User talk:Jim Michael

Hello, Jim Michael, and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia!

You may want to begin by reading these pages :

For some ideas of pages to work on, read Wikipedia:Requested articles or the list of wanted pages.

You can change any pages you want! Any changes you make can be seen immediately. You can ask questions at Wikipedia:Simple talk. At the end of your messages on Talk pages, please sign your name by typing "~~~~" (four tildes)

Good luck and happy editing! Lauryn^☆ 21:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Service Award

This editor is a **Novice Editor** and has the right to show this **First Book of Wikipedia**.

Congratulations, you have now earned your first book! Peterdownunder (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

Thanks for taking a look at the Elvis Presley article. I remember trying to improve it a little awhile back because it was in bad shape for such an important topic but think I got sidetracked. Kansan (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New cats

Hey, I noticed you've created some new cats, many of which are similar to EN categories and are tagged with popcat from creation. Generally, we want at least 3-5 pages in a category soon after creation. While some of your categories are OK, some of them may not be necessary for this wiki. I strongly suggest you try to populate the categories you've created by putting existing articles into the categories. If not, the categories may have to be deleted. When you are creating new articles, perhaps use fewer and higher-level categories rather than creating many new and unpopulated ones Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 04:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations, especially in BLPs

Jim Michael...if you are going to be adding categories and statements in articles about subjects being gay/lesbians or LGBT, please provide sources in the article. This can be a controversial subject for BLPs, so please only add these categories/statements if they are backed up by reliable sources. Thank you, Either way (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Popcat removed from some of the categories you created

I just removed the {{popcat}} from some of the categories you created. Specifically, I removed it from categories that were related to people's religion or sexual orientation. Those things should only be indicated if there's a good reason, so we don't need to make a special effort to populate the categories. Any questions, just ask! --Auntof6 (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ST proposal

Hey there! Currently there is a discussion at WP:ST about proposing a project that could help users who have disabilities. Please join in this discussion. Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 20:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop creating categories with {{popcat}}

It is not necessary to use {{popcat}} on every category you create. Doing this creates more work for other editors. Your new categories Category:British pop music groups and Category:British pop musicians have a good number of entries already and don't need to be flagged as underpopulated. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McFly

Hello Jim, in the McHitler article the dates have the number first just wondering if thats the correct formatting? Thanks. --Crobau (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As they are a British band, the usual British date format should be used, eg. 24 November 2011. Jim Michael (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense now, thank you. --Crobau (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your change to Bill Gates

Thanks for making this change to Bill Gates. I have removed it, along with the other reference to him being an agnostic. This is because there is no reference for it, and the article doesn't show that it's relevant. We don't include mention of a person's religion unless it's relevant. Things that would make a person's religion relevant include being a clergy member, someone being persecuted for their religious beliefs, or someone who publicly talks about their religion. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has spoken publicly about his religious beliefs, in a television interview: [1] Jim Michael (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then that reference should be in the article, which I see you have taken care of. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Religion categories

Please stop putting religion categories on so many articles. A person's religion should be mentioned only if it's relevant, and the article should explain why it's relevant. Thank you. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are still putting notes about people's religion into articles. If a person's religion is mentioned in an article, it needs to be more than an established fact, it needs to be relevant to their notability. Things like religion, sexual preference, etc. are treated differently than other facts like where someone was born. When you mention someone's religion in an article, make sure the article explains how it relates to their notability. If I can't communicate with you here about this, I may have to ask the administrators for help. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rules on including a person's religious beliefs are the same on here as they are on English Wikipedia. Self-identification is sufficient in the case of living people. If the person is dead, we merely need a reliable source. It does not need to be explained in the article why the belief is relevant, merely stated. A person needs to be notable to have their own article, but their religious beliefs do not have to be part of their notability in order to be stated in their article; I do not know why you think they do. You seem to have misinterpreted the policy / guideline on the matter. If he / she has spoken or written about it, it is obviously relevant to his / her life. You have removed mention of religion from articles on people for whom their religious beliefs are / were a major part of their lives. To remove all mention of it from Spencer Perceval when I had added a ref which details his faith and its relevance is baffling. Jim Michael (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that it doesn't have to be part of their notability, but stating their religion etc does have to be backed up with a source because it can be controversial. So to fall in line with WP:BLP it does need to be referenced. -DJSasso (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense to me. I won't remove the mention of religion if there is a source for it. Same with sexual preference, which I'm going to look at later. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Punk rock

You worked on some punk rock-related articles, so i just thought…

Hello there! I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Punk music WikiProject. It was created to try and organize and effort to improve the coverage of punk rock on Simple Wikipedia. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Punk music pages into the realm of good articles.

Thanks! - benzband (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New articles

Just a couple points you may want to deal with with your article creation. (Overall, they are nice, but I find I'm following behind you on a lot of them and making the same tweaks)

Link the reasons for notability in the lead sentence - "So and So is a <nationality> <something>, <something> and <something> - link the somethings as much as possible - overlinking is fine here as many of the terms for what a person is are not covered by Simple English so a link to the article is a good thing.
Categories are usually listed from most precise to most populated. Not a big issue but they are generally listed (in the actor/personality articles you favor) in the order of Professions, Awards, Birth, death/living person.
Add an interwiki link (one good one is usually enough for the bots finish it off) . As you don't seem to stray from the English Wikipedia, 99% of the time your articles are on the same title there so adding [[en:<page name>]] at the end of the page (and a quick click into another tab to be certain) will let the system fill out that section correctly.

As I mentioned - overall its very nice work, just a couple things you may want to keep in mind. Jim Michael (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Richard

I was just about to say thanks for creating an article for Cliff. But then I see that you have removed the "Christian" category which I had added. Why would you do that? Maybe you think that he is only known in the UK, but he is known world wide.

Where he is known is irrelevant to the fact that he is in the subcategory British Christians, hence he is not in the parent category Christians. When there are categories based on the subject's nationality, the parent category of that never needs to be there as well. The categories pertain to the subject's nationality, not where he is popular. I don't doubt that he has had a great deal of success in many countries. Jim Michael (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the "rule" (which doesn't make sense), please tell me where it says that. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where the rule is stated, but it certainly is the case that a subcategory should be present instead of a parent category of it. In the same way, he is in the categories English movie actors and English television actors, hence he is not in the categories Movie actors, Television actors, English actors or Actors. Look at other articles on Simple Wikipedia and English Wikipedia to see that this is how categorisation works. Jim Michael (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Category:People from San Francisco

I tagged the category you created for quick deletion as the articles in it have been moved to Category:People from San Francisco, California. Given the name of the article for the city and the name of the category for that article (both use ",California"), for consistancy I used that format for all subcategories for the city (San Diego is using the same naming convention). I also found all articles linked to the city for people and made certain they were added to the category as well as separated it into subcats that will be consistant for the large cities in California (as well as semi consistent for many other large cities as I get to them) - Athletes, actors, musicians (single person, singers as well as there are rarely enough to differentiate them at this point), musical group (bands mainly). 70.184.171.16 (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		You do a lot of hard work here; it really is appreciated. Keep it up! `:)` -Orashmatash (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd second that! :) DJDunsie (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your recognition; I do my best. Jim Michael (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categories named after television series

I noticed you populating this category, and removing other categories from the entries you put into it. Could you explain your reasoning behind this? Even if you put entries in this category, I think they should stay in the other categories. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sense in the categories being on the categories as well as the articles, that is pointless duplication. On English Wikipedia, the categories are on the article. The category Categories named after television series (or a subcategory of it) is on the category. It should be the same here. Jim Michael (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there shouldn't be duplication. Here I usually see the individual articles in the same-named category only, and the category (for example Category:The Simpsons) has other categories on it (such as Category:Sitcoms, etc.). I think the categories named "Categories named after..." add a degree of complexity that we don't need here. If you're planning of continuing this kind of change, I request that you take it to a discussion first. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The situation was inexplicably different here regarding categories than it was on English Wikipedia. I guessed it was down to the fact that the categories Category:Categories named after people, Categories named after musical groups and Categories named after television series had not existed on Simple Wikipedia until I created them, whereas similar categories have long existed on English Wikipedia. I don't see that their existence here adds unneeded complexity. As there are categories named after people, bands and TV shows then it makes sense to put them into Categories named after ..., as is done on en. It brings it in to line with how things are done on en. There doesn't appear to be any other major differences in categorisation here compared to categorisation on en. I'm not aware of anyone else disagreeing with the existence of Categories named after ...., and I do not know where a discussion on them should take place. I don't think many people would see a discussion on my talk page or on the talk page of a category. If you'd like there to be a discussion about them, please start it in the appropriate place and give me a link to it from here and I will join it, giving my explanation as to why I created them and believe that they are of benefit to the project. Jim Michael (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Women writer categories

A user has nominated Category:Women writers, Category:American women writers, and Category:British women writers, categories which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2012/Category:Women writers and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.

