Cat name Edit

Shouldn't Category:Government by country be plural (governments) as it is a collection of governments? Also would apply to government by continent. Pure Evil (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pure Evil: I guess it depends on whether you look at "government" as a general concept or as something more concrete. Enwiki and Commons use the singular form like we have. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The categories are collections of singular items in both cases. As such they are more than one item. plural. What is the reasoning en and commons use to defend using a singular term to explain s plural subject? Per the en guideline on naming conventions - Names of set categories should be plural. I never added this part to our cat naming page so theirs is the guideline to use on the matter. En does not follow its own guideline as a collection of articles about the government of a nation is part of a set and not a topic. Articles about government itself would be a singular topic. Categories about aspects of different governments would be parts of a plural set of categories. In the end, the category covers the individual governments of each country, not the concept of government itself. The first is a set, the second is a topic. Pure Evil (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do see the difference from the general concept (the idea of Government) and the concrete aspects (the actual entities). The first would be a topic and as such is singular. The second though is a set and plural. In this regard, we are classifying the individual governments of these countries. We are not, generally speaking, looking at the concept of government in these countries although that article could not be ruled out and should likely be in both Government of <nation> and Government. These categories are collections of the concrete items and as such is a set of items. Pure Evil (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pure Evil: I guess I see it the other way. You say that "government" as a topic would be singular, but it wouldn't: it would be collective, neither singular nor plural. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem there is that you are completely violating the guideline.
Government is a topic article. A category about the topic is a topic category. It should be singular.
This is not a topic. The individual agencies that make up the goverment of each nation are sets of subjects. They, as a group, are a not singular items. The individual aspects (government of Ethiopia) are essensially collective nouns, but the set of these nouns is no more collective than American families is the set that includes the collective groups, the Smith family, the Jones family and the White family. The individual groups are collective, the mass collection is plural. It is not American family unless you are talking about that specific topic which we are not. We are talking about the collection of the individual subsets. Pure Evil (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pure Evil: Like I said, we see it differently. If you think the category name should be changed, I suggest starting a general discussion. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your bot Edit

I was just wondering if you had plans to run your bot again. I noticed I have the option to run a script on User:BobDaBot that adds a reference section and reflist to articles with sources but the section is missing. However I saw your bot can do this as well but hasnt edited since May. Thank you. Bobherry Talk My Changes 23:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bobherry: My bot is only used manually through AWB, and I use it for that task as part of clearing CheckWikipedia errors. It doesn't automatically add a reference section or reflist template -- I manually add them so I can be sure they go in the correct place. Sometimes I find a references heading without the template and I have to move the heading because it's in the wrong place. I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if a bot could know where to place a references section, because that depends on several things. There's something in the MOS about where the section should go in relation to the other end-of-article sections.
In any case, while I would eventually do that task again, I'd have zero objection to a bot doing it -- even less than zero if that were possible! Has your bot been approved here? For that task? -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bobherry: To add onto this, I noticed that BobDaBot doesn't have the bot flag and doesn't have any current request for bot status. Because of that, I have indeffed it, which is our standard procedure. If you create a bot request for something that the crats might be willing to approve, they will remove the block as they see fit. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was given permission by @Ferien: on the WP:DISCORD server and they said it would be okay to make it as long as it only edits in my userspace or it's own userspace it does not have to be flagged or approved yet in that case. I will DM them about it. Bobherry Talk My Changes 12:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bobherry: OK, I unblocked it. Since that conversation was off-wiki, I would have had no way to know about it, or to know that you were editing only in your userspace. -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Bobherry Talk My Changes 12:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't mean to accuse you or be mean. I have a hard time saying what I am trying to say. Bobherry Talk My Changes 12:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bobherry: Understood, and thanks. I also need to remember that it's easy to read a wrong tone of voice into online communication. -- Auntof6 (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to clarify, for both Bobherry and Auntof6, as I was pinged: I said off-wiki that the bot would be allowed to operate in userspace, per the bot userspace page linked below, but wouldn't consider Discord, IRC or email a replacement for on-wiki bot requests. I was only saying it was allowed because of the guideline, not me allowing it specifically, and would like to note that all actual bot requests should remain on-wiki. --Ferien (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct. Bobherry Talk My Changes 19:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per WP:FOLLOW en:Wikipedia:BOTUSERSPACE it is allowed to be made and not approved yet. "In addition, any bot or automated editing process that affects only the operator's or their own userspace (user pages, user talk pages, user's module sandbox pages and subpages thereof), and which are not otherwise disruptive, may be run without prior approval." Bobherry Talk My Changes 12:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also not all our bots have the bot flag. They only have to have it if they will be rapidly editing. Bobherry Talk My Changes 12:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about Murders of Linda Gibson and Cody Lee Garrett Edit

Who is going to be the administrator who desides if the page should be kept or not? TheDarkCoarkBoard (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TheDarkCoarkBoard: There's no way to know. Closing RFDs isn't assigned to specific administrators. It will be whichever administrator gets to it after the close date (or possibly before the close date, if they feel it's justified). Why do you ask? -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No reason TheDarkCoarkBoard (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry if I'm being annoying, But I must also ask, Could it close earlier then the set closing date? TheDarkCoarkBoard (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheDarkCoarkBoard: You're not being annoying. Yes, an RFD can close earlier than the indicated closing date if an admin feels it is justified. That mostly happens when all the comments support the same outcome, which they don't in this case. I'm not saying it wouldn't happen for this one, but it's less likely.
By the way, your only comment on the RFD has been to keep because you think the subject is notable. It's not enough to think that a subject is notable; notability has to be shown according to Wikipedia's definition of notability. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ban this user please Edit

Hello, thhe user by the name of 2601:645:8781:9620:214C:5983:58D1:E306 is causing a rukus on Wikipedia! Please ban Auntof6! (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The IP has been blocked for 72 hours. For best results, please make this kind of request at WP:VIP -- thanks! -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, if the IP continues than please perm ban -- Thanks. (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't permanently ban or indef IPs. In any case, if you see the vandalism continuing, please report it at the link I gave instead of here. That way you don't have to wait for a specific admin to take care of it. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recently declined QD request Edit

Please check the prefix carefully, it is not user: but use:, this is not in userspace. MathXplore (talk) 08:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Got it; page deleted as test page. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]