can add the name of one category, which will make sure it works with Twinkle. So it's under the single-issue notices I think. Osiris (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Asano Nagasato

Please reconsider your change here.

IMO, it made good sense to add Sports in Japan as a related page because this woman is a member of the Japan women's national football team and because she played in Olympics qualifying games. If not, then your reasoning begs a question about the other article which each have a similar related link. If I have been mistaken, it is good that you are pointing it out to me.

Also, FYI: Asano Nagasato and Mrs. Yūki Ōgimi, also known as Yuki Nagasato, are sisters; and their brother is Genki Nagasato. These siblings are literally related; and this explains why I included them as related pages. Perhaps a sentence about this relationship is necessary? --Horeki (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think the purpose of that section is to give the reader links to pages he or she is likely to want to visit after reading that article. It's unlikely that someone reading about Asano Nagasato is looking to read about sport in the general sense. The subject matter is too broad. Osiris (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
What Osiris says is my thinking as well. I think it would be better to mention her brother and sister in the article, and link them there. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see that I have acted on your constructive suggestions at Yūki Ōgimi, Genki Nagasato and Asano Nagasato. In future, I will treat all family relationships in a similar way.

However, I have not accepted your opinion about removing links to Sports in Japan in articles about notable athletes.

IMO, the broad purposes of "Related pages" are not limited to answering implied questions. The links also become suggestions for further reading.

I have not yet learned how to argue effectively in our SEWP venue. I can only ask you to consider whether sports notability in Japan might have a function. Perhaps you were unaware that FIFA president Sepp Blatter traveled from Switzerland to London where he personally presented Olympic silver medals to each member of the Japan women's national football team -- not to the gold medal-winning Americans nor to the silver medal-winning Canadians.

Perhaps the reasoning of Osiris makes my point in an indirect way. For example, it may not be good to add Sports in Australia as a related page in articles about swimmers like Dawn Fraser, Kieren Perkins and Ian Thorpe; but we do notice that each of these Olympians have Order of Australia post-nominal letters. Please click on the links and review the first line of each article. Is it not clear that the OAM recognizes an individual contribution to sports as part of the Australian national culture?

Do you begin to get a sense that I have a well-thought-out point of view? If there is a problem, it is more likely to be because of my writing, not because of a flaw in the point I'm trying to make. --Horeki (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The See Also section is supposed to be the answer to the following question. "Where is the reader most likely going to want to go next?" There is a guideline somewhere that states this but I forget its name. See Also is supposed to be articles that are very closely related to the subject matter. Not general relations because that is what categories are for. -DJSasso (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, DJSasso -- precisely. Thank you. See 'What links here" at Sports in Japan. --Horeki (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I wouldn't put it in the see also of most of those pages that are on the what links here. Because this page is a general topic it wouldn't be appropriate as it is not further information about the topic of the page. Things in the see also should be links to articles that give more information on the topic at hand. In the cases of relatives it would be appropriate because it gives more information about the family of the original athlete. However a general page like sport in Japan does not extend the knowledge of that particular athlete. -DJSasso (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Category changes

Forest style bonsai

Thank you for your help with Category:Japanese footballers and for your suggestions about Category:Prefectures of Japan.

Your work on categories is a bit like "forest style" bonsai, isn't it? --Horeki (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm familiar with bonsai, but not "forest style". What does that mean? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I have no skill in this subject; but forest bonsai (寄せ植え, Yose-ue) or "group planting" contrives several trees as the focal point rather than just one; and the relationships within the group are important. The wider perspective grows along with a more conventional attention to the development of individual trees.
  • A search for "forest style bonsai" produces a range of hits including here.
  • An image search for "yuseue bonsai" produces many examples here.
In recent months, I have worked with you and watched your work with others. In this time, my appreciation of categories has evolved slowly ... like a slow-growing appreciation of forest style bonsai. --Horeki (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
You should write poetry, Horeki :) Osiris (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Re'em Ha'Cohen

Why the article "Re'em Ha'Cohen" deleted? I created it on English Wikipedia, so what's the problem? אורח פורח (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem was that you copied the article directly from English Wikipedia without simplifying it. Because you recreated it with simpler language, it looks like you understand the issue now. Let me know if you'd like more information. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Alan C. Elms

Hi! I understand that academicians do not need notability established through third party sources. A web site or school bio sketch is sufficient. This was/is the policy at enWiki. Oregonian2012 (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I would question his notability in general. The linked reference doesn't say anything that makes him seem notable to me. I could understand that the university bio would be enough if it claimed something notable, but I don't see it. Have you read en:WP:PROF? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Work page

