User talk:Timrollpickering/Archive 14


 * 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.

closed
Hi, you closed this. So if I'm not mistaking, then this one should be deleted too by now. -DePiep (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That one's populated by a complicated code in a userbox which needs to be amended to empty the category. It's very hard to spot where the change needs to be made. Once changed the category will empty and be automatically deleted. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * eh, looks like no: . Nothing in mainspace. When deleted, these other sppaces show red links -- no problem. Just pull the plug is OK. Or: which transclusion needs defusing? -DePiep (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Review
Can you review Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_22, it seems a poor close. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Result was 'Result'
Here - I assume it was slip! Could you clarify what you meant? Thanks. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah - should have been a delete. I got distracted at the critical point and thought I'd already typed it. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You may have noticed that I picked up another one like that - trust that was OK by you. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ouch - yes it's right. I must be going C&P blind. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just noticed some sub-cats to yet be deleted here - Fayenatic (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I filled in a gap here. Hope this helps. I've also updated the backlinks for Category:Fraternal and service organizations and Category:Fraternal and magical organizations; is this something that you would have got round to, or do you not think it's important? - Fayenatic (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * RSVP, Fayenatic (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry missed this. Currently the backlinks isn't a required part of processing and I'm not sure how easy it would be to configure the bot otherwise. I do what I notice and what I nominate myself but the task is one of the trickier ones. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it is listed as step 7.3 at Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions; I recently added some hints, but that step was already in the process. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

CFD for Dover
I know the previous discussion closed recently but I feel there needed to be more consensus. Please see Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_1. Simply south...... eating shoes for 5 years So much for ER 18:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste
You did not need to histmerge the Vietnam articles. It had just been done so it could simply be reverted. Histmerge is arguably wrong because now the history of the former redirects is merged with the artticle. That the redirect from DRV was created in 2002 doesn't need to be in the NV history, for instance. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_19
I am raising this here, though I realize it will probably be necessary to take it to DRV, or remove all or nearly articles from the current category. The plain fact is that few if any of the caves in the category contain pictograms at all. We have a perfectly adequate article explaining what a pictogram is - essentially another word for "icon" in the modern sense - and it does not mean "a large picture of an animal created by a Stone Age artist who didn't go to art school". The European paintings at least (the bulk of the category) are in fact famous for their naturalistic detail, and though others may not have this they are still not pictograms, as two images of the same animal will be different. I pointed this out in the discussion but the point was completely ignored. It is especially unfortunate because WP are currently engaged in a project with the British Museum to improve coverage of Ice Age art and this just makes us look like idiots. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A relisting with a clear proposed alternative name may be the best way forward; I'd have no objection to going straight to that stage if you wish to initiate a new CFD. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well on reflection Category:Cave painting should solve the problems introduced by the "s", so I think i shall go for that. Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for being on top of things and reverting the IP's removal of the CfD template so quickly (twice)! Lady of  Shalott  00:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