Service Award

This editor is a **Senior Editor I** and has the right to show this **Book of Knowledge**.

How quickly time goes by - I gave you a novice book, but you are well overdue for this new one. Many thanks for all your contributions.--Peterdownunder (talk) 03:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Hi Jim. Do you think, perhaps, that you could include at least one citation in these biographies that you create on an almost daily basis. At the rate we are going, this wiki will have more unsourced BLPs than enwiki does in less than 2 months time. You've been here for so long, I'm sure you're familiar with the relevant policies, you're new articles have everything that they should have except that they're devoid of any references. Could you please make an effort to include at least one reliable citation in any new biographies that you create? Osiris (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've included at least one source in each of the articles I've created, and have added sources to many articles created by other users that were unsourced. I will try to find more sources to add. Jim Michael (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be great. Thank you. As an example, two from yesterday you created were Larry Lamb (actor) and Colin Farrell. Note that by "reliable citation" I don't mean a link to the person's profile on IMDB. I mean a news article, an independent publication or something that isn't written by just anybody. Osiris (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dwight

from the U.S. Office maybe u could help? --Unej244 (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking about John Krasinski, he plays Jim Halpert in that show. Jim Michael (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mean Dwight Schrute the character on the office us version. --Unej244 (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen the US version of The Office, so I would not be comfortable about starting an article about any of its characters. Jim Michael (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok--Unej244 (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT television programs

Would you put a description on this category? For example, is it for programs whose main theme is LGBT-related, programs who have a regular LGBT character, programs that have addressed LGBT themes, all of those, or what? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

Please stop adding categories related to religion to BLPs without there being a reference for it. An example is Category:Jewish American actors. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Octogenarian and nonagenarian categories

I believe you created many of these categories. I see a maintenance issue, because if the octogenarians live into their 90s, or the nonogenarians live to the age of 100, the categories would need to be changed. Is there a particular reason for having these categories that makes it worth having to do that maintenance? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I subcatted some of them by nationality and populated them, but didn't create the parent cats, except for nonagenarians, which I created after someone else created two subcats of it. The issue you refer to would be dealt with in the same way as we do when centenarians become supercentenarians. Jim Michael (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remember that we had the other categories, but I have the same concern about those. Do you think having the categories is worth having to do this maintenance? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the number of articles that will need the age-related cat changed will be small. Jim Michael (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Category:Jews by country

The page you wrote, Category:Jews by country, 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) 04:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO JIM: I renamed this category to Category:Jews by nationality. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the change of the category's name. I used the previous wording because that was what it is called in English Wikipedia. Jim Michael (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Categories "by location of origin"

The name of these categories isn't very clear. Would you put a note on them to explain what the categories are for? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jim Michael (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wonder... what would you think of changing them to "by place of birth"? I think that would be clearer and simpler. I'd be glad to make the changes. What do you think? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, because they relate to where they grew up as well where they were born. That is why I chose the wording used. Many people grow up a substantial distance away from their birthplace. A person who was born in Birmingham and grew up in London would think of himself as being just as much a Londoner as a Brummie, if not more so. Jim Michael (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:Nonagenarians

An editor has requested deletion of Category:Nonagenarians, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2013/Category:Nonagenarians and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by you nominating this category for deletion, and thinking its existence inappropriate, only days after you created the parent cat Category:People by age to hold it. Jim Michael (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created the parent category so that the subcategories would be in one place instead of separate entries. I see how that could look like I think the subcategories should exist, but I don't think so. I did it just to organize what is there. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Ezekiel53746 has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them!

Quick deletion of Category:English people by age

The page you wrote, Category:English people by age, 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) 11:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Movie categories

Would you mind not adding categories to movie articles unless you have three movies to put into the category? I've been working to reduce the number of redlinked categories, and the categories you've been adding are filling up the list again. In general it's not bad to have some redlinked categories, it's just that there are now a lot of them on movie articles. I'd really appreciate your cooperation here. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Congratulations: You have been given a Barnstar!

For all your work on movie articles! --Auntof6 (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Movie categories

Would you want to create categories like "American romantic comedy movies" or "American comedy drama movies" (or British, or anything that would basically combine two different categories)? If so, I volunteer to help if you like. I could use AWB to easily find movies that are in whichever categories you'd want to intersect and recategorize them. Let me know. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 06:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interwikis on new categories

I see you've been creating some new categories recently. Instead of putting interwiki links in the category, would you please add the new category to its Wikidata entry? Interwiki links are now kept in Wikidata, not in individual pages. If you don't know how to update Wikidata, let me know and I'll find the instructions for you (or write them myself). Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about Wikidata; someone will need to tell me how to do this. Jim Michael (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I need to go out for a bit. If no one else has replied by the time I get back, I'll get you some info then. And you're not alone -- I think a lot of users don't know about this yet. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've written some instructions. Look here for some instructions. Let me know if the instructions aren't clear and I'll fix them. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My attempts to add Wikidata links have failed. Jim Michael (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Can you tell me which articles you tried to add them to, and what happened when you tried? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add the Wikidata interwiki links on a few new cats and a few new articles. In every case, my attempt failed. I don't understand why my attempts failed. I have not tried to do this on en, so I don't know how it works on there. Jim Michael (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understood that it failed. I'd like to figure out exactly what the problem was. To do that, it would help if I knew a specific category or article where it failed, and exactly what you saw that told you it failed. Can you give me that information? I understand that you might have to try again to get that information, and I'd appreciate you doing that. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember which articles & cats I tried to do this with. My list of contributions lists only the edits I completed, not those I unsuccessfully tried to perform, so I can't find out which ones I tried. I'll try again after I create another article or cat. Jim Michael (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been prevented from adding Wikidata links on several occasions. I've received a variety of error messages when trying to do this. The large majority of my attempts to add these have been unsuccessful. I never had any such problem with the previous system. Jim Michael (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Well, without the specific info I mentioned above (specific articles or categories you tried to link, the specific steps you went through, exactly what happened and what you saw, such as specific error messages), I don't know how to help you with this. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of the many different error messages I've received when I've tried to interwiki link, by far the most common one is "You need to be logged on in this wiki and in the central data repository to use this feature". However, every time, I am logged on. I don't know what 'in the central data repository' means. This problem often happens when attempt to I link between articles as well as cats. Many other experienced editors don't interwikilink when they create new articles/cats, which suggests many people are having problems with this. Jim Michael (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it suggests more that people don't know they need to do this, they forget, or that they aren't bothering. I know I often forget. I think "in the central repository" means Wikidata. I haven't had to log in to Wikidata separately, which might be because I have a global account. Do you have a global account? Have you ever logged into Wikidata? I'm think that either you need to be sure you have a global account, or that you are logged into both Wikipedia and Wikidata when you try to add the interwiki links. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths by location categories

Do you mean these categories to be for specific individual deaths only, or to also include things like plane crashes where unspecified people died? Inquiring minds want to know! --Auntof6 (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are for multiple deaths of people as well as individual dead people. Therefore, transport collisions, massacres etc. are included as well as biographies of dead people. For example, 2011 Tucson shooting is in Category:Deaths in Tucson, Arizona. On en, there are separate cats for such events, which are subcats of 'Category:Death in [country/state]'. Jim Michael (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Mandela GA

Hey Jim. I've been working hard into making Nelson Mandela into a good article. I added a lot of information (simplified it) and added references to them. Can you please read the article and then write any suggestions you might have in the article's talk page. Thanks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Deaths by city

An editor has requested deletion of Category:Deaths by city, a category you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination.

Deaths by location categories -- discussion underway

Since you created many of these categories, such as Category:Deaths in Cambridgeshire, you might be interested in the discussion to change the way they are used and likely eliminate many of them. Please see the discussion at Category talk:Deaths by country#Proposal: Use of this category and its subcategories and comment as you see fit. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Results

Four people ended up supporting the proposal, so I am going to implement it. I will be removing individual people from the categories that do not include a cause of death, and deleting categories that end up without enough entries. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

TDKR Chicago 101 has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them!

