User talk:Timrollpickering: Difference between revisions

; Archives
	Archive miscellaneous; ; Archive 1; Archive 2; Archive 3; Archive 4; Archive 5; Archive 6; Archive 7; Archive 8; Archive 9; Archive 10; Archive 11; Archive 12; Archive 13; Archive 14; Archive 15; ;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:51, 12 February 2012

User:Timrollpickering

Welcome to my talk page.

Please note that I prefer to have substantial discussions about individual articles on their own talk pages rather than here, so that all editors of those articles can see them and contribute.

Please also note that I prefer conversations to be in one place. I will reply to comments where they are left and, if necessary, transfer comments back to the original talk page where the conversation was initiated.

To leave a new message click here.

Indexes of articles

About a month ago you deleted Category:Indexes of articles. I recreated it as a soft redirect because I found a broken link at Category:Contents, which I fixed by linking the new Index of topics cat. By recreating the cat, I was able to check the What links here list for other possible broken links. I fixed links in the the following cats:

You might want to check the What links here list one more time before you re-delete. I think I got the important ones. – PIE ( CLIMAX ) 10:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Church buildings in the United States by state

I'm disappointed (but hardly surprised) to see that "no consensus" means that the ill-considered speedy rename gets kept... --Orlady (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CFD/W

Hi, Tim! I want to bring a minor issue to your attention. Category:Australian Open (tennis) champions was on my watchlist and, after it was renamed, I noticed that Cydebot deleted it with an incorrect deletion summary. I checked the page history of the CFD working page and found that it was a consequence of this edit.

When an empty category that has been merged or renamed is listed in the 'Empty then delete' section, Cydebot often deletes it without specifying the new name (e.g. here) or, as in this case, with a link to a non-existent discussion, making it more difficult to track the history of a category. In general, merged and renamed categories are best left in the 'Speedy moves' or 'Move/merge then delete' section until they are deleted by Cydebot or manually using a more complete deletion summary.

There used to be a 'Ready for deletion' section, too, but it was removed in 2009 (mainly because CFD/W had become an admin-only page, but I think partly also due to this issue). Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cfd on cache

Thanks for closing the Cfd on Category:Cache (computing). No consensus for the gerund, and consensus for the disambiguator, but it should be plural. I posted a speedy request per C2A but thought I'd let you know in case you object. – Pnm (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Place names in the U.S. of Spanish origin

This category has now been listified. What needs to be done to delete the category?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where abouts is the list? I'll stick the category up for deletion in due course. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Churches

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_22#Ambiguous_categories_to_match_the_top_levels_of_the_tree

I'm considering a DRV (or perhaps merely a renom) of these. To clarify, would you please explain how you came to your conclusion about consensus on these? - jc37 22:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think a consistency nom of the whole tree may be best - this has spiralled into a classic mess of different discussions returning different outcomes on the same core issue.

Broadly the weight of feeling in that discussion is that there's a mix of articles about church buildings and articles about church organisations and articles covering both in the tree, and the current names and set-up create confusion which would be reduced if the tree was specifically & clearly for church buildings (with the relevant articles removed). This would also allow for an organisation category tree. Such a split destination also had support from some of those who opposed the particular journey of renaming the existing categories.

The issue has come up before and on balance the precedents and weight were towards renaming. However given the subsequent discussion I think it best to go for a new broader nomination rather than keeping the discussions separate. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, but wanted to at least go through the step of asking a closer to clarify their close : )

I think once all the recent group noms are done, We can see about a more complete group nom. - jc37 02:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fayenatic london

Just FYI, I'm nominating User:Fayenatic london for adminship. Your opinion on the subject would be welcome. If you wish to co-nominate, you can do so as well. Or just comment as desired.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting comment added. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

Hi, there! I just wanted to give you a heads-up on an odd/annoying feature of userboxes: some of them include category links within the actual text of the userbox (I have no idea why, and I've asked at Wikipedia talk:Userboxes) and when a category is renamed the link should, ideally, be updated too (or removed). See here for an example. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I must have missed that because I zoomed in on the usercategory field. I'm finding templates that populate categories more and more frustrating and wonder if there should be a crackdown. The worst are the ones that don't even name the category directly but instead construct it from entries in a template and thus both elude the search engine and make it very hard to alter them. And then the ones where the category text sits in the /doc rather than the template itself and thus eludes the bot. /rant

More generally there is a problem with links to categories not getting updated when the category gets moved & deleted - could perhaps one of the redirect bots go on the case? Timrollpickering (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kbdank used to use such language regarding dealing with userbox-populated categories lol.

He used to drop the more problematic ones on my doorstep. Feel free to do the same, I'm happy to help : ) - jc37 02:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 81: / Line 81: @@
 :Broadly the weight of feeling in that discussion is that there's a mix of articles about church buildings and articles about church organisations and articles covering both in the tree, and the current names and set-up create confusion which would be reduced if the tree was specifically & clearly for church buildings (with the relevant articles removed). This would also allow for an organisation category tree. Such a split destination also had support from some of those who opposed the particular journey of renaming the existing categories.
 :The issue has come up before and on balance the precedents and weight were towards renaming. However given the subsequent discussion I think it best to go for a new broader nomination rather than keeping the discussions separate. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] ([[User talk:Timrollpickering#top|talk]]) 01:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
+::Yes, I agree, but wanted to at least go through the step of asking a closer to clarify their close : )
+::I think once all the recent group noms are done, We can see about a more complete group nom. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 02:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 == Fayenatic london ==
@@ Line 94: / Line 97: @@
 :Thanks - I must have missed that because I zoomed in on the usercategory field. I'm finding templates that populate categories more and more frustrating and wonder if there should be a crackdown. The worst are the ones that don't even name the category directly but instead construct it from entries in a template and thus both elude the search engine and make it very hard to alter them. And then the ones where the category text sits in the /doc rather than the template itself and thus eludes the bot. /rant
 :More generally there is a problem with links to categories not getting updated when the category gets moved & deleted - could perhaps one of the redirect bots go on the case? [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] ([[User talk:Timrollpickering#top|talk]]) 00:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
+::Kbdank used to use such language regarding dealing with userbox-populated categories  lol.
+::He used to drop the more problematic ones on my doorstep. Feel free to do the same, I'm happy to help : ) - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 02:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)