User:TonyTheTiger/Levi Horn
Thanks for the prompt userfication of User:TonyTheTiger/Levi Horn. It looks like it is heading towards a reverse. Please restore history.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no. Let the discussion run its course and stop forum shopping.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  22:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have restored the history of this article and merged it with the user page. This has nothing to do with the outcome of the DRV, but simply the requirement that we must attribute when we reuse content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Category of suicides due to cyber- bullying
Before you actually delete the category, please give me a bit of time to edit the associated pages per the discussion. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've put a NO BOTS message on it but don't know if that will stop the bot in time. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It didn't. Would you mind un-deleting it briefly? I'll let you know when I'm done. It will only be a few minutes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I can undelete the category itself but the contents are trickier. What exactly do you need from it? Timrollpickering (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I wanted to see what pages had been in it. I think I've probably found them all from memory, so it probably doesn't matter any more. Thanks anyway. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Indraprastha College for Women alumni
I am not trying to make problems but does Category:Indraprastha College for Women alumni seem ambiguous? Woukd it not be clearer to have alumni at the front as it was? Cjc13 (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The Indian university alumni categories generally use the form "(University name) alumni" and it makes sense to have consistency within the same country. Different countries use different orders - the UK and Irish categories are "Alumni of (University name)" but the US, Canadian and Australian categories all use "(University name) alumni" and most other countries use the latter format. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this category is similar to the other categories you nominated for speedy rename in that putting alumni at the beginning makes it clearer and less ambiguous. I think avoiding ambiguity is more important than uniformity. Cjc13 (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see what's particularly ambiguous about it, and there are other such categories such as Category:Lahore College for Women University alumni, Category:Beirut College for Women alumni or Category:Mississippi University for Women alumni. Consistency is useful both for neatness but also for preventing accidental duplication and splits. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is just that it appears to associate "alumni" with "Women" rather than the college, which I suspect was why it was originally named with alumni first. Cjc13 (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be reading too much into this. The university alumni categories used to be somewhat random on this but most were steadily standardised to consistent forms some years back. However some may have slipped through the crack and categories are often created by people who aren't aware of the specific conventions in question. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Doctor who term
As per your revert, could you point to the specific point where the new term was agreed upon? Some have pointed to archive 18, but I am not seeing a consensus from that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I dispute it's a "new term" - it's been used in published books on the series for at least thirty years. There have been a number of discussions both on the article and the WikiProject but the following is the best to point to as it went to an RFC despite being largely a single user making assertions despite repeated proffered sources: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 22. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Renames relating to Alumni
Forgive my ignorance of Wikipedia procedures but why did the renames to which I objected go through? I thought if there was an objection it was meant to go cfd for there to be a rename. Cjc13 (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Check the edit history for the moving admin's comments but over time a number of speedy CFDs have been processed when the objections aren't "this doesn't meet the speedy criteria because" but more "this is a convention I disagree with". Timrollpickering (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My objection was that there was a problem with this name as regards ambiguity and that other names (there are several possibilities) could have been used. Anyway as I understand it, a single objection on any grounds should be enough to stop a speedy rename. Cjc13 (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Attempting to campaign
I understand your point in relation to the Ross Hussey article that "one does't "attempt to campaign", one campaigns or one does not", but I don't think it is accurate to say that he did campaign using it (he may have done, but I have not evidence of that). All we know is that he asked whether he could campaign using it. Do you have any ideas for a more accurate wording? Warofdreams talk 15:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Article Feedback Pilot
Hi, Tim, in relation to Category:Article Feedback Pilot, why not close it on the talk page, and then let the bot do the removal of the categories. It seems like a lot of wasted time/work on your part to be doing it manually, even with AWB. Save yourself the monotony and let the bot do the work for you ;) Russavia Let's dialogue 20:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The bot is working on it as well but the category is so large that it's taking forever (and repeatedly getting error messages which make it stop CFD work for over an hour a time). Using AWB helps to get this one zapped completely so can the bot can deal with a growing backlog of normal sized categories. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You reverted me telling me to discuss
Where am I supposed to discuss this matter then? EStudent 82 (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You discuss a nomination on the page where it's listed. Just post your comment beneath it. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hyphenated aircraft categories
Hi, I think the decision of this CFD should have been Rename and leave redirects, as requested by the nominator, instead it was simply Rename. This has left certain linked categories as redlinks and broken or split some of the aircraft category structures. For example, see Category:German_aircraft_1920–1929 and Category:German_aircraft_1920-1929 and Category:United States military trainer aircraft 1920-1929. What is the best way of fixing this? Move the straggler articles to the new categories and then create redirects? I'll copy this note to the nominator's talk page. -84user (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Peer review
Hi Tim. I'm just  letting  you  know that  I  have submitted List  of Old Malvernians for peer review as a first  step  to  possible Featured List. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ilford being in London
Ilford is in Greater London which isn't London. It is in Essex. I live in Ilford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.88.251 (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * London and Greater London are virtually synonymous. Ilford contains the town hall for the London Borough of Redbridge. It hasn't been in Essex since 1965. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Philip Perceval
You made an edit to Philip Perceval on 10th. One of the changes you made was to the text passed in as a parameter to source-attribution. FYI source-attribution only takes one unnamed parameter (it is a simple wrapper). To do what you wanted to do, pass in cite book (or whatever) filled in as normal, as shown in the documentation for the template source-attribution. -- PBS (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

CfD
Feel like closing either of the open discussions on this CfD page?--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There are a total of four more from September here and here if you'd like to help finish the month off.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Project to encourage cooperation between The National Archives and Wikipedia
Hi! As someone who's edited The_National_Archives_(United_Kingdom) page, I thought you might be interested - if you haven't seen it already - in a recently started GLAM project to encourage cooperation between The National Archives and Wikipedia. Ideas & participation welcome! Dsp13 (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

AWB
Hello, using AWB for inconsequential edits like, , , etc. is not appropriate. Continuing to simply remove whitespace from a page without making more substantial changes may result in the removal of your access to AWB (cf. WP:AWB). Thanks. --Closedmouth (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Category: Prehistoric period templates
Hi, not sure why you decided to delete this? I found it useful as I was trying to clarify and sort the whole area. I've not got very far yet but the category was a useful way of bundling all the templates together... I may have missed some policy point somewhere? Thoughts appreciated, thanks PatHadley (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry - I accidentally misread the nomination as it looked like a delete one (and no-one had closed it) - there isn't actually a need to bring create proposals to CFD when it's a new area. I've restored the category and think I've readded all the contents. 14:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. Sorry - my attempts to use good etiquette backfired through lack of ability! I posted it because I was decimating the Historic Period Templates category. Thanks for sorting it all out! PatHadley (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2011 (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. 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) 21:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lords of Appeal in Ordinary
Template:Lords of Appeal in Ordinary has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gabbe (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

North Milton Keynes
I have updated North Milton Keynes. Is that what you meant? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Page move help
I feel like an idiot. I tried to move Jack McConnell, Baron McConnell to Jack McConnell, Baron McConnell of Glenscorrodale, but I left out the space between "McConnell" and "of" because the former is inaccurate. I tried to fix it on my own, and even tried to move it to Jack McConnell, but I couldn't. Would you please clean up my mess? -Rrius (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Interview
Hi Timrollpickering, I am a Wikipedian and researcher from Carnegie Mellon University, working with Professors Robert E. Kraut and Aniket Kittur. We’ve published many scholarly papers on Wikipedia and are partnering with the Wikimedia Foundation on several new projects.

