User talk:91.124.117.29

Welcome!

Hello 91.124.117.29!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (91.124.117.29) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! - ^theWOLFchild 02:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Sorry

I'm sorry I reverted you on Portal:Current events/2018 March 7. You were right. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Good luck. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies.

Sorry for warning. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Good luck. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EPON

Well, now, have you read WP:EPON???

Articles with an eponymous category may be categorized in the broader categories that would be present if there were no eponymous category... Editors should decide by consensus which solution makes most sense for a category tree. (emphasis mine).

What you are doing is not, of course, wrong, but there was nothing wrong with how things stood before your edits either, and since your way is not how the vast majority of the remaining Russia-related content is categorized anyway, it is important to gauge a new consensus (or at least try to work out your differences) before making any changes (especially in bulk). You are very welcome to do so, but you should do that instead of revert-warring. If any newly established consensus favors your approach, then re-categorization should be done systematically and properly, not haphazardly.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 13, 2018; 19:56 (UTC)

Note, all geographic categories for other countries use the WP:EPON rule. What is the difference for Russia? 91.124.117.29 (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is the existing setup. WP:EPON specifically makes a note of editor consensus (a part, I must add, you conveniently omitted when quoting the guideline on my talk page), and while there may not have been a formal discussion of the issue specifically for Russia, the setup is what it is, indicating implicit consensus (no one lodged any complaints in years before you showed up—you think there might be a reason why?). Furthermore, introducing changes in bulk by editing random categories without rhyme or reason, with no indication of a systematic approach, is the recipe for disaster. You should try following process instead of revert-warring; you'll find the results infinitely more rewarding.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 13, 2018; 20:07 (UTC)

Don't add category like "Populated place established in X" for that cities' categories. Because the only main article (name_of_town) related to such category (subcats are unrelated). You were reverted many times not by me, see [1] 91.124.117.29 (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:EPON. There are three options:
- Keep both the eponymous category and the main article in the parent category. This is used in Category:Western Europe to allow that region's country articles to be navigated together. This rule is used for all geographic categories (town and cities) now.
- Keep just the child article. This is used in Category:British Islands, to prevent a loop. No any loops in discussed categories.
- Keep just the eponymous category. This is used for Category:Farmworkers in Category:People by occupation. Such "X by Y" categories sometimes cover a limited navigational set, not a topic (see #Category tree organization), thus there is no logical article content. There are no "X by Y" categories in the involved category tree.

So, the first option is used for cities categories. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm an idiot....

I confused 'includeonly' with 'onlyinclude', and I thought your changes to those template pages were going to break them. This is obviously not the case and I apologize - that was my fault for mixing that up. I see that you fixed what I removed - thank you. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns and I'll be happy to help. Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From Template:Navbox#Parameter descriptions:

In your intermediate template, create a parameter also named "state" as a pass-through like this:

| state = {{{state<includeonly>|your_desired_initial_state</includeonly>}}}

Ok now. Good luck. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation

Please stop adding non-existent categories to articles, as you have been doing with seemingly random ISRO satellite pages. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not random. Reason of revert? It's a needed categories. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) No, they are not needed. They sit just fine in the main ISRO satellite category. 2) The categories you are adding do not exist. Please revert yourself or otherwise fix your errors. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are needed. It's an absolutely correct categorization. It will be the subcategories of ISRO sat. category. Each satellite constellation has own category, compare to Category:Intelsat satellites, Category:Telstar satellites, Category:USA satellites, Category:TDRS satellites etc. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then, again, two questions: 1) Why are you not actually making the categories you are adding to articles? They do not magically appear on their own. 2) Why are you only putting *some* of the GSAT and INSAT articles into these categories? — Huntster (t @ c) 23:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) because IP users could not create the categories, its a very pity. 2) because I wait for some time for creation of categories (by somebody) and soon I will check and add all the rest (five items in category is minimal criteria as I know). 91.124.117.29 (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, *ask* for the categories to be made, or better yet, register your own account. Adding non-existent categories to articles is not acceptable under any circumstances. They will be removed, and if you keep fighting to keep them included, you risk being blocked for disruptive editing. I'll help you out this time, but I'm telling you, as an administrator, to be more careful in the future. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last time when I have asked for the needed categories to be made, it was approx. two monthes without any reply. So, the best choice for me is to add needed category to the articles as red-linked, then reaction is expected in the same day, as of now :-) Some bad users tried to remove the red-links, but some good users simply created it. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't matter if it take 2 weeks or 2 months or 2 years, you should not be adding non-existent categories to articles. That is disruptive. You may obviously request and wait, as wiki-policy has emerged that IP editors may not add categories; OR you may simply register an wiki user account, in which case you could simply create the Categories as User:Huntster has outlined. Those are your choices. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, try to say it to 1831 editors which created 1831 wanted categories. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Years in chess

Please leave the years in chess categories alone. This is the second time you have messed them up. There are a couple issues with your edits. The most serious problem is that you disconnected the century categories such as Category:20th century in chess from the main Category:years in chess category with this edit. Another issue is that you are putting articles such as 2001 in chess in the main Category:years in chess category when they are already organized by century in Category:21st century in chess which had been in the main category until you removed it.

