User talk:Timrollpickering/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

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.

People from Georgia (country)

Hello Timrollpickering, can you show me a link to the page where the issue about moving Category:Georgian people (and other subcategories) to Category:People from Georgia (country) was/is discussed? Thanks in advance. –BruTe ^Talk 14:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 10#Category:Georgian people for the main one and umpteen subcategories have been going through speedy CFR lately. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

College presidents nomination

In this nomination that you closed, a rather unfortunate thing occurred. Every individual president was moved from a category that made sense (Category:American university and college presidents) to one that doesn't (Category:Presidents by university or college in the United States). Maybe you believed that only subcategories were moving, rather than individuals? User:Orlady appears to be manually moving all 855 members back, but I've asked if Cydebot can revert all its edits for the individuals but not the subcategories. Is that okay with you?--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably easiest (what's the instruction by the way?). There's a few list articles in there but they can be picked off manually. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

We'll see what Cydebot can do.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thanks for removing Individuals/Organizations from Bias Categories. Great job in defending BLP and NPOV. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to the barnstar I'd like you to reverse your closure, for three reasons. 1. The debate itself didn't reach consensus. There was majority support for treating all such "bias" categories the same, but I do not read the debate as settling convincingly towards that decision. BLP and NPOV do not mandate removing negative information or categories if they are properly verified by reliable sources. 2. The scope of CFD does not cover such decisions: "Categories for discussion (Cfd) is where deletion, merging, and renaming of categories (pages in the Category namespace) is discussed." A decision for what articles can be included within a certain type of category is not a CFD decision. 3. Such a wide-ranging decision should have received greater outside attention than a debate among a dozen editors. It will receive significant objections in practice and should have been tested more rigorously by advertising it using an RfC or even a CENT discussion. I hope you can see why this needs further debate and why your closure was hasty, otherwise I may open a DRV on it. Thanks for considering my request. Fences&Windows 23:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This close may have addressed the numbers (among interested editors !voting) more than the issues. We have to encourage a wider discussion of the latter: DRV won't do that. What will? Geometry guy 23:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd certainly be happy with further, wider discussion if a good forum can be found. The CFD had been running for nearly a month when closed and I don't think reversing closure would attract sufficient further input. CFD frequently does address the scope and contents of categories as well as names, splits/mergers and deletes, and this wasn't the first time such an issue had been decided there, but CENT is probably the way to go forwards. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Service award level

There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.

Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.

Herostratus (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

CFd

Could you revisit a cfd you closed (perfectly properly), in the light of the ongoing discussion at this related cfd, bearing in mind that Lafe Smith turns out to be none other than the banned user:Otto4711 (for whom see the extensive Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711/Archive)? I would suggest a relist rather than anything more dramatic. Occuli (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I can, although in this case the new CFD has had the nomination taken over & added restoration of the previous categories as part of the Keep outcome. It's probably easiest that way and due to off Wiki commitments I wouldn't be able to put it together for a couple of days. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Canadian House of Commons

Timrollpickering, I was just about to post an objection to [1]. It seems the article was moved last year with no discussion. Can your rename be undone? Argolin (talk) 04:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It can be (the bot is quite fast) but if the objection is based on what the article name should be then it's best to sort that out at the article talk page first and then renominate the category to follow the article. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Timrollpickering. I guess your only remedy is to request a rename of the article back to Canadian House of Commons per [2] and ?. Sorry my browser is not responding (I'll come back) to PDF items. I'll correct with a reboot. Argolin (talk) 06:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is one reference promised previously [3] for naming per original Category:Canadian House of Commons. It's horrible that I have to ask for a rename of the article to achieve consensus when User:Bosonic dressing did not. Argolin (talk) 08:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Bosonic dressing reverted their move - see [4] & [5] (it's easier to fish these out from the talkpage). The key move was made by User:Barryob in 2009 [6] and there doesn't seem to have been any discussion on the page since then. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

41st Canadian Federal Election vs. 2011

Thanks for protecting the page for right now. In a recent talk page discussion, we reached consensus that the page should not be moved until the writ is dropped by the Governor General, fully aware that an edit-war would ensue in the aftermath of this vote. Hopefully you can help straighten things out. Bkissin (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Redundant templates

