This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Replied on my talk page. -- Cyde Weys 20:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
And another. -- Cyde Weys 21:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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))
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.
``` Buster Seven Talk 06:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
I have nominated this category which you created for deletion. Please see here. Moonraker ( talk) 00:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
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. Avic 02:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Did you do anything to reset the edit box to its previous appearance? I cannot figure out why mine has not reverted. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 15:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
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.
(I must run, now couple minutes late.) -- P64 ( talk) 22:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Replied on my talk page. -- Cyde Weys 20:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
And another. -- Cyde Weys 21:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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))
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.
``` Buster Seven Talk 06:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
I have nominated this category which you created for deletion. Please see here. Moonraker ( talk) 00:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
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. Avic 02:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Did you do anything to reset the edit box to its previous appearance? I cannot figure out why mine has not reverted. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 15:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
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.
(I must run, now couple minutes late.) -- P64 ( talk) 22:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)