User talk:Auntof6

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Auntof6!

Rd232 (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"rem template that's only for metacats"


Have you considered the possibility that {{By quantity}} shouldn't include the {{MetaCat}} template? In fact, navigation templates should never automatically include {{MetaCat}}. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielPenfield: There are two types of categories I see using this template.
  1. Categories with names like "Foo by quantity": these are metacats and need the metacat template one way or another
  2. Categories with names like "4 foos": these are not metacats. I'm replacing the necessary code with better templates for defining these.
I'd be happy to have the metacat template added explicitly on the actual metacats (instead of being added by a template), but that would require also changing the categories of type 1 and that's not in the scope of what I'm currently doing. Are you thinking that just removing the metacat template from {{By quantity}} would make it useable for the categories of type 2? It seems to me that more would be needed. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement My response
"There are two types of categories I see using this template. 1. Categories with names like "Foo by quantity": these are metacats and need the metacat template one way or another Have you thought that through? There really shouldn't be "categories of type 1" as nobody should ever place a navigation template on a MetaCat as the primary key for the MetaCat is the navigation--MetaCats do not need additional navigation beyond the primary key.
"Categories with names like "4 foos": these are not metacats. I'm replacing the necessary code with better templates for defining these." Actually, you're deleting them outright: [1], [2], [3]. I see no evidence of your "replacing" claim.
"Are you thinking that just removing the metacat template from {{By quantity}} would make it useable for the categories of type 2?" No, I'm stating that nobody should use navigational templates on {{MetaCat}}s as the primary key for the MetaCat is the navigation--MetaCats do not need additional navigation beyond the primary key.
-- DanielPenfield (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Part 1:
I'm not clear on what you're saying here. Metacats need/have various things, depending on the situation. A category called "Foo by quantity" could have the main category for Foo or a subcat of it. For example, Category:Paintings by museum is a subcat of Category:Paintings by location rather than of Category:Paintings. It could also have other things. See Category:Children by quantity for an example.
Part 2:
As I worked on these, I found that some of them only needed a template removed. I did do a lot of replacing as well, such as this and this, as well as this one where I did both a removal and a replacement. I'm sorry if my edit summaries didn't include enough detail about how I was resolving the issue I was working on.
Part 3:
They probably don't need it, but it also probably doesn't hurt anything. I tend to add navigation on a metacat's subcats instead of the metacat itself, with the possible exception of categories like Category:Structures in Africa by country where the nav template shows (via red links) which countries don't have subcats.
Not sure if this addresses your concerns. Let me know if I can elucidate further. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So per my deletion request, the template author states "Actually, I did not intend that for metacats. I created it for cats like Category:3 turtles, which I wanted to link to Category:1 turtle and the like...". The {{MetaCat}} addition literally preceded your mass removals by 6 calendar days. User:W like wiki added {{MetaCat}} to {{By quantity}} in this edit on December 21, 2023 and you embarked on your mass removals on December 27. You never should have performed these mass removals and I insist that you undo them forthwith. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielPenfield, Shāntián Tàiláng, and Auntof6: I am really sorry, that obviously my edit was the reason for this misunderstandig. My mistake was, to forgot that the by quantity template is not only used in categories type 1 like "Foo by quantity" (which are metacats) but also in categories type 2 like "4 foos" (which are not metacats). At DanielPenfield: please consider this when you forthwith insist that Auntof6 should do this or that (At this time metacat was included in the by quantity template so she did right when e.g. removing metacat from Category 5 people in the United States which is not a metacat). And there was also not a doc-page provided by template author Shāntián Tàiláng, maybe another reason for the misunderstanding (at least for your deletion request). Maybe I can help to revert some edits!?

Or maybe we can use this misunderstanding for an improval instead of just back to the old state. One idea: There is Template:qty group which is obviously exactly for categories type 2. There a navigation whould be helpful! So why not include the by quantity navigation into this template? With this changing many of the edits of Auntof6 where she added the Template:qty group are an improval and no need to revert them!? Just an idea, best Regards --W like wiki good to know 15:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Part 3 (no navigations on metacats): @DanielPenfield: What is the problem? I agree with Auntof6: It doesn't hurt anything. And a navigation can also help. Regards --W like wiki good to know 20:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


If someone knows a better place, please move this disussion there, maybe to Category talk:By quantity navigational templates. --W like wiki good to know 20:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done to Category talk:By quantity navigational templates. Best Regards --W like wiki good to know 21:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! About paintings you moved to another category


Hello! Happy New Year. I was just wondering about you moving my paintings to a crowded category (per message posted in the Paintings category). That’s why I originally added them to a subcategory. Or what category should be appropriate, since I will be uploading more paintings. Also, another wiki editor moved drawings of mine to a subcategory similar to where I categorized my paintings. Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas: I was working with many files recently. Can you give me the name of one of yours so I have an example to look at? -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! For instance, this one. File:Catherine of Aragon idealized painting.jpg amongst others. My question wasn’t so much about the actual moving of categories, but more about me knowing where to categorize them in the future into a more proper category. Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was in Category:Paintings by artist, which is a metacategory. The only entries in that category should be subcategories with names like "Paintings by John Doe" (or whoever the artist is). No files should be in a metacategory. I moved all the files in it up to the parent category.
You are right that the parent category is crowded, so it's better to put files in a subcategory (just not a metacategory). This particular painting could go in paintings of women, paintings of queens, or a similar category. In fact, since it's already in Category:Oil on panel, it could just be removed from the main paintings category. In general, files showing paintings can be put in categories for the artist, the material used, what they depict, when they were painted, where they're located, and probably other things.
Is there something that the images in your files have in common besides that fact that they're paintings? If they're by the same artist, then you can create a category for paintings by that artist and put them in there. Let me know if I can help further, and Happy New Year to you, too! --Auntof6 (talk) 12:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much on clarifying this. I’m still learning, so this helped a lot. One last question… in this case I’m the painter of this and other paintings. So when you suggest to create a category of paintings by artist for these and other paintings I will be uploading, is it appropriate for me to create such a category? Because of conflict of interest? Or are Wikimedia categories different? Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas: Yes, creating the category would be fine. That's not the same as writing an article about yourself on Wikipedia. Just be sure not to include anything that looks like advertising. -- Auntof6 (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing! And again, thank you so much. Nice to meet you, have a wonderful 2024. Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 13:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queens consort