Based on your closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_22#Category:Academy_Award_for_Best_Original_Screenplay_templates, I suppose I have to do a separate TFD to eliminate the redundant templates. I will open that up now, but if it is just work that is about to get done let me know.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay1940-1949

Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay1940-1949 has been nominated for merging with Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay 1940-1960. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

mutualism

Can you please do the split called for in this mutualism nomination you started? I'm sure I don't understand the nuances.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Erm I didn't start it, I closed it and don't either. I'll ask the proponents. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The Mutualism (movement) section probably belongs in the Category:Cooperatives, though many of the members would not follow the ideas of Proudhoun, which is what Mutualism (economic theory) is about Hugo999 (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Since we can't seem to get the split implemented I'll get the bot to move everything into the movement category, hope that people will notice the change and filter out theory entries, and turn the Mutalism category into a disambig. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

2 cat groups

Hi, I have closed the discussion at the two category groups you nominated for renaming with mixed outcome. However I am not in a position to do all the recategorisation or detagging. see [[7]] and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9#Former students by secondary school in Australia. There were plenty of sensible arguments, but the UK people could not agree. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Old Fooians

I think you could get consensus (for the UK) fairly easily to rename everything except the 'Old Fooians' to 'People educated at Foo'. The problem with the Old Fooians in a mass nom is that Old Booians, Old Fooians and Old Mooians unite in a common cause. Occuli (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I suspect so but want to give a bit of time first. I have a feeling the initial CFD's close is not over yet and want to see if anyone does take it to DRV. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was 'any consensus completely obscured by verbosity'. Occuli (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Small Categories of March 31

For almost all of the categories nominated on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 31, the rationale was "small cat" and/or over-categorisation. Can you explain to me why the 2 Irish nominations resulted in a "keep" decision while all others resulted in a "delete" decision? Was it a numbers voting thing? Or was it the logic of the arguments? Or something else? Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Small categories are often kept if they're part of a larger overall scheme. Categorisation by county is a fairly standard scheme, and arguments against merge were based on the existence of the overall structure and effectively against singling out the category for an individual county. The ports & harbours category is categorisation of the stations by the type of feature served and doesn't overlap on categorisation by county. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The Carlow candidate was just a feeler for the others. Had it succeeded, all others in the same position would have been mass nominated per the precedent. The logic of the Carlow nomination was that the "overall structure" existed on a per county basis already: the additional sub-division by "Iarnrod Foo" was unnecessary. Are you saying that if I had nominated all "Iarnrod by County Foo" that the decision would have gone the other direction? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It would have been a factor in the decision but the discussion may have had other factors and big nominations often attract more input. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking for an admin to check me on something

A couple of editors have questioned my actions on Talk:2011 Libyan civil war, and so I'm hoping to get a couple of unbiased admins to take a look at what I did and tell me if I did something wrong. There was a very long debate about changing the page's name here, which I closed in the way I did because 75% of the votes were in favor of some form of "civil war" name. Then the page was relisted for change here, and after a week in which the oppose votes significantly outnumbered the support votes, I closed that one as no consensus. Two editorsobjected that since I closed the first nomination, I shouldn't have closed the second. Since I don't want this to be about me, can you look at it and see if you would have come to the same conclusion on the second nomination? Even if you wouldn't have, I'd like to know about it. Also, if there are other admins you know that might be willing to weigh in, I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look later as it's a lengthy discussion. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard is also a good place to find second opinions as well. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Erm I can't actually locate the Requested Move - it seems to have left the main talk page but not arrived in the recent archives. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Here it is.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Blocked historical users

Hi Tim! Thanks for closing the CfD for this category. I just added some templates and additional info to it. Is it ok? Cheers, theFace 19:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant, no problems. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Military personnel killed in the American Civil War