I'm (finally...) pretty much done with your work page. The two up the top I still haven't done anything about, but the new {{article issues}} will rely on the stand-alones so there won't be any cat-mismatches anymore. Thanks for the workspace, it made everything very easy to keep track of. Face-grin.svg Osiris (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

YVW, glad I could facilitate! I just did the analysis, you did the hard part! I'll probably keep the page, at least for a while, but I'll probably move it to a more descriptive name. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Categories and references

I see you've taken a view that categories should be removed unless supported by references and/or text. That's actually not the view generally on English wiki, except for higher-ranked articles. Well, for living people there is always a great deal known about a notable person which is not easy to reference. Everything is known about Nobel laureates, but they tend not to (for example) discuss their views on politics or religion unless directly asked in an interview. All their colleagues and students will know in some detail many personal facts about their famous colleague or teacher. I think the balance is to allow categories which are allowed for the same person on English wiki. Not that we want to go into all their detail, of course. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to act in accordance with en:WP:CATEGRS. Specifically, I'm trying to make that kind of change only with BLPs, and only where something is stated that could be controversial, defamatory, libelous, could affect the person's reputation, or something along those lines. I think most of the categories I've removed have to do with sexual preference, religion, or some kind of negative behavior (such as being an alcoholic, drug user, criminal, etc.). The guideline says, for example, that categories on BLPs related to religion and sexual preference should be used only if the person has publicly self-identified as being in those categories. The only way I know to show that such self-identification has occurred is to have a reference. In addition, the policy en:WP:BLPCAT says "the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources". --Auntof6 (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. That's a very clear position, though it puts us at something of a disadvantage because of our far lower average number of references per article. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


Why do we not have a category "Transport"? Why do we sometimes use the longer word "Transportation" (which conveys no extra meaning), and sometimes the simpler word "Transport"? I recommend wholesale use of the word "Transport" for categories involving movement of people or goods. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of that. Why don't you bring it up on Simple Talk to see if anyone objects. If no one does, I'd be willing to do or help do the changes. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


Hi Auntof6. Did you ever consider about taking an adminship? -- (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about it now and then. I'm just not much interested in being an admin. Why do you ask? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, you seem to be a very nice user, your work is excellent and very appreciated here, and I think many people will support your possible RfA. The mop would also help you on your work, for example giving yourself a flood flag or moving pages without redirect ;-) -- (talk) 10:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the compliments. :) Being able to give myself a flood flag would be nice. I think, though, that there are users who would not agree that I am nice, and they probably have a point -- I can be abrasive. I don't think I should be an admin unless I get that more under control. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, you didn't attract negative attention to me though. You could just go ahead and nominate yourself and see the result. I think many users with vote on your support. -- (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Quick deletion of Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2012/Category:Wikipedia administrators

Ambox speedy deletion.png

The page you wrote, Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2012/Category:Wikipedia administrators, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. Auntof6 (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela article

What do you think of my changes to the Nelson Mandela article?--RJR3333 (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Abir (martial art)

Hi. i translate this article from Hebrew. can you please help me to cleanup and fix what it need ? . thank you very much !. פארוק (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well, most of the article was directly copied from enWiki, we don't do this here, so I just went around and added the basic information. We do very encourage good contributions, but next time you'd make the article more simple Face-wink.svg. All the best, @intforce 18:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

TDKR Chicago 101

Hi! I understand everything but how can I find the oldid number. I press the permant link but no number shows. How can I find it. From TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) - September 11, 2012

Hi, for example if you have, 3800188 is the revision number. All the best -- (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice!!!! - TDKR Chicago 101.

Sorry! I must have mist click a category, I wanted to add the one you just added. Sorry Again and Thanks!!!

Quick deletion of Lim Su-kyung

In my opinion, the change made by Almust here was not helpful. Please notice that it was reverted by me here. In other words, I restored the quick deletion headnote that you posted. Also, I left a note on Almust's talk page. --Horeki (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Admin mop.PNG

Hi Auntof6, thank you for voting in my request for adminship, which closed as successful with 7 supports and 0 opposes. I promise to do my very best in this new role! Best wishes, @intforce 11:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Auntof6. You have new messages at Receptie123's talk page.
Message added 12:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Receptie123 (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Kirstin Kagay:Regular RFD

Hello Auntof6, I have decided to do a regular RFD for Miss Kagay; The show / pageant she appears in seems to be a high-profile one, and she seems to be in the top 10 (or top 8). Going through an RFD might also give us a precedent for future beauty pageant contestants. --Eptalon (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your change. No problem! --Auntof6 (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleting my warning

