User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 11

smell

Is your sense of smell particularly good, Good Olfactory? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I admit, I do smell good. Whether that means my sense of smell is good or I actually smell good, you'll have to decide. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to join the Drama-out starting July 5th? Someone left an invitation (big template) on my user talk page. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a hard time planning one day in advance, let alone 5. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Job Well Done!

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your diligent and outstanding contribution in editing the Mormonism_and_evolution article. I congratulate you on your hard and endless work. Thank you for the great article, and for improving Wikipedia. CABEGOD 23:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sport deaths in PRC

Hello, Good Olfactory. You have new messages at Eagle4000's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Eagle4000 (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Listing countries

From this discussion in which you've taken part, you may also want to join here. 61.18.170.109 (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits

Yes, you are right! I will add categories by hand! :) and agreement is here

All templates are neutral, with no flag, Talk:Kosovo-stub and Talk:Politics_of_Kosovo

No flag of Kosovo should be used per this. Sorry, i was editing in a hurry today, so had mistake. All best. --Tadija^speaks 23:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that answers my q's. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

But there are no borders between Serbia and Kosovo, per Serbian government. That category is very POV. And you were only creator. I would ask for delete. That category is not helpful. What do you say? --Tadija^speaks 23:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You can use WP:CFD to nominate a category for deletion, not manual emptying. That way the community gets a chance to decide by consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I know you! You had that marvelous large signature! Do you? :) --Tadija^speaks 23:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. I've always had the same signature—it's not too fancy. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ooo, too bad. I was searching for that, but never again seen it... Thanks, man, please, be careful, i suppose that you are aware of WP:ARBMAC, and further decisions about it. Kosovo subjects are very disputed, and it should be edited with care. For majority of the world, there are no Kosovo-Serbia border. --Tadija^speaks 23:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware. Whether or not its an official "international" border is disputed, but no one disputes that there is a defined border. The question is just who recognises it and who does not. Most of Europe does; most of the rest of the world doesn't. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Walloon culture and not Culture

Category:Walloon culture instead of Category:Walloon Culture: you are right. I thought the name in the titles in English must have capital letters... José Fontaine (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Future elections in Australia

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Future elections in Australia. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. (Note: I am not the initiator of the DRV, I'm simply doing the notification part.) — ξ^xplicit 18:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read today.

But because people around here like to toss around TLA's, like IAR and NPA, I'll email you the link. --Kbdank71 03:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Only "quite possibly"? Your standards are slipping. Or you're reading too much crap lately. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure if I were editing more regularly this would be further down the list. Yesterday was pretty tame, overall, so that one topped it. --Kbdank71 13:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Isle of Man

Re the cat for proposed countries, please see the talk page, where your comments are welcome. Mjroots (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Cfd of Category:Proposed countries

Hey, You recently created categories Category:Proposed countries in North America and the related categories and I thought you would be interested in the cfd someone else has created on the supercategory Category:Proposed countries (see here:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 9#Category:Proposed countries. Munci (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The previous Christianity of Converts to Mormonism is not relevant in the placement of the category

The previous Christianity of converts to Mormonism is not relevant in the placement of the category. If you look at all the other sub-categories in "Converts to Christianity" that involve sub-branches of Christianity you will find that a large portion of the people there were previously Christian, and you will find places where categories like "Converts to Roman Catholicism from Anglicanism" are part of the sub-categories of "Converts to Roman Catholicism from Protestantism" which is a sub-category of "Converts to Roman Catholicism" which is a sub-Category of "Converts to Catholicism" which is a sub-category of "Converts to Christianity". If there clearly all previously Christian categories can be put under "Converts to Christianity" there is no reason why "Converts to Mormonism" with Sagwitch, Chief Tuba, Vicki F. Matsumori, Jason Chaffetz and other not previously Christian converts should be excluded.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well, it's wrong. Sometimes the majority is. 99% of people in Category:Converts to Mormonism converted from another form of Christianity, so it really makes little sense to make it a subcategory of Category:Converts to Christianity. (The ones you mention are the very few exceptions to the overwhelming majority of cases.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Descent categories

Hi. Just a query, I'm not sure that categories such as Category:Sierra Leonean people of Guinean descent is such a good idea. The West African states are relatively modern constructs and ethnic boundaries doesn't follow national state borders at all. Many families are spread across nation state borders and, whilst citizenship/modern nationality is an important identity marker not to be underestimated, 'descent' is not. --Soman (talk) 04:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any of them are a good idea. So there you go. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Temple Lot Suit

I accept the changes you made, no problem that you excised the "foreshadowing the American Civil War" stuff, I basically put that in there for your review, only...the material might be added elsewhere in the Latter-day Saint Movement Project, or modified and included in the article at your discretion or the discretion of other admins who either know the "big picture" or are curious to learn it. In the near future I may add more dates and details (such as the exact date the lawsuit was filed, the exact date the trial/hearing began in February 1894, but other than that the article is quite nice really...thank you for creating it.Southern Climes (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

OK; sorry my edits were made rather awkwardly; I could have gone about it better. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (3rd nomination)#Mass killings under Communist regimes exists

neutral notification Collect (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

close these CfDs?

We have a couple leftover CfDs from June, none of which I can close. Feel like closing this one or that one or this other one?--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I did one of them. May consider doing either or the others later on. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:States and territories established in the 0s BC

Re this pair of edits; it was puzzling me for ages last night why the wikicode "[[Category:States and territories established in the 1st century BC|]]" was showing up in the visible text and not being converted to a category link. Last night, I was going through my new template {{StateestdecadeBC}} (which worked fine on all decades from 10s BC backwards) to see what I'd done wrong in converting from {{Stateestdecade}}, but spent too long at it; and when I eventually noticed that Category:States and territories established in the 0s exhibits exactly the same problem, I went to bed, intending to look at both of them today. Unfortunately, late nights cause {{User:Moonriddengirl/Userboxes/Migraine}}, so nothing done this morning. Am OK now.

Anyway, my new template {{StateestdecadeBC}}. I've used this to create all the redlinked categories for decades back to 600 BC (but only where there was at least one page in the decade concerned). I shall continue back in time either today or tomorrow. Next to do: the redlinked Category:States and territories established in the 620s BC within Category:States and territories established in 625 BC. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It is looking great—the 0s one was a bit of a mystery to me too—sorry for fiddling with it without much success. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've now gone back to 2333 BC; but I've stopped there because I've come across an anomaly. See Category:States and territories established in the 3rd millennium BC where 24th century is listed twice. The one without the hyphen was created by me; the one with the hyphen was already there. Which is correct, and what is the suggested action? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe without the hyphen is correct. They are only hyphenated when the year is acting as a compound adjective, as with "24th-century BC texts", for example. If it's just being used as a noun, as here, there is no hyphen. So you are correct. I suggest we just nominate the one with the hyphen for a speedy merge to the one you created. I can do that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, surprise, surprise—look who created the category! I didn't realise it was me ... I'll just delete that one since I was the creator and sole editor. Obviously I made a mistake with that one—thanks! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For catching my error in creating Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Georgia. Forgot about the "(U.S. state)" part. — MrDolomite • Talk 04:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Israelis or Israeli people of Fooian descent

Good Olfactory. I note your comments on my Talk Page and had already assumed that the issue would be required to move to a full CFD, although I had hoped to avoid expending additional time (of which I have precious little) and effort on this matter, but had already advised that, if need be, I would take the issue to CFD. I had also wished to avoid having two sets of changes, one following the other. (It still seems illigical that one change (from "Israelis" to "Israeli people") can be justified under the C2C criteria, whether another (from "descent" to "original") cannot, although, the change in both cases is based upon the name of the parent category and that the latter proposed changed is also justified for other reasons.) However, I am dumbfounded to discover that, despite my objections to the Speedy change (of "Israelis" to "Israeli people"), such change has nevertheless been implemented. You, youself, have in the past pointed out (to me and to others) that, notwithstanding how justified a proposed Speedy change is, once it encounters opposition it has to proceed to CFD or be withdrawn, unless the objection is withdrawn. The implementation of the change, without the matter even being placed "below the line", appears to be a complete abuse of the Speedy procedure. Whilst I appreciate that you did not actually implement the change (it having been made by the, so to speak, Cydebot "robot"), I feel sure that you are aware of what steps should be taken to rectify this abuse. Davshul (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about what the speedy section is for, and what it is not for, and what kind of opposition should prevent a change from happening:

1. The two changes you have been comparing are not comparable. All the other categories use "Fooian people"; none of the others use "origin". The former qualifies for C2C, the latter does not.

2. Your opposition was not based on an argument that the criteria did not apply. It was an argument that you wanted to add another change. Such a change can't piggy back on the other change, and you can't hold up a legitimate change by opposing it on spurious grounds. Your opposition said absolutely nothing about the "Israelis" to "Israeli people" issue, which is what the nomination's point was, so I assumed you were misunderstanding how the section worked with opposition, etc.

3. I did what I did mainly for convenience and to add clarity to your fresh nomination—so you can start with a fresh slate and it will be clear what you are proposing. You can now nominate the categories to make the suggestion you were advancing.

4. This doesn't have to be a "big deal". One way or the other, it was apparently going to go to CFD, so all you need to do is start your nomination and you can propose that the categories be phrased however you choose.

