User talk:Timrollpickering/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions on my talk page. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Ping

Replied on my talk page. --Cyde Weys 20:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

And another. --Cyde Weys 21:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Links to talk archives should not be in a section of talk

You added a section header "Untitled" near the top of Talk:Continuum hypothesis. This created a talk section containing only the link to the archive for that talk page. This is inappropriate. Links to talk archives should not be in a section of talk.
If you want to make sure that the table of contents comes before the archive links, then just put "__TOC__" above them (notice two underscores to the left of "TOC" and two to its right). Then the table of contents will be placed there. JRSpriggs (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Missing word?

Hi Tim

In this comment, did you mean to say "they're particularly widely used"? Is there a missing "not" in there?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth -- I just thought it looked like the sort of sentence that had been intended to include a "not". Sorry if I have misinterpreted things :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Yes - sorry I sometimes skip words without realising it. <blushes> Timrollpickering (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Electricians

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Electricians. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles

You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles#Suggested delay to the proceedings and especially Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles#Formal proposal to use instant-runoff voting. Yaris678 (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Taiwanese articles

Your latest change to Template:Asia topic is interesting. It's creating a lot of redirects, eliminating few. As it's so soon after the recent move request, I suggest reverting till the fallout falls through fully. CMD (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay I'll revert it for now but it's one of a number of things that need sorting out soon. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but as a navigational template it should follow the movement of actual articles, not proceed it. CMD (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The articles are mixed already with a good number already using the name Taiwan - the template is one of those ghastly things that constructs links out of entries rather than carrying direct links - so it's not an easy follow not lead situation. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Volcanoes by geological period - category rename

Please would you read my comments at Category talk:Volcanoes by geological period about a recent rename of that category. I'd appreciate any clarification you can give. GeoWriter (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

DW Programme Guide

Hi Tim - re this edit - mine was a revert of a vandalism/test/good-faith amendment, but yours doesn't stack up. I've got the 1989 edition (also the 1981), but it doesn't have anything relevant on |pages=16, 43 and 45 so I can only assume that |year=1994 is correct. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Salvador Dalí paintings

Hi. Now this CfD has closed, I'm starting to tag the rest as speedy renames. Let me know if there's any issue. As there's 180+ to do, this will take a bit of time, but I should have them done today. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of healthcare categories

Hi, it looks like you deleted a number of healthcare categories from the recent CfD here, but you didn't get all of them - are they still queued or is the bot going to delete them?--Karl.brown (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I made a start but each one takes time. The bot doesn't delete automatically on mergers. It will slowly be done either by myself or other admins. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

got it. thanks. still learning how this works. --Karl.brown (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories. KarlB (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review of Category:Art games

Category:Art_games was deleted in a discussion with the rationale that it didn't have a well-defined inclusion criterion. I want to recreate it with a criterion almost identical to Category:Art films, which has been alredy proven to be a valid criterion. Can I just boldly re-create the category with the new proposed criterion that was missing at AfD? Is there some content in the category history that would be useful to recreate it? In that case I'd like to ask you to userfy or undelete the page so I can see the history. Thanks. Diego (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Loanwords

It's been over two months since you closed this discussion and no one's followed through on it. I know why I haven't: the subcategories weren't tagged, and so I haven't thought that the Ainu category, for example, was given its fair hearing. My guess is that other closers either feel the same way, or think of it as so much work that they don't want to do it. Your thoughts?--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I suspect it's down to the size of the work. There are several tools that we could do with, such as a bot that could automatically create a list version of a category that would do the bulk of the work for conversion (and also a more efficient way to delete categories in merging - maybe something on the template similar to speedy?) and when it's left to manual everyone leaves it for someone else. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

African American documentaries

Hi. I believe there is a merge yet to do as a result of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_18#Category:African_American_documentaries. Category:African American documentaries has been merged to Category:Documentary films about African Americans, but not Category:African American documentary films‎. The consensus decision, proposed by John Pack Lambert was for a redirect and merge of both categories. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

facebook groups

Hi you closed the discussion to delete Category:Facebook groups but the bot thought it was a 'keep' - can you figure out what went wrong? thanks! --KarlB (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Ack this is the curse of computers freezing at the wrong moment. I C&Ped the closing template to do a No Consensus whilst listing the category on the retain page when the machine froze up for no good reason. When it unfroze I must have thought I'd already got the correct verdict in there when I pressed Save. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

aha. By my count, including myself as nom, there were 6 votes to delete and 1 to merge/rename (which the delete proposed as well), vs 4 votes to keep - that seems like a clear majority no? I'm just wondering how the determination of no-consensus was made. Thanks!--KarlB (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule

I asked for a deletion review of Category:United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Savidan 18:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Recategorisation

Hi Tim; I'm puzzled as to which discussion on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 28 is relevant to edits such as 1, 2, 3. For future edits like these, do you think you could please include the section name in the edit summary link, as in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 28#Category:Richard Burton, or whichever is the relevant section? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not easily workable because past experience has shown there's a de facto limit on summary lengths in AWB and anything extra gets trimmed off. Also the information for running AWB is taken from the Working pages which have never carried direct links to discussions, just the full page. I note the bot doesn't do this either, presumably for the same reasons. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, but of the eight discussions on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 28, which one says that Category:English women/Category:Scottish women should be added to these pages? The word "English" only comes up in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 28#Category:Non-H visual novels available in English, which doesn't seem at all relevant; whilst the words "Scottish" and "women" don't appear at all. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Check the follow-up edits by the bot finishing off the merger - it takes its info from the notice in the category not the working page. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Info on two recent Speedy renames

Category:Battles of Burbridge's Raid into Southwest Virginia of the American Civil War and Category:Battles of Stoneman's Raid into Southwest Virginia of the American Civil War were speedily renamed, one by you and the other by Cydebot. Could you restore them? The original names were devised by professional historians of the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, American Battlefield Protection Program of the National Park Service and listed at: http://www.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/bycampgn.htm Mojoworker (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You'll need to propose the change or take it to DRV. The nomination was all in order at the time - the bot just processed them and I deleted one of the old categories as for whatever reason the bot ad skipped that. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Category talk:1959 in Ubangi-Shari#Name in 1959

You are invited to join the discussion at Category talk:1959 in Ubangi-Shari#Name in 1959. – Fayenatic London (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Spelling

Seeing as you're English, I'm surprised I have to correct you on a matter of spelling. Nevertheless, you're wrong about referenda and you should stop blindly disrupting the article Australian Electoral Commission. Referendum is Latin and therefore doesn't follow the usual English pattern of adding an S for the plural. The plural is instead referenda. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC))

Actually it is you that is wrong - this is a common hypercorrection based on myth. See Referendum#Terminology. See also the text of the question at Australian referendum, 1977 (Referendums). Additionally words used in English invariably take the English rules of pluralisation regardless of their language origin - for some reason it seems to always be Latin words that people think have special rules. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving of Jill Knight, Baroness Knight of Collingtree

Why did you move it back? What's your policy based justification? Of note moves should only follow the move request discussion process if they are controversial, and I could not think of any reason as to why that applies in this case, if you have a good policy based reason for reverting the merge, then great, lets have a discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

For starters peerage titles are not honorifics and the reason given for moving the page in the first place was invalid. Peerage titles are frequently used in article titles - see Category:Life peers for many examples - and removing them from individual articles has been repeatedly controversial. Thus a no-discussion move will naturally be reverted. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, however I would think it is highly unlikely that the peerage titles are included in her WP:COMMONNAME and most of the WP:CRITERIA are met better by the shorter title. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Broken template

Hi Tim. Something went wrong with your recent edits to templates such as Template:Cathead wwi ships of and Template:Cathead wwii ships of (and a few others). For instance, you can see that Category:Victorian era ships of France and two others are now placed in the absurd Category:Ships of the France by period. I tried to fix Template:Cathead wwii ships of on my own but basically failed and ended up simply reverting your change. I could do the same for the other templates but obviously you had a plan so it's probably simpler to let you solve this. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no plan, it was a straight forward attempt to implement a CFD change and finding a mess because of the way these templates are set out, making it hard to work out how to implement changes. Ideally we should ban all templates that construct category names from elements. Otherwise we're going to keep getting these problems when individual categories are renamed. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I've just rollbacked your changes then. People can still manually add the by period categories if they think it's relevant. Pichpich (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Surrey

Hi,

I've refounded Wikipedia:Wikiproject Surrey and I saw you were a member of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Surrey. I was wondering, as you are a on the Participants List weather on not you would like to help improve more Surrey articles and make Wikipedia:Wikiproject Surrey and active Wikiproject again.

I hope you will come and help make Wikipedia: Wikiproject Surrey an active Wikiproject again.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Either reply or Wikipedia:Wikiproject Surrey on my talk page.