RfD nomination of Category:Bisexual men

An editor has requested deletion of Category:Bisexual men, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2013/Category:Bisexual men and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American mayors

Two things: first, I added some entries to this category and removed the popcat tag. Second, please don't create a category with only one or two entries, even if you put the popcat tag on it. If there are only one or two entries, the category isn't ready to be created yet. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of categories of American actors by ethnicity

Since you are the creator of most of these, I am notifying you of Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2013/American actors by ethnicity. Osiris (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim. I really should apologise for using your edits in trying to get my point across. That was not a good thing to do because I know that they were made in good faith and regardless of my opinion of those kind of additions, your work is very much a benefit to the project. Please accept my apologies for that. I would still rather imbalance never be introduced than having to later correct it by removals, but what's done is done and I will leave the matter alone for now. Kind regards, Osiris (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I try my best to do my best. My only aim here is to improve and create articles. As well as you feeling that I overcategorise, I yesterday became aware that you feel I overlink. I didn't intend to irritate you. I'm aware of en's guideline on linking, and I keep to that on there. I used to apply the same rules here, as I believed that apart from using simpler language, the rules/guidelines/policies were the same here. However, I was told that the overlinking rule does not apply here, and that many words, including commonly used words, should be linked. I was told to do this because a high proportion of the readers of our articles are learning English and that linking many words helps them to do so. There should be a page which states the ways in which the rules on Simple differ from those on en. That would enable me to know whether I should link many words (as I have done recently) or to only do a similar amount of overlinking as is customary on en.

I hope that we can both continue to contribute to this project harmoniously. Jim Michael (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. I assume you mean my de-linking of some words like mother and son...? I didn't actually have any specific editor in mind when doing that, it was just something I noticed when I was going through articles in the X-American actors categories and it looked excessive to me. I recall myself having added quite a few of the links that I removed, but if there are any that you think should have stayed please feel free to revert. I definitely agree that there is a different threshold for overlinking on this wiki. These were a few (mostly kinship) words that looked like they were just being linked as we would link a complex word – to give a better understanding of its meaning – only they were really simple words found on Ogden's 850-word list. I figured it had just built up over time on biographical articles. Again, if you think any of the links should have stayed please let me know and I'll undo them. Osiris (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:Movies by actor

An editor has requested deletion of Category:Movies by actor and all of its subcategories, some of which you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2013/Category:Movies by actor and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 08:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:Black British footballers

An editor has requested deletion of Category:Black British footballers, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2013/Category:Black British footballers and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Osiris (talk) 05:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:Gay men by nationality

You might be interested in commenting on this. I can't be sure whether you created any of them originally, since they've been renamed. Osiris (talk) 09:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've also proposed deleting the same sort of categories on the occupation side of things. You created a lot of them, so here is the link. Osiris (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glee categories

I wanted to explain why I reverted your changes about Category:2009 television series debuts. The categories for the years that TV series debuted should contain only articles, not categories. I think about it like this: it isn't helpful for, say, an actor in a TV series to be under a category like Category:2009 television series debuts. We don't care what actors were in series that debuted in a certain year. Therefore, that category should have only the articles for TV shows, not the categories.

I understand your thinking of wanting to have Glee in just the one category, Category:Glee, and have all the other related categories attached to that category. I like to do that, too, but it doesn't work that way with all categories. Please keep this in mind when working with categories, and feel free to let me know if you have any questions about this. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2014 disestablishments

Thanks for creating this category. You might not have known, but many of our standard chronology categories have templates that are used to define them. I have changed the category to use the template for disestablishment years. Take a look at it to see how these categories should be defined, and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quiz shows

I noticed you made this new category a subcategory of Category:Television game shows. Not all quiz shows would be television shows: there were quiz shows on radio as well. Would you prefer to rename this category to "Television quiz shows" or to categorize it somewhere not under television? I'd be willing to help with whichever you prefer. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT categories

You might have forgotten, but at this RfD the community decided not to have categories for specific LGBT categories by nationality. The new categories Category:American transgender and transsexual people and Category:British transgender and transsexual people that you recently created are the same kind of thing, so I am going to recategorize the entries and delete them. Please do not create this kind of category again without a community discussion. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:Categories named after American people

An editor has requested deletion of Category:Categories named after American people, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2014/Category:Categories named after American people and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New categories need at least three entries

Some of the categories you've created recently (for example Category:1960s in the United Kingdom and Category:1964 in the United States) do not have the minimum three entries in them. (Refer to Wikipedia:Categories#Is there a need for the new category? for information about this requirement.) Please do not create categories unless there are already at least three entries ready to go into them. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jim Michael (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Record producers by nationality

When you make categories like Category:American record producers and Category:British record producers, would you please move all the people from the parent category into them? There are American and British people still in Category:Record producers that should be moved. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Stop edit warring. I have reverted your addition, so there is no consensus for it. Get rid of it. That information is incredible irrelevant in a two-sentence description. Look up any other similarly brief description of the person and I guarantee it will not mention that information. Instead of adding all the trivial bits of personal details to biographies, why don't you add something useful? On why they're notable? Something about the acting career of this biography of an actor? Osiris (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate a response to this, please. The article is marginally better, but still incredibly unbalanced. I'd like you to understand the issue because it's happening awfully often with you. Have a look at the biographical reference you added. Have a look at the introduction there. That's a proper introduction. A brief description in less than ten sentences summarising the important points about this person. Any secondary details are left to the body of the article. en:Robert Reed does the same. Wikipedia is supposed to follow reliable sources. It's not about what you think is relevant, or even what the subject thinks is relevant. It's what reliable sources deem relevant. Balance and neutrality are vital. I've said this to you before, but it is mind-boggling trying to understand how you can possibly think that addition was appropriate given the quantity of text and depth of detail in the article. Why don't you keep an eye on en:WP:BTIP? Osiris (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both the source I added and the en article have a substantial proportion of content about his personal life and his death, both of which were very relevant to his life and therefore to his biography. As with most Simple articles, there isn't a lead and a body, as it isn't long enough. The place, cause and age of death should always, where known, be stated in a bio of a dead person.

You are the only person whom I have known to state that very serious conditions, including HIV, cancer, Parkinson's disease and borderline personality disorder are trivia. Jim Michael (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring the main point: balance and neutrality. Again. I don't know how many times I've repeated this now. The size of the article and how much detail it goes into need to be considered before you add content like that, as well as the information's prominence in reliable sources.

Does the size of our article match that of the other two? No.
Does the level of detail of our article match the level of detail on the other two? No.

Those articles are several paragraphs long, whereas ours is a few sentences. They're not even remotely comparable in size and depth of detail. Surely you did see that?

How much weight do the other two articles place on the actor's sexuality and diseases? About two percent of the overall article.
How much weight does our article now place on the actor's sexuality and diseases? About twenty percent of the overall article. Contributing to about half of the article being dedicated to personal details.

If there isn't a lead and a body, then there probably isn't room for it until the article is expanded to such a point that the weight placed on such details matches that in reliable sources.

There is neither a policy nor a guideline that states that the place, cause and age of death must be given in every biography of a dead person.

Your last sentence is deliberately facetious and shows how little you understand the issue. Actors do not have articles on Wikipedia because of the diseases they've had. You need to calculate the relative importance of each bit of information to the overall topic. You can't just mindlessly shove whatever bits of information you find "serious" in there and leave it at that. Look at reliable sources. Give each bit of information the same amount of weight that they do. Osiris (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Cardin

I removed the two categories you added to this page that indicated that Cardin is Italian. Being born in a country doesn't necessarily make you a citizen of that country. Cardin is French. Please be careful doing this kind of categorization. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only added one of the Italian cats to Cardin; the other one was already there. The different WP articles on him disagree as to whether or not he is Italian as well as French. His French article says he is a Frenchman of Italian origin. His Italian article says he's an Italian who has been naturalized French. Does he have dual citizenship? If the Italian article is correct, he was born with Italian citizenship and later gained French citizenship. Many people who take on a new citizenship retain their original citizenship. Were his parents French? His surname sounds French and not Italian, but that is not always conclusive - Nicole Scherzinger has a German surname, but she does not have any German ancestry. His original first name was Pietro, an Italian name, and it would be unlikely that French parents would give their son an Italian first name. Jim Michael (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed some Deaths categories

There were quite a few categories with names like "Deaths in France". I renamed them to names like "Deaths in France by cause" to make it clearer that they are only for deaths by cause. Otherwise, the category name could be interpreted as meaning it was for any deaths in France, even though we had the hatnote on them. Just letting you know. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I agree with the renaming, it is clearer. Jim Michael (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of pages (as complex) I made

Jim Michael, I don't understand when other Simple editors delete my page and mark the pages complex though I simplified the articles. I already have enough problems feeling embarrassed and like total failure when that happens. Could you please help me? Angela Maureen (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any of your articles having been deleted due to being complex, merely that some have been tagged, edited and in at least two cases moved to your userspace before being later moved back.

