User talk:Auntof6/Archives/2015

Category:Gay actors from the United States

Category:LGBT actors from the United States is for actors and actresses, Category:Lesbian actresses from the United States is in Category:LGBT actors from the United States and Category:Actresses from the United States, so I put Category:Gay actors from the United States in Category:LGBT actors from the United States and Category:Actors from the United States Cathy Richards (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

User rights

You do a lot of great work here, so I've added the patroller and rollbacker rights to your account in case they come in handy. INeverCry 06:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, INeverCry! --Auntof6 (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Category change question

I notice you did at least one of the moves in a recent change of moving from Category:Jewish history to Category:History of Judaism, so I figure there's a fair chance you'd know what's going on. Seems an odd change to me: the Jews are a people; Judaism is a religion. It's sort of like if "Greek history" were moved to "History of Greek Orthodoxy". - Jmabel ! talk 16:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. I didn't realize Jews are treated as a group separate from just belonging to their religion. I thought I'd found some duplicate categories. I think I did a few moves related to that, which I did after finding multiple variations of the history of Jews and/or Judaism in Victoria, BC. I will go back to my edit history and see what I did. Let me make sure I understand what you're saying: "Jewish history" would be history of Jewish people, and "History of Judaism" would be history of the Jewish religion? Have you by any chance changed any of it back, or is it all the way I left it? Do we need to leave the name as "Jewish history", do you think? I wonder if "History of Jewish people" would be clearer. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The only thing I've done here is to drop you this note after seeing what I thought was a detrimental change on one of my files. Yes, I think if you can find these and revert it would be a good idea.

We Jews constitute one of the few cases where there is very little vocabulary to distinguish a people and a religion, but there is definitely a distinction. To cite two prominent examples, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud were both certainly Jews in the ethnic sense, but equally certainly not in the religious sense. Of course, if you go back before the Enlightenment the distinction becomes harder to make, but even in Roman times there were "Hellenizing Jews" such as the historian Josephus who considered themselves part of the Jewish people, and were considered so by other Jews, whether religious or not, but who were not Jews by faith. - Jmabel ! talk 03:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe even more to the point: there are many organizations that are Jewish in the ethnic sense, but not necessarily in the religious sense. E.g. YIVO, J Street. - Jmabel ! talk 03:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Not that this is uncontroversial. "Two Jews, three opinions." - Jmabel ! talk 03:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think I changed it all back. Sorry for the trouble. I would try to put something on the categories to explain the difference, but I'm not sure I understand it well enough. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:PD_NYC

Category:PD_NYC has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Amitie 10g (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Dolls house furniture and related categories

Could you please reverse these changes- as you are losing information in the change. Dolls' house furniture is not a Dolls' house. Further, your choice of title Dollhouse for Dolls' house or Doll's house would be fine if it weren't regarded as a spelling mistake in British English! We do the genitive apostrophe. --ClemRutter (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind making a category for the furniture. (You could have done that yourself when you uploaded the image.) The category "furniture miniatures" already exists as a subcat of "Dollhouses", but it isn't necessarily the same thing. As for "Dollhouses", I didn't choose that name: it already existed. If that isn't correct in British English, this may be a case where we have to stick with the name as created because it is correct in another variety of English. The English Wikipedia article and category are called "Dollhouse" and "Dollhouses" respectively. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Obviously I find it most strange- Henrik Ibsen wrote the play A Doll's House, and that spelling was used both sides of the pond. en:wp does index as you suggest but has many redirects to cope with the problem too. But using the principle that you are doing the work- I'll leave it at that! --ClemRutter (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Boundary maps of United States historic districts

I've responded to your inquiry at my talk page. Thanks. — Ipoellet (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Responded again. — Ipoellet (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

		The Category Barnstar
		For heroic effort clarifying US historic district maps between NRHP and non-NRHP districts. — Ipoellet (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Ipoellet! --Auntof6 (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Creator homecat parameter

I noticed you added the "Category:" prefix to the homecat parameters on a couple of creator templates I created. I started doing this, too, but I just looked at the source for Template:Creator and it appears to be assuming that the name does not have "Category:" in it already - it prepends it automatically. BMacZero (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I actually took out the "Category:" prefix, I didn't add it. When you include the "Category:" before the name of the category, it makes the category names come out wrong. On Creator:Charles Henry Gilbert, for example, the category name showed up as "Category:Charles Henry Gilbert", but it should actually be just "Charles Henry Gilbert". The category is redlinked, of course, because it shouldn't exist. In other words, it's creating a category name that has the "Category:" prefix included in the name. It shouldn't be included. If you look here, you can see all the categories that have the undesired "Category:" prefix. Quite a few look like they might be from creator pages -- are they all yours? I'm going to fix them again. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Oops, guess I was reading the version history backwards...thanks for clarifying. BMacZero (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Washington DC