Nomination for deletion of Template:The Doon School

Template:The Doon School has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. OnianEt (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Church buildings

So if I understand your close, the buildings categories can be recreated when appropriate. If so you really should have closed these as a split rather then a rename since, contrary to many arguments, most are about the buildings and not the congregations. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sincere Request

• User:Black Falcon
• User:BrownHairedGirl
• User:The Bushranger
• User:Fayenatic london
• User:Good Olfactory
• User:Jc37
• User:Mike Selinker
• User:Timrollpickering
• User:Vegaswikian

Hi. I'm dropping you this note as a request to help.

I just looked at 30 random CfD pages, and based upon that we seem the be the most common closers (those who determine consensus of discussions) at CfD. (If I have overlooked anyone, it is obviously purely an oversight.)

I think we've all been seeing the difficulties that some editors has been having lately concerning some self-asserted bold edits. And how they may be seen by others as disruptive.

I think that at least some of the trouble could be that while most of use are aware of common practice regarding category pages, we really do not have a unified MoS regarding what a category page should look like or include. And so when someone attempts to edit contrary to that understood common practice, it is seen as disruptive.

I'd like to prevent this from happening now or in the future.

So I'm asking you to join in and help edit Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Category pages to a point where it reflects consensus and common practice as we understand it. And perhaps finding any new consensus as necessary.

This is obviously not exclusive to only us to discuss (so any lurkers out there would be welcome), I merely thought inviting you all would be a good start : )

(This is not because I think we'll all agree. Honestly, I expect that on some things we'll likely disagree. And that - as I think we all expect - will just help make the results of the discussion better and more useful for everyone, and therefore, more reflective of the greater consensus at Wikipedia.)

I sincerely hope that you will be able to find the time to help out.

Regardless, thank you for your time, and your continued contributions at CfD - jc37 14:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 06:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Melbourne state by-election, 2012 reflinks

Hey, is there a way to also have the article published date included? I'd hate to see an article removed down the track and then in turn we'd have to remove it because we don't have the article's publish date. Timeshift (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Reflinks grabs the date when it's part of the meta data or some such. In other cases it needs to be added manually afterwards, but the retrieval date should be sufficient down the line. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:People educated at Elvian School

I have nominated this category which you created for deletion. Please see here. Moonraker (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

AvicBot at CFD

AvicBot is unable to continue at CFD currently, since Category:Fictional murder victims is salted and AvicBot cannot create the page, causing the script to crash. If you could unsalt the page, AvicBot could continue past it. <sup>Avic</sup> 02:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Try it now. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Vector/Monobook

Did you do anything to reset the edit box to its previous appearance? I cannot figure out why mine has not reverted. ---RepublicanJacobite<sub>TheFortyFive</sub> 15:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Only what I described at the pump. I suspect it's now a cache issue but can't be sure. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I cleared my cache, deleted the cookies, changed back and forth between Vector and Monobook, restored the default settings, logged in and out a dozen times, and nothing has made any difference at all. I cannot be the only one who is still experiencing this problem, can I? ---RepublicanJacobite<sub>TheFortyFive</sub> 16:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Books by award, Writers by award

Hi, This February you led discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 11#Award-winning books of naming dozens of book awards categories. How does that history affect new instances?

I am working on some British awards articles and these existing categories are pertinent now.

• Category: Carnegie Medal in Literature winners — I wrote the preface and talk a couple days ago when it was complete for winning works (69 book articles). Today I covered the award in several author biographies and cat them here, planning manually to move them back to a new category with this name.
• Category: Guardian award winners — I wrote the preface and talk a couple days ago, no change. This does include only author biographies. The lowercase "award" is wrong, of course, but I think we should actually rename it "Guardian Children's Fiction Prize winners". There is no companion cat for winning works and I decline to do any Guardian Award cat'ztn until the name is stable.

(I must run, now couple minutes late.) --P64 (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure about this one?

Hi. Sure this change is correct? Was the suggestion not just to change images to files? See this diff. --MGA73 (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Ack you're right. These templates are a pain in the backside and my copy & paste must have failed. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for fixing :-) --MGA73 (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Tim Gustard

Hi I see you have contributed to a strange little page of which I appear to be the subject matter. Some of the information is incomplete. Should you wish to add to this page and need any info please contact me on tim.gustard@btinternet.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.189.133 (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