5. I am going to bed now and won't be around for awhile, so sorry if I'm not able to respond to any follow ups you have immediately. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Good Olfactory. First, may I first state that I totally reject, and consider insulting, the claim that I was holding up a change "on spurious grounds". I stated clearly my reasons for favoring the additional change, which are certainly not "spurious" and that I intended to proceed to full CFD if it could not be dealt with by the Speedy process. I maintain that it is not in the best interest of Wikipedia or its users, that a change of the nature proposed, affecting possibly hundreds of articles, is followed a short time afterwards by another change of the same category. I had even understood that you were in agreement with me on this point when you stated a couple of days ago on my Talk page that, you would proceed with the change unless I "intend on starting a CFD right away". I had, clearly incorrectly, assumed that "right away" meant even before I had an opportunity of deal with the matter or responding to the discussions taking place on the Speedy discussion page. I had no, or very limited, Wikipedia access since my initial response to your query, advising you that I would proceed to full CFD, if necessary, but had assumed that this was sufficient notice to you not to take any unilateral action. Davshul (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see that stoicism is alive and well. It's not spurious in and of itself, but it was spurious with respect to the specific nomination, since it had absolutely nothing to do with the proposed change. It was perhaps a good suggestion, just not one that could be dealt with by speedy renaming. You didn't even respond directly to my notice on your talk page, so there didn't seem to be much concern about the situation. Anyway, there's little use fighting about it or having an extended back and forth. Obviously I misunderstood what you understood, or perhaps I understood but you just disagree. Just nominate the categories and let's move on, then. The articles can handle another change in a week, if it comes to that. They're tough. The world will not end. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry

I should have realized there was already a category dedicated to Kosovo's international relations. I'm glad you caught my mistake and corrected it.--*Kat* (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That's OK; a small job to fix. I changed the names on the articles too to standardize—hope that was OK. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that. Sorry to make so much work for you, but for what its worth, I am paying attention and will try not to repeat my mistakes.--*Kat* (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. Everyone has to learn stuff sometime, so I'm not upset. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I won't be doing much more with Eastern Europe tonight anyway. I need to (try) to clear the air with another editor who reverted my changes to the International recognition of Kosovo on the grounds of vandalism. (Yeah, I know, I forgot to put in a descriptive edit summary but saying my changes constituted vandalism? C'mon....)--*Kat* (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a touchy topic and can be frustrating. Some are a little over-reactive at times. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Relevance

This discussion might be it to you. — ξ^xplicit 02:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, my boo boo. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Due to all the editing you help with,it become possible to move List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement to Featured List Status. Without your help this wouldn’t have happen. The edit made between Ecjmartin, Surv1v4l1st, yourself, and myself account for 70.5% of edit made on that page.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 13:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this went through. It's been a long work in progress. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Achim-Helge von Beust

Hallo Good Olfactory,

please restore this article at User:Eingangskontrolle/Achim-Helge von Beust. I understand that it was deleted for reason of missing references, but I cannot find any reference to him in the discussion about the deletion. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

And please send me a note at my german userpage. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Kang Kek Iew

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Museums of the Dominican Republic

Thanks for cleaning up the category. I completely missed it.--El Mayimbe (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Apure

Hi there. I just wanted to highlight that although you have just moved Apure (state in Venezuela) to Apure (Venezuelan state), there is in fact a move discussion still taking place on the talkpage as well as move discussions on several other Venezuelan state articles. The general consensus seems to be towards moving most of them to just the state names e.g. Apure. Green Giant (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Resp on your page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact the page might best go to Apure State, that's the official name and it is straightforward, no disambiguation problem. Schwyz (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you can have a look at Talk:Falcón_(state)#Requested_move Schwyz (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Assassinated Surinam politicians

Right on. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hey Olfactory, I've never dealt with something like this before--for now, I just wait, right, before I start correcting the spelling on the pages where I placed it? Can you drop me a line if I can start cleaning up and placing the category on other pages? Sorry again for that misspelling. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, after 48 hours it just happens when an administrator asks a bot to make the move. You don't have to do anything further, just be patient and it will happen. Really, because you are the creator and think it's a good idea, we can proceed at any time, so I'll go ahead and activate the bot right away. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
    • And done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Former members of Volksunie -> Category:Members of Volksunie

Why did you re-categorise all politicians? Volksunie doesn't exist anymore, those politicians are now member of other parties. (btw, I commented on the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 29#Belgian politicians by party) Regards, SPQRobin (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The consensus has been in a number of past discussions not to categorize politicians based on former membership in a political party. For categories, we take the position that they just group everyone that was in the party ever, and then the article clarifies former status, withdrawal or expulsion from the party, etc. So I thought it would be best if they were just combined. If you'd rather I formally nominate these for merging based on these past discussions, I can do that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with that consensus (since it can be misleading when looking at such categories), but if it's a consensus then I should follow it. Maybe we should add a notice on "Category:Former members of Volksunie" (and similar categories) that all articles should go to "Category:Members of Volksunie" or "Category:Volksunie politicians" or whatever (and similar categories). Ideally there should be more communication about what the consensuses (that apply to certain categories in general) are... SPQRobin (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting; I thought the issue had become non-contentious in the past year or so. In the future I will just nominate these as regular. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Renaming to "one-room schoolhouses"

I agree with you that the category "one room schoolhouses" should be renamed to "one-room schoolhouses" with a hyphen. As the one who created this category I would like to make you aware that in hundreds of articles on Wikipedia many are with the hyphen and many without it. We would probably need to correct them all. Thanks for your input, but I just wonder if category name changes need to be submitted, or it can be done just like that by an administrator? Mountain top habitat (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it was done since your comment. When a category is nominated for speedy deletion, it will happen sometime after 48 hours from the nomination unless someone objects, so no—you don't have to do anything once it's nominated if you agree with the change. Thx, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Quack

User:NaomaEsther. (Recall User:EstherLois.) Occuli (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Cannon, Clawson, Kimball, Benson Ordination

You mentioned that the question of ordination was discussed in the past and that the current arrangement is a compromise. Is this discussion archived? If so where can it be found? Thank you. Matthew R. Lee (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to find it. I remember it involved the user User:Jgstokes, but can't quite remember where it took place. I'll try to find it soon. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time tracking this all down. There is a discussion here that kind of shows a debate about a very similar issue, though this one dealt with the "succession boxes" and not the templates that I added. The discussion I'm thinking of specifically dealt with my comments below.

When I first added the templates and the "reasons for ordination" info, I remember there was a dispute on one of them because I had done it how you also proposed, but there was a dispute in the following situation, I think involving the deaths of David B. Haight and Neal A. Maxwell. Two apostles die, an older and more senior one (Haight) and a younger and more junior one (Maxwell). The younger one died first (Maxwell). Then two new apostles are ordained (Dieter F. Uchtdorf and David A. Bednar). Who does the first apostle ordained replace?—the older apostle who died or the one who died first? I said one thing, and Jgstokes said the other, and we couldn't agree, and so someone mediated this compromise. To tell you the truth, I can't even remember which position I advanced, I guess because I can see both sides of the argument now. I think it's a reasonable compromise since—as we discovered in our discussion—there is no definitive answer that is given by sources. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. While it is my opinion that Spencer W. Kimball replaced Sylvester Q. Cannon and Ezra Taft Benson replaced Rudger Clawson I do not yet have evidence to support this claim.

Spencer W. Kimball was extended the called 18 days before Ezra Taft Benson. He is senior to Benson in both his calling and ordination. Here are two sources on the timing of the calls:

Sylvester Q. Cannon died May 29, 1943 and Kimball was extended the called to “fill one of the vacancies in the Quorum” of the Twelve by President J. Ruben Clark Jr. on July 8, 1943 (Kimball, Edward L., Kimball, Andrew E. Spencer W. Kimball. Bookcraft, Inc. 1977, p.188-189).

Rudger Clawson died June 21, 1943 and Benson was extended the called to be a member of the Council of the Twelve by President Heber J. Grant on July 26, 1943 (Dew, Sheri. Ezra Taft Benson: A Biography. Deseret Book Company. 1987, p. 174).

Both were ordained by President Heber J. Grant in the Salt Lake Temple on October 7, 1943.

Just as there is no evidence to support my opinion, there is no evidence to support the claim that age was the factor in who was called first. In this latter issue I removed the text:

“a decision that was made because Kimball was older than Benson”

from the article and updated the discussion page.

(Matthew R. Lee) 02:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes; I suppose it's slightly less clear in the more recent example, since Uchtdorf and Bednar were called on the same day. If they are ordained on the same day, my understanding is that age is used as the "tie-break" in deciding who is ordained first, since I believe it was Joseph Smith who wrote in the Millennial Star that seniority in the Quorum of the 12 is based firstly, on tenure of service and secondly, on age. The first group of 12 apostles were arranged by Smith in order of age, not in order of ordination date. The only source I can find that mentions the "tie-break" rule is here, pp 62–63. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

?

