User talk:Tim!/Archive 21

Thanks for uploading File:Plague Herds of Excelis.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I noticed that you've created a number of "Organizations based in X" next to "Organisations based in X" categories, or vice versa - and then nominated for merge. Could you please just do a rename nomination, instead of creating duplicate categories? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I had known the category already existed I would have done that. Tim! (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you moved to speedy rename this in the past to Category:1939 establishments in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. It is not clear this was ever done. However people have no started populating this category with things established not in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, but in Romania in 1939. They then accuse me of being disruptive for wanting to apply the category to the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, which is the only conceivable meaning of Moldova at that time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The delete log for Category:1939 establishments in Moldova is as follows:

12:49, 10 June 2013 Fram (talk | contribs | block) restored page Category:1939 establishments in Moldova (2 revisions restored: Restore, apparently incorrect CFD)
16:42, 15 January 2013 Cydebot (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Category:1939 establishments in Moldova (Robot - Speedily moving category 1939 establishments in Moldova to Category:1939 establishments in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic per CFDS.) (view/restore)

So it appears the speedy was done. Tim! (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've created Template:Year in US state category to make it easier to create and maintain categories like Category:1912 in Arizona. I hope it will be useful. Let me know if you notice any errors or issues with it. Fram (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fram, that is very helpful, and for letting me know. Tim! (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim!

I am trying to reinvigorate WikiProject Years, and I thought you may be interested. Please respond to this message here, and post your name here if you are interested.

Thanks, Matty.007 20:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for creating Category:1960 establishments in Ruanda-Urundi. It is very helpful to have these historically correct categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not have a strong preference on this. I followed our article. However the Columbia-Lippincott Gazeteer calls it "French Sudan". Thinking about it, that appears to have been the common English name for the place, so I would support a renaming of the category to 1947 establishments in French Sudan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the attention to French Soudan/French Sudan, a page in need of as much attention as possible. I posted a longer statement explaining why I made the move originally and I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the reasoning and to invite a response. My only goal is to see the page improved and so if you have a good reason that "French Sudan" gets to that place better than "French Soudan", I will certainly appreciate it. Thanks for starting the discussion. (Note: not watching this page, only watching the French Soudan talk page)AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am really getting annoyed by Good Olfacgtory and Fram tag team figting almost every nomination that comes up related to unworkable past country designations. Sometimes it seems like no matter how much I point out that the system they are proposing leads to unacceptable nationality designations for places, they just ignore such concerns and proceed to bulldoze over any legitimate issues. Even when things have closed in favor of deletion as did Category:1911 establishments in Ukraine, they fight against the logical speedy deletion while totally ignoring my well thought out explanation about why Ukraine is not a workable designation for anything in 1911. I do not know why I even bother trying, it seems like all that ever happens is people saying that I am wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, there are now discussions started by other people. Also, as I mentioned, the most frustrating one is the over-riding of an effort I did back in January. Also for what it is worth the Ghana nomination did close. So did the Bangladesh ones. In some ways I wish I had never tried the German ones, because since I did people have been bringing them up in ways that at times border on "this guy is so crazy that he thinks we should not have all the German categories, he is not to be trusted at all." At least that is what it feels like when people constantly harp on the pre-1871 Germany issue, especially when we are discussing 1904 categories and I want to discuss the fact that the 1910 Germany categories includes things not presently in Germany. Then there is the Moldavian ASSR/Moldova category, which involves people ignoring a speedy rename to recreate the category, and also totally incorrect placement of things in the Moldavian ASSR category at one point that did not belong there at all. The number of categories does explain why I rarely create parents for new establishment categories, they just mean nominations to rename will involve more categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, the most frustrating one is the discussion of Category:1905 establishments in Israel. Good Olfactory's attempts to retroactively apply current international boundaries are just too much there. Also his claims about the boundaries being 1967 are just plain false. He is basically attacking me for trying to avoid dragging the current problems into early 2-th-century categories. He seems to want to undermine anything I say.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• good Olfactory seems to want to attack every move I make. He seems to have an attitude "don't try to fix anything, and attack any users who do". It is very frustrating, especially his insistence that the modern boundary of Poland can be imposed on pre-WWI things. I do not think an approach is workable, and it really seems like he is not listening to me at all, just calling the thought that totally German areas could be called "Poland" in any workable way "POV". He is speaking for a total and unfaltering application of present boundaries that has never actually existed in practice. The talk on Spart Brodica is to me the extreme example of him negating the concerns of those of us who do not think things established in Germany should be said to have been established in Poland. It also often feels no one appreciates all my effort at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed we have Category:1903 establishments in French West Africa. We also have Category:Establishments in French West Africa by year. I am wondering how you think we should treat this category, verses the category for the more specific places.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• On the other hand we have Upper Senegal and Niger, so before 1922 or so, we might be better off using the French West Africa designation. This is more complex than I at first thought. I think I will go back to US sub-cats. At least with US states, none have changed boundaries in significant ways in over 100 years, and very few for much longer than that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I Created several categories for French West AFrica and French Equatorial AFrica, where other years existed I made them subcategories of the French Africa ones, For example Category:1921 establishments in Senegal became a subcat of Category:1921 establishments in French West Africa. Tim! (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In itself this is a very minor thing but I wonder if it is pointing to a wider problem.