All of those DC subcats belong in the state categories. Evrik (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Why, User:Evrik? Washington, DC is not a state. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, while that is technically correct, I'd like you to look at {{US states}}. I can't find it right now, but at one time there was a discussion about including DC and the territories along with the states. I'm looping user:WhisperToMe and user:AnRo0002 into this as they may know where the discussion was. In any case, I think you should go back and undo all those changes you made to the DC related categories. Evrik (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Its inclusion in that template doesn't mean it's treated as a state. Same for the territories. I've made "by location" categories in several places to cover states, DC, and territories as well as other location-based categories (by city, by county, etc.). I'd have no problem combining DC and the territories with the states, but either it needs to be officially stated somewhere that that's how we do it, or (preferably) name the categories differently to make it clear. Failing that, I will leave the categorizing the way I changed it. I look forward to hearing from the users you pinged. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

What forum would you like me to post this query to? Evrik (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

What query? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

How these pages should be listed. Evrik (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Washington, D.C.

Washington, D.C. has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Evrik (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ancient pottery

Please don't ever do again something in this area. It's hard to fix all yout terrible mistakes - and as far as I see it, everything was false. Stay with things you know about! I don't like it, when I have to do work that's not needed! Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Marcus Cyron: } If you're going to accuse me of making terrible mistakes, you need to be specific. I have no idea what you're talking about. Give me links to the mistakes you think I made. If I don't know what you think I did wrong, I can't know whether I'd do the same things again. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Marcus Cyron: } If you have an issue with what she did, state the issue. Speaking as an admin, the above is simply a personal attack. You have not stated any issue at all other than to call her ignorant. - Jmabel ! talk 00:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Definition of a metacat?

Your opinions are invited at Template talk:MetaCat#Definition of a metacat? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No categories of Italy by style !

Hi Autof6. You moved the cat "Architecture of italy by period" to "Architecture of Italy by style". This is bad and wrong. For categories of Italy we have no cats by style. Please before you make such changes, open a discussion! In categories of Italy we had a mess by style and by period, which was the same. About 6 years ago we made order with the help of admins, we decided for the form by period and they moved all the cats by style in the form by period. You can find this mess between by style/by period in a lot of Category:Categories of countries, e.g. in Category:Categories of Slovenia. If you want, make order there, not in Italy. Thank you. Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 03:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@DenghiùComm: Most categories under Category:Architectural styles by country are "by style". Why would Italy be different? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"Prehistoric", "Roman" etc. are not styles, but periods. "Baroque", "Renaissance", etc. are styles but also periods. So 6 years ago we decided for Italy that it was more useful to use period than style. But there are not rules about this art names. Important is that there is coherence in the categories of each country. Cheers, --DenghiùComm (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandboxes

How does one create a sandbox? Ainsleykg (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ainsleykg: You can create your own sandbox by clicking on Special:MyPage/Sandbox. Then just type something and save it. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Please help,check my question at the help desk then get back to me Ainsleykg (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Running a 'bot to remove parent categories

Can you please not do this. This is not a simple rule that can be applied blindly. It should not be implemented through a 'bot. File:Conway Castle & New Suspension Bridge. Caernarvonshire, North Wales.jpeg has the castle and the bridge, but it also has value to show the town walls at this period - it should stay in the town category. File:Conway Castle, With The Suspension Bridge And Railway Tube.jpeg is as much about the river as it is about the castle. File:Conway bridge and castle. North Wales.jpeg has the bridge and castle in the distant background, yet you've removed but town and river as categorisation.

COM:OVERCAT is a blunt guideline, not programming dogma for 'bots. These categories are not "redundant", or at least not implicitly redundant in all cases, such that a 'bot can be used to remove them. Thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I see your point and I'm sorry for causing the problem. I will just note that although I used my bot account (which was specifically approved for removing redundant categories, by the way), I only use it with AWB so it is not as blind and automated as other bots might be. I will be more careful doing this function in the future, and thanks for pointing this out. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Architecture_of_Belgium_by_period

Architecture of Belgium by period has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Henxter (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Buildings in...

I see you've been removing Category:Buildings in Washington (state) from several categories. I assume that's on the theory that it's redundant to [[Category:Built in Washington (state) in YEAR]]. However, in the past it has been a good placeholder for classifying buildings in Washington more specifically by type. If it offends you to keep these in the main category, it might be better to change create a subcategory like Category:Buildings in Washington (state) needing classification to maintain that placeholder function, rather than remove the category entirely. - Jmabel ! talk 15:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, good point. I'll go back and undo those changes. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! - Jmabel ! talk 00:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Heads-up

Hi, as a long term colleague on upload projects, I thought I'd drop you a personal heads-up for my request for adminship, today being the last day for views. RFA's tend to only have a small proportion of the community taking part, so it can be difficult to judge if this is representative. --Fæ (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hospitality Buildings

I was wondering if you think Bed and breakfast inns should be included under Hospitality Buildings. Let me know your thoughts, thanks. --Mjrmtg (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mjrmtg: I think they are hospitality buildings. I assume you saw the hospitality building categories I recently created for US states. All the categories for B&Bs in the US by state are under either Inns or Hotels. Those are already under hospitality buildings, so the B&B categories don't need to be directly under hospitality buildings. For any files or categories not under a category for their state, you could either create a category, add them to the state's Inn or Hotel category, or put them directly in the category for hospitality buildings for the state. A similar thing would work for B&Bs outside the US. Does that answer your question? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes you've answered my question, thank you :) --Mjrmtg (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Please, engage in discussion on the category talk page. Thank you!