Hi. I want to ask a question. I continued to write articles. But he or she removed essential part of articles. Now can I revert and continue to write articles ? Or do I have to wait for any solutions ? Thyank you. Takabeg (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If some user is objecting to your edits or your use of sources, it's usually best to try to discuss the issue either on the article's talk page or the user's talk page. If you just continue to write it can lead to problems between you and the other editor. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Deaths from cardiac arrest

Category:Deaths from cardiac arrest currently redirects to Category:Deaths from heart failure. I find this inappropriate. In fact, the inability to classify deaths that are referenced as caused by cardia arrest as such, is quite unfortunate. Do you have some views on this matter? __meco (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a medical doctor or at all trained medically, but as far as I know medically speaking they are not exactly the same thing. I suppose some one could go through Category:Deaths from heart failure and separate out the cardiac arrest victims. It may be a big job. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that splitting would be worth it. While the two are not the same, a heart attack can lead to heart failure. If the heart failure is the cause of death didn't the heart attack really kill the person? Also you would need to split out cardiac arrest which is not the same as a heart attack. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

True. After reading some of the two articles, it seems like hair splitting. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a registered nurse, and in my view there needs to be three separate categories. First the two "accurate" ones, Category:Deaths from heart failure and Category:Deaths from myocardial infarction. both of these could be conflated with heart failure in the perception of the layperson. To a trained medical professional however, heart failure often signifies congestive heart failure which is caused by retention of fluids in the body. The person will then often die of pulmonary edema, i.e. fluids will perfuse the lungs literally causing the patient to drown. Therefore we need also Category:Deaths from heart failure because in many cases that is the cause of death we know and without further information we cannot tell whether this signifies myocardial infarction (ischemic heart disease) or congestive heart failure (congestive heart diease). Obviously there should be a blurb in the category notifying about the ambiguity of this diagnosis. __meco (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Not sure. It all seems a bit much for the category system. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can expect the average editor to pick the correct one out of two or three terms which to Joe Public mean basically the same thing. My own father died of one of these, but I'm darned if I know which. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. If the distinction is important, it can be mentioned in an article with references, but as a form of categorization, it's bound to fail. It probably already is a bit of a mess. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Alberta municipal district

Because of your work with Alberta municipality articles, please join the conversation at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 2#Alberta municipal districts 117Avenue (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi there, where was the discussion to change the Zimbabwean people by political party to politicians by political party? To empty them? Thanks--TM 10:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

They are all politicians, so I put them in the standard "FOOian politicians by party" subcategories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you emptied the categories without any discussion. You also emptied Category:ZANU-PF leaders.--TM 11:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and I just told you why. The leaders one was emptied because the party has only had one leader, not the several that were included there. If it was intended to categorize politburo members or something, it was worded incorrectly. Plus the names were inappropriately abbreviated when the main article is not. That makes at least 3 things that were wonky. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that what WP:CFD is for?--TM 11:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I use CFD at least as much as the next user. Occasionally when I see something that looks like it was slapped together a little shabbily, I will take the initiative and fix it up. This is yet more proof of my theory that no matter how obvious and in line with pre-existing material some changes may be, someone will complain when it is changed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

My bigger problem is the change of people to politicians. That is a level of subcategories that just seems unnecessary. However, there should have at least been a discussion instead of boldly emptying the category in favor of one you created.--TM 11:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority across nationalities categorize politicians by party, not mere people. This has also been the general consensus in past CFD discussions. See Category:Politicians by party. Typically, there is little reason to categorize non-politicians by what political party they happen to belong to. This may not hold for some situations in Africa, of course, but as I said, all were politicians in this case. We could very well place the politicians category as a subcategory of the people category in this case, but that would seem to add only an extra level of categorization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

LDSGAinfo template

You created the Template:LDSGAinfo, so I have a question for you.

I have been unable to add the image of Leonard W. Hardy and the image of John Hamilton Morgan to there page which used the LDSGAinfo template. I'm missing some syntax somewhere. Can you help?--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Did this get sorted out? The photos are showing up in the template when I load the articles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Category request: Category: Cloud Engineering

I saw that you removed the "Cloud Engineering" category and classified it to "Clouds" group on the "Cloud Engineering" article. This is wrong. Cloud Engineering is related to an information technology computing technology, which has nothing to do with the physical clouds in the sky. We need the "Cloud Engineering" category, which is a subdiscipline under "Engineering" - I had that listed in the original article. I submitted a request for the category of "Cloud Engineering" a few days ago. What is the outcome of that request? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyshan (talk • contribs) 16:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that, I'm not sure what I was thinking when I did it. It looks like someone created Category:Cloud Engineering, so all you need to do is populate it with articles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hunch

Following a hunch (familiar phrasing) I found this diff. FYI. Occuli (talk) 11:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh. I had no idea. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't come across anything deserving censure but it's worth bearing in mind. (I know exactly with whom I am arguing in this cfd.) Occuli (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, me too once you point it out. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hi Good Olfactory, I am very new to Wikipedia. Thank you for accepting my proposed catagory ADHD Coaches. I am having a problem with an article written by a friend of mine which she has given up on (feeling beaten up on) and I have re-edited and added some citations to. It is about one of the leading ADHD Coaches in the world. Someone tagged it for speedy deletion and then an administrator said to keep it so the same person retagged it for proposed deletion. I feel like I am being bullied in the discussion. I don't want to give up on this because the guy it is about (Ken Zaretzky, MCC) is truly a giant in the ADHD Coaching field. He co-founded the one of our two industry organizations and is on the founding board of another. He has been in the quoted in the Chicago Tribune and fairly estensively in ADDitude Magazine. He has been on several radio Shows, spoken at many conferences and was a segment in a Television show which has appeared many times on many PBS stations in the US and elsewhere. He is also the author of a book on coaching practice development. All this is cited in the article. I feel like I'm really being bullied around because I don't really understand the process' in Wikipedia. Would you please look at the discussion page and see if I'm out of my mind and help me if i'm right (and feel free to side against me if I'm wrong)?

The discussion page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ken_Zaretzky I really would appreceate your assisistance and input. Additionally if I am wrong here please feel free to side agains me. Also please feel free to look at my talk page because I thinksomething is kind of strange there to. Thank you in advance. Yesimhuman (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a fight I don't want to be involved in. I'm not too experienced with the "articles for deletion" side of Wikipedia. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Imaginary line category

Hi, I started a category for Imaginary lines last night, and I added three appropriate articles to it. Some time later, using the HotCat script, you removed them all, leaving the category empty. You're an admin, and I'm sure you had a good reason (Unless it was a mistake, that is). Was it that you don't think the earth's Equator or the Jireček line belong in the category? Or is it that you don't think there should be a category for Imaginary lines on Wikipedia at all? Thanks, Knyght27 (talk) 06:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It just looked like a mistake to me. Isn't every single line of latitude and every single line of longitude on the globe an "imaginary line"? The same would apply to many international borders and most intranational borders. There are, in fact, very few "non-imaginary" lines in the world—most of them are imaginary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I do see your point. I made the category because I thought that it would be helpful: I was looking for the Jireček line article and because I couldn't remember the name (surprise, surprise) I thought that what I needed was a category for imaginary lines. There wasn't one, so I figured that I'd be bold and create it myself. I think I might restore the category, but if someone wipes it again, I won't kick up a fuss. Knyght27 (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Eponymous_categories

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_12#Category:Eponymous_categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

question...

You started Category:Canadian Islamists, Category:Canadian al-Qaeda members. Has there been any discussion as to who should and shouldn't be placed in these categories?

I looked as another contributor removed Category:Canadian extrajudicial prisoners of the United States and removed Category:Canadian Islamists from the article on Omar Khadr. I don't know if Category:Canadian Islamists belonged. But I am sure it should not have been removed without any explanation.

Please see Talk:Omar_Khadr#unexplained_explained_edits. Geo Swan (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sir...

The moment I saw the discrepancy of this I thought of you:

IMHO - American cultural imperialism at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cinemas_and_movie_theaters_by_country (imposing spellings not used elsewhere)

Annoyingly inconsistent spelling in the sub-categories at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cinemas_and_movie_theaters

and what should seem to be the mother http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Theatres

and insufficient differentiate of usage or separation in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie_theater -- what would you do with this marvellous grab bag of insufficiently explained variants without adequate see alsos? SatuSuro 02:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken this has been the topic of some pretty hot debate in the past. A little searching may reveal some discussions on point. I've typically tried to avoid this topic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Heheh - I can understand - thanks for your response anyways - cheers SatuSuro 10:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Court Justices of Liberia

And why do you think they are not politicians? They meet the definition, and they are not otherwise in that category. I could understand if through the cat tree they were in there, but they are not. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not all were politicians. Note in the article you linked to the following statement: "Members of the judicial branch, law enforcement, and the military are not usually regarded as politicians since they are generally executing or adjudicating established law and custom." Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No, by being a justice they are politicians. Again, for the third time, really read politician. Otherwise you are going with some really selective reading. Personally, the first sentence definition "A politician or political leader (from Greek "polis") is an individual who is involved in influencing public decision making." does it for me. Hmmmm, justices make the case law, ohhh, which interprets and determines what the law is. I think that might qualify as "influencing public decision making". Or to use your quote, you defeat yourself by the "adjudicating established law and custom." As appellate court justices, that is not the case - no pun intended. At the trial level they are only executing established law, but not at the appellate level. Plus, under What is a politician, it states: "Some law enforcement officers, such as sheriffs, and many judges who are elected or appointed because of their political views or popularity." Note, it says many. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You can keep thinking that if you want. I don't really care. It's not the normal or mainstream view, however. When you try to maintain your position using a crappily cited article, that's what you get. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Umm, you tried citing that article too, so I guess you have the same problem. And as to normal or mainstream, maybe not where you are from, but when most appellate court judges in the US face election (that's because the majority are at the state level) it's hard not to think of them as politicians. Hell, even the state trial court judges in many states are elected. But for arguments sake, what's your definition of a politician? Aboutmovies (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No kidding—I did because you referred me to it, remember? In case you can't tell, I'm not interested in debating a hobby horse today. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did refer you to it, but you decided to quote it to support your theory before you disparaged it. Makes me wonder if it you would consider it the greatest article ever had it supported your position. And if you didn't like it, you could have provided some sort of support for your position, which you didn't. So I guess I'll just take your word for it. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Do I have to say it? I do hate to be rude, but "please go away" ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Moves

Hello again. Please comment on the requested moves of Lacombe and Sherwood Park. 117Avenue (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Serbian Democratic Party

Hi, now that Serbian Democratic Party is a disambiguation page, could you help fix the links that now point to the disambig per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Thanks, --JaGa^talk 20:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I was gonna get to that. I was just waiting for some template links to reset and thereby settle out. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why more pages seem to be getting linked to the DAB page. I had all of the links resolved, and now there are a bunch linking there again. I'm not doing this if my edits are going to be reverted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Self-relexive?