A thesaurus should help you to chose words which could be better. Try to take more time with each article, reading it through a few times before finishing it. Another thing which may help is to see how other editors have improved your articles after you've written them, and to learn from that. One of the mistakes you've made many times is that you've unintentionally changed the meaning when you've substituted complex words for simpler ones. You need to be sure of the meaning of every word you use. Never write an article about something you don't fully understand.

Don't take it personally when people are abrupt with you, both online and in real life - in most cases it isn't personal, even though it often feels like it. Don't let setbacks online or in real life get to you.

I know people who have all of the mental disorders that you have (although not combined in the same person), so I feel that I understand you.

Jim Michael (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts in fiction category

I have deleted this category because it had only two entries. Please remember that new categories need at least three entries in them. You can read about this requirement at Wikipedia:Categories#Is there a need for the new category?. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creating subcategories

Please be careful creating sub-categories. As you know we try to have as few categories here as possible. One example that I noticed you create was Category:Sportspeople from Edmonton. If you look at its parent category Category:People from Edmonton. There is no way that it needed to be subdivided yet. While yes we accept categories that have only 3 articles in them, you do still need to use commonsense. If the content of a category doesn't extend past a single page then it probably doesn't need subdividing yet. -DJSasso (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what makes you think that 'we try to have as few categories as possible' - admins as well as regular editors create many new categories. There is now a second subcat of People from Edmonton. Obviously a cat is typically subdivided once at first - the reason I chose sportspeople first is because there are more bios of them than there are of people of any other occupation in the Edmonton cat. Hundreds of new biographies have been created this year, so the number of articles in cats such as this one will almost certainly increase a great deal in the near future. Jim Michael (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of our guidelines here is to keep a simple category system. We don't want to replicate the category system that en.wiki has. It is one of the core principles of simple.wiki. I am surprised you have been here this long and were not aware of it. We don't subdivide categories unless we have to, its is why people above on your page have kept telling you not to create categories with few articles in them. Trying to keep the least categories possible is one of the biggest tenets of this wiki. To use the Edmonton example again with only 14 articles it was much simpler to only have a single parent category rather than having to make people go through two layers of categories to get to articles split into 3 different categories. -DJSasso (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware for several months of editing here that there was a three article minimum for cats. The vast majority of the cats I have created have enough articles in them. If you're saying that subcatting should rarely be done, then you could argue that cats with many people in them, such as Category:People from California shouldn't be subcatted, because, as with People from Edmonton, it is simpler not to. I find it hard to believe that there is a guideline saying 'don't create categories', because they are frequently created by admins (as recently as today), as well as by ordinary editors. Few people are 'going through layers of categories' to find articles - they typically enter the name of the article they want. Very few people would think 'I want to find out about someone, I can't remember his name or occupation, all I know is that he is from Edmonton, Alberta. I'll search through all the bios of people who were born in that city'. Even if the person couldn't remember the name of the person they were looking to read about, they would certainly know their occupation. Hence subcatting by occupation, as is done with many cities, counties, states etc, aids searching. I don't see that more cats makes things more complicated. If you want fewer cats, you could argue that the People from Edmonton cat shouldn't exist either, and have all Canadians in one cat. I don't see any examples of cats with at least three entries having been deleted due to being underpopulated. If you know where a guideline that says have fewer cats is, please leave me the link to it. Jim Michael (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a three-entry minimum, but that doesn't mean that anything you can find three entries for should necessarily have a category. We do have the guideline at Wikipedia:Categories#Is there a need for the new category?, which says that "Sub-categories should be considered when a category starts to get too large to easily find an article in it" and suggests 20 articles as a threshold. Taken together, these things indicate that subcategories aren't needed until a category has at least 20 or so articles, and then any subcats created need at least three entries. Of course, this isn't a hard and fast rule, but you do seem pretty quick to create subcategories. We need to be especially careful creating categories about where people are from, because there is ambiguity there and it has even been suggested that we eliminate those categories altogether. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Auntof6 describes the situation well. If there is less than one page worth of articles in a category then it is not difficult to search through and does not yet need to be subcatted. Simple Wikipedia tries to be as simple as possible in all things. One of those things is the category system. We want it as basic as possible. The complex category system of en.wikipedia is for regular English wikipedia. We serve a different purpose here. Yes other people do create subcategories, and sometimes they are good creations and other times they are not. That is just the nature of humans to not always be perfect. Creol is a good example of this, he went on a bit of a spree creating lots of sub-categories that probably were not necessary, but due to manpower its probably too much effort to undo what he did now. But your people of Canada example is a strawman because if we took everyone from Canada and put them in one category it would easily be too large to search though easily. -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:Elections in the 2000s

An editor has requested deletion of Category:Elections in the 2000s, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2014/Category:Elections in the 2000s and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:Fiction set in the past

An editor has requested deletion of Category:Fiction set in the past, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2014/Category:Fiction set in the past and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:Period television series

An editor has requested deletion of Category:Period television series, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2014/Category:Period television series and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source tags

I noticed that on at least two pages yesterday, after they were patrolled as new pages, you removed the {{no sources|date=May 2014}} tags. I also noticed you added == Other websites == and a link to IMDb. The Other websites addition is fine but it is not a source category. Even if it were, IMDb is not a reliable source to cite. Remember, everything in Wikipedia’s main space must be verifiable. For this we use reliable inline source citations. Please do not clear a tag if the problem mentioned has not been corrected. In these two cases it wasn’t so I replaced the tags. Thanks. Rus793 (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not reliable for biographical information, but it is reliable for info about films, TV series etc. The articles in question are movies, so there are no BLP/controversy concerns and no urgent need to add refs to them. The IMDb links were appropriate and should be included where relevant. Jim Michael (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, IMDb does not meet the requirements of a reliable source. They are supported by advertising and accept user contributions. Users (that is, anyone with an account) provide data, write reviews, vote on ratings and correct errors. At Wikipedia, sources can be based on the opinions of reliable published authors, but not on any anonymous contributor who happens to have one. IMDb is nothing if not a fansite with opinions regarding movies (TV, shows, etc.). They don't cite their sources and have little evidence of independent editorial supervision. The criteria has never been: are they right more often than they're wrong. BTW, the criteria for BLP source citations is no higher in reliability or verifiability than any other type of article. The main difference is that a BLP requires inline source citations. Very consistently, Wikipedia policies and guidelines encourage the use of reliable source citation in all articles. Rus793 (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is used routinely as a source on en for who was involved in which productions. I'm not talking about the reviews and messageboard sections of their articles, I mean things like the cast list etc. for films and TV series as well as which films and TV series an actor, director etc has been part of. If, as you claim, it is useless, it would not be on many thousands of en articles. Jim Michael (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is correct, IMDB is not considered a reliable source for anything as everything on the site is user contributed including cast lists etc. That being said, I would change the tag to refimprove instead of just removing the tag. As an IMDB link is a source, just not a reliable one. So the refimprove tag would be more accurate. -DJSasso (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it routinely on thousands of en articles if it is useless? I have changed the tag on many articles that have IMDb on them from unsourced to refimprove, only to be told that IMDb doesn't count as a source. Jim Michael (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was useless. I said it was unreliable, which means it isn't a good source. The reason people still like to have that tag on is because an imdb link doesn't provide any notability proof and for most people that is all a reference is for (which of course is incorrect). So that is probably why people have said it isn't a source. That being said as I mentioned changing it to refimprove is a better option than just removing it. You will have more people complain about it being removed completely than if it is just switched. -DJSasso (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Jim Michael has gone out of his way to assist other editors improve the work, to explain the way our Wikipedia works, and to provide support and encouragement. We should all learn from his example. Peterdownunder (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contents of establishment categories

When you add stuff to establishment categories, whether it's for establishments by time or establishments by location, please add individual articles for the things that were established, not the same-named categories for those things. The reason is that when someone is searching for things that were established in a certain time or in a certain place, they aren't usually interested in all the things that are related to it. For example someone looking for settlements established in a certain year isn't likely to be interested in people who were born there, shops that are there, etc. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elinor Wylie edit

