User talk:Auntof6/Archives/2012

MOTD Needs You!
Hi there, Auntof6! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottoes. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottoes there or just pass this message onto your friends.

MOTD Needs Your Help!

Delivered By Ankit Maity Talk Contribs  06:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC) via AWB

Peerage categories
Why are you diffusing British peerage categories? The last time this came up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, the discussion was rather inconclusive as to whether they should be diffused. Choess (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems hard to find anything when the articles aren't grouped. I saw that some of them were diffused, and some not, so I thought I'd diffuse some more. I wasn't aware of any previous discussion. How much of a problem is it? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the basic problem is that neither of the natural division levels really gives a good result. As you note, the "...in the Peerage of..." categories tend to be too large; unfortunately, there are a large number of peerage creations which were only held by one or two people, so when you break them down, you tend to wind up with a large number of categories that are too small. (There are also issues like titles which have been created in different peerages over time: if you create a "Dukes of Gloucester" category, how do you deal with the fact that some members were in the Peerage of England, some in the Peerage of Great Britain, and some in the Peerage of the United Kingdom?) I think the best solution might be to split the difference: categorize the peers at both levels. I don't think there's any need to revert--someone starting diffusing, there was a heated discussion about a year ago, and things ended there, so a few more peers diffused doesn't make much of a different--but it might be nice to leave a message at the WikiProject and see if there's any more luck gaining a consensus. Choess (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Frederick Charles Bothwell, Jr. for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Frederick Charles Bothwell, Jr.  is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Frederick Charles Bothwell, Jr.  until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Typoscan is working again
Just in case you haven't been following WikiProject TypoScan, Reedy got this working again. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! No, I hadn't been following it. Lately I've been working mostly on Simple English Wikipedia and on Wikimedia Commons. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry.com
Hi. Having previously been involved in a discussion about Ancestry.com on RSN, could you join a discussion here to offer your opinion? A user is saying that some of the material on that site is not from users, but paid employees, and WP:BLPPRIMARY is also an issue. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)