Haha - queens consort - I had a good giggle over that one. Should have spotted it. Thanks! Storye book (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Storye book: No problem. Someone who's a "queen's consort" (consort of a queen) would be categorized under Category:Kings consort. Sometimes plurals of multiple-word terms can be tricky: queens consort, kings consort, mothers-in-law, attorneys general, etc. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And bêtes noires: the group are, the family are, the company are – up with which I shall not put. Pedantry rules, hehe. Storye book (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Storye book: Well, bêtes noires is French, so the rules are different. The usage with group, family, and company is British English, and is just a different way of seeing things. -- Auntof6 (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I meant that using those singular nouns as if they were plural was a bête noire of mine. A bête noire in English usage means something that irritates one. So my above comment means that I don't like other people saying "the family are" or "the company are". The idea that it is OK grammatically on the grounds of being British English is nonsense.
Verbal common usage is different from Standard English, which is a written convention. In reality, people can (and do) verbalise in whatever manner they like. However, in Standard English there are rules of logic. The reason for that is that we need Standard English where we need clarity, e.g. in science and in law - and also in WP articles, so as not to confuse our international readership. So it is inappropriate to pretend to judge verbal English by Standard English standards. I was making a joke. Therefore, the last part of my above comment is intended to show that I was laughing at my own inappropriate pedantry.
America does have parallels. When I was diving with some Smithsonian profs who were writing a fish book, we had plenty of deck time to talk. They were of course well-educated, but they would way "I don't got" instead of their traditional "I don't have". That phraseology arose when the British usage of "got" replaced "have" in the US as a single word, and not as a phrase. In British verbal English it's "I haven't got". It was interesting to hear that the Smithsonians knew very well that it was grammatically nonsense, and that they would not use it in their formal journal articles, for example. In their words, they "knew it was wrong, but hey, everyone says it now". "Don't got" is now in all the British TV dramas, which, for me at least, is tiresome. Let the Americans say it, but for us "haven't got" makes sense. "Got" in British English always meant "in my possession", "acquired" or "become" - a bit like the American "gotten", except that "gotten" doesn't mean "in my possession". It is sometimes said here (joke alert) that the UK needs an Academie, like the French one. Storye book (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Storye book: Yes, I'm familiar with all that. I teach English as a second language, and I often have to explain to my students why they hear people speaking in ways that are different from the "correct" way they are learning. Sometimes it's because words follow rules from other languages (like bêtes noires, which is from French and follows the French rule of adjectives matching the gender and singular/plural of the noun they modify), sometimes it's due to differences in varieties of English (Brits say "the team are" because they look at the team as a collection of individuals; Americans say "the team is" because they see a team as one entity), sometimes it's because casual speech is different from formal speech, and sometimes it's because the other person doesn't know the "correct" way. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with you except for the statement that "the team are" is British English. It is common usage now, in the UK, and I must tolerate it, but according to Standard English (OK, the written version - but it's a basis for the verbal) it is not British English; it is an error, like mispronouncing "mischievous" as "mischeevious" In Standard English it is clear that "the team are" is a logical error because "team" is a singular noun. I think we need to differentiate between linguistic usage founded in linguistic roots, changing linguistic environments and downright creativity - and linguistic usage founded in poor literacy. People who say "the team are" will also write "the team are", and will find it difficult to comprehend that "team" in that context is singular. Storye book (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Storye book: OK, I see. Thanks for the insight. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that conversation. It was fun. Storye book (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) as a native English speaker (from the U.S., but spent a few years of my life in the UK): collective nouns are tricky on both sides of the pond. For a company, the U.S. consistently uses singular ("Microsoft is") but the UK tend to lean the other way ("Microsoft are"). Even in the U.S., athletic teams tend to be treated as plural, especially when the name is grammatically plural ("The Texas Rangers are") but sometimes even when it is not ("The Seattle Kraken are"). I can't imagine anyone saying "The Green Bay Packers is", but I have (at least in the U.S.) heard "Manchester United is". - Jmabel ! talk 17:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is showing up in Special:UncategorizedCategories. Looks like it's yours, and you probably have a better chance of categorizing it correctly than I do. - Jmabel ! talk 17:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: It looks like Clay fixed it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, cool, added a parent I was unaware of. - Jmabel ! talk 03:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages are just terms


Hi. I am of the belief that disambiguation pages are just terms, not specific to some other classification. As if they are specific they are not so much disambiguation, as then we are starting a very weird path to a vague sort of classification. Here I am talking about something like Category:Disambiguation categories of artists. How can we sort and justify like that?  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I probably wouldn't have created that (in 2021) if there hadn't already been similar categories. For example, the one for populated places (created in 2016) and the one for churches in Sweden (created in 2009). It helps people find links to specific kinds of things they'd like to disambiguate.
I believe that the subcats of each of these categories are also in the main category, so they aren't removed from the main list. If that's not the case, it can be made so. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have thrown a conversation into VP to address.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category discussion warning

Photographs by date by country 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!

Josh (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]