I'm sure it was inadvertent but your edit to Elinor Wylie broke text-source integrity. Editors need to be careful when editing a source-cited sentence that their edit does not cause the citation to fail verification. The information that she died in New York City was not in that source. In fact, the exact quote from that source concerning her death was just mentioned on the article's talk page. Neither of the two sentences quoted from the book, or the entre page for that matter, mentioned she died in New York City. Other sources say she did, but either did not mention a cause or gave a different cause (see the discussion). So it wasn't a case of the information being wrong, just not being from that source. See WP:INTEGRITY. If you'd like to add a sentence with a citation telling where she died, there are several books which provide that information. Alternatively (see the examples in WP:INTEGRITY) you can continue the sentence adding the New York City information and cite with an appropriate source. It's completely your choice. BTW, since I had a part in source citing the article, and researched a number of sources, it would be easy to provide you a short list from which to choose if you like. It would save you some time. Rus793 (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:Categories named after politicians

An editor has requested deletion of Category:Categories named after politicians, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2014/Category:Categories named after politicians and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP template

Hi, Jim. I just removed this template that you added to Fleetwood Mac and The Jackson 5. We don't use the template on articles about bands. It does make a sort of sense, but the requirements for blp articles don't extend to articles about bands. Maybe they should if the band has any living members, but currently they don't. If you want, you could start a discussion about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:White South African people

An editor has requested deletion of Category:White South African people, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2014/Category:White South African people and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical movies

Hey, Jim, I removed the category you just added to this one (fiction set in the past). The reason I removed it is that a historical movie isn't necessarily fiction. There are quite a few in this category that aren't fiction. Maybe we need a category for works set in the past, or something like that. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Smith name

How many people named Sam Smith are there? Angela Maureen (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many - see en:Sam Smith. This isn't surprising, because Sam is a common first name and Smith is the most common surname in the United States, United Kingdom and Australia. Although we currently only have one Sam Smith on here, we will almost certainly have more of them on here in the future. Jim Michael (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:People from Long Island

An editor has requested deletion of Category:People from Long Island, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2014/Category:People from Long Island and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bret Easton Ellis

Jim, I purposely removed any reference to LGBT people in his case because as late as an interview a few months ago he has denied being gay. True, he has gone back and forth on the issue, but it's a BLP. One problem in particular is that categories must supported by the article text (cited by reliable sources). When I researched the article for source citations, for every source I found where he's alluded to being gay or bisexual, there's another interview where he denies it. So I kept it conservative with regards to his sexuality. I don't think his sexual preferences should the point of the article anyway. But rather than just removing the LGBT/gay cats I thought I'd see what you think. Thanks. Rus793 (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In cases where the subject has made contradictory statements about their orientation, we usually go by what they most recently identified as. In the ref I added, he explicitly states that he's a gay man, he doesn't merely allude to it. I was not aware that he had contradicted that, since then. Do you have a link to this year's interview that you mentioned where he said that he's not gay? It would be useful to add it to the en article. Jim Michael (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll find it and leave a link here for you. Rus793 (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. This is the interview: http://sabotagetimes.com/people/patrick-bateman-was-me/ . In a 2002 interview he wouldn't commit to anything but does seem to like screwing with interviewers over the question: http://www.metroweekly.com/2002/10/the-attractions-of-bret-easton/ . I still don't see any upside in mentioning anything on the subject of his sexuality. Rus793 (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I agree. It is not that important to categorize by sexual orientation. In cases where it matters, there would usually be some pretty clearcut evidence somewhere. We certainly don't want to be in the position of having to keep changing the article because the person isn't consistent in what he says publically. I say just leave it out. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Movies set in the future

Please put a note on this category explaining it. I assume it means "set in what was the future when the movie came out", but that isn't clear from just looking at the name. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trading movies

Hi, Jim. Since "trading" is not a very specific word (it can mean stock trading, or trading just about anything else), would you please either find a clearer name for this category or put an explanation of it on the category page? Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical order

For what particular reason are you putting categories in alphabetical order? Angela Maureen (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be a rule about it, but many editors do so, because it makes it easier to find them and looks right. Jim Michael (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

Can you make the pages Amanda Leigh and So Real more notable? Someone doesn't really think these two records are notable. Angela Maureen (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I'm not familiar With Moore's work, but I can suggest how you might do so. Both these albums are notable, as they contain notable songs (those which have articles on en). Wikipedia has unwritten rules which I have yet to fully comprehend. Some editors on here are pushing a higher notability bar than is on en, in the absence of guidelines/policy to that effect. Many album articles on here have been turned into redirects recently. Adding more references could demonstrate their notability better, as could creating articles on the albums' notable singles.

Don't let it get to you when articles you've created or done a lot of work are deleted, shortened or turned into redirects. This happens to many editors; don't take it as an insult.

It would be better if you wrote better referenced, longer, higher quality articles, than many stubs. Always understand the subject before you create the article. Jim Michael (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning certain sensitive info about people

Jim, there are certain kinds of things about people that need references if you mention them. If you add categories about them, they must also be in the text with references. Those things include mental or other health conditions and sexual orientation. In Luka Magnotta, you added an LGBT category as well as text and categories about mental conditions, but I see no sources for those. Even if an article already has an LGBT category, don't add more if you don't see a reference -- in fact, it would be best to remove the ones already there (unless you want to add a source). I removed the unsourced text and related cats from Luka Magnotta. You can add it back if you give sources. Let me know if you have any questions. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jim Michael (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

X by Y categories

Hi, Jim. When you create an "X by Y" parent category, please make sure to do two things. One is to put a parent category notice at the top of the category, using the {{parent category}} template. The other thing is to use correct sort keys in the "X" category. For example, the correct code for Category:People from New York City by borough‎ is one of the following:

[[Category:People from New York City| ]]

[[Category:People from New York City| Borough]]

Notice the space at the beginning of the sort key. You can use either of the examples, as long as it's consistent all similar categories do the same (that is, space only or word followed by space). Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When an article and a category have the same name

Hi, Jim. When you put an article into a category that has the same name as the article (as you did with Ricky Martin and several other articles recently), please use a space for the sort key. That will put the article at the beginning of the articles shown in the category. You can read about this under "Special character sort keys" at Wikipedia:Categories#Special sorting. Thanks. Let me know if you have any questions. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Jim, I've noticed several new categories, including Olympics categories, where you're still not doing this. Are you unclear on how to do it? You could look at some existing categories where it's done correctly, or you could ask me or someone else. Please start using the blank sort key for these. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, you're still not doing this correctly. Category:Ellie Goulding and some others you recently created don't have the correct sort key. This is a guideline, so it should be followed unless there is a good reason not to. Please take care of this. You create a lot of categories, so you should be setting this up correctly.

I'm also concerned that you haven't responded to the previous times this has been mentioned. I'd appreciate you doing the courtesy of replying to acknowledge seeing this. Otherwise, it looks like you're purposely ignoring it, which I hope is not the case. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your recent change to the page Incest appears to have added wrong information and has been removed. If you think the information that you added was correct, please provide a source for the change or discuss it on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Thank you. If you're going to say that most stepparents don't care about their stepchildren, you really need a source for that. Auntof6 (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it bizarre to receive a templated welcome and warning, suggesting that my edit may have been a test, years after I became one of the most frequent editors here.

I've added two reliable sources. One clearly states that stepparents do not care (much) about their stepchildren and view them as unwanted baggage whom they resent. The other clearly states that incest is more common in stepfamilies than in bio families. I don't know why you thought my statement was wrong - it is common knowledge that stepparents are many times more likely to emotionally, physically and sexually abuse and neglect their stepchildren than bio parents are their children. In surveys, most stepparents say that they do not have any parental feelings for their stepchildren, let alone love them. Bio children are a genetic long-term investment; stepchildren are typically a burden. Stepchildren are far more likely to be put into care, to run away from home, and on average they move out at a younger age. In addition, many predators target single parents, starting relationships with them and moving in with them, merely to gain access to their children - a well-known fictional portrayal of this is Humbert Humbert in Lolita. There are some stepparents who are good parents to their stepchildren, but they are in the minority. Typically, a stepparent will do the barest minimum for their stepchildren; merely enough to continue the relationship with their spouse/partner. Jim Michael (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never subscribed to en:WP:DTR. Don't take it personally.

The article doesn't say what you say it does. It says "step-parents are much more likely to abuse their children than natural parents". That doesn't mean it's common or typical, just that it happens more than with people's "biological" children. It says "step-parents are less interested in caring for those who do not pass on their genes". That doesn't mean they're not interested at all, and it doesn't say it's true for all step-parents. It also says "This certainly does not, of course, mean that all natural parents will be good parents, or that all step-parents will be bad parents; but it is clear that step-parents will tend to have a relationship with their step-children that is qualitatively different from the relationship of a natural parent to his or her natural child." That specifically says that it isn't true of all step-parents.

