User talk:Timrollpickering/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

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.

Chilean regions

I do totally agree on that category changes should go through CFD, not be arbitarily redirected and therefore Im reverting the unilateral and massive changes made by User:Diego Grez (former Mr. Wiki) to chilean categories. Im rolling back category names to the pre-Diego Grez interventions of July 24 until the issue has been solved at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2012/August#Chilean regions or some other more apporpiate instance. Chiton (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the category histories does not support your claim. Your alternatively named categories were created after the ones you are arbitarily redirecting. And you're not stopping to sort out your mess but just leaving everything in the now redirected category. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Take this [1], Diego Grez created the category on July 24 but from this [2] and [3] this it obivious that Category:Geography of Aisén Region has existed at least since 2008. (Note that there are 2 alternative spellings Aysén and Aisén). Chiton (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

College names

You may want to leave a comment here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Universities#Disambiguation_in_college_names. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

AWB malfunction

Hey Tim. Not sure what happened here, but I'm just letting you know so that (hopefully) you can figure out a way to make sure it doesn't happen in future. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

For some reason AWB wasn't removing the category from the worklist once the edit was made but instead just proceeding to present the same edit again. I'm not sure if this is a bug in AWB or something in that particular category. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Betty Robbins AWB question

Hi. Curious about what AWB did here. Is it alpha or something else I'm not seeing? Just want to be sure I do it correctly going forward StarM 01:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's alphabetical - certainly it regularly rearranges the order of footnotes to get them in numerical order when used more than once. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Just checked. The confusing is because the full detail for reference #1 isn't placed at its first use. Basically it's put #1 before #5. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Totally makes sense. I think the only reason the full detail wasn't first was editing/moving things around at some point or re-attributing and getting things out of order. StarM 04:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikify tag

FYI it's been deprecated, so i've undid your edit to livskunst. benzband (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Recently i have been going through Category:Articles that need to be wikified with reasons given either fixing the issues or replacing {{wikify}} with more specific/appropriate tags per discussion on the WikiProject Wikify talkpage and at (Templates for Discussion). After looking in to your contribs, i see you've been automatically undoing my work. Which is, you know… mildly frustrating. :( benzband (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well i've restored it now anyway. benzband (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Timrollpickering for start please update to AWB version 5.3.1.2 found at http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/ More than 100 bugs fixed (including tagger). -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

rev 8335 fixes the bug. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Erm that one seems to be about a chemistry template. The latest AWB version still has the problem and no clear simple way to insert these bug alterations - the updater isn't doing it. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops yes. It has to do with another edit of yours. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to download the snapshot manually from the site above. The new bug fixes will be available soon. (Very soon I hope!) If you want to be always (daily!) updated to the latest version then you need to compile the code by yourself but it's more complicated. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Changes to the various British shadow cabinet pages/templates/so on and so forth…

I have reverted your changes to remove the Liberal Democrats from List of British shadow cabinets, Category:British shadow cabinets and Template:British shadow cabinets. I understand that it was controversial that the Lib Dems would name their front bench teams as such. There is a reason, however, why I created that template, category and that list. Prior to their existence, these articles were spread about with no place to be found. I created these specifically to link the articles together and put the information in one place. While it was controversial, their frontbench teams were identical to shadow cabinets in every way. That’s why the list and template make it very clear that the Lib Dem shadow cabinets were “unofficial”, in other words, not the Official Opposition. Nevertheless, they called them shadow cabinets, and so they should be listed as such, with that caveat in place. It is essential for this information to be grouped together, for ease of access. Otherwise, you may as well delete that template I made, which was created specifically for the purpose of listing the Lib Dems and the Official shadow cabinets together, as per discussion with Rrius at Template talk:UK Shadow Cabinets and on my talk page. This was a lot of work to put together. I hope you can understand the reasoning behind it. RGloucester (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The Lib Dems may have used the term but it was not always followed through - e.g. the BBC listing of "New Liberal Democrat frontbench" from early 2008 and the only reason the matter's been less contentious in the last couple of years is the coalition. If you're trying to group together the opposition frontbench teams then wording like "opposition frontbenches" may be better, both because it sidesteps the issue and also because it allows junior spokespersons (the Lib Dem articles are the full team not just the senior spokespersons) and even the smaller parties to be included as well. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand that it was not always accepted, or used. However, it is the name they gave them. Renaming the associated content “opposition frontbenches” would created a bizarre obscurity that wouldn’t help with the purpose. The content’s titles, I think, should be left alone, but the descriptions should perhaps be adjusted to specify what you’ve said. I think that is most logical approach, which would leave the content intact and in a place where people could find it. RGloucester (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It's irrelevant what name they gave themselves, it's the avoidance of the confusion caused by that term that's key. This was quite a contentious matter on Wikipedia at the time and the outcome was generally against listing them. A title change would be the easiest way to solve the problem if they are to be included, otherwise they should be removed. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we should open a discussion on the matter, to see what people think. RGloucester (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I’ve opened an RfC at Talk:List of British shadow cabinets. Let’s move the discussion there. RGloucester (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Ancient Jewish Roman history