Why did you delete my warning?Receptie123 (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Because I reverted the change that it was for. The change you reverted on Jupiter was not vandalism. In addition, the change you made to it left a syntax error. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC) Oops -- I was looking at the wrong change. I'll put it back. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh,so it was vandalism?Receptie123 (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
It could have been. With that kind of change, where some characters are just removed, it might or might not be vandalism. In either case, the user should be warned that they made a bad change. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
No problem for reverting the wrong page.Everyone makes mistakes.Receptie123 (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I also reverted a change you made to the vandalism in progress page. I think we're supposed to leave the clearing of vandalism in progress to the admins. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok,no problem.I didn't know.Receptie123 (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Category deletion

Annoyingly enough "QD|C1" does not actually apply to pretty much any of the category deletions we commonly request. Category:Azerbaijani composers‎ is a perfect example. The key problem is "with no articles or subcategories for at least four days". That category was clear for 1 minute before it was tagged. Yes, it needs to be deleted, there is no doubt that it should not have been created in the first place (the singer cat there is the same) but the rule used to delete it can't be used for 4 more days.. To follow the rules would mean tossing it up for RfD and waiting the 7 days (or pray for snow) or waiting the 4 days.. Can't even RfD, wait 4 of the 7 and QD.. The rule either needs changed or a new one added for removal of categories under a housekeeping (cat-keeping?) clause. --Creol(talk) 23:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I remember that now that you remind me. I guess I've been taking advantage of the fact that some admins have been willing to delete them anyway. :) Do you think QD/G6 (housekeeping) would fly in cases like that? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I often IAR it when its an obvious case. The 4 day rule on en really exists to keep people from moving all the articles out of a category as a way to circumvent CfD. Most of the time that isn't so much of an issue here. But yeah originally I wouldn't let people get away with doing it, but Auntof6 clears out so many categories (in a very necessary clean up I should add) that it would clog up our RfD if they all went there. If we wanted people to stick right to the rule you could just keep a list and wait the 4 days then put the tag on. It is an interesting situation because if we change the rule we remove the safe guard against sneaky deletions, but if we don't we make more work for someone who is doing some good clean up. -DJSasso (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


Japanese calligraphy by Ernest Satow. The kanji read (from right to left) "敬和" (Kei-Wa), literally "Respect and harmony".

The username "Horeki" is now semi-retired. I formally set it aside in a manner which is consistent with Wikipedia policies.

What I have done -- and why -- was explained on my talk page in 2011 when I set aside the username "Tenmei". My reasoning was parsed in specific detail here.

The change history of User:Horeki here is consistent with that what I proposed to do at that time; and the limited change history of User:Ansei here is part of a continuing, long-term investment in our project. This is made visually clear in the similar graphic layout of the user pages and talk pages.

Layout of similar user pages and talk pages
User page format
A rakan reading at Kita-in, a Buddhist temple in Japan.

My username is derived from Ansei (安政), which was a Japanese era name (年号, nengō, lit. "year name") during the years from 1854 through 1860. The name was created to signal the beginning of a peaceful period, but it turned out to be a time of great change.

The nengō Ansei means "peaceful government" (庶民安政、然後君子安位矣).

A rakan whose hands are full at Kita-in, a Buddhist temple in Japan.

My username is derived from Hōreki (宝暦), which was a Japanese era name (年号, nengō, lit. "year name") during the years from 1751 through 1764. The new era was created to mark the death of the retired Emperor Sakuramachi and the death of the former Shogun Tokugawa Yoshimune.

The nengō Hōreki means "Valuable Calendar" or "Valuable Almanac". This time frame was created retroactively by Emperor Momozono in 1754.

A mudra ( मुद्रा ) and a gesture of remembering.

My username is derived from Tenmei (天明), which was a Japanese era name (年号, nengō, lit. "year name") during the years from 1781 through 1789. The new era marked the beginning of the reign of Emperor Kōkaku (光格天皇, Kōkaku-tennō) in 1781.

The nengō Tenmei means "Heavenly Radiance" or "dawn".

User talk page format
Daruma in a public place

Like a chicken talking to a duck

Talking past each other is like a chicken talking to a duck (鸡同鸭讲 or 雞同鴨講). --Ansei (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This username is semi-retired.

Daruma (達磨).

This username is semi-retired.

I underscore that the change of name to Ansei draws attention to the phrase "peaceful government". This signals of an on-going investment in a peaceful working environment. --Ansei (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Block User:

I've seen his article that he has edited or created are just vandelism. Please we should block him for adding incorrect information and stupid random crap into articles. - TDKR Chicago 101 (talk).