• Category:Self-reflexive media

I found this due to Category:Self-reflexive comics, but it would seem to me that this should be a single list, which could then explain each instance. As categories, it just seems to be a disjointed mish-mosh. I get the point of this, but to be self-reflexive in comics isn't anything new. The comics from the 40s, for example, especially the humour ones, did this fairly often. And the same could be said about plays, etc. What do you think?

Oh, and hi : ) - jc37 23:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, are you back? ... I ran across this scheme once before I think, and it really confused me why we would want to categorize in this way. Category:Diaries is included in the books one?? I agree, though, that given the small nature of the categories, that it seems way more suited to a list. FWIW, the creator of these has a bit of a habit of using categories for what I view as rather strange purposes...Not an attack—NOT AN ATTACK—... just sayin' ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I seem to be here at least. lol. As I mentioned elsewhere - let's not jinx things and say I'm back, yet : )

And I agree, about confusion. I almost started thinking of all those books, plays (and comics) which break the fourth wall, and wondered what fine line we may be drawing here... And I'm imagining that we could create a whole heirarchical tree using Category:Metafictional techniques... - jc37 23:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Categories by status

• Category:Categories by status

Got another tree for you to look at.

What do you think? - jc37 02:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Very broad, almost like categorization by shared word. If the category name happens to have "status" in it, it gets put in here, but what else connects Category:Biota by conservation status and Category:Nuclear power stations by status. This is taking the idea of "fundamental" categories to it's illogical extreme! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Nod.

Feel free to nom, else, when I get back (hopefully), I'll do some nomming.

I also intend to see about a DRV concerning the List of fictional characters who can fly. (The arguments would seem to not understand that primary sources are fine as sources for articles/lists. And whether something is on TVtome or wookiepedia has zero to do with whether it should or shouldn't be here.)

Anyway, have fun, and hope to talk with you in a few days : ) - jc37 00:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting, I hadn't seen that list AFD. Other users sometimes criticise me for being a stark raving mad "deletionist", but what they don't seem to understand is I'm pretty OK with most of what appears on Wikipedia as articles and lists. I just happen to have standards for categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Pasteur Bizimungu: Hutu caste

"The Tutsi/Hutu divide has been referred to as a caste system." And if you not only count words but try to understand the content, you'll find that virtually no-one (except of old haters) truely claimes Hutu and Tutsi would really be ἔθνος. --Jhartmann (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah—the judges of the ICTR are "old haters"? If Tutsi and Hutu can't be classified as ethnical groups, then the crime of genocide wasn't committed in Rwanda. And yet, they are convicting people of genocide. Read the Akayesu case for a discussion. The crime of genocide can't be committed against a caste group. It can only be committed against national, ethnical, racial, or religious groups. The ICTR said Tutsi and Hutu were ethnic groups. It is both and caste system and (legally, at least) and ethnicity, in other words. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

not pointy

It would not be pointy for you to nominate state leaders and aviators killed in crashes. I would agree with you for being consistent. I do not nominate these because I think all 3 are worthy. In WP, we need consistency. Remember, I am not here to fight you but to seek wisdom. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't considering nominating them. I have no objection if someone else wants to. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Wise administrator, I ask you a question. When should a list be created and when a category. I seek wisdom, not conflict. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so wise, unless you mean of the wiseass variety. The quesiton you ask is a difficult question and one that most editors have their own opinions about. People even vigorously disagree about that issue, sometimes to point of things getting personal. There is an essay on the overarching issue at WP:CLN. Some take the view that lists and categories can and should always co-exist, and that one is never to be preferred above the other, and that if a list exists, it should always be turned into a category. Others (including me) take the view that categories should be reserved for characteristics of an article that are considered "defining"—meaning "core", "central", or "fundamental"—and that other more trivial or incidental facts about the article should be included in lists. I also think that lists should be preferred over categories when inclusion in a category could be controversial or desperately in need or sourcing, since a list can provide cited references whereas a category can not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've concluded that I might use categories different from the way others use it. Is there another page about categories? Seems like little is written on them, unlike article notability. Would it help reduce conflict if I unconditionally surrender and offer that category to the gallows to be hung and killed? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know Category:Wikipedia_categorization contains all that is written on the topic. You are right that there is not as much written on it as there are about core WP principles, mainly because it's been difficult to find widespread agreement. I'm not feeling there is conflict between us due to disagreement in the discussion, but if you're feeling bombarded by multiple people disagreeing with you, I still wouldn't say you should just give up. It's OK to disagree, and it's OK to keep disagreeing even if community consensus goes against you. The only time you have to worry is if you repeatedly do things that go against community consensus, but just disagreeing is never a problem. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please reconsider your attitude

I appreciate how much you’ve done for categories; it’s hard work that is often underrated. I know that, because I’ve worked on scores of categories and sorted thousands of articles, long before you even did you first edit. But I always was open to what the people who were actually working in the area had to say; they deserve respect, too. Of course, when working with categories, it is normal to judge a book by its cover, but when someone pointed out that there’s more to it, I would either take the time to understand the issue, or leave it to the people who work in the area. In this case, it seems you never actually investigated anything about the category but its name. The way you are trying to impose considerable workload on others, while it is beneath you to do any of that work yourself, is utterly disrespectful, and contrary to the idea of working in a team. I urge you to sleep over this and reconsider your attitude. Maybe it would also be healthy to do something other than categorization for a while. Since, as you say in your userbox, you are an academic, your talents might be of more use in a less bureaucratic activity. — Sebastian 02:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you feel that I'm "trying to impose considerable workload on others". On the contrary, I have volunteered to split the contents of the category myself. I'm not asking anyone to do anything in that regard. You are also incorrect that I "never actually investigated anything about the category but its name". I find that it's best to assume that users know what they are talking about. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, I just realized, too, that I misread that part of your post. Indeed, I just was trying to edit out the "utterly" part, and had replaced it with "The way you are making yourself the judge over 88 articles, while refusing to communicating one bit about any of them", when I ran into an edit conflict. — Sebastian 03:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If that is your concern, rest assured that I would not deem my judgment to be the final word on any categorization. I'm willing to do the grunt work of division once the target categories are decided on, but that doesn't mean things can't change again if anyone disagrees. My volunteering to do this is an attempt to prevent others from having to do the work, not to make myself the final "decider" of the issues. But I disagree with the concern that because it's hard it should not be done. I think moving forward and actually doing something to resolve perceived flaws is almost always more productive that mooting a particularly hard issue. If the solution is not ideal, then the new problems can be addressed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, that somewhat relieves part of my concern; your volunteering came across like "I'll do what I want when I want, without listening to you or without involving you in any way", and that's what I erroneously reacted to. I do appreciate that you are volunteering your time here. Still, did you see that I wasn't just "mooting", but actually offered a solution for the problem? I put about an hour into that today. Up to this point, I see no sign that you so much as acknowledge that.

About the second part, I wrote that it seems that way. It seems that way, because so far, all I have seen about the subject matter from you was your discussion of its title. — Sebastian 03:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If that were really my attitude, I would guess that I would not have bothered to have started a CFD. I was trying to pre-empt the complaint of "good idea, but who's gonna do it", which is common when relatively complicated changes are proposed at CFD. — Good Olfactory — continues after insertion below

That makes sense, that is a good motivation. Thanks for clarifying this; I usually strive to see such good faith explanations before I write a reply; sorry for not thinking of that explanation this time. — Sebastian 04:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I would love to have your input, but so far, no—I am not at all clear what your proposed solution is and how it differs from what I've proposed, if at all. Most of the edits I saw you made related to trying to postpone the CFD in favour of discussion at the talk page. I see what you've written on the category talk page as to substantive solutions, and it seems to largely reflect what I've suggested, except that you are unsure what criteria would be used to call someone a "scholar". No doubt you are more aware of what you think would be a good solution than I am, because you haven't really said one way or the other at the CFD. Listification/creation of a table in an article is a possible solution, as you mention. But the reason I am confused as to your proposed solution(s) is you haven't really stated what you are in favour of actually doing—you've just mentioned possibilities and raised problems. That's important, but it doesn't really help clarify where consensus on this is headed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; I'm glad we're talking about the issue now. I mentioned or hinted at a number of solutions, and yours is certainly among the ones I'm thinking of. I just feel we don't know enough to narrow down our choices or even decide on any single one. I would hope some intelligent and caring people could take a look at these articles (and ideally not just at the 88 in the SL category, but also the parent and sibling categories, which add up to 213 all together) and contribute to the discussion, as to whether this is appropriate for categorization at all. That decision can not be decided top-down, just because a category name sounds better that way. It takes some research, for which I would like to allow more time than what a CfD usually allows. If we find that the articles do not form two separate groups, but rather a continuum (that's what I meant by the "scholar" question), then it may not be wise to split them up at all. In that case, we could just merge the SL cat into the A cat, and then, depending on participation, create a list page instead. One problem with cat work is that it can't be seen from one central place; you would have to look at the edit history of 213 articles to see which one was moved into which category. That's why I wrote the table. From my experience, people aren't very quick to reply on category talk pages, so I think we should be a bit more patient. (This is partly because many people undervalue categories.) So, your post at CfD has a good side effect in that it increases visibility. How about if we agreed ti give it a longer time limit, say, a month or two? — Sebastian 04:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