I've moved this category to Category:Military personnel killed in the American Civil War, and created the two obvious subcategories. Please split the contents at your leisure.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Complicated template

hi Timrollpickering,

concerning the move of the category [8] and the complicated template that makes it appear double, has there been any news or developments? Is someone looking into this, do you know what the status is? Thank you very much. Gryffindor (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It's been looked at but proving difficult to locate the problem. It's also not helped by use of Italian acronyms in it. We will keep trying. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it would just be easier to have a separate template that looks identical but would not be so complicated? Gryffindor (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Timrollpickering. Do we have any news on the templates yet? If not, I will try to create a separate template for the time. Hopefully a solution can then be found until then... Gryffindor (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's going back and forth but nothing solid yet. I suspect a separate template that simply and directly lists the category, rather than all these layers of construction, is best. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Merger of "Category:Executive branch of the Singapore Government" into "Category:Government of Singapore"

Hi. "Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 13#Category:Executive branch of the Singapore Government" just came to my attention. I don't think it was correct to merge "Category:Executive branch of the Singapore Government" into "Category:Government of Singapore". Under Part V of the Constitution of Singapore, the "Government of Singapore" refers only to the President and the Executive (including the Cabinet and the Attorney-General). Strictly speaking, the "Government" does not include civil servants (including the Singapore Legal Service), or statutory boards and other government organizations, which are better described as aspects of the executive branch. I'm not sure how to proceed further because what is required is not renaming "Category:Government of Singapore" as "Category:Executive branch of the Singapore Government", but a recreation of the latter and transferring the above-mentioned articles and subcategories to it. "Category:Government of Singapore" should be a subcategory of "Category:Executive branch of the Singapore Government". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

A new discussion may be best; I'd have no objection to it. There's a problem with these categories that they're using a term with many different definitions and it's often not clear what the contents are and aren't supposed to be. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

OK – can I leave you to initiate a discussion? For the reasons stated above, I'm not sure what the right venue is. It seems wrong to request for "Category:Government in Singapore" to be renamed. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wessex children NPOV

Hullo there. I have opened a new discussion about the styling of HRH The Earl of Wessex's children: here because their articles are currently in violation of the NPOV policy. Do please drop by and have your say (and feel free to pass on the word to other concerned parties!) DBD 21:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Retain CFD bot

I've finally gotten around to the Retain CFD bot, the details for which are here. Skip to the bottom for the pertinent details. Let me know how it goes. --Cyde Weys 21:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Phase 2 (maintaining its own list) is now complete. Let me know if it makes any errors updating the list. --Cyde Weys 20:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

WP economics

I think I fixed the template. Please check to see that I did it right. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to have done the trick and the bot has now zapped all the categories. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of the category, "Multi-Disciplinary Theatre"

Hello! This has to do with a recent deletion that you were instrumental in:

I am new to Wikipedia and in April 2011, after having completed an article and not finding categories that suited it, I “created” the category "Multi-Disciplinary Theatre" (though not really, since it has been a well known theatrical term and practice for decades) as well as another one, “Multi-Cultural Theatre". On April 18th, both were challenged in a “discussion”(that took place solely between me and the nominator) as being confusing, and were subsequently deleted by you. As part of that discussion, I had written a short paragraph in defense of these terms and then, because of my newness to Wikipedia, did not persist, assuming the nominator knew more than I about rules governing categories. Instead, I chose two other categories to replace these, that were not as accurate but were already in the Wikipedia listings of categories: ”Cross-Cultural Theatre” and “Alternative Theatre”. But now, on May 11th, the same nominator has, once again, nominated these new terms for discussion, citing the same reasons as the first time, although the circumstances are different: that they have been “created” by me (which is not the case) and are confusing. And I now realize that 1) the nominator is not knowledgeable about theater, but more important, 2) the nominator does not do the necessary research before authoritatively opposing things. The current discussion, which I have joined, will run its course; it is not about that I write. I write because, in light of all this, I would like to take the steps needed to re- propose “Multi-Disciplinary Theater” as a category. Let me state again that it is and has been, for decades, a widely known and widely accepted theater term and practice, so for it to be permanently left out of the Wikipedia listings would be a great shame. I await your reply and thank you for your kind attention to this, in the midst of your busy schedule.Mx9616:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Category Original 30 Anglican Parishes

