Please note that you left about 400 double redirects sitting around in the DB from your page moves (all the "month year" redirects), and all of the interwiki links on the other languages for each year have to be fixed now too.
Also, the discussion was that we weren't going to rename templates, simply update them to use the "corrected" yearlink format. I'm not sure why you began doing that method of things too... -- sulfur (talk) 11:24, February 18, 2016 (UTC)
- I'm aware that this is a big move and it was done bit messily, but really only you could have done it cleaner, and I felt like making some changes, which is enough of rarity these days that I figured I should indulge before my revulsion to what wikia has made this place overpowered it. I'm sorry if the time constraints I'm working under left things in a "less than optimal state", but I didn't leave anything outright "broken".
- Eventbrowser hasn't been a good name for years, and since I figured out a better way to do the same thing while I was looking at it, I figured "why not now" considering everything else I was doing. I had actually planed to finish changing those at least, but RL things came up. - Archduk3 14:52, February 18, 2016 (UTC)
Category:Starfleet Academy personnelEdit
We have Jonathan Archer (alternate reality). So he had to be alive in the prime reality at least in 2222, Montgomery Scott's birth year. Why? Because theoretically (and very theoretically) the incident could have taken place before the Alternate reality split, but no earlier than Scott's birthdate. He simply can't have died in 2221, because then there was no way Scotty could ever have beamed his beagle away. Kennelly (talk) 16:32, March 14, 2016 (UTC)
- A) this would be better stated on the talk page of the article rather than somewhere it's going to be lost.
- B) Since the birth year of Scott is completely illogical and impossible for this to have happened, why not push it to the year of the split?
- The big issue I have here is that there's no firm backing up of this material in a logical way with an actual CITEABLE date. The only firm date we have in there is 2192. Could we footnote that to a BG note about the transwarp beaming thing? Sure. But I dislike the current presentation of a random date. -- sulfur (talk) 16:36, March 14, 2016 (UTC)
- The sidebar doesn't replace the article. Unless there's an in-universe bit of text and a citation on this, it's not a "hard" fact. - Archduk3 17:46, March 14, 2016 (UTC)
This is both a thank you for supporting and commenting on my prior category suggestions, and a request that you check out my newer ones. I wish there was a way to get more people to visit that page and the merge/move/split page more often. --LauraCC (talk) 18:55, March 14, 2016 (UTC)
- While input would be nice, remember that silence is consensus and the only difference between direct support and no opposition for categories is three days. - Archduk3 19:01, March 14, 2016 (UTC)
- This is the acceptiable kind of deletion work, because it falls under the speedy deletion guideline. :) - Archduk3 19:15, March 14, 2016 (UTC)
My issue with this being a general redirect... is that it now opens up "McCoy", "Kirk", "Picard", etc as redirects to the "main" people. With it as an RD to the alternate reality link... it doesn't. Either that, or we simply replace it with the disambig page and call it a day... -- sulfur (talk) 10:12, March 15, 2016 (UTC)
- The latter works for me. - Archduk3 13:29, March 15, 2016 (UTC)
Unnamed painters Edit
Do you by any chance know because of what policy or precedent we create articles for painters that were never mentioned but from which a painting was seen? I've been trying to dig that up while figuring out the correct vote for A.E. Housman, but without success. -- Capricorn (talk) 05:00, March 17, 2016 (UTC)
- This might fall under the MacArthur "rule". There's also the Resource policy FAQ which deals with identifying paintings by sight, but that doesn't deal with the painters. I think MA:COMMON is what's used to connect painters like Leonardo da Vinci to his paintings seen on screen but not directly stated or referenced as his work. I feel like there was something on this, bit I couldn't tell you where. - Archduk3 06:51, March 17, 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, too bad, but thanks for the reply anyway, I figured if anyone might know it it might be you. It's very hard to find the origins of these practices sometimes. Incidentally MacArthur was only kept by default, for lack of consensus either way. -- Capricorn (talk) 09:04, March 17, 2016 (UTC)