Open main menu

User talk:Auntof6

Active discussions

This is a Wikipedia user page.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at

Seeking help on the newly created Wiki pageEdit

Dear Aunt, i have created a page for an actor, who is based on Toronto, Canada. I'd say a minor TV actor with decent news coverage, who deserves a Simplified English page. As a Spanish Canadians i do like Simplified English Wikipedia version a lot. The page is located at

Will you please help me resolve the existing issue on the page?

Wikipedia Asian Month 2019 potential organizers for Simple English WikipediaEdit

Greetings, Auntof6. Are you interested in organizing Wikipedia Asian Month 2019 with me in this Wikipedia? Here are the guidelines. (WP:WAM). I think we need to move the 2018 page to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month/2018 if we want to organize it. —Wei4Green#TeamTrees🌲 20:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Wei4Green: Sorry, no. I did it the last two years, but I'm not going to this year. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for your service. —Wei4Green#TeamTrees🌲 23:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Movie or FilmEdit

It seems I have made a mistake in calling a film a film (instead of movie). Both terms seem 'simple' to me. If there has been discussion and a decision generating a policy or rule, I cannot find it. To me it seems odd to refer to a film by the US term 'movie'.

If this has been agreed in a previous discussion can I be refered to the policy page? Brian R Hunter (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Brian R Hunter: The decision was made before my time, so I don't know where it might be documented. I will ask at Simple talk. I can tell you that one reason movie is considered simpler is that film has other meanings, so movie is less ambiguous.
If you are interested in other ways that this wiki is different from other Wikipedias, you might like to look at this list that I started keeping some time ago. If you have questions about anything on it, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. It maybe a convention you have used so far but I would still like to see the policy decision. If there isn't a formal agreement then I would wish to reopen the debate. 'movie' is very much an americanism, 'film' is very british. There should be room for both. I do not see it generating confusion as most of the world calls them 'films'. Brian R Hunter (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I would also request you stop changing all references to 'film' until you can produce the agreed decision. It is not enough to say that it is 'what we do' and use your own documentation as the only justification. Brian R Hunter (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Also (my final rant for the night). If we ban use of the word 'film', do we have to rename Film noir to Movie noir? Filmography to Movieography? British Academy of Film and Television Arts to British Academy of Movie and Television Arts?
I could go on... Brian R Hunter (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
In case you are serious, no, we don't have to rename all those. Anything that is part of a proper name remains the same. We use the word filmography because there is no such word as movieography and because filmography isn't ambiguous. It's pretty much just the word film by itself that's ambiguous.
Be assured that you are not the first person to come up against this. Writing simple English can be more difficult than writing regular English. (Note that I used difficult instead of hard, because hard has multiple meanings.) I recommend that you read some of our pages designed to help with this. Help:Translate English into Simple English, while not a policy or guideline, explains some of the reasoning behind word choices. The guideline pages Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages and Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia are usually helpful. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. I do see how words with multiple meanings can be confusing. But I also think that words have a context. In an article about 'film awards', for example the BAFTAs, it is surely more confusing to say "this movie won best film". Unless 'simple wikipedia' is inventing a new language it should openly explain cases such as this to reduce confusion for new learners.Brian R Hunter (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

May I step in here? I found an archive of simple talk. Users agreed that both are technically correct, but movie is more accepted due to WP:MOS. Plus, it's simpler. --Derpdart56 (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

That is not how I read it. WP:MOS does not mention the use of the word 'film', it simply refers to them consistently as 'movie'. In the archived discussion there does not seem to be a conclusion in favour of 'movie'; the most sense was from the user who said it was more important to be consistent. 'Movie' is certainly more accepted by Americans and those learning American English, for others it would be confusing to see the term 'movie' in a discussion of BAFTA awards. Brian R Hunter (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I was around when the discussions happened. The reasoning for movie over film is that a movie is always a movie. But film has multiple meanings such as the film used in cameras or plastic film etc etc. You will find editing here that you have to think like a non-english speaker, not just an American english or British english speaker etc as we are not writing for native english speakers. We try to eliminate every possible complicated situation, so in cases where there are two words that mean the same but one has less meanings than the other, the one with less meanings is always the one to go with. -DJSasso (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

new categoriesEdit

When creating a new page via a copy from en.wikipedia I have been creating new categories for some of the categories that are carried over. My criterion is if it looks like there will eventually be sufficient entries in the new category then I create it, if unlikely in the near future I leave it as a red-link or delete it if it looks to be a useless category. Obviously when I move the first page that fits the new category it will have only one entry. The alternative is to leave red-link missing categories until there are sufficient to warrant creating the category. It is a bit chicken/egg.

In both cases the categories are getting removed. Either the nearly empty new category or the red-link entry on the new page. Is there a way to keep these 'place holder' categories without them being 'tidied'? -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Brian R Hunter: Probably not in the way you mean. We have a guideline at Wikipedia:Categories#Is there a need for the new category? that says "Because categories are a way to group together similar articles, there is no need to create a new category for just one or two articles. There should be a minimum of three articles that would fit into the category before a new category is created." Part of simplifing and adapting an article from enwiki is to make the categories fit the category structure here, which is different from enwiki's. If it looks like there will eventually be enough entries for a category, you could create enough stubs to have at least three entries. If the category is redlinked, you could comment it until there are at least three entries. Otherwise you could just leave the category off. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, not sure why I hadn't thought of either solution you have suggested. Commenting out the missing (but potentially useful) categories would seem to be the best approach. For future new pages I shall remove the missing categories that are unlikely to be useful and comment those that I think have future potential. -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 11:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
One thing you may have never thought of is that some categories on that exist may not ever exist here. The goal on is to have as few categories as possible while still being useful as a categorization structure. The reason that a minimum of 3 was added was to prevent people from creating whole category trees, multiple categories deep for a single article. My personal recommendation when I see this topic come up is, you shouldn't create a category unless its parent category has more that one page worth of entries in it (ie 200 articles) but we get a lot of editors that come here and find creating categories easier than writing articles so they go a bit crazy creating categories and then creating stubs just to fill categories which in a way defeats the purpose of the minimum of 3 articles in a category but it is within the letter of the law. -DJSasso (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Agree totally. There are far too many categories on en.wikipedia. I plan to cull obviously useless categories as part of the first simplyfying edit of a moved page; leave those that already exist; and comment out those that have potential to exist but need more articles before being created. I do not like stub articles that are created just to solve red-links etc. they hide the need for real content. I prefer to leave red-links to show the need for a new article. -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving 2019!Edit

Happy Thanksgiving, Auntof6. Angela Maureen (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC) @Tropical Storm Angela: Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Auntof6".