Besides all that, I question the reliability of that source. Just looking at the titles of other articles on the site, it looks like a tabloid. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first source I tried to add was better, but I couldn't make the link work. No-one is saying that something is true of all parents or of all stepparents. Obviously there are bad parents, such as Josef Fritzl, and good stepparents. As the sources state, a stepparent-stepchild dynamic is not merely different to a parent-child dynamic, it's grossly inferior. Stepchildren are many times more likely to be neglected and abused - it's not a subtle distinction, nor is it rare. I don't know why you've put biological in quotation marks; it's a correct and relevant term. In the large majority of cases in which a person has both children and stepchildren, (s)he will greatly favour his/her children over his/her stepchildren. Of course, if you have a reliable source that states something to the contrary, and says that most stepparents are devoted to their stepchildren, you're welcome to add it. Jim Michael (talk) 08:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I put "biological" in quotes because the people I know with step- and adopted children don't like the term. All people are, after all, biological. I'm not suggesting it should be in quotes in the article.

Something being many times more likely does not mean it's likely in general terms, or even common. The incidence of it may be so low among families who are all related by blood (I'll call them "natural" families) that even multiplying it by many times does not make it common. It's much more common, yes, but not necessarily common. For example (and I'm making up numbers because I didn't see any actual figures in the source), incest might occur in .01% of natural families. If it occurs 100 times as often between step-relatives, that's still only 1% of the time, which does not make it common. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biological in this sense means biologically related, and it's a commonly used term. In most cases, step and adopted children are not blood relatives of their step or adopted parents. We can't use 'natural child', because that's often used as a euphemism for illegitimate child. The people I personally know clearly distinguish between children (biological) and stepchildren. None of the people I know describe their stepchildren as their children, nor their stepsiblings as their siblings. I know one stepfather who refers to his stepchildren as "the kids", but never as "my kids" or "our kids". I realise that this is different for different people, but we need to use correct terms in an encyclopedia.

Incest, as well as physical and psychological abuse, occur in a substantial proportion of stepfamilies, nothing like as low as 1%. One or more of them occur in a substantial proportion of stepfamilies. Most cases are not reported or prosecuted, but surveys of stepchildren give an indication of what proportion have experienced sexual activity with a stepparent and/or stepsibling. The most recent ref I added gives the prevalence of fathers sexually abusing their daughters as 1 in 40 and the prevalence of stepfathers sexually abusing their stepdaughters as 1 in 6. Even in anonymous surveys/studies, sexual abuse tends to be underreported, and that statistic is only about fathers and their daughters and stepfathers and their stepdaughters. Stepsibling incest is common - many times more common than sibling incest - mainly due to the fact that only a small minority live in the same household during their early childhoods, therefore avoiding the Westermarck effect. Jim Michael (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing songs and albums by artist

Jim, I just removed some genre categories that you added to various "Songs/albums by X" categories. You can't categorize all of an artist's songs or albums by genre, because they could do different genres at times. Just categorize the songs and albums by genre individually. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've only done that in cases where all of the artist's music is of that genre or is all of that genre mixed with another genre. I've also looked at en's cats of the same type and I though we'd do the same here in that regard. Jim Michael (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That still leaves the possibility that those artists will record something different at some point, and we'd have a maintenance issue to recategorize things. Better not categorize them individually. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incestophiles

I take issue with the fact that your above discussion speaks about incest in a purely abusive/negative fashion. If it occurs between cousins of similar age, the majority of people don't see it as a problem. Similarly, if it occurs between siblings or with an adult nephew/niece alng with contraceptives, it is not necessarily abusive. Therefore this premise may be offensive to incestophiles. 78.144.240.47 (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion centres on incest by fathers and stepfathers, which is the most commonly reported and prosecuted form of incest and which in most cases is predatory and abusive, as well as illegal. The article here, and that on en need to be improved. Most people strongly disapprove of incest, and people involved in it are often outcasts because of it. Even in countries which don't have laws against incest, it is strongly frowned upon and even people who are in equal, adult, non-abusive sexual relationships with distant relatives typically keep it secret because they would likely be received negatively. I am aware that there are loving, mutually fulfilling sexual relationships between relatives, such as Greta Scacchi and her cousin-partner and that not every case is like Josef Fritzl and his daughter. You're welcome to try to improve the article neutrally and with reliable sources. Jim Michael (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my uncle got married to his first cousin and only three members of my family (that I know of) are pissed off about it. They got married 7 years ago and currently have four healthy kids. Charles Darwin who is on my ten pound note was an incestophile. Several biblical figures too: Jochebed and Amram (nephew-aunt), Isaac and Rebecca (cousins), Sarah and Abraham (uncle -niece), Cain and Awan (siblings), Lot and his daughters. And all sorts of other combinations can be found in quranically-inspired/ biblical figures. I think your claims are exaggerated. 84.13.46.138 (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attitudes varies depending on culture, religion and which part of the world it happens in. It also varies from family to family and person to person. Other than your uncle, all the cases you mention happened / were described hundreds of years ago, when the legal and sociological scope of incest was much narrower. It was commonplace and standard for cousins to marry each other in the large majority of the world until the mid-19th century; since then it has become increasingly frowned upon and uncommon (and in some parts of the world, illegal). Jim Michael (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think its a negative by-product of western culture in general to see everything through their own lens. I recommend you broaden your scope of vision lest someone accuse you of being an ethnocentrist. Especially since simple wiki is more likely to be needed by people who use it as a second language - i.e. not from the Anglosphere, hence we should cater to our actual audience. 84.13.58.6 (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children's movies vs. Category:Family movies

You didn't create these categories, but you do a lot of movie categorizing so I thought I'd ask your opinion. Do you think we need both of these categories? If so, how do we know which category to use? It seems to me that they're pretty much the same thing, at least the way they're being used. What do you think? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A children's film is especially for children; a family film is for the whole family. However, many children's films are wrongly described as family films (often by the companies/people promoting them in order to try to appeal to a wider audience), causing a blurring between the two genres. I think that both cats should be kept. Jim Michael (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but how do we tell which audience a film is for? I saw one that was in both categories, which I wouldn't think we want. I'm usually the first person to say we don't need to follow enwiki, but I do see that enwiki only has the children's film category. I may or may not open a wider discussion on this, but I wanted to get your input first. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

En deleted their family films cat. They also turned their Family film article into a redirect to their Children's film article. I see a difference between the two genres, which I would answer by asking: "would many adults enjoy watching this film?". Are there any in particular that you're doubtful about? Jim Michael (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, no specific ones. I just think we should have an objective way to determine which category a given film belongs in. Otherwise, this is a complexity that Simple English Wikipedia might not need. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone else on Simple raised the issue of the possible ambiguity in these cats? Have there been disputes about them? If not, I don't see a need to change things here. Jim Michael (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're not suggesting that my concerns and opinions don't count if no one else shares them. No one else I'm aware of has said anything, but I see an issue and I'm trying to understand how to use the categories. If we can't come up with a way to determine what goes where, that could be an indication that we don't need both. I'll bring this up at Simple Talk. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't implying anything. There's no 'reading between the lines' with me. I have a straightforward way of speaking and writing; I say what I mean and mean what I say. The way I communicate is felt by some people to be a bit blunt; some people can feel a bit offended or think I'm taking a swipe at them, when no such intention is there. I was asking you whether this had been brought to your attention my someone else who saw a problem or if there had been some kind of dispute related to these cats that you might be responding to. The reason I asked is so I could see if anyone else has/had a view on this matter, in order to look for a way forward. Despite our disagreements over some issues, I respect your work here and don't have any bad feeling toward you. I'm in no way suggesting that you shouldn't raise the issue if you see there is one. I don't see a problem here, but I have no objection to you raising the issue. I will continue this debate on Simple talk, because more people will see it there. Jim Michael (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I can understand that. I myself am known for being a bit brusque sometimes. It got me into trouble at work a time or two. Maybe we'll come up with something at ST. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sexting

Hey, Jim, sexting is not pornography, so I removed the category that you added. Let me know if you have any questions about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's categorised as such on en's article, and it fits the description of porn on our article. Jim Michael (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Puberty

I see your point about most people who have just finished puberty usually being boys and girls, not men and women. However:

Even (legal) adults can go through puberty -- there's such a thing as delayed puberty.
Pre-adult teenagers are often called young men and women.
The article isn't necessarily talking about people who have just gone through puberty.

