| Revision as of 14:28, 20 February 2015 editFinngall (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Rollbackers34,275 edits AfD notification← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:45, 21 February 2015 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,218 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Timrollpickering/Archive 19) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
| ==Rule on RM moratorium== | |||
| ]: I created another discussion a few hours after the previous one was closed, is this allowed? Please advise. ] (]) 23:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :There isn't currently a hard and fast rule but it depends on a mixture of the options on the table, the users involved and the level of discussion. Sometimes a discussion brings up an alternate title that's best considered in its own right and so a follow-on RM is useful and accepted as a way forward. But that's very different from immediately launching a new RM on exactly the same options as the earlier one, and starting it both times, because the previous didn't go the way you wanted. ] (]) 07:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :* Thanks for your reply. So if I start an RM to a different title it would be OK right? ] (]) 19:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :**Depends very much on the individual circumstances and what came up in the discussion. If there was overwhelming support for the current title then an alternative is unlikely to go anywhere. If there was heavy dissatisfaction with the current one but dislike for the alternative a more focused discussion may help. But in general wait a while and discuss it informally rather than launching new RMs immediately after the old have closed. ] (]) 23:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Irish linguists == | |||
| I just didn't (and still don't) understand the difference ] vs. ]. For this reason I unified them. - ] (]) 14:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :See ] and ] for the difference in area. Changing the use away from the configuration of the articles is always controversial and should be discussed first. ] (]) 18:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The policy is ]. As for the distiction, I consider it obvious that the intention of both categories creators' was to to collect scientists of Irish nationality, and that the later wasn't aware of the earlier. Else, why are both categories in ]? If you keep them separate, half of the linguists won't be found. - ] (]) 19:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The categories were set up under the current names at the same time. Ireland is a complex case and categories are generally set up with one for the state and another for the island to also catch Northern Ireland which is also in the UK categories. And please don't use disputed terms like "Irish nationality" in these discussions. ] (]) 20:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| You didn't have a look at the two linguist categories I'm speaking about, did you? - ] (]) 20:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes I did. They're confused, not helped by using templates to generate tables of links and automatic categorisation that doesn't take the particular national case into account. ] (]) 23:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I just posted the issue to ]. - ] (]) 19:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The Irish WikiProject would be the place to look to on a matter such as this. ] (]) 23:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I opened a discussion at ]. You may wish to contribute. - ] (]) 13:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | == Nomination of ] for deletion == | ||
Revision as of 00:45, 21 February 2015
 Archives |
|---|
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.
Nomination of Hartriono B. Sastrowardoyo for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hartriono B. Sastrowardoyo is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hartriono B. Sastrowardoyo 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.
Doctors galore
Hi T. Great to see your name again. Fanboy splitting hairs time over your post here - Hurndall was playing the same Dr that Hartnell had. Hurt played a different one from the others. Just one fans opinion of course and I certainly see where you are coming from. Apologies for intruding into your evening (my time anyway) with this but it does give me the chance to leave the following. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
|
Merry Christmas! |
| Merry Christmas to you and best wishes for your 2015 MarnetteD|Talk 00:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC) |
- Thanks for the virtual card. I see what you mean but that's an in-universe distinction and the box should be out-of-universe. Otherwise you might as well add the Doctor's additional faces from the Brain of Morbius! Timrollpickering (talk)
Winnie...
Hi Tim.
I started a new section in the Churchill talk-page regarding the name change, and would welcome your thoughts on it.
Merry Christmas to you. Or Happy Holidays, if you prefer!
Gnu.
Gnu Ordure (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:'Iolani School alumni
A tag has been placed on Category:'Iolani School alumni requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for four days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Bazj (talk) 11:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of Sussex Ambulance Service for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sussex Ambulance Service is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sussex Ambulance Service 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.
- Please note that the AfD was created a month ago but that the nominator didn't do it right, so it's only made its first appearance on a log page just now. Thanks. --Finngall 14:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)