User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 16

Way to stick to your guns!

Thanks for holding the issue at Joseph Smith re: the expected inclusion of a picture of a pistol. He claims the Church is playing down the fact Joseph Smith and his friends had a pistol. In fact in one of the Church lesson manuals (http://lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-student-manual/chapter-twenty-two-the-martyrdom?lang=eng ) it states that, "Joseph gave Hyrum a single-shot pistol and prepared to defend himself with the six-shooter smuggled in that morning by Cyrus Wheelock."

Point being the Church does not "play up" or "play down" the point. As to Joseph's statement he "Went as a lamb to the slaughter" anyone who has seen a lamb at the slaughter knows it is innocent, but also not unlikely to go without a fight. In fact, it is likely that if Joesph had not had a pistol there would be cynics crying that if he really was a prophet he should have known what was coming and done something about it. The history suggests Joseph understood the danger, took measures for self preservation of himself and his companions, and was killed by a very large mob with no means of escape. So it seems that John Foxe's aim in including the pistol image is clearly from a polemic position which you were right in respecting, but also dismissing.

I have brought this here as I do not want a return to the bickering of the past. Respectfully,

--Canadiandy talk 23:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure why he's adopting that sort of "let's advance this view" position. We don't need to do that one way or the other, and WP is not really the place for stuff like that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

List of members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church)

I notice your change here. It got me thinking, so I thought I would ask you what you thought. Originally the "Current" quorum was listed at the top here. I think you may not have notice it, which is why you said they were "missing". At first I thought I would undo your change and tell you why. However I got to thinking Perhaps, they all ought to be listed twice. After all they should be in the list in there "appropriate" place also. After all the "order" they are in would put some past members between living persons. That would show where the living fell in line with those who have passed on. However, do you think that be duplicating the information unnecessarily? To be honest, I'm just not sure what would be better.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and put them in, only as a matter of consistency. It should be all or nothing.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; this was just a result of a stupid mistake by me not taking the time to look at the article more carefully. But I agree that it can be a little bit confusing. I do think we should just include them all in the century section, even if it is duplicative, since readers might just want to know who was added to the quorum in the 21st century, or the 20th century, etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Mormonism in Hong Kong

Along similar lines to what is being discussed at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Hong Kong, would you think it reasonable to rename the recently created Category:Mormonism in Hong Kong to Category:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Hong Kong? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would be. I've nominated it for speedy renaming. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Ron Artest

• (Move log); 21:10:25 . . Good Olfactory (talk | contribs | block)‎ moved Talk:Ron Artest to Talk:Metta World Peace (talk page needs to follow the article name, which was moved after a WP:RM discussion)

Hmmm. Thanks. I thought I clicked "move associated talk page" and "delete page to make way for move", but obviously I made a mistake somewhere. Thanks for fixing it. Deryck C. 22:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I figured it was just an oversight or that you may have just forgot to click on "delete and move" when the warning page popped up that the page already exists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk)

Change Name

Hi! The day 5 of October you modify the name of the beauty pageant Miss Panamá 2011 changing it to Señorita Panamá 2011. The Senorita Panama was a beauty contest, which ceased to exist until 2010. Now in the 2011 was celebrate the Miss Panamá 2011 run by other organization different of Senorita panama. So the contest is not called Senorita Panama 2011, is Miss Panama 2011. So i need you to see this and fix