I wonder if males and females would be a better choice of words, at least in some parts of the article. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's rare for someone to begin puberty during adulthood.
It's incorrect to refer to anyone who has not reached adulthood as an adult. There flip side of this. For example, on dating websites, many women members in their thirties and early forties frequently describe themselves as girls (eg. "I'm a fun, outgoing girl living life to the full at 40") - however, as this is colloquial usage, hence we don't normally describe adults as girls on encyclopedias.
The lead wrongly described typical adolescents who were going through puberty as men and women.
I don't see a need to change the wording to males and females - the article is clearly talking about adolescents. Part of the reason that adolescents are wrongly described as adults/men/women on several articles on Simple is that blocked editor FDR (and his socks) frequently described them as such.
Jim Michael (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Luv

Hi, Jim. Thanks for reverting my edit on this article. I don't know what happened there -- your change was obviously an improvement. I may have hit the wrong link, although I usually catch myself when I do that. Anyway, thanks again, and I'm sorry for the mistake. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:Murdered African-American people

An editor has requested deletion of Category:Murdered African-American people, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2015/Category:Murdered African-American people and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinked categories

Jim, please stop leaving redlinked categories on articles. If you're creating a new category, please create and populate it within a very short time. We don't have a guideline for a specific amount of time, but I usually look for no more than half an hour, and preferably within a few minutes. I work hard to keep down the number of things listed at Special:WantedCategories, so I'd appreciate your cooperation with this. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, you've been leaving redlinked categories for long periods again. Please review what I said above, and please, please stop doing that. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Establishment/disestablishment categories by location only

Hi, Jim. When you create categories like Category:Establishments in the United Kingdom that specify place but not time, they should include only categories for (dis)establishments by time and/or place. They shouldn't directly contain articles or categories for things that actually got (dis)established. For example, Category:Establishments in California was on Los Angeles Times, and Category:Disestablishments in Australia was on Category:Commonwealth Liberal Party. The whole point of the (dis)establishment categories is when things were established. Any of the actual things that got established or disestablished (companies, settlements, countries, etc.) should be in establishment categories that specify time, either with or without place.

I cleaned this up, and a couple of categories got deleted because they became empty. A few others now contain fewer than three entries, but I will leave them for now. Please keep these issues in mind when you create (dis)establishment by place categories. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Banks (rapper)

I removed the notability tag from the article. My first concern when I patrolled it yesterday was notability. But in researching the subject I found he did meet the criteria. I saw the iTunes information yesterday but was interrupted and didn't mention it in the article—sorry. Just wanted you to know the reason. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Movies about virginity

Jim, I just removed two movies from this category. A movie is not "about virginity" just because it has a character who's a virgin, or even just because there's a character who loses his or her virginity. The Blue Lagoon is about children and how they survive when they are stranded on an island. American Beauty is about a man infatuated with his daughter's friend. Let's try to keep this categorization to the main themes of the movies. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Lagoon's two protagonists lose their virginities to each other. Mena Suvari's character in American Beauty is a virgin who pretends to be a slut. Virginity is important to the plot of both films. They're in the cat Films about virginity on en. Perhaps the cat needs to be renamed. Jim Michael (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say virginity wasn't a plot point in the movies. I said that just because it's a plot point doesn't mean that's what the movie is about, generally speaking. In The Blue Lagoon, a whole lot of other things happen before the characters have sex. In lots of other movies, virgins get married and have sex on their wedding night: are those movies "about virginity"? I don't think so. American Pie can fairly be said to be about virginity (or, more specifically, losing one's virginity) because that is the main idea of the plot.

What enwiki does is their business. We do not have to do the same.

I don't know what you would rename the category to. It probably doesn't need renaming, just populating with movies that really are about virginity (or the losing of it). --Auntof6 (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinked categories, again

As I previously asked here and here, please stop leaving redlinked categories on articles. I just removed ten of them from Denis Healey. Wait until there are three article for the category, then put it on the pages. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than three in each cat. They have been altered to use long dashes instead of short. I don't know how to type long dashes on my keyboard. Jim Michael (talk) 10:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, bother. Yeah, I guess that's grammatically correct, but it's a pain. You could copy and paste, either the entire category name or just the dash. Or, do you use hotcat? I see that the live cat names also have all four digits for the second year, whereas the redlinked ones are missing the first two digits. If you use hotcat and add the first two digits, it pops uo with the existing cat name and you can select it. Let me know if none of those ideas work for you. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to copy & paste, or how to use HotCat. Jim Michael (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Suplee

The article says Suplee is "known for", not notable for. (We're not supposed to say "notable" in articles.) Saying someone is known for something does not show notability. There are several things I'm "known for" among my family and friends, but that doesn't make me notable. I'm going to leave it to see what other admins think, but if you want to improve it in the meantime, that would help. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the word musician converted to singer on B*Witched

For what reason was the word musician changed to singers on B*Witched? Angela Maureen (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're a vocal group. They don't play instruments, hence singers is a better description. Jim Michael (talk) 12:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stub templates

I noticed that some of your recent changes (for example, your changes to Natalie Cole) deleted one of the two blank lines before stub tags. Please leave two blank lines before a stub tag. This is done so that the stub text does not crowd the text of the article. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Jeremy Corbyn

Hey there Jim! I've always noticed and am grateful for your edits to my articles by adding or creating the appropriate categories. I am in need for your help. I personally think that Jeremy Corbyn should have more categories. You're an expert in categorizing things, is the article well categorized or is it missing essential categories? Thanks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Hi Jim. You might be interested in a discussion that I've started over at Simple talk – Wikipedia:Simple talk#Categories for people with medical conditions. Osiris (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:Least developed countries

An editor has requested deletion of Category:Least developed countries, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2016/Category:Least developed countries and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:People from Honshu

An editor has requested deletion of Category:People from Honshu, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2016/Category:People from Honshu and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2007 in television

Jim, please remember not to create categories with fewer than three entries. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mistakenly thought there were three entries for that cat. Jim Michael (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories under establishments (for example, Honduras)

Hi, Jim. For something like Honduras, you would put Honduras in the establishment category instead of putting Category:Honduras there. The reason is that not everything under Category:Honduras is relevant to being established in the 19th century. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spike Lee

Please remember: when you create a category, and there is an article in the category that has the same name as the category, you use a sort key of one space for that category. I see above that I have mentioned this to you before. I fixed the Spike Lee article, so you can look at that to see how to do it. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't edited Spike Lee. Have I altered it correctly? Jim Michael (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. Sometimes HotCat doesn't do what I tell it to. What you did is good, thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uncategorized pages

I've noticed you adding quite a few pages to Category:Category needed lately. Would you like some help to learn how to categorize? --Auntof6 (talk)

Category:Animals in fiction

Hi, Jim. I removed 2 of the 3 entries from this category (movies about animals and TV series about animals). I did that because not all movies and TV series about animals are fiction. Even though the category now has only one entry, I haven't deleted it yet because I thought you might want to add back just the movies and series that are fictional. If you don't want to do that, let me or another admin know and we can delete the category. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ETA, I just added a couple of entries, enough to keep the category. You can still add more if you want the category complete. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for singles

Jim, we have categories for "songs", not for "singles". If you want to change that, please discuss it first. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we not have both types of cat? Not all songs are released as singles. Not all singles are released during the same year as the songs. For example, many singles released this year are from albums that were released last year - they are 2015 songs but 2016 singles. As it was, many songs were in the wrong year's cats. Jim Michael (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying we wouldn't have both, just that it should be discussed. Adding categories for singles may be a level of complexity that we don't want. Please bring this to Simple talk if you want to continue. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the guidelines/rules/policy does it say that a discussion is needed before cats are created? It's not complex, it's simple. One type of cat is for the year the song was released, the other is for the year the single was released. Jim Michael (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you politely to discuss a change that will take users by surprise and add an extra layer that I don't think we need. Why do you have a problem letting people know about it first? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be the only person to be taken by surprise and who thinks it's an unneeded extra layer. I didn't let people know first because if I did that routinely it would waste a huge amount of time and it isn't policy to do so. Nevertheless, I've started the discussion on Simple talk. Jim Michael (talk) 09:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I may be the only person who has seen it so far, so others haven't had a chance to react. Thank you for starting the discussion. Please do not continue with these while the discussion is taking place. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversions have put some of them in the wrong cats. Using simple language does not mean that we should put things in the wrong cats or that the right cats shouldn't exist. A song from a 2015 album that is released as a single in 2016 is a 2015 song and a 2016 single, not a 2016 song. Also, if I don't revert, you'll delete the new cats on the grounds that they're underpopulated. Jim Michael (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry for putting them in wrong categories. Please just wait for some discussion before continuing with these. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prince

Could you take a look at Prince (musician) -- an IP made some changes after your last edit to that page. I suspect that a revert is in order, but there may have been something helpful added, and I don't have time today to review it, or to figure out what portion of the edits to keep. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 22:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When a category has the same name as one of the articles in it (eponymous categories)