By your proposal do you mean leaving the CFD open for a month or two or do you mean withdrawing the CFD and waiting a month or two to allow time for participation on the category talk page? The first might not be feasibly enforceable on admins who may want to close the discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been very active at CfD in a long time, so you know the climate there better than me. It probably has changed; I don't remember people being so inflexible there; but I guess that's a normal development of any aging social institution. Retracting sounds too strong for me; we both agree that something needs to be done. Would it be an option to explicitly vote for "default action by Oct 7, unless otherwise decided at talk page"? For default action, I'd propose "merge SL into A", because that's just the easiest action that can be simply done with AWB in a (whale's) heartbeat. — Sebastian 05:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Stuff there tends to get closed within 7–14 days—very rarely will they stay open longer, unless something gets relisted. When the 7 day anniversary starts to approach, we could assess and then jointly ask for a relisting. We could follow that pattern for as long as we can get away with it. Of course, it may depend on the volume and substance of the participation, if any. Alternatively, I could just withdraw for awhile with the understanding that the nomination will be brought again in a few months if there are no further developments. Either approach would be fine with me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, the 7 week closure was in place back then, too. I just looked at some of the old stuff, and it seems to me that what was different was that CfD was used for cases that were easier to decide, while major category revamps were discussed on the cat talk page. One discussion reminds me in particular of the present one, that at category talk:Physics#General Physics Topics subcategory. There, too, were some people acting in haste, but it all worked out fine in the end. That may actually have been the case that made me wary of rushed category changes, because it wasn't easy to retrieve the information then. But now, I already saved the list, so whatever we do with the cats now, we can easily run that list through AWB and undo it later. Therefore, I am feeling less strongly about the need to wait, and I think we can live with the 7 or 14 usual days. However, I urge you to have more patience, respect and understanding next time when someone, who may be familiar with the topic at hand, but not with the CfD process, asks for something that goes against the usual procedure. Let's not forget that we're all volunteers here, and we need each other. — Sebastian 06:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

One request in wrapping this up: The way we handled this obviously wasn't the most efficient and elegant way. I know I made some mistakes in what I wrote here, but what could I have done to improve on this communication earlier? In hindsight, I now can say that I wanted to achieve three goals: (1) gain time for NV editors to chime in (2) prevent other CfD regulars from voting without knowing the background - which is why I felt I needed to act quickly - and (3) make it clear to you that someone actually already thought about this, and now needs some acknowledgment. In other cases, I would have taken a deep breath, come to this talk page earlier, and asked you what motivated you. But in this case I didn't want to let the CfD page stand the way it was for reason #2 above. Please reply either here or at User talk:SebastianHelm/NVC. — Sebastian 07:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

For me personally, you're right that probably a quick word on my talk page or an email to me briefly explaining the situation would have probably been the best way to at least let me know that something was up. But as you say that wouldn't really solve the potential problem of #2 (though in this case that wasn't actually a problem). Ideally I suppose I would have seen the category talk page before you referred me there; honestly, they are used so infrequently I never check them anymore before starting a nomination. Perhaps I will start to do so again. Luckily, I think things like this happen only rarely with respect to categories, but I suppose it's a learning experience for everyone. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I had been wondering if you simply hadn't seen the category talk page; thanks for explaining that that lead to the disconnect. Yes, it would have been good if you checked that, but such things just happen, none of us can have our eyes everywhere. What if the discussion had been on a wikiproject page? What really went wrong was that we botched handling that simple oversight. Within a couple of edits, we escalated it to the point where we told each other basically "I don't give a damn about what you wrote, and I care even less for what you want"[1]. How could we have prevented that? Maybe it would have helped if I had avoided the word "clearly" in my reply. Or maybe not. This was not a symmetric situation to begin with. It was a conflict between a gopher and a hawk. I'm not saying that because I'm party to the situation. I've witnessed that same asymmetry as an outsider often in the area of speedy deletions. The gopher invests hours in a topic, and suddenly a hawk appears out of nowhere, spending less than a minute on that topic, ignoring and threatening everything the gopher worked on. I just can't be indifferent to that; I have to sympathize with the gopher in such cases. That's why I urged you to have more patience, respect and understanding for people actually working in a subject area next time; if that is there, then any simple oversight ceases to be an problem. — Sebastian 23:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

But in the land where I grew up in, hawks are our friends and we shoot gophers. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see where you're coming from. My compliments and gratitude for your restraint, then. I hope that wasn't just because you don't know my address.  :-P — Sebastian 04:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the White Elephant

G'day Good Olfactory, you recently removed Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the White Elephant from Chuan Leekpai‎. Their is a CfD here that in my opinion is ready for closure and where there is consensus for a rename of Category:Recipients of the Order of the White Elephant to Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the White Elephant as part of a wider schema that I proposed in accordance with WP:ODM best practice. The article in question had been pre-categorised for the rename and I have now restored it. Given your admin status, if you could have a look at the CfD and consider closing it and completing the rename, that would be appreciated. The rest of the schema is now in place. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

OK sorry I was unaware that there was an ongoing proposal about this—thought it was just a randomly placed red link category. I went ahead and closed the discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I thought as much. I was risk managing the links, too many to worry about leaving a note on every talk page, easier to monitor and fix on an as required basis. There wasn't much left to fix from the CfD, just fixing up the category description - the rest of the diffusion I had already completed - I am now working my way through replicating the schema for the other Thai orders. So if you see more red links to Thai orders, they are likely to be fixed shortly. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice now that I closed other discussions on that same page, but somehow I don't remember seeing that discussion until today. .... I guess I "should have known" not to make this mistake. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No drama, the fact that you had closed other discussions was what led me to request your assistance - it was one of those moments of unexpected synchronicity. The fact that you hadn't participated in the CfD discussion but were active in CfD administration meant you were a good option. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really back, but...

...I stop by now and then, long enough to be annoyed and go away again....in partly de-spamifying Rocky Mountaineer I noted that this company had created for itself a category: Category:Rocky Mountaineer stations in British Columbia and must pause to wonder how relevant it is. This is a "who cares?" category, especially given that Category:Stations and railway stops of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway and/or Category:Stations and railway stops of the British Columbia Railway, whcih these also are/were (other than the eponymous station in Vancouver, which was created especially for this service)....many CNR railway stops have articles, I remember there's a slew of them, with no other notability than being railway stops, though some either conferred names on local landmarks/creeks or vice-versa....point is that {{WP:Trains}} may have reasons for such categories, I don't see one; to me it comes off as a "branding" effort by the company's p.r. arm. This is the equivalent of having "XXX Tour bus stops"...this is only a tour service, not a regular passenger service (it very pointedly supplanted the consumer-price former BCR and CNR services along the same tracks, which were discontinued to make way for it...i.e. to remove any competition). there seems to be a genuine onslaught of comapny articles/content of all kinds, which I know is because marketing courses and marketing departments now have seminars in how to utilize/manipulate wikipedia to promote their business/p.r. interests...that's a much larger issue than this one category, or the spammy nature of the articles within it; but as "the category admin" I thought I'd bring this one to your attention......24.142.35.171 (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a tricky issue—as you say, I anticipate that it's going to get worse as time goes by. For a recent example of what I think was probably essentially company promotion, see this example. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I think if we looked around we'd see lots more, and not just corporate ones either. A particular bugbear for me, though the category is legitimate, is the plethora of promotional articles constituting Category:Stephen Harper. No other Canadian PM has so many articles about "him" (or his "premiership", what Americans call an "administration" and Canadians would usually just say "the Harper government"). His name crops in many articles about sod-turnings and ribbon-clippings in this town or on that Indian Reserve, but his template is bloated with articles about his relatively short time in power; ironically he's known as someone who keeps the press at arm's length and no longer holds press scrums....I don't mean to get started on partisan politics, only to comment that there's far too much of this man in Wikipedia than his accomplishments warrant, and the people writing his articles and backing them show little interest in giving similar expansion to the Trudeau, Mulroney, Pearson et al. articles/categories....I swear he has a whole legion of moles doing it for him, and "we" should come up with a WP:Mole guideline about being able to take on someone with clearly partisan or corporate agendas and be able to call them a spade without being accused of "personal attacks"; I think it may be on my recent comment on Moxy that we come up with a way to cross-reference WikiScanner listings with CheckUser, but such would acquire some political astuteness and judgement that's not common among many admins (many of whom I suspect aren't even of driving age...). But the same issue applies to corporate articles and categories; some way to keep a rein on the corporate invasion of Wikipedia. See Talk:Salt Spring Coffee Co. and the article's edit history and older versions, for example; they actually had the gall to tell people who had no connection to the company that they had no right to edit the article, which turns WP:Own and WP:COI on their veritable heads!! The same attitude is evinced in corporate articles of the larger kind, though usually their p.r. people cover their tracks by keeping "legitimate" accounts going so as to mask their activities....in the case o the Winter Olympics article, one testy hate-Skookum1 type was going on about how only VANOC was a legitimate source (when it's anything but reliable or verifiable). Other than my frustrations with the template-fiddlers and code-freaks making work for actual content contributors, it was my frustration with the "p.r. wars" that was ultimately getting to me; call a spade a spade and he'll throw a shovel at you, and get his friends to, too. I really rather would be writing just history and geography articles, of which there are many yet to do, and there are continuing problemse with some categories I'd be glad to address, if it didn't mean so much arguing with the uneducated and the pompously wikipedifying about things they don't understand...one example is the Category:Power stations in Canada category, which is an imposition of a British-ism on Canada "because nobody from Canada" (i.e. otehr than me) spoke up about the proper Canadian idiom; someone in either Britain or the US made teh call and assigned us the British usage ("power plant" is the norm in Canada, and more formally but less used "generating station"). Anyway before I get swept up in all this again, see ya later....if there's an active debate at some point about the invasion of p.r. machines and how to control/patrol that let me know via email and I'll come back for the bloodbath....I think it may do more good to write real-world articles about how the p.r. machines are corrupting/attacking Wikipedia....Skookum1 (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty funny—but pathetic at the same time. I'm going to have to check out this Stephen Harper promotion; I've never read any articles on WP to do with him, but now I'm going to watch for it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Request to move Discovery doctrine back to Discovery Doctrine