I agree. I can't do anything about it, but I reported it at WP:Vandalism in progress. For future reference, anyone can report vandals there. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
That was paaainful. Thanks for keeping up with that. I really wish you had a block button. Osiris (talk) 06:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, you would think the vandal would get bored before creating that many bad pages. I'll think some more about asking to be an admin, but I'm afraid I'd just get more people upset with me. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that will happen, I'm sure that apprehensiveness will keep you careful. It did when I began, until I found my groove. And our interpretations of policy, I think, are very similar. Do consider it some more.
On another matter, do you have any time to do this task? Osiris (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I saw that task request. I have time, I was just trying to think of the best way to approach it. I just use AWB, y'know, not a more automated bot. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Ohhh, I didn't realise. That'd be a bore then. Osiris (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm just going to fix the other issues in that category so the list for the bot task will be clean. Osiris (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I had to create a bunch of est/disest categories to fix some of the errors. But a lot of them are in parent categories that don't exist. Do I create the redlinked categories? Or do I forgoe the use of the template that forces it? Osiris (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd create them. Somebody here said that the chronology categories are exceptions to the 3-entry rule, so I've been acting accordingly. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


There is no reason for you to recall a small initiative here in 2011. Please allow me to remind you of something which worked out well. --Ansei (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Male Genital Mutilation Topic

Can you block user "Zad68" because he has been waging an edit war with me. he doesn't let me to make my articles into the wikipedia I made a couple of changes to the aforesaid subject but in each time it was reverted back by saying various kind of reasons.

First I added the MGM into this list then he said it's not suitable to be in this list. and reverted each my edit and inferred with my works then he came up with his fellow admins and did threaten me I will be blocked if I keep doing that. I explained him a ton of times why MGM should be in this list in the talk section but no one cares about that sadly.

then I made an article about MGM in a different place but he put a speed deletion notice and made me to express my concern regarding the article and why it should not be deleted but I couldn't get enough time to express my view before that it was deleted

then he did threaten me on my profile his patient ran out and if I keep continue my works I will be reported now obviously he has a lot of admins in his side so I can't do this alone so please do something block him and let me to proceed my works peacefully in here. my respect to wikipedia has very low due to these kind of bigotry people seriously why should I waste my time in here if I am harassed continuously like that way?

It looks like all those things happened on the English Wikipedia, which is a separate Wikipedia. This is the Simple English Wikipedia. I know the names are similar, but they operate separately. In any case, I am not an admin either here or there, so I cannot block editors. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

okay fine but you can at least report this to an proper person. I don't really know any one in here. Faulknerck2 (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't help to report it here, because it didn't happen here. This is The things you mentioned happened on I haven't done much there in so long that I don't remember where that should be reported. Maybe someone who knows will see this discussion and comment here. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

General Query

Hallo dear User:Auntof6, just a general query please since it seems you have been involved in editing an article that is concerned. I saw a user page for User:Sowrob that for some reason enlisted on the user page several categories and interwiki links for the article Imran Khan --whats that all about? How can a user page have such categories and links, please? I am not entirely clear as such pages can easily be mistaken for articles.maybe you could help clarify this for me, thanks Hamneto (talk) 11:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Hamneto

They can't have content categories on their user page. And those are invalid wikis so I have removed them both. -DJSasso (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Dear User:Djsasso thanks, Im glad to clarify this point. Hamneto (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Hamneto

Category:United States Navy Medal of Honor recipients

Greetings, I created one article already for this cat so its no longer empty. I didn't want to remove the tag though. Kumioko (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: As Category:United States Navy Medal of Honor recipients does have an article in it and has not been empty for 4 days, C1 does not apply (the 4 day thing gets overlooked commonly so it sort of applied when placed, but an article and the editors stated intent to create more makes this less questionable ) As such, I removed the QD tag. --Creol(talk) 03:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Is there intent to create more articles in this category? FYI, Kumioko, we usually want at least 3 articles in a category. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes a lot. But the three articles is good to know thanks. Kumioko (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Cities in Japan

Please review the key change here at City designated by government ordinance. Compare key at Core city. Is there a different or better way to handle this?