Hi, Jim. When you create a category (for example, Category:Mansfield) that has the same name as one of the articles in it (for example, Mansfield), the article needs a special sort key for that category. The sort key is a space. That lets the article appear before the other articles in the category. This is explained at Wikipedia:Categories#Special sorting, under "Special character sort keys". Please remember to set the right sort key when you put articles into same-named categories. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, I've mentioned this to you many times, and you still aren't using the right sort key for these articles. In your new category Category:Ilford, you didn't use it for Ilford. I gave you the link for the guideline. Even if this is only a guideline and not a policy, I don't see any reason not to follow it. Please follow it. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Chopper (movie)

The page you wrote, Chopper (movie), 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. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not eligible for QD. It's a notable film about a notable criminal. Jim Michael (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was eligible for qd because it didn't show notability. The notability of a movie's subject doesn't transfer to the movie. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

chopper

done --Nar8211 (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Movies about car accidents

Hi, Jim! Are you aware of any movies about car accidents? Angela Maureen (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not many have that as their theme, but there are many in which it's a major part of the plot. Examples are: The Blues Brothers, Unknown (2011 movie), Basic Instinct, Amores perros, Final Destination 2, The Final Destination and Due Date. There are also some films in which cars are deliberately crashed, including Crash (1996 movie) and Death Proof. Jim Michael (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:Supernatural horror movies

An editor has requested deletion of Category:Supernatural horror movies, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2017/Category:Supernatural horror movies and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romantic comedy television series

What criteria are you using to decide which series fit these categories? It seems to me that it should require the romantic comedy aspect to be the main point of the series. I haven't checked all the series in these categories, but I disagree that The Big Bang Theory belongs there. It is a comedy series, and there are romances in it, but they are not the main aspect of the show. I don't think it belongs in a romance category at all. This makes me suspicious of what else might be miscategorized under romantic comedy. Since you do a lot of this type of categorizing, it would be helpful if you describe the criteria. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria is those series which are described as romantic comedies in reliable sources. The Big Bang Theory started as a sitcom about four geeky, single scientists and a waitress - and in the early episodes romance had little or nothing to do with it. However, from season 3 onwards, it changed massively into being a romantic comedy about couples and the science and geek culture became side-issues. For most of its run, it's been a show about couples in which most of the characters happen to be scientists, instead of a show about scientists which it was in s1 & s2. The writers have put the relationships at the centre of the show and pushed science to the side. The major change in the focus of the show from single scientists to couples is something which many (former) fans of the show mention prominently when they discuss it. IMDb, Ranker, and en:List of romantic comedy television series all class TBBT as a romantic comedy series. Jim Michael (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but I wouldn't call any of those reliable sources. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

movies with NC-17 ratings

There haven't been any movies lately that are rated NC-17 (no children 17 and under admitted). The most recent movies are Blue Is the Warmest Colour, Marriage 2.0 and Shame. There were no movies released in 2017 with the adults-only rating. Angela Maureen (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Movies about tropical storms and hurricanes

Do you know of any movies that look at hurricanes and tropical storms? 'Cause I haven't heard of any recent movies on this subject. Angela Maureen (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twister (1996 movie), The Perfect Storm (movie) and Into the Storm (2014 movie) are the only ones I can think of. It's surprising that there aren't a lot more films about storms. Jim Michael (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving modus operandi

Hi Jim,

please, could you indicate me how to move Marion Maréchal-Le Pen (towards Marion Maréchal)?

Thanks in advance!

Regards,

Nomen ad hoc (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Moving a page is done by hovering over the More tab, pressing Move and filling out the new title. However, I don't recommend doing so with this title, because the English & French WP have rejected that move - after lengthy discussions. Jim Michael (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

games about basketball

Hey Jim: Besides Arch Rivals and NBA Jam, are there any other games related to basketball? Angela Maureen (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:Terrorist incidents in Asia in the 2010s

An editor has requested deletion of Category:Terrorist incidents in Asia in the 2010s, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2019/Category:Terrorist incidents in Asia in the 2010s and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. IWI (chat) 12:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can I be a good editor on Wikipedia

Hi, I'm 19chseld 414. I'm an ELD student in California. When I went through some of the good articles, I noticed that you have some good nice review on your comment on the article of "191o Cuba hurricane". Therefore, I would like to ask you for some advice on my project. My project is to write a page to edit some article on my own page. I'm interested in the crime article or some adventure article. What should I do to be a good editor on Wiki. by 19chseld 414 (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Start by making small improvements to articles, then make larger improvements. Once you're good at that, you can create new articles. Jim Michael (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

categories on September 11 attacks

There was some overcategorization here, so I removed all but one of the categories from this article. If you want to put any back, then please make sure to remove them from the main category. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks Jim for updating the Dusit D2 attack in Nairobi and building Kenyan articles. Asante--DJ (✉ - ✔) 18:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian

Do you know anyone who's in the path of Hurricane Dorian? The reason why I ask is 'cause there may be some Wikipedia editors in Florida, eastern Georgia, South Carolina, eastern North Carolina and Virginia who could be facing hurricane-strength winds. Their computers could be damaged or destroyed. Are you in the path of this hurricane? Angela Maureen (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My acquaintances & I are nowhere near. You don't need to worry about your online acquaintances - the authorities are making preparations to reduce casualties & damage in the SE states. Jim Michael (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make helpful changes to Wikipedia. However, some of your changes, like those to "Friday Night Dinner", did not seem to be helpful and have been reverted or removed. If you want to try out changing Wikipedia to learn more about how it works, please use the sandbox. Thank you. RPBG 💬 🖊 05:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My changes on FND are helpful. You only object to a small minority of the changes I made to that article, those relating to the sitcom ending. The guideline is that a TV show should be regarded as having ended if at least a year has passed & there's no indication of more episodes being made or planned. It's almost a year since it was last shown. Prior to Ritter's death, it was stated that there were no plans to make any more eps. His death makes it highly unlikely it will return, because his character is very important & popular.

Why are you templating me as though I'm new here? Jim Michael (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that but I believe that a source suggests that even though the show has not released any new episodes for about a year, Robert Popper has still decided not to end it, even though Ritter has passed away. Channel 4 have confirmed that the series has not ended, but the producers are not making episodes for the time being, not stating that the show was discontinued. Thanks and sorry for templating you. Best regards, RPBG 💬 🖊 15:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image caption punctuation

Hello, Jim, and thank you for your contributions. Kindly note the punctuation rule in the Wikipedia Manual of Style for image captions: Unless the caption is a full sentence, it doesn't end with punctuation. See the changes I made here, including some rewording. (Before I retired, I worked in the photo archive of a historical museum and edited tens of thousands of image captions.) Cheers! -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		For your outstanding work on earthquakes! 💠Ely - Talk💠 13:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

💠Ely - Talk💠 13:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Helping with a research project in Simplification

Hello Jim,

I'm reaching out to you because I am working on a research project on simplification and am looking to collaborate with domain experts.

A quick introduction: I am a researcher interested in text simplification and am working towards publishing a resource in text simplification based on Simple Wikipedia (quite a rich encyclopedia). We believe this resource, which we will make public, could be valuable to educate and increasing awareness of text simplification.

Some colleagues and I are looking to collaborate with domain experts in the creation of the resource. We've secured some budget for our research project, so there's the possibility to remunerate a few experts that would work with us.

I do not mean to spam you, so feel free to disregard/delete if you feel this is inappropriate (and I apologize). On the other hand, if you are interested, please feel free to reach out, either directly on Wikipedia or by email (phillab@berkeley.edu) and I would be happy to tell you more.

Thank you, and sorry again if you feel this is inappropriate,

Philippe Laban

You can check my previous academic publications (one of which is on Simplification) on this website: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=fR5t200AAAAJ

~~~~ Philippelaban (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:Former MEPs

An editor has requested deletion of Category:Former MEPs, a page you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2023/Category:Former MEPs and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. MathXplore (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:Sportswomen

An editor has requested deletion of Category:Sportswomen, a page you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2023/Category:Sportswomen and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Eptalon (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:Deaths from natural causes in the United States

An editor has requested deletion of Category:Deaths from natural causes in the United States, a page you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2023/Category:Deaths from natural causes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Lights and freedom (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:Cancer survivors

An editor has requested deletion of Category:Cancer survivors, a page you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2023/Category:Cancer survivors and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 21:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:Actors who committed suicide

An editor has requested deletion of Category:Actors who committed suicide, a page you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the page meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Category:Actors who committed suicide and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the page during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. --Ferien (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]