I just wanted to leave a comment somewhere - I'm not sure where is appropriate. I have seen in recent weeks so much attention focused on preventing the loss of contributors and retaining new contributors and not creating a "hostile feel" for those who contribute. But then I see a category deleted in a discussion that had no discussion. I don't know how one is supposed to be aware that such is open/pending. I assume articles can go the same way. Perhaps that is what is driving off contributors. I do not have an opinion on the particular case. The original 30 are notable due to the tolerance law that intolerently broke the colony into Anglican subdivisions, but the list article is a good resource. My concern is just how quickly things change with no opportunity for those concerned to have input. --Rwberndt (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The category was tagged that it was up for deletion and this is spottable for those with the category on their watchlist whilst there was the standard window for discussion. It's no quicker than others really. More input into CFD would be great but if it's not there the wheels have to keep turning somehow. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_April_26#Category:Music_published_by_Northern_Songs

Hi, You closed this CfD with a rename yesterday. Can you possibly review your decision, please? I ask because, on straight votes, it was 3 delete, and 2 keep with maybe a change of name. However for me the telling things are that I established Northern Songs no longer exists therefore cannot hold copyrights and one of the keepers agreed with my statement, "In practice a songwriter generally assigns all their work to a publisher and I think a far more efficient way would be to add the names of assigned (past or present) songwriters to the various music publisher articles. The fact that this not done is further evidence, in my mind, that this category is a trivia backwater of no interest to an encyclopedia. I am not convinced a Category:Songwriters by music publisher is required or necessary, either."

It was quite a convoluted discussion which was certainly not helped by change of opinion.

Thanks for you time in this, if you cannot amend, or are sure your decision was correct, can you point me in the right direction to start a review? Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

As you say it was a tricky won but there wasn't much support at all for the current name, no clear consensus for deletion and thus the rename seemed the least worst outcome for the time being. There is the option for deletion review or alternatively a fresh discussion focused exclusively on deletion that can aim for clarity one way or the other. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Amusement rides that opened in x

One minor problem with the close. The buildings and structures by year navigation template that is in most of the by year categories, and no one is objecting to using it, automatically places all of the by year categories into the century groupings. I'm not sure how to resolve this. The easiest solution would be to just keep the two century categories. But I'm not sure how you fell about that. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ideally I'd wipe out templates populating categories - some of them are getting ridiculously complicated and impossible to find what to change. Otherwise I think see if anyone knows how to block the autocreation and if not then put it out to see if people want to go through the mess of replacing the template. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just created a new template based off Vegaswikian's one. Vegaswikian's one is implemented in all of the "Amusement rides that opened in x" categories and I have implemented mine in the "Roller coasters that opened in x" categories. I can replace the template with my own if the categories are going to be deleted. Should I go ahead with this? Themeparkgc  Talk  08:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do - it'll help cut down the problem. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced the navigation template. Now both Category:Amusement rides that opened in the 20th century and Category:Amusement rides that opened in the 21st century are empty and can be deleted. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Really?

You close the Holocaust victims by occupation CFD with one word? How is that helpful? Harley Hudson (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Foo-priority bar articles

I believe that this still needs template updates to move the articles. This was a May 12 discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look through the templates but can't see what actually needs to be adjusted to trigger the move. I'll try asking about. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I changed some of these so you can see how to do it. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've definitely changed several of the others and currently the Contemporary Christian and biography (all combinations) appear to be in the slow process of the template cache updating. I'll set the bot onto them once the caches catch up. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello! I noticed you contributed to Middlesex University entry on Wikipedia. If you studied at that University, please consider including this userbox on your userpage. Simply paste {{User:Invest in knowledge/mdx}} to your userpage. Thank you. Invest in knowledge (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Amersham railway station

Another editor has moved this from Amersham station. Unless there is a consensus for change of which I am unaware you may wish to discuss the change with them. Britmax (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Mishnah rabbis

Can you add a note that about the rename attempt at Category talk:Mishnah rabbis? Chesdovi (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If you cloered the discussion, please can you leave a note that it ever occured at talk. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2011 (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.