Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:15, 6 July 2013

Please note I reserve the right to remove excessively colourful formatting from any messages left on this talk page, thank you!

Please add new messages at the bottom of the page please.

Last archive at User talk:Tim!/Archive 20.

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Orphaned non-free media (File:Plague Herds of Excelis.jpg)

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 Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Creation of Z vs S categories

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)

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

1939 establishments in Moldovo

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)

• 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)

Template:Year in US state category

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)

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

Years

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)

1960 establishments in Ruanda-Urundi

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)

French Sudan/French Soudan

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)

Thanks for the attention--look forward to your response.

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)

What is the use of even trying to improve categories

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

Establishments in French West Africa

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)

• 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)

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)

C1 speedy deletion

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)

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)

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)

1850 establishments in Nova Scotia

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)

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)

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 22:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:1820s in Colombia

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 08:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Conflicts in 1862

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)