This 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
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)
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)
|
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 editors objected 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!) D B D 21:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
I think I fixed the template. Please check to see that I did it right. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
You close the Holocaust victims by occupation CFD with one word? How is that helpful? Harley Hudson ( talk) 17:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Can you add a note that about the rename attempt at Category talk:Mishnah rabbis? Chesdovi ( talk) 13:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)