At some point in 2013, these articles may become part of new sub-categories of Category:Cities in Japan. FYI, Japan has nearly 20 "cities designated by ordinance" and there are nearly 40 "core cities". --Ansei (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Reg removal of links

Dear Auntof6 hallo. I believe youve removed 2 links from the article stub Hakim Ahmad Shuja, one was List of Urdu language poets and the other List of notable Lahoris -- now, Hakim Ahmad Shuja figures on both lists and (a) is a very well-known poet, first, and lyricist and screenplay writer later, and his Urdu ghazal and nazm poems have even been put to music and sung by hundreds of thousands of people in South Asia and (b) on many counts, he is a notable citizen of Lahore and there is even a road there in that old city named after him. Might I please ask why you thought of removing these as being not 'closely enough related' ? I hope youll not mind if I add these back, as they are as far as I can make out, very closely linked to the late Hakim -sahib? Thanks, regards, Hamneto (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Hamneto

Thanks for your note. Although this poet appears in those lists, those articles are more general than we usually want in the related pages section. If the poet is in both of those lists, then the lists can be found by looking at what links to the article. The article is also in Category:Urdu poets, and readers can look at that category to find other Urdu poets. If you really want a link to List of Urdu language poets, you could do it like this:
Code this:
was an [[List of Urdu language poets|Urdu poet]]
See this:
was an Urdu poet
Does that explain it? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Hallo and thanks! Ok, I get it now! Sorry I didnt see this before. Regs, Hamneto

Category:Orders, decorations, and medals

Note: I have moved this discussion to Category talk:Orders, decorations, and medals. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Humberto (2007) issue

Pardon me, but the article regarding Hurricane Humberto (2007) has been severely damaged by vandalism: popups might be needed to revert these vandalism edits. Auntof6, please help me. September 1988 (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Taken care of. --Creol(talk) 20:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Forest bonsai

Forest style bonsai

Refreshing your memory about "forest style" bonsai ....

As you may recall, forest bonsai (寄せ植え, Yose-ue) or "group planting" takes several trees as the focal point rather than just one.

In a forest, the relationships within the group are important. The wider perspective grows along with the attention given to individual trees.

  • A search for "forest style bonsai" produces a range of hits including here.
  • An image search for "yuseue bonsai" produces many examples here.

In my opinion, the investment of time and thought in Wikipedia categories is a little bit like working with slow-growing forest style bonsai. --Ansei (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Your edit on Epiphany was not an improvement. Please revert it. (talk) 11:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. All I did was change the hat note to use a standard form. What problem do you see with it? --Auntof6 (talk) 11:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Forest bonsai

Forest style bonsai

Refreshing your memory about "forest style" bonsai ....

As you may recall, forest bonsai (寄せ植え, Yose-ue) or "group planting" takes several trees as the focal point rather than just one.

In a forest, the relationships within the group are important. The wider perspective grows along with the attention given to individual trees.

  • A search for "forest style bonsai" produces a range of hits including here.
  • An image search for "yuseue bonsai" produces many examples here.

In my opinion, the investment of time and thought in Wikipedia categories is a little bit like working with slow-growing forest style bonsai. --Ansei (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Your edit on Epiphany was not an improvement. Please revert it. (talk) 11:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. All I did was change the hat note to use a standard form. What problem do you see with it? --Auntof6 (talk) 11:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


Hi, I'm a bit surprised by the speedy deletion of this cat as an "empty cat". When I created it, it wasn't empty. It contained the article Richard Tsien, which in the lead says that this person is a neuroscientist. He was in the category "neurologists", which obviously is wrong, as he is not a physician. I don't want to go around creating inappropriate categories, so perhaps you can tell me what was wrong about this one? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for not leaving a personal note about this. Here on Simple English Wikipedia, we want at least 3 entries in each category. That's one of the ways we keep things simple here. Since there was only one entry, I removed it and requested QD on the category. If the article hadn't already been in other appropriate categories, I would have put it in more categories. Does that explain it? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
It does, thanks. I'm more used to the English WP, where 1 entry is enough. Next time I create a cat, I'll pay attention to including at least 3 members! --Randykitty (talk) 11:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


Hey Auntof6! I really love how you simplify certain articles. For example, on one page, "Marlon Wayans also represents the cast" was changed into "Marlon Wayans is also in the cast". Was "represents the cast" not simple? I'm trying so hard to stay as simple as possible when making articles. September 1988 (talk) 10:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. "Represents the cast" is not as simple, but I mainly changed that because it didn't say what it meant. "Represents the cast" doesn't really mean that he acted in the movie. Is "represents the cast" a translation from another language? Languages are an interest of mine, and it would be interesting to know if that's how it's said in some other language. Cheers! --Auntof6 (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for cleaning up that little prank someone left on my Talk page. I haven't been around as much as I would like recently to keep an eye on things. Much appreciated! Gotanda (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Quick deletion of Category:2050s

Ambox speedy deletion.png

The page you wrote, Category:2050s, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. Auntof6 (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Quick deletion of Category:Belgium navigational boxes

Ambox speedy deletion.png

The page you wrote, Category:Belgium navigational boxes, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. Auntof6 (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)