You've done this twice. Stop immediately. If you make these bad edits a third time, I will ask for an administrator to step in. Quale (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Quale. Your logic and edits are wrong. All years should be in Category:Years in chess, all centuries should be in Category:Centuries in chess (but centuries are not subcategories of years!). Compare to: Category:Sports by year and Category:Sports by century. They are related via parent category Category:History of chess. Also Category:2001 in chess should be in Category:Years in chess and in Category:21st century in chess simultaneously, compare to Category:2001 in sports. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you were wrong. Simply and obviously you broke the navigation from Category:Years in chess to 1900 in chess along with every other year in chess article that wasn't in the 21st century. In fact you weren't satisfied with doing this once so you did it twice. I don't understand how you could make that mistake twice, and it doesn't give me confidence in your edits. Given a third bite at the apple you've finally fixed it now by dumping all the chess by year articles in Category:Years in chess. I'm not crazy about this since it makes the category rather large, but it is OK. If you would get this right the first time or even the second time instead of leaving it messed up you would be a better wikipedia citizen. Quale (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have started with a small number of edits and planned to add all categories in a few days (more than 200 edits were needed), but you have reverted it before I could do it consistently. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
- Actually I was wrong about you having fixed this in your third try. You've still left a bunch of pages out of Category:Years in chess including 1900 in chess through 1903 in chess, 1914 in chess through 1918 in chess. It was categorized consistently in a way you do not approve of, now you've changed the categorization three times but still left it incomplete according to the model you promote. You should check your work to make sure you've made your changes completely and correctly before turning your attention to messing up someone elses categories. Quale (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, yes, I missed a some years because they were not located in the centuries' categories. I will check it in a few minutes. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done for 190x and 191x years articles. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category speedy rename

Hi. Thank you for your proposal to nominate Category:Classification of Minerals for speedy renaming. It was motivated by the correct policy, but please don't forget to add the nomination to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. The bottom line of the nomination tag is:

Add entry * [[:Category:Classification of Minerals]] to [[:Category:Classification of minerals]] – Reason ~~~~

You need to click on "Add entry" and then copy and paste the rest of the line, substituting your reason for "Reason". I did it for you this time. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for help and explanation, I thought it will be done by special bot. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The actual renaming will be done by bot, but first a human has to evaluate your request. Glad I could help! RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have expected the bot action similar to [2] Maybe, the bots don't work on category pages (why?). 91.124.117.29 (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It mostly depends on whether someone took the trouble to write the code. Just like with article writing, a lot of the bot work is done by volunteers; but new bot features need to go through a testing and approval process. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About the payload separator

Hello IP91, about {{TLS-Separator for planned launches}}, it's better that we discuss here instead of reverting each other and talking via edit summaries.

Your version is centered and has a slightly darker color. My version is left-aligned and has a slightly lighter color. These are not very important questions, and we can ask other editors what they prefer.

My version appears in the table of contents, yours does not. Because of that, my version also shows an "Edit" button which does not allow to edit the text, but it edits the template instead. That is apparently why you prefer your version. However, in that case, the entre "Planned launches" does not appear in the menu TOC, and I think that's a useful feature for readers, who can jump directly to see the upcoming launches. In general, I am of the opinion that we should prioritize the experience of our readers, even if that's at the expense of the convenience of editors. Therefore I would request to return to a version that appears in the TOC. Would you agree to that? We can debate colors and centering separately. — JFG ^talk 17:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG. In your version, a link "Edit" leads to the template editing, not to article editing, so it's a big misnomer. When the editor clicks "edit" he wants to edit a page, not template. Also, TOC with one-level subtitles ("March", "April", "Planned launches", "May",...) is logically wrong also ("Planned launches" are not month). The correct TOC structure was created by Chessrat before our discussion, see this version (completed: Jan, Feb, Mar; planned: Apr, all others). So I think your current version of separator is not so good (compare to excellent new graphs). It was an unanimous support for the green/blue line with centered text on the talkpage, not for subsection. Of course, we could discuss the differences with other editors again (create a new thread please). 91.124.117.29 (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, we don't need to have another debate, I accept your version of the separator. I would just ask you to use the lighter shade of blue, because that is the standard color for {{planned}} and {{scheduled}} launches in every table. Thanks for the compliments about the graphs, they were really fun to compose. Take a look at my sandbox to see them all together. — JFG ^talk 18:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG, thank you for undestanding. Feel free to change the background colour, it's not a principal moment for me here, if the other editors agree with you. Nice look of sandbox page. Maybe you will create the article something like Comparison of orbital launches by year and rocket using this graphs? Like Comparison of web browsers, Comparison of feed aggregators, etc. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have updated the color, and fixed the CSS syntax. Also made the font a bit larger, if you don't mind. — JFG ^talk 18:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article for space launch market competition, but it's not very up to date. Perhaps you and I can work to improve it. I did the graph there, it was very complicated because we wanted to count only commercial launches, and we need to count satellites, with some rockets launching two or more… — JFG ^talk 18:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a pity, but that page is limited to commercial launches only. Maybe Timeline of spaceflight (with only graph as of now) is more appropriate article for statistical expansion. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be a good place. Hard to pick enough colors for all rocket families over 60 years, but we could try! — JFG ^talk 18:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Funny problem :-) 91.124.117.29 (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG, we can take [3] as source and visualisation here: [4] 91.124.117.29 (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine

