User talk:Timrollpickering

Due to vandalism by anonymous editors playing with the revert controls, this page may be temporarily protected at autoconfirmed users only level. If you are unable to place a message here, please do so at User talk:Timrollpickering/Temporary protection wall.

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.

Section 44 of the Constitution of Australia

Hi, thank you for putting back the Sykes section. I must have read it too fast. 208.95.49.53 (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus templates categories

I've seen that lately you have been changing the coronavirus templates categories from pandemic to outbreak. Is there a reason for it? Shouldn't the category reflect the name of all the articles?! Alexiscoutinho (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

There's a process for renaming categories that gets the articles moved in good order. Individuals simply renaming the category and not moving (all) the articles can leave confusing messes behind so it's best to revert the situation to the status quo ante and encourage those who want to to pursue a renaming through CFD. Timrollpickering (Talk) 19:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Category Art media switched to Visual arts media

Hi there! Sorry to bother you (and sorry for how long this comment is going to be! I had a hard time editing it down). And thank you for all the great work you do on Wikipedia!

I thought I would ask you about the result of the discussion here. You closed it and said the result was "Rename."

It seems like there were 6 people that were for the rename and 3 or 4 people that were against it and offered alternatives. Since it's not a "voting" process, I'm not sure why the discussion was considered to come to a consensus? It seems like the discussion was pretty divided even though it slowed down, so I was just wondering.

---

I'm also largely mentioning this because new information has come to light that makes me concerned about what this change did, and I think it warrants further discussion. The Opposers (that mentioned that not all of these categories are about Visual arts) seemed to end up being correct. Now that the name change has been initiated, many of the non-visual subjects that were tagged under the "Art ___" categories are now innaccurately tagged under "Visual arts ___" categories.

Here are some categeory changes I saw in the result of this that are not considered "Visual art genres", but were automatically tagged as such:
(this is not an exhaustive list, but just from the first page or two of your Contributions)

• Category: Performance art
• Category: Olfactory art
• Category: New media art
• Category: Interactive art
• Category: Art games
• Category: Installation art
• Category: Plastic arts
• Category: Replicas
• Category: Multimedia
• Category: Land art
• and handicrafts like:
• Category: Lacquerware
• Category: Jewellery

And here are a few articles that were incorrectly categorized to "Visual arts genres" (instead of the original Art genres) (again, there are much more in reality):

• Virtual art
• Robotic art
• Rain activated art
• Conceptual art
• Generative art
• Interactive art

---

From what I can tell, this change leaves a huge hole for any fine art form that is not really considered "visual," since many non-visual fine arts were being categorized under this. And most of the support on the discussion mentioned that all art is visual, or that everyone who uses these categorizes uses them for Visual Art, and I think this new information discredits that theory now.

And the list above is just some of the changes from the "Art genre" to "Visual arts genre" change. I can't tell you how many Art awards, Art exhibits, and Art competitions that aren't considered specifically "Visual". Even two of the Supporters (one of them the original nominator) mentioned that they don't think the change is necessary with all of the listed categories. And two of the Opposers only received a single reply to their !vote that didn't really address their concerns. I just wonder if there should have been more discussion before a consensus was called because of these points.

Best - Whisperjanes (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion had been open for three weeks so it's not clear what more discussion would have actually been forthcoming. The proposed change was in line with the parent category and the discussion was in the direction of following the standard convention to match that. Timrollpickering (Talk) 19:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to take up any more of your time, because I really respect the work you do as an admin, and know how important it is (so I decided to change my reply, since you are probably busy). I assume from your reply that you are probably not interested in relisting the discussion, and I completely understand. Thank you for your time (and all the work you do)! Best, Whisperjanes (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Timrollpickering: It seems that a continuation of this discussion about further Visual Arts subcategories is being had at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_18#Visual_arts_by_subject. Since it seems there is more discussion to be had and some new users have additional thoughts to bring up about the renaming (for example, about the “Visual arts" vs "Visual art”), I was wondering if you would consider opening up and relisting the old discussion to allow for users to discuss further. Best, Whisperjanes (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that would just create more confusion. There's a separate discussion now ongoing and reopening the old discussion post change would just lead to messes about what is the status quo ante and what things should be aligned with. Timrollpickering (Talk) 17:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

An AFD discussion that could be closed

It is this one[1]. The alert is over, the alert was the whole basis for the article and so far it is 5-0 (6-0 if you count the nominator) in favor of delete. It is a snow with no chance of being kept. Maybe you can close it early....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Medical outbreaks

Hi Tim, is it too late to reopen Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_21#Medical_outbreaks_by_country? There were three votes already to rename to "Disease outbreaks" to be consistent with another part of the tree. – Fayenatic London 23:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Probably easier to propose the name separately even speedily. It always gets messy when counter proposals get made. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Please ...

... don't change a Dutch year format into an English year format in a quote in Dutch. --Sb008 (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)