A la Bush Doctrine, Monroe Doctrine, etc. Robert K S (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is not a proper noun and shouldn't be capitalized. This article seems to use "discovery doctrine". This one does capitalize, though it uses "Doctrine of Discovery". In my experience, legal doctrines are typically not capitalized, and in this regard they perhaps differ from political doctrines named after politicians. Black's Law Dictionary seems to confirm this usage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please undelete [[Category: Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theorists]]

You recently deleted [[Category: Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theorists]], which I created, claiming that it was a recreation of a previously-deleted category ([[Category: Birthers]]) under G4. This is incorrect on two counts. First of all, I was not aware of the previous category, and [[Category: Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theorists]] was not intended as a "recreation" of anything, but rather as an entirely new (from my perspective) category.

Second of all, if you actually read the deletion discussion for [[Category: Birthers]], you'll find that the reason that category was deleted was not because of its content, but solely because of its title ("birther" being a pejorative term analogous to "truther"). No one objected to the actual content of the category, just its title. "Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theorists", on the other hand, is not a pejorative or a slur at all, but a simple description (which mirrors the page Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories), and as a result it suffers from none of the problems that the previous one did. For these two reasons, I urge you to reconsider your deletion of [[Category: Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theorists]] and, preferely, to undo your deletion of it. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Your first point: your intent is irrelevant. If it's objectively a re-creation, it can be deleted. Your second point: you have misread the discussion, at least in part. Part of the rationale for deletion was that it violates WP:OC#OPINION, because it categorizes people by political opinion. The change in name does nothing to change that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

By that rationale (the "opinion" one), you should also delete Category: 9/11 conspiracy theorists, as well as Category: Conspiracy theorists itself. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That may well be the case, but those categories were not discussed with a resultant decision to delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

learn to do math, dumbass

You never cease to brighten my day. Thanks! --Kbdank71 13:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Just testing the system—trying to see if there is a word detecting bot that will automatically post a warning on my page if I include "dumbass" in an edit summary ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Kent Bowers

I have nominated Kent Bowers, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent Bowers. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Claritas § 16:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Trust

You are not materially harmed and will rise from the ashes so to speak after the weekend - if cut off, trust your reconnection is not too lengthy or painful - cheers from the South West Seismic Zone where the surprises are usually little ones SatuSuro 15:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I slept through the whole thing! It could have been much worse for Ch-Ch, as I understand. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Please to hear and know SatuSuro 23:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

PW?

User:Magdalenamutzharding and user:99.18.183.223 seem related and similar to our UM friend, although the i.p. is not in the usual range. (The geolocate tab on the talk page of the i.p. places it in Massillon, Ohio which is quite close to Lodi, Ohio, and there was user:Lodi Lib. And I see that User:Magdalenamutz was found last week - I hadn't noticed this.) Occuli (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've reported it. Occuli (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

An advantage of checkuser is that it turns up further socks. Occuli (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Such as User talk:Charleshenryharding, with whom you have conversed, suggesting their category creation skills are not up to scratch. Occuli (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks—probably a good idea at this stage to check, since there seems to have been a surge lately in accounts. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've altered my surveillance page to include the pages edited by the latest batch of PWs. Check 14 on this page. (This reveals user:76.253.141.145 which seems to have been blocked in the same checkuser sweep.) Occuli (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Also user:99.164.46.171 which hasn't been blocked (yet). Occuli (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I just blocked the latter one. He's persistent, if nothing else. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Shaken up down yonder?

Hey there... hopefully you've been able to dig yourself out from under the rubble by now. The word 'round these parts is that there was a mob of folks trying to set the Guinness Record for a gigantic Haka. Any truth to that?? Cgingold (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but with a caveat—as I mentioned above to another user, I slept through the whole thing! I am over 200 miles from the epicenter, though. Apparently we got some shaking, but nothing too bad. It could have been much worse for Christchurch, but they escaped without any deaths, so that is positive.

I hadn't heard about the haka attempt. I probably slept through that one too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Mmm... I think perhaps my attempted levity may have been a tad too subtle. See, the idea was that there was this enormous mob of people all stamping the ground and making it shake. Yeah, I know... kinda lame. Cgingold (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah .... ha ha ha ha. Now I get it. I've been a little slow on the uptake over the past few days. Must be shaken baby syndrome while I sleep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Nepali communists

Hi. Thanks for your work on fixing categories for Nepali politicians. Do note though that CPN(Mashal) and CPN(Masal) of the 1980s are two different parties, and need different categories. --Soman (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, thanks. I was trying to sort out the various Masals, of which there were a few duplicate articles--Communist Party of Nepal (Masal) was a duplicate of Communist Party of Nepal (Masal) (historical). I got carried away with the Mashal one. I will try to work this out category-wise. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No probs. I'm still confused over the 'fat Masal' and 'thin Masal' issue, which one is which. A problem when trying to dechiffer Nepalese history on these parties is that 1) they were all underground formations, so histiography is not always very exact and accurate and 2) Nepalese calendar is different from Western. A Nepalese year can be two different Western years, so there are confusing info on foundation dates of these groups. --Soman (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've run into some of these issues in looking through the various parties and looking at the references in the articles. I'll keep this in mind. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on a CFD

Could you comment here regarding a CFD from September 2? It seemed like a straightforward merging to me when I proposed it but it has run into opposition.--TM 04:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Odd

Category:Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine politicians, which you added to some articles, strikes me as a very odd name. Thoughts? Materialscientist (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The standard name format is "POLITICALPARTYNAME politicians". The article is at Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine. Add "politicians" to it and you get the category name. (There were several versions of the "Communist Party of Ukraine".) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What I meant is there is a reasonable limit for the number of words which can be lumped together :) I would say "politicians of .." Materialscientist (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's easier for me to have a set standard and apply it rather than subjectively assessing in each case whether I need to change it. That's why I just follow the standard. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Native crops

Hello Good Olfactory, please delete these categories; they are empty: Category:Native crops by country and all its subcategories, Category:Native crops of western South America and all its subcategories, Category:Native crops of North America, Category:Native crops of South America, Category:Native crops of Australasia--Jaguarlaser (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I trust that this is all above board and that these weren't just emptied out-of-process. In the future, if you have empty categories that need to be deleted, you can just tag them with {{subst:db-c1}} and they will be deleted in due course. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

request to launch CfD

As you may realize, I'm only back part-time and my life is in upheaval right now, so my internet time is taken up with needful things and I'm only dabbling with loose ends on Wikipedia; this is one that's bugged me since it was done:

• Category:Hydroelectric power stations in British Columbia

That's not the Canadian idiom, either in British Columbia or at the national level; it's either "generating station", which is kinda formal, or the usual "power plant". The Canadian perspective, represented only by me in that discussion (and therefore ignored because someone pretty much said one person did not make a reliable source...can't remember if that was a Brit or a Yank though), was totally passed over and we were saddled with the Britishism. Look through the category contents, titles and article contents....and whether it'[s coal-fired, nuclear or hydro, the term tens to be "power plant", occasionally "generating station" or simply (in my experience in British Columbia, coming from a BC Hydro family and living in their shadow, no less), "powerhouse". I'm on a bad net connection and also using a friend's Windows machine which keeps on freezing its browser while it tells me "unresponsive script", so for me to launch the necessary CfD and to do all the templates for all those categories is just too time-intensive for me to take on. It was a bad call on the CfD that led to this, and should have been over-ruled; I'm sorry I can't recall what the CfD was or when it was, this last spring or even winter sometime. Also pls note in BC there's a new type, since BC Hydro has been forbidden from building new generating facilities and "Independent Power Producers" are in th process of building up to 200 new dams and powerhouses around the province, ostensibly "run of the river" but really much more than that in most cases; the customary abbreviation is "IPP" but I suppose that's a BC-ism; but definitely a category Category:BC Hydro powerhouses or Category:BC Hydro generating stations is called for; I noticed this again looking at Whatshan Dam which I'd looked up as Mount Whatshan is one of the higher-prominence summits in the Monashees, though scarcely one of the highest per se; there's bits to be added to that article as there was a notable landslide there once....anyway I'd appreciate if you could take this example of UK/US bias overrunning CAnadian English....it happens to much; certainly if you, pls notify WP:Canada and I'm sure others would chime in, in accord.Skookum1 (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about this, but I'll try to look into it. I may have to quote this discussion since I can't speak for some of this stuff by myself. I'm Canadian but I don't know what I would have called one of these when I lived there. When I lived in Ontario and Quebec, it may have just been colloquially "hydro plant" or something like that, since everyone called electricity "hydro". But in Alberta, for instance, I don't think anyone would ever use the word "hydro". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless they'd moved there from BC or MB or ON ;-) I found another bad decision today that quite piqued me when I saw it as downright clumsy User_talk:Xeno#Category:Alaska_Native_-_WTF.3F and like I say there, my time is valuable and although User:Vegaswikian was the nominator and usually a logical person, the logic used re Alaskan Native peoples vs Alaskan Native people was very far off-base and not well-thought out. Why do people have to tinker with category names, templates etc etc and no actual content is being added, or for that matter, actually fixed when in error?? Fussing around with categories, templates etc is the bane of otherwise valuable contributors; there should be less fuss on these things and more attention to expanding the encyclopedia's actual ethnographic and historical and geographic content. There's a lot of arranging deck chairs going on, without any real purpose except maybe for poeple to put in their resume "Wiki admin in charge of deck chairs"....Skookum1 (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, should I be offended now? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_7#Category:Hydroelectric_power_plants_by_country was the "power station" CfD, as arbited by User:Kdbank, who apparently while excepting the US categories from the global change, didn't see fit to include Canada. Perhaps he thought we were in Europe?Skookum1 (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The nom for the Alaska one was in fact User:William Allen Simpson, who was habitually off-base. It seems to stem from a rather bizarre cfd which produced Category:African American; so we can perhaps look forward to Category:American. (It sounds as if Skookum1 is actually quite bothered about the deckchair arrangements.) Occuli (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Tasmania law

Category:Tasmania law, which you created, has been nominated for 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. SatuSuro 23:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

TruckCard

Not content with out-of-process category renames, user:TruckCard now seems to be canvassing (the individuals, not the projects - notifying the projects is a good idea). As this is clearly not a new user, I wonder who it might be. (TruckCard invokes WP:3P, a redirect to which hardly anything links, but my hopes for some consequential revelation were dashed.) Occuli (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Do we have any general hunches about what's going on or who it might be? The general topic brings Nopetro/Mac to my mind, but the modus operandi are completely different. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I did find a Mac/Truckcard link early on - see Category:Driving licenses and TC's first edits. I can't say I found any other evidence of Mac being unduly concerned about Br Eng. Nopetro and TC edited about 14 pages in common, but this must be less than chance. I could have another look. Occuli (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't get it. It's not about Brit Eng vs US Eng. It's about consistency. User:TruckCard 79.193.135.8 (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Your Diana Ashby edit

She was the founder of the Melanoma Research Foundation and died of that cancer but you switched the categories for her article from deaths from cancer to deaths from brain cancer. I think it is obvious she died of skin cancer.William 16:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for calling me out on an edit that I made almost two years ago (?). At the time the edit was made, the article said she was "waging her own battle with the pain of multiple tumors in her brain". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

With regard to Mormon studies journals

I believe that a handful from out of all the Latter Day Saint movement texts relate especially directly to Mormon studies: currently published scholarly journals and culture magazines.

Per wp:SUBCAT: " If two categories are closely related but are not in a subset relation, then links between them can be included in the text of the category pages." That is, since not all texts relate especially directly to Mormon studies, then the texts that do are a sort of subcategory that is included in Mormon studies, since, as wp:CAT's lede says, "Sometimes, for convenience, the two types can be combined, to create a set-and-topic category (such as Category:Voivodeships of Poland, which contains articles about particular voivodeships as well as articles relating to voivodeships in general)." --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Going beyond the periodicals issue—the problem as I see it is that you could theoretically place every single article and category that relates to the Latter Day Saint movement in the category Category:Mormon studies. You can't place everything in the category that could be the subject of study—it turns a potentially meaningful category into one that is utterly redundant to the pre-existing category structure. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There's going to be give and take, this being a wiki. Sure, as a practical matter, the edits now being decided on is simply whether it would be "good" (maybe better) or "bad" (maybe worse) to put the journals on the more scholarly side of the spectrum within the current category for Mormon stories (that is, a category that would concern academic analyses of LDS high- ((and folk-)) culture/beliefs/practices and their historical developments). ---- But, sure, going beyond that a bit to the theoretical:

You're right. Thought should be given to what the Mormon studies category does provide that did not already exist before. Is it a catch-all term for anything and everything relating to Mormonism? No, not really. And, you're probably right that its member articles really ought to be carefully winnowed down to apply only specifically and directly to the study of Mormonism from an academic standpoint.

That would, of course, cover

• theology
• archeeology
• ethics (or any other academic discipline).......

But, rather than put them all in there, we should see if some of the categories hang together and could themselves go under their own heading. (Perhaps various forms of fine arts could go together in a category and then the whole grouping thereof could be included in the category). In other words, keep the number of member articles to a reasonable assortment, neither too fine combed, so as to make the category not about academics but about just plain jane Mormonism, nor too coarse combed, so as to leave out important areas of scholarly study.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

BC regional district categories/classification running amok

With the change from "settlements" to "populated places" a problem that has always irked me is now out of control; see Category_talk:Populated_places_in_British_Columbia_by_regional_district#Bad_grammar_in_cat_titles. I really would like to get back to actually writing articles, but stuff like this is really, really grating; it just sounds WRONG. Somebody a long time ago started the RD-category system, thinking that RDs were like counties, and they're not, and that they're "natural regions" which they're not (i.e. organic/historical...no, they're political gerrymanderings and only really organizations using region-names). I'm getting to where I want the whole system junked....but damn User:GO, I came back thinking I was gonna be able to focus on writing historical and geographical articles; I'm increasingly remembering why I left, and what a hopeless cause it is.....on a related matter see Talk:Lower Mainland and the extendede RfC discussion at hte bottom, especially my last comments to Textorus.....people re-inventing language of engaging in original-research classification and/or category-naming adventurism is making it impossible to contribute....there has to be some kind of "board of editors" who can overrule all the half-educated nitwits who get themseles admin status, or aspire to it....'garbage in, garbage out' as the old saying goes, and increasingly people are putting 'garbage in'.....Skookum1 (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Irish emigrants to Australia

Having succeeded in getting a reverse merge here, maybe you'd like to propose all the hundreds of similar categories for renaming? Otherwise all we've succeeded in doing is creating inconsistency, which seems to me to be a backwards and pointless step! I can see your point and I won't oppose a mass renaming, but I really don't think this category should be left out on a limb. Otherwise it just looks pedantic and will doubtless eventually be proposed for renaming again. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to do this; perhaps not. I'm still not terribly convinced of success, and it would be an even more pointless exercise to nominate them all to have it result in no consensus. I guess we'll never really know until it's tried. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Bronx/The Bronx

Hello, you participated in a discussion last spring that resulted in renaming The Bronx as Bronx. There is now a proposal to open a new Request for Comments on restoring the original name. If you have comments about the timing of such a proposal, please make them soon at Talk:Bronx#Query: when do we consider this? because, unless a there's a consensus against such a Request for Comments, it will begin early this week. Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Afghan categories

Hi, i noticed your excellent work on categorizing Afghan politicians by faction/party. I would just like to point out that Hezb-e Islami Khalis and Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin were two different factions who enjoyed a certain rivalry. IMO, they should have separate categories, unlike the single Category:Hezbi Islami politicians, which you created. Maybe you could consider splitting this category in two? --Regards. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I did notice that at some point, and it was something I was going to do. I'll take a look at it. One question though—should the basic category Category:Hezbi Islami politicians be kept? For some of the articles, it just says they were part of "Hezbi Islami" but doesn't specify which faction. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I'll be checking the sources, when I have time, to see which group those people belonged to. I don't think the basic category should be deleted just yet, not so long as we have a separate article called Hezbi Islami. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 09:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Great work with the categories of Afghan Politicians, it's really usefull to categorize them by party/faction. Thanks! Diedtc (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:National identity card

Speedy rename is now ok with me. I thought the singular is more logical for the topmost, which does not mean not having the plural one below the singular one. But now see that others in Category:Personal identification are plural too. Still, could you leave a soft redirect? User:TruckCard 79.193.135.8 (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_29#Category:Transport

The renames 4-5-6, not the merges, seem out of process. No majority votes for that. User:TruckCard 79.193.135.8 (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a majority vote rules situation; it was a reversal of out-of-process moves. If you'd like to nominate them for renaming, feel free, as the close was explicitly without prejudice to future discussion as to the proper name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

These were not out-of-process moves, but new creations. By changing you violated, what you asked for yourself several times. User:TruckCard 79.193.135.8 (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I realise that, but they were part and parcel of an out-of-process change from "transportation" to "transport" in the overall tree. All you did was change the word in the parent category and then subdivide some of the contents into new categories. You can't get around the principle of "no out-of-process moves" by simply creating new subcategories. It's kind of rich to be accused of making out-of-process moves when all I was doing was voluntarily cleaning up the mess made by your own out-of-process moves. If you don't like how they are in this tree, nominate them for discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Spacing

No objections to the move for spacing, but I was basing the format on Category:Minneapolis – Saint Paul, so you may want to move that category as well.--TM 04:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