Please, engage in discussion on the category talk page. Thank you!

Please see Category talk:Ahmed Mohamed (student).

Thank you in advance for taking the time to politely engage in discussion on the category talk page,

-- Cirt (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Planning to finish this?

I notice that in July 2015, you created Category:Historic districts on the National Register of Historic Places in Nebraska, and moved a number of items from Category:Historic districts in Nebraska into it. However, you left a number of NRHP-listed Nebraska HDs in the original category, so that right now, about half of the state's NRHP-listed HDs are in the new category, and half are in the old. It doesn't appear that you're continuing to work on this; your recent contribution history suggests that you're currently classifying media related to women's necklines.

This is not a very satisfactory state of affairs. If the old system had been left alone, editors would've known where to find Nebraska NRHP HDs. If you'd completed the job of recategorizing, the same would've been true. However, with the job only half done, editors have to search two different categories, which is inconvenient.

May I ask you to return to Nebraska and either finish recategorizing the HDs, or revert the changes that you've made and restore the original category structure? If there are other states whose HDs you've similarly left half-done, could you do the same with them? Thanks. — Ammodramus (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I planned (and still do plan) to get back to categorizing the NRHP-listed historic districts for all the states. I'm sorry if I left Nebraska partly done -- it's a tedious job, and I guess I chose a bad point to take a break from it. I will look at it next time I am doing any work here (other than just replying to talk messages). By the way, I was not really classifying necklines: I actually have no interest in the neckline categories. My edits there were to rename the categories so that all but the first word in each category name would be in lower case. I noticed the neckline categories because one of them happened to be on something else I was working on. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I hope I didn't seem too snappish in my initial post—a few years ago, somebody started changing the category system for bridges in Nebraska, then lost interest and went off and started categorizing European artworks instead. I wound up having to spend several hours finishing up a recategorization that I didn't think was really necessary, just so that there'd be consistency. I was afraid that the same thing was happening here: basically, that I'd have to put my own projects on hold to clean up somebody else's mess.

Sympathize with the upper/lower case business, by the way; it always bugs me when somebody creates a category and doesn't use sentence case, and I really cringe when people capitalize random Nouns. — Ammodramus (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, Nebraska's done. The other 49 are up to you... Ammodramus (talk) 03:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! That will give me room to finish something else I'm working on. No problem about being snappish -- I know I've been worse than that at times. :) As for people not using sentence case, I think that comes from not learning all the guidelines before they do work here. I don't fault them too much for that: there is so much to know that most of us would never do anything here if we had to learn it all first! --Auntof6 (talk) 04:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3wl7zNEQdp6z9Vb

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Suppression de catégories non consensuelles

Bonjour Auntof6. Je ne suis pas d'accord avec tes modifications récentes sur les catégories d'églises (exemple sur une catégorie que j'ai créée). Le fait qu'elles soient catégorisées à l'intérieur de chaque département par saint patron est certes utile, mais ne doit pas empêcher la recherche qui se fait principalement par commune, ce qui arrive si on supprime les catégories « Churches in (nom du département) ». Je pense que toutes les catégories des églises de ce département devraient se retrouver soit dans la category:Churches in Hautes-Pyrénées, soit dans Category:Monuments historiques in Hautes-Pyrénées (churches), en plus de la catégorie spécifique au saint patron. Avant de créer la catégorie d'une église, je regarde d'abord si elle existe dans ces deux catégories, car il arrive de temps à autre qu'elle ne soit pas rattachée à la commune concernée (suite à erreur de commune ou oubli de lui affecter la catégorie de la commune).

De plus, dans l'exemple cité, tu t'es planté en lui attribuant la Category:Saint Peter churches in Hautes-Pyrénées alors que l'église est déjà rattachée à la Category:Saint Peter in chains churches in Hautes-Pyrénées. Père Igor (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Père Igor: My French is not good enough to be sure I understand everything you said. If I reply in English, will you be able to understand? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No. Père Igor (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/11/Category:Images including source code in their description

Just an FYI. CFD was initially done wrong, so you didn't get a notice. - Jmabel ! talk 00:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/12/Category:Church of the Holly Apostles Peter and Paul-Topcider

Hi Auntof6, thank you for moving and closing this CfD request. In the future please be so kind to remove the CfD template if it's done. Best, --Achim (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

So sorry! I will remember that in the future. Thanks for the reminder! --Auntof6 (talk) 10:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)