Hello. Ukraine refers to the independent country created in 1990, so anything that was created/established within the territory of that country between 1918 and the creation of the independent country of Ukraine was created/established in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (or Ukrainian SSR), not in Ukraine (if you had changed categories to "created in the Ukrainian SSR" I wouldn't have objected...). Making your changes anachronistic, and purely disruptive. So stop. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for the category you changed to being a subcategory of the Soviet Union I suggest you rename/move it, since the name is obviously wrong. And if I seem a bit irritated it is because of having to regularly revert anachronistic changes by umpteen IPs in the Ukraine, including edits such as claiming that Vladimir the Great was "King of Ukraine"... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, the categories are named Category:1930 establishments in Ukraine (1931, 1932, etc) which is the subcategories of the Category:1930 establishments in the Soviet Union (1931, 1932). They were created not by me. If you want to propose a [possibly reasonable] renaming to Category:1930 establishments in the Ukrainian SSR (and all from 1922 till 1991), than my talk page (and nonsense warnings) is not an appropriate place, use WP:CfD (and don't forget other subcategories for Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Moldova etc, etc). 91.124.117.29 (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There existing categories like the ones you added articles to (the one I checked was created by a registered user in 2015, so I know it wasn't created by you), categories that are blatantly wrong, is no excuse for making anachronistic, and seemingly POV, additions to those categories (the instructions even say do not add pages to non-neutral, i.e. POV, categories...), since anyone can create new categories without prior discussion/screening... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a your personal opinion (about "blatantly wrong"). Note, per article about name of Ukraine, the oldest mention of the word Ukraine dates back to the year 1187. As for me, Russia is a short term for the official names Russian Federation (now) or Russian SFSR (decades ago), that's why we have the unified and short Category:1930 establishments in Russia and Category:2018 establishments in Russia, but not long Category:1930 establishments in Russian SFSR or Category:2018 establishments in Russian Federation. The same logic is for Ukraine as a short term for Ukrainian SSR. Note I just added some articles to existing subcategories. And again, the category naming is not a question for me. Use the appropriate places to rename or change the category structure. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC) P.S. Almost all subcategories have a short name, try to see: Category:1938 establishments in Armenia, Category:1938 establishments in Azerbaijan, Category:1938 establishments in Belarus, Category:1938 establishments in Georgia (country), Category:1938 establishments in Russia. They don't use the long-named "Armenian SSR" or "Belorussian SSR" in the categories names. So use WP:CfD if you want to change all their namings. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Anon is not to blame here, simply poor category maintenance and agreement on which method is best. For example, at Category:1960 establishments in the Soviet Union there are three oddball categories that do use the CCP extension, but these seem to be the exception rather than the rule. See also Category:Establishments in the Soviet Union by year where it appears two other categorisation schemes are competing. The whole thing needs to be greatly simplified, streamlined, flattened out. But don't blame Anon. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Underwater sports

Hi 91.124.117.29, I refer to your edits re the above subject and thank you for what you have done so far. I however disagree with your point of view. Underwater diving is not a subset of diving. underwater sport is a subset of underwater diving because the former involves the use of underwater diving techniques. I have also noticed the 'category loop' issue and that it is more extensive than what you have pointed out. Category Underwater diving should be the highest category but it is currently shown as a sub-category of things such as 'Underwater occupations'. I will discuss the greater issue with other members of WikiProject Underwater diving and fixing it before reverting your edit. I also disagree with your POV re underwater rugby - please read the article which states "has little in common with rugby football except for the name." Also, one of the referenced sources states that the name 'Underwater Volleyball' was also considered in the 1960s as the name for the game. In this case, you are sorting articles by name rather than by subject matter. If you wish to reply to the above, please reply here because I am now watching your page. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you for detailed explanation and logical argumentation. I have tried to fix the category loop problem only, Category:Underwater sports and Category:Underwater diving were the subcategories of each others (after your edit [5]). Discuss please, what category should be the highest in the category tree. If you sure, feel free to revert my addition of Category:Underwater rugby to Category:Rugby football (but it seems logical for me). Good luck. 91.124.117.29 (talk)