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Ancient Jewish Roman history. 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. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Davy Vancampfort for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Davy Vancampfort 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davy Vancampfort 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 high-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. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 03:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 9#Category:French engineers by Grande école

Hi, as you are being mentioned in this discussion, I thought I'd drop you a note. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Rugby union at the Maccabiah Games‎ subcategories

So why didn't you list this at the relevant wikiprojects? Afraid folk with an interest in rugby or Israel might actually turn up?! --MacRùsgail (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

As can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Article alerts they were automatically listed at the rugby union projects, because the categories had been tagged with that project's banner. They had not been tagged by WikiProject Israel so were not auto listed there. There is no requirement for WikiProjects to be manually notified before a discussion is closed; particularly not projects that do not have their banner on the relevant talkpage. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

"There is no requirement for WikiProjects to be manually notified before a discussion is closed" - No, of course, not, it might mean that people who are actually involved/interested in the subject in question might debate it, instead of people who are not.--MacRùsgail (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It's been proposed before - Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 2012#Add requirement that Projects be notified when associated categories are discussed is the most recent one. The general view is much that there is an existing automatic system that does the purpose and that individuals interested should make use of those systems. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

CFD check

Just checking whether your "merge" closure of this discussion included Category:Gay choreographers; you didn't add it to WP:CFD/W for processing - I thought about adding it myself but as the nominator of that particular category, I thought I had better not! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 08:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Genres of death metal

Hi Tim

Please can you reopen Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_7#Category:Genres_of_death_metal?

As I have noted at the discussion above it on that page (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 7#Category:Subgenres_of_death_metal), the deletion had some undesirable consequences. It was supported by nobody except the nominator, who did not link his previous nomination only 10 days earlier at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 28#Category:Genres_of_death_metal, which was similarly ill-considered. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"Evidently, some were confused by previous nom" looks like a link to his previous nomination to me... Bencherlite^Talk 10:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I can re-open the discussion but can you do the restoration? Timrollpickering (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Done! Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Lithuanian men by occupation

Hi. Can you close this category out when you get the chance. I have withdrawn my nomination for AFD and noted it. Thanks. Quis separabit? 00:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

cat talk animal rights activists

Hey Timrollpickering -- given the fraught history with animal rights activists, I think it's better to have the talk pages accessible. I am going to restore, then move & archive. --Lquilter (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

why the hell have you deleted pages on your own?

I just dont understand why the hell you deleted Inter Milan's Seasons page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.35.181.8 (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Link please. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

New version of AWB

An updated version of AWB is now available here. Cheers. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Hi. I noticed (and agree with you on reverting evidently not "uncontroversial" page moves) the below. But as far as the lede http://www.salford.gov.uk/mayor.htm does actually justify a lede addition of City, so I have done so, and added source.

(cur | prev) 18:36, 19 November 2012‎ Timrollpickering (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (4,561 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Timrollpickering moved page City Mayor of Salford to Mayor of Salford over redirect: Revert undiscussed move) (undo)

(cur | prev) 16:23, 19 November 2012‎ Atban3000 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (4,561 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Atban3000 moved page Mayor of Salford to City Mayor of Salford) (undo)

Since you reverted this move, are a Master Editor III and an admin I thought I should note the lede addition as a courtesy. I personally have no strong view/interest. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of redirect talkpages?

Hi Tim, I'm just curious about your deletion of Category talk:Fifteen inch gauge railways as the "talkpage of a redirect". I can't see how this is covered as WP:CSD#G8?

The reason for asking is that this category naming has been a problem for some years, rolling around about four different versions. I can't now see what was on that talkpage, but it's quite possible that it was a significant chunk of past argument related to this naming question. Obviously a trivial talk page with just a project tag etc. would be less of an issue. Is there a policy reason to delete redirect talkpages? To delete all of them? Sounds like a bad idea if they really are all up for immediate 'bot deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Redirect talk pages have been routinely removed over the years as lacking a corresponding subject page (per that criteria) by many either manually or by bot but with the categories a lot have been left over from moves and merges that didn't tidy up after them. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

So was that a "talkpage of a redirect", or a redirected talkpage? (There is a difference)

If it was still a talkpage, not merely a redirect to another talkpage (this happens a lot for categories, especially at Commons) it usually comes about because the category was never page-moved but because a 2nd category was created and then the other was later turned into a redirect. In such a case, the original category's talkpage is often the primary location for the rename/merge discussion and should thus be preserved. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Out of process category moves virtually never have any discussion, they're down to one editor being bold and manually moving them over without mopping up afterwards. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Asia topic

As a participant of the discussion Talk:Palestine#Requested_move regarding naming change of the page Palestine, you might be interested in discussion Template talk:Asia topic#State of Palestine on changing the redirection target of "Palestine" from "Palestinian territories" to "State of Palestine" at Template:Asia topic. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Taj Mahal

Hi Tim. The Taj Mahal example was added, boldly since there is no other mention of Indian English on that page, on January 3rd. I've reverted it and the matter should now be discussed on the talk page. MOS changes should, generally speaking, not be made without consensus and that's what we should be seeking now. Note also that the example itself is a particularly lousy one. Taj Mahal is not spelled or named differently in any other variant of English. (I've undone your revert!) If the consensus is to add it, then that's fine but we need to find that consensus first. --regentspark (comment) 20:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I have noted RegentsPark's violation of the current 1RR restriction at RegentsPark's talkpage.

