User talk:SmartyPants22

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Emergency user slap button

Emergency slap button

Editors: Use this button if the user is malfunctioning. (direct link)
Unregistered users can report a malfunctioning user to Wikipedia talk:Village stocks.

New page reviewer granted

[edit]

Hi SmartyPants22, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! signed, Rosguill talk 19:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Military airbases established in the 1970s

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Military airbases established in the 1970s indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 00:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Military installations established in 1986

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Military installations established in 1986 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 18:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Military installations closed in 1860

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Military installations closed in 1860 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 21:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Military airbases established in 1997

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Military airbases established in 1997 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:10, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now the 410th Air Expeditionary Wing, in the categories, was established in 1943!!

[edit]

It is laudable what you are doing with the establishment dates, but you must use the redirects(!!) What was established in 1943 was the 410th Bombardment Group. We have had a very active USAF user community who has established all those redirects properly, but you have to use them; otherwise you create unit-creation-dates that are *completely incorrect*. Please work through the correct creation dates, all generally listed in the Lineage, find the redirects, and add Category:Military units and formations established in 1943 to the 410th Bombardment Group redirect. Otherwise one has designations that were created in some cases 100+ years later, applied to First or Second World War formations. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have just fixed the other malformed one that showed up in my watchlist yesterday, the 332nd Fighter Group was established in the 1940s, not the 332nd Air Expeditionary Wing; and correctly created an example at 410th Bomb Wing, which was created in 1962.
Buckshot06 Thanks for your message. However, with respect I disagree. For example XYZ unit was still created in 1944, 1946, 1968, 2021 and the article is regarding the entire said unit over its history - regardless of what the title is. Because now (with your example) you have a unit catergorised as being established in 2002 when actually it is a lot older than that. I'm unsure if there is any consensus on this, however it may be best to now gain some. Many thanks – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 17:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But do you not see that the unit showing in the 1943 category was not the 410th Air Expeditionary Wing then? It was the 410th Bombardment Group. The whole Air Expeditionary Force concept was forty years in the future. We cannot keep the categories meaningfully functional if the same inaccurate-for-that-date title is spread over sometimes 7 or so entries. There is no intent to argue that a unit does not have a history stretching back to 1943 - but the different names are part of that history too. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, this idea is worthy of a trout slapping. You do realise the number of separate redirects for all USAAF/USAF groups and wings that would have to be deleted to make your proposal make sense? Hundreds. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Buckshot06 As I said, feel free to create a discussion somewhere to gain consensus. Or otherwise I'd be more than happy to be pointed in the direction of where this has already discussed. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 19:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Buckshot06: I don't know if you've gained any sort of consensus on this, but I noticed that you've been reverting some of the cats. It would be nice to see what other contributors think first. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 21:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look Smartypants22, truly, you've been extremely helpful with problem children like BlueD954, or slightly-less, like J-Man. But with the incredibly wide variety of military activities we deal with across Wikipedia it's sometimes hard to impose a rule that works for all situations.
What people think, first? What Bwmoll3, Ktr101, and Lineagegeek through first, over a decade ago (actually probably more like 15+ years ago), was that all USAF designations that have existed should be represented by redirects. So they set them all up. In conjunction with WP:RCAT and my enormous expansion of the "Military units and formations established in 19xx" categories, on and off since about 2007, that meant that common practice meant categorizing at the designations that the page titles were at. In support of that practice, also, I cannot count the times I have counselled people or amended pages to show only first and last establishment dates, to avoid clogging the categories. There's also a similar but not quite as extensive set of redirects on Soviet/Russian divisions - myself, Kges1901, and Wreck Smurfy did much of that. Now you want to change that. That means you, rather than me, bear most of the WP:BURDEN for introducing a new practice. It may work relatively well for things like battalions of the Royal Australian Regiment when a unit with an unchanged name gets disbanded or re-established. It will work with RAF anti-aircraft cooperation squadrons or regular RAF flying squadrons. But it won't work very well with units with a long-lasting existence, which have been disbanded and reformed, but changed name. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Buckshot06: Firstly, WP:BURDEN has no standing in this conversation as it relates to verifying claims within articles. Secondly, I'm not disputing the existence of the redirects they are necessary and those that have created them, including yourself, have done a sterling job at such a huge task- I don't want to change any of that as you falsely claim (or misunderstand). And finally the way you are approaching this is very much WP:OWN, especially when you're using phrases such as "counselling" contributors, and you've admitted to reverting contributors edits to just the first and last establishment/disestablishment dates based off on some arbitrary rules that you've created- you can slip in the fact that you've been involved in these cats since 2007, however that gives you no more right to decide what gets categorised and what doesn't over somebody who has been editing for a mere single day. I'm probably just going to leave it now because it's too much hassle and I've learnt over the past 10 years to not get involved in stupid tit-for-tat back-and-forth discussions like this on this website, however the way you have come across in this discussion has been very confrontational and possessive in nature, and I'll reiterate that no such guidelines, policy, or consensus exists to support what you are saying, again it's just something that you've created and seek to enforce. Food for thought. Peace – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 17:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming expiry of your patroller right

[edit]

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your permission "patroller" (New page reviewers) will expire on 00:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC). For most rights, you will need to renew at WP:PERM, unless you have been told otherwise when your right was approved. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol September 2025 Backlog drive

[edit]
September 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
  • On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2026 Australian television series debuts

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:2026 Australian television series debuts indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]