If you refer to WP:ENDASH, it sets out when to use a space and when not to. When the en dash is just connecting two words, then there is no space. When the en dash connects two names and one of the names has two or more words, then it is spaced. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Good to know. That is one policy I have never really paid attention to.--TM 04:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Quack

User:Loisnaomi and User:Liziemcadams. Also user:TruckCard has been blocked. Occuli (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the PW socks to checkuser. Occuli (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice work on the PW socks. I figured it was just a matter of time for ol' Trucky, the way he was behaving. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It's odd that PW doesn't learn. But I suppose there's nothing new there. Occuli (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he views it as a bit of a game or a challenge now—to see how long he can go without getting caught. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated

Since you are an editor with special interest in the categorization structure and its maintenance and development your input would be most appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Category:Establishments by country. __meco (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

In connection with actions by the user who removed the above post by me prior to you reinstating it a complaint has been made against me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Meco where in my initial response I have mentioned your name as well as those of Occuli and Vegaswikian. Though I would much rather see your comment on my first post as requested than for you to weigh in at WP:ANI, but you may of course chose to do both, either or neither. __meco (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist Flooding

Just thought I would mention that you have added 305 entries to my watchlist in the past two days, and I have a feeling it is not yet over. This has to be some sort of record. Nigerian politicians. I started a lot of these articles and you are improving the categorization. Keep up the good work. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, almost finished. I think I just have the "O" surnames to go. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

ANC

I really don't think you should be emptying categories like you are for the politicians/members. Many of these groups aren't just political parties but entire social movements spanning generations. Besides, you should use CFD and not simply emptying categories.--TM 05:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not emptying the ANC one. I'm putting the politicians of ANC in a politicians subcategory. There are members of the ANC, but there are also politicians, and members are not necessarily politicians. Unless you think the category should be renamed wholesale, I won't propose a rename. Any other one I have nominated at WP:CFDS has been a category composed solely of politicians. If there are any non-politicians that are defined by their membership in the group, I'd gladly reinstate the category you may be referring to (I'm not sure what it might be, however). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

So far, most of the current contents of Category:African National Congress politicians were never in Category:Members of the African National Congress, in any case. It appears to have been grossly underpopulated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess I disagree with the idea of sorting existing categories (like the ANC and others) as politicians etc. For large movements like the ANC, it is often more defining to be a member than strictly a politician. I appreciate what you are doing with a number of political parties, but I think you need to keep in mind the difference between what is a party now and what was a liberation movement; yes, Nelson Mandela is a former politician, but he is most notable for being the head of the ANC movement. The same goes with many other figures. I'm not sure how this nuance can be kept, but I think it is important.--TM 17:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason they couldn't be in both, I suppose, when both types of categories exist. The normal practice is to remove someone from a parent category if they are also present in an applicable subcategory (since theoretically all members of a subcategory are also part and parcel of the parent category), so really I'm just taking the "normal" approach to category sorting, but individual article instances don't necessarily have to conform to this if it would benefit from the duplication. As for Mandela, that article is in Category:Presidents of the African National Congress, which currently is a subcategory of Category:Members of the African National Congress. Mandela is the most extreme case possible, of course. Most articles I'm seeing the person is primarily notable (as far as the article suggests) for being a member of Parliament for the ANC. I can't see why a person such as this would not be categorized as an African National Congress politician. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, there's still another view taken by other editors—and that is one that construes the word "politician" quite broadly as one who has any influence on or involvement with politics. This can be justified by some of the text in the (poorly sourced) article politician. See these comments. If that view were accepted, calling Mandela, for instance, a "politician" would apply to all periods of his life. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"too soon"

Curious as to your thoughts on the issue you brought up in the Mission Inn discussion, which I've echoed here: Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#when_is_.22too_soon.22_for_renomination.3F. Comment there, if you would.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"Jackie Selebi"

Selebi is not (yet) a prisoner or detainee. He is out on bail awaiting the result of his appeal. pietopper (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I assume he was arrested, charged and tried, all of which is part and parcel of being detained. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Otto4711

It seems that our friend Otto4711 (talk · contribs) has been blocked (or banned... their !votes as CFD are being struck as such, but their userpage doesn't contain the {{banned}} template) for socking with Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk · contribs). As such, a lot of discussions have been effected, some more significantly than others. Should there be a certain way to proceed with these discussions like this one? I was thinking to close some solely as procedural keeps, but I'm not sure. — ξ^xplicit 18:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this and wondered how we would clean this up. I think if he started the nomination but substantial discussion took place from other editors, then there's no harm in closing the discussion as normal while disregarding his initial !vote, as it were. If the opinion is unanimously for deletion, there's not much sense in refusing to delete just because he was the nominator. For others, like the one you highlight, I think a procedural/administrative close could be appropriate—we can just nullify the entire thing. I guess I would say let's take it case-by-case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Was this blocking of Otto discussed anywhere? Certainly the Cow was Otto but they didn't seem to be ganging up anywhere. (The sock page for Otto doesn't mention any checkuser re the Cow.) Occuli (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be here. Occuli (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be pretty flimsy if you ask me. As you said, they weren't ganging up anywhere. If all it takes to permaban someone is just having a sock, there would be more than one admin we would be saying goodbye to. .02 --Kbdank71 21:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There didn't seem to be anything abusive about the sock - I assumed Otto was fed up with arguing with Alansohn (and me) on cfd and wanted a fresh start. He was editing as both O and C for a while and occasionally forgot which one he was but in cfd he very markedly didn't 'gang up'. (Indeed I made the occasional remark in cfd about the surprising absence of Otto from the discussion.) Otto hadn't edited as Otto for some weeks. Also it doesn't alter the validity of his arguments in cfd ... the whole thing is rather odd. Occuli (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a decision Arbcom made "in camera", as it were. They are getting good at those. Next, I will be de-sysopped because "everybody knows" I'm a sockpuppet of a banned user. Just ask whatshisname— that Yellow Monkey guy. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to make your case on flimsy evidence if you do it in public view. Yay arbcom, way to instill trust. --Kbdank71 15:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to give another perspective to this...

Awhile back, a lot of people were calling for arbcom to be more decisive.

In addition, they tend to be close mouthed when personal info is involved.

Also, I have a vague recollection that this isn't the first time a sock has happened and I seem to recall that it was a bad situation, but they gave him a "walk" with one more chance.

Which he apparently used up.

(To be clear, I am merely guessing on events based upon vague memories of the past, so obviously YMMV, caveat emptor, and all of that.)

So, I dunno, but if I were to guess, I'd say that there's probably more to this than meets the eye.- jc37 02:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

In a way, I know they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I'm sure there's an untold story that would make it all make more sense. (After hearing that hidden story, everyone would still probably have diverging opinions.) I'm just jaded because of how I've been treated by arbcom behind the closed doors. The level of communication about what exactly is going on is not great. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The history seems to be at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711/Archive. The Eddie's Teddy case doesn't seem particularly egregious and the Cow was not doing anything abusive at all. Let Otto edit! Occuli (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's quite possibly enough for a ban, much less an indef block. (Exhausting the community's patience.) And again, we have no idea what may have been going on behind the scenes there. - jc37 18:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Where are the signs of any widespread impatience? Or of anything behind the scenes? I would expect something less flimsy to be put forward for public scrutiny. Occuli (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The blocking note says something like "please contact ArbCom before unblocking this user". I suppose if an admin really had balls they could just email ArbCom and say "I'm unblocking Otto4711", and we could see what happens. That might result in more info being released, at least to someone. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me know what they say.  :) Seriously, though, I probably have the least to lose here, so I might as well be the one to do it. (and now is where someone says, No, Kris, I have more balls than you do, I'll write them. Anyone...?) --Kbdank71 00:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

lol I don't know about that : )

But I will say that today's been a fascinating day... - jc37 00:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Naturally, if only I had the exalted status of admin, I would have done this forthwith (although cfd is more tranquil in his absence). "I'm unblocking Otto4711 on condition that he decides on one identity exclusively" (as his recent preference was the Cow ... editors should be allowed to abandon an identity without any fanfare) or similar. Occuli (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's get you made an admin, and then this can be your first admin action. How about that? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I am more than content with my present lowly status amongst the hoi polloi; but thanks anyway. Occuli (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think I know what happened. They were just being incredibly proactive. I just read this today on msnbc: "Otto overturned cars, toppled power lines and washed out roads in the northeastern Caribbean" Just think of what he could have done to the wikipedia! Oh, the humanity. --Kbdank71 16:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This is what happens when there is no legitimate outlet for energy usually dissipated in ferocious arguments in cfd, afd and drv. Occuli (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Nah, more likely this is : ) - jc37 07:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh the humanity ... I don't know which result is worse. ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

PW

Note current checkuser. Occuli (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

+ 3 more today. Occuli (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It gets to the point of unbelievability. How is he continuing to create usernames when the IPs are blocked? He must be a crafty little fellow with computers. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I am supposing he is using a variety of computers in different places, and/or has an ISP which gives dynamic ips (eg aol do this). You would think he would vary matters by editing elsewhere, or supplying the occasional edit summary. Occuli (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

user:99.16.46.85 is obviously the ip he was using recently. Occuli (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

On Moreno Ocampo

Hi! Luis Moreno Ocampo hyphenates his two surnames for the English-language media, but his name is Luis Moreno Ocampo. Argentine newspapers would be enough proof for you?--Againme (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't we adopt the common English usage? If unofficial and official (ICC) English sources hyphenate, then it makes sense for English WP to hyphenate, I would think. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)