Because Category:Musical groups established in the 1858 was misnamed I removed its single article and placed it in the right category (which already existed) on 20 June here. As well as emptying it I edited the category itself to remove a navigation template. That put it on my watchlist which is the only reason I noticed what was to happen. Thinking (probably wrongly) that I should wait four days before placing Template:db-c1 I waited. Then someone else went ahead and tagged it. I removed the tag and was (I think properly) reverted. On 23 June you deleted the category here even though less than four days had elapsed (and far less than that after the tag was placed the second time). I discussed things with the person who placed the tag here. Do you know what has gone wrong? Can you remember or can you tell was the category in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories prematurely or did you delete it while it was still in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion? I'm very puzzled either way. Thincat (talk) 08:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category was in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion and as it was clearly misnamed I did not see the need to wait any longer before it was deleted. Tim! (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand that. It could clearly be deleted immediately as WP:CSD#G4. I spend too much time at WP:DRV where I see too many invalid speedy deletions. That's why I'm a bit sensitive to this sort of thing. If it doesn't slow things too much in future it'd be good to have the eventual deletion criterion in the delete log. Anyway, no harm is done. Many thanks. Thincat (talk) 07:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the category you created Category:1850 establishments in Nova Scotia was just added to Category:1850 establishments in Canada. This seems to me a major misuse of Canada at the period, but the person who did this change is one of the main campaigners for applying present boundaries onto the past. I am not even sure what the right forum to discuss this issue is, but the editor has consistently tried to enforce their comprehensivist views on the use of modern place names. This is to me very frustrating. I am not sure what to do, but fear my first impulse will lead to an edit war. This person seems to just override any attempt I make to fix such things, insisting they are right, and running roughshod over opposing views.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think since these categories were clearly created under the view that they involved things not then in Canada, to place them in the Canada tree should require an actual discussion, but I doubt that will happen. More likely it would just become and edit war and then I would be banned.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think Category:1850 establishments in British North America should be used in addition to /instead of the Nova Scotia cat? 06:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

John, if you take a look at the pre-1867 categories of Category:Years in Canada, you will see that they contain articles about things that happened in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, PEI, Newfoundland, Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, and all other areas that are today part of Canada. This is how the "history by year" category system for pre-1867 Canada has been set up. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1820s in Colombia, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you're adding American Civil War battles to Category:Conflicts in 1862. Since Category:American Civil War is a subcategory and all those battles and skirmishes are contained in subcategories of that, there's no need to add them to the parent category. Huon (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at the Bennett Greenspan article and comment on its review? Many thanks.--RebekahThorn (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like CfDs are going longer and longer with no closure. This is very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Rentaghost.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for adding the "century" subcategories to Berlin articles. But on these pages you should rather change the existing category "History of Berlin" to e.g. "20th century in Berlin" and not add the pages to an additional subcategory. Because the subcategories like "20th century..." are already included in "History of Berlin" it is neither necessary nor desirable to apply both of them to an article. Regards, De728631 (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course correct, I was merely being cautious in case of future subdivision of the history category, for example Category:Cultural history of Berlin may be created in the future. Tim! (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted some of your category changes as the Philately of XXXXXX is not synonymous with Philately in XXXXXX. For instance the Royal Philatelic Society of London is by no means concerned solely with British stamps and neither is the Philatelic Congress of Great Britain. You could create a system of Philately in xxxxx but it might get a bit confusing! Thanks Philafrenzy (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK Tim! (talk) 08:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books about Jack the Ripper, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me with these two articles please? I have made a draft templates for the government in exile.Mr Hall of England (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You categorised some pretty specific articles in Category:Ownership, which is a rather broad category. I think that is a pretty good example of bad categorisation. – PeeJay 15:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Category:1999 in the British Empire and a transition to Category:2000 in British Overseas Territories; likewise Category:1990s in the British Empire and a transition to Category:2000s in British Overseas Territories Hugo999 (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rename is a good idea, since Prior to 1909 Siam included some areas that are now part of Malaysia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Simplifying_actor.2Factress_gendered_categories. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sabalom Glitz is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabalom Glitz until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, hope you're well. I was wondering if you could empty Category:Bienes de Interés Cultural as much as possible and sort out by province. Each province category should go in its relative autonomous community and by province category. See the current sub categories for how it's organized. There's over 500 needing sorting by province from the main. On a lot of them you'll probably have to look through the categories such as churches or buildings categories to find what province it is in.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kari Wahlgren has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]