CfD closure

Hi there! I believe this CfD closure which you performed should be reviewed. Apparently, there was no consensus in the discussion for the moves to be approved. If you see the comments, the nominator deferred to sentiments that the categories are fine as they were. In other words, "administrative units" is the preferred naming standard. The only categories which could have perhaps been moved were the ones in bold which do not follow the "administrative unit" naming convention and need to be renamed as such, to match other categories (i.e. Category:Pakistani cuisine by region, Category:Music of Pakistani subdivisions; these are red links now as you can observe because they've been moved to "first-level administrative subdivision"). Would it be possible to undo the category moves that took place? You may also want to refer to this discussion which I initiated at the nominator's talk page after the moves took place. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It's probably for best to initiate a new discussion with an updated proposal. I can restore the status quo ante for that if necessary if you wish - just say and I'll put the categories through. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm yes, the categories should be moved back to their original name. As I've clarified, that was the preferred decision. Would it not be possible to just get the bot to rename them and modify the closure of the archived discussion as it is? Mar4d (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

CfD closure RE: Category:Ancient Jewish Roman history

Hi Timrollpickering: I recently noticed a serious CfD closure that you approved about a year ago, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 14#Category:Ancient Jewish Roman history. Following WP:DRV guidelines ("...Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed...") I am coming to you first as the closing admin and I respectfully request that you either please relist the CfD again for fuller discussion or restore the change you made to the category's long-standing name of Category:Ancient Jewish Roman history for the following reasons:

1. The nominator was hasty, and displayed a very poor grasp of the total scope of all the categories here, their structure and their purpose, as well as making errors about historical facts, and therefore made a mistake in his proposal, as is obvious from this:
2. We are dealing with different super parent categories. Thus Category:Jewish history (that deals not just with "Jews and Judaism" but with many other events) is not the same as Category:Jews and Judaism (that deals almost exclusively with the Jews and their religion Judaism).
3. The long-standing parent category for the category in question was and remains Category:Ancient Jewish history with the main sub-categories being Category:Ancient Jewish Egyptian history‎; Category:Ancient Jewish Greek history‎; Category:Ancient Jewish Persian history‎, and as you can see Category:Ancient Jewish Roman history should be here, and not be renamed to something it was not meant to be.
4. The category contains many sub-categories and articles that are legitimately part of Jewish history but are not part of "Jews" per se and have nothing to do with "Judaism", such as Category:Roman governors of Syria‎ and most of Category:Jesus and history.
5. The contact between Rome and the Jews in history was not just related to the period of the Roman Empire (see article:) "The Roman Empire was an ancient empire centered around the Mediterranean Sea, commonly dated from the accession of the Emperor Augustus in 27 BC through the abdication of the last emperor in 476 AD..." -- whereas the Jews of Judea were interacting with ancient Rome centuries earlier -- and that is covered by the correct name Ancient Rome that "...was a thriving civilization that began growing on the Italian Peninsula as early as the 8th century BC" !!! See article. So the nominator messed things up by coming up with the fancy title of only one period of Ancient Rome's history.
6. There were three CfDs above the one here, all by the same nominator to rename topics, that dealt with relatively minor topics that were not renamed, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 14#Category:Jews of Roman Alexandria; Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 14#Category:Roman-era Alexandrians; Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 14#Category:Roman era Jews, that were mercifully spared, but unfortunately, the most important one of all in the 4 he nominated was changed.
7. Not just that, but it was decided by a tiny group of 3 votes, while the rest of the Judaic editors, including myself, had no chance to be informed of this vote at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism#Categories which would have been the correct and WP:CIVIL thing to do had the nominator followed standard WP protocol for all deletion proposals.
8. I cannot recall the nominator even taking the subject up at WP:TALKJUDAISM for input from other expert Judaic or Jewish history editors, but it's obvious that the WP pieces of good advice such as WP:COMPETENCE and WP:EXPERT were not in display.

Once again, thanks for your consideration and hopefully you will either restore the change or relist it again so that more editors familiar with these categories in their entirety can get a chance to give their input. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have notified the original nominator of this request. See User talk:Chesdovi#CfD closure RE: Category:Ancient Jewish Roman history. IZAK (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Since the discussion was over a year ago I think at this stage it would be disruptive for an administrator to simply reverse the conclusion on the basis of arguments made after the event. The best solution is to propose a renaming back to the old name. Regarding notification there is an ongoing wider debate about what notification must happen for a discussion but currently there's no absolute requirement to notify particular projects, especially those who do not have their banner on the relevant talk page. When there is a banner, notification is automatic via Article Alerts. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tim, thanks for the response. IZAK (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of past discussion on my talk page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on my current talk page or the talk page for the article in question. No further edits should be made to this section.