I have been analyzing collaboration in Wikipedia, especially Collaborations of the Week/Month. My analysis of seven years of archival Wikipedia data shows that Collaborations of the Week/Month substantially increase the amount and nature of project members’ contributions, with long lasting effects. We would like to talk to Wikipedians to better understand the processes that that produce this behavior change.

We’ve identified you as a particularly good candidate to speak with because of your involvement with the WikiProject Universities' Collaborations, which is one of those we’ve been investigating. It would really help us if you would be willing to have a short talk with us, less than 30 minutes of your time. We can talk via skype or instant messenger or other means if you’d prefer. Do you have time at any point during this week to chat? If so, please send an email to haiyiz@cs.cmu.edu or drop a line on my talk page.

Thanks!

(This my personal website) Haiyizhu (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for opinion
Hi Tim, as an editor with a great deal of experience editing UK university articles, including UCL, I would be greatful for your views on the deletion of a long-standing gallery and list of notable buildings from the UCL article. My immediate reaction was to revert the deletion - since the gallery and information on buildings is in my view useful, and so far as I am aware buildings do not need to have their own WP articles to be mentioned - which was immediately re-reverted. I have found the editor in question very difficult in the past and wish to avoid a drama. However I am aware that my views on the editor may cloud my judgement and would appreciate your view on the specific issue of the gallery and list of buildings. Thanks in advance. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Tis the season


MarnetteD | Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

Many thanks for all your work here at WikiP and I hope that you have a superb 2012. Thanks also for your post at the Dr Who in Canada and the US talk page a couple weeks ago. No episode 6 eh - that must have been a crummy viewing experience. It was nice to have the additional info about Lubinsky. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 01:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan categories
Thanks for closing the CFR request. Regarding your closing remarks, should the consequential requests with Category:Education in Taiwan, Category:Military academies of Taiwan‎, Category:Alumni by university or college in Taiwan and Category:Faculty by university in Taiwan‎ be submitted to CFD or NC-TW? 61.18.170.230 (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a tricky one but as the pre-existing convention is to use "Republic of China", the categories should qualify under speedy criteria C2B (established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices). Timrollpickering (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, there is a consequential request here at CFD as a result to the previous move request on ROC universities. Regards. 116.48.183.128 (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Should the deleted categories be undeleted and protected as categoryredirect? 119.237.201.33 (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

LOST HOUSES
It is normally considered couteous to notify the creator of a page or category when it's to be nominated for deletion, that appears not to have happened. Had you done so, it woul dhave saved an enormous amount of trouble. Secondly, Britain's lost houses is the accepted name for a group of country houses demolished during the 20th century. I shall be recreating the category. Giacomo Returned 13:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not nominate the category; I closed the discussion. There is no requirement on nominators to notify the creator; users are expected to have the categories they are interested in on their watchlist and there is no ownership of categories. And I don't advise arbitrarily recreating the category - the standing procedure for category titles has renamed this one and any recreation without further discussion would just get redirected. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of us have better things to do than avidly watch at our watchlists all over Christmas. I shall be creating the category, as it's very impoortant subject, if not, i woul dnott have bothered to create it. Please employ some common good manners in future. Giacomo Returned 13:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Alumni
I just wondered whether the dumbing down of alumni/ae articles is really necessary? Changing alumni/ae to the verbose "people educated at" is not only an inelegant use of English but is also inconsistent with the way schools describe their former members in the UK, where the simple terms 'alumni' and 'alumnae' are in widespread use. In any case, changing 'alumnae' to 'people' misleads the reader into assuming the inclusion of males. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.186.187 (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "People educated at" is about the only term that's proved workable across the board for the categories because a lot of schools don't use the term "alumni", others don't use "pupils" and so forth, and each of those terms has attracted fierce opposition. As for "alumnae", the variant is increasingly not used - see for instance Category:Alumni of women's universities and colleges - and you can't say for sure that everyone who went to an all girls institution is female. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Airliner accidents and incidents featured in a Mayday episode
I noticed you put up the ruling on the discussion. Just two things


 * The category page still exists
 * I've taken it upon myself to unlink all the articles that are on the category page.

Just letting you know. Cheers!- William 16:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The category will be emptied and deleted by a bot in due course, it just has a few big categories to process first. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh make it three things


 * If you'll note this discussion of this category, I noted that this had been deleted once before. The category just had a different wording. The discussion the first time was unanimous as it was the second time. I did however think the deletion should have been done quicker this time around once I showed it had been gone over already.(Plus this latest discussion was heading to the exact same conclusion)- William 16:41, 2 January 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.