Noetica^Tea? 23:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are you merging per nom in Category:Track and field athletes from Georgia (country)

Why are you merging per nom in Category:Track and field athletes from Georgia (country). There is only one person besides the nom who wants to do that. 3 people voted for merging to what is currently the redirect category but we want to make the main category, and one wanted to do nothing. There is clearly not support to follow the nom. Your closing seems entriely irregular. I hope you reconsider it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• • OK, so I guess you did what I suggested, just id not make it clear that was what was happeneing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:CFDS ====> WP:CFDW

Somehow this * [[:Category:Marine revetment]] to [[:Category:Marine revetments]] got lost between CFD/S [4] and CFD/W [5]. Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Ack, a C&P error when trimming off the discussions. Listed now. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Editathon at the Royal Opera House in June

I don't know if you are free or inclined, but on the off-chance, may I draw your attention to this forthcoming editathon at the Royal Opera House in June? We need a few experienced Wikipedians to help the ballet buffs get started. If you're not free, or not inclined (or even if you are) could you suggest any other experienced WP editor whom we might try to recruit? – Tim riley (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Formula One race report categories

Hi Timrollpickering. FYI, Category:2000 Formula One race reports was missed when the list was added to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see it was missing from the original CfD. I'll see if I can get it speedied. DH85868993 (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI

FYI the "States and territories disestablished in YEAR" categories are populated by {{Infobox former country}}. They should probably moved to WP:CFD/W/M. Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Give it a couple of hours - there may be some manual entries for the bot to shift out. Template population is a nightmare. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I've coded up a solution for this, but have yet to make it go live. See my response at Template talk:Infobox former country. TDL (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

fyi on novelist cats

Tim, some of the novelists you are sticking back in Category:American novelists are already in a non-gendered diffusing sub-cat, so they don't need to stay in the parent. It is hard to diffuse the parent if it gets filled up with people who are already diffused. thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

AWB doesn't display that and with all the attention it's best to move everyone in now and sort out subsequently. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok - was just giving you a heads up. However to save time, you may want to *not* move any in Category:American women novelists who are also already in by-genre or by-century subcats. If you like I could try to generate a list? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

American novelists should still be dispersed on other grounds

Even though Category:American novelists is not to be dispersed on gender, it should be dispersed on genre and century. So people in genre and century specific sub-cats should not go in the parent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said upthread AWB doesn't make for that easily. Given the CFD outcome and the external attention it was more important to get them all in first. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I don't get the link for the male/female AfDs? There doesn't appear to have been a close at [[6]], and the majority oppose deleting these categories. At least that's what it looks like at first glance, I could be wrong?? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not about deletion but about whether or not to use a consistent set of adjectives. That's a differnt CFD from the one about whether American women novelists should be upmerged or not. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes I was fooled at first by the two different things going on, wasn't clear from the link. All the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Article talk page

Hi! I saw this move of yours yesterday. The current article title is Sino-Japanese relations. Will you please move the talk page title to the matched one, if there's no dispute/problem on the title? Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's the aticle that should be moved; the current name is non-standard for bilateral relations and the American one given as the reason the anomaly. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

For having carried out the removal of lead name duplication per RM. You may need to keep an eye on article after close. Best wishes. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Another thank you

For deleting the male film directors category per my CFD. - Fantr (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about novelist categories

Greetings! You are invited to take place in a conversation happening Category_talk:American_novelists#Stalemate here about how to move forward with discussion on subcategories of by-country novelist categories.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

more cats

This is from a CFD you closed a while back Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories. There is a related discussion happening at Category_talk:Antisemitism_in_the_United_States and Talk:Eustace_Mullins, as to whether bios can be included in this category or not. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I asked a question at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Quick_opinion about some other cats I came across, would welcome your thoughts there too. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Ill-faith edit summary

The second half of this is totally groundless. Reduce revision visibility or at least retract that, or else I may have to consider taking you to Arbcom. Shall I mention the extensive abuse of your deletion powers to enact moves that are a total waste of time? GotR ^Talk 03:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologise for the wording and am willing to retract it in whichever manner you desire, but unfortunately it does not fall under the scope of the rules for reducing (and I've checked via IRC). Timrollpickering (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

stub tag

Hallo, in this edit you added a {{stub}} with a date parameter, which it doesn't take. It's also helpful to stub-sorters if you can add it with a small "s", as that's a couple of key-strokes less if we're manually typing the sorted stub tag. Thanks. PamD 08:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That was already there, it was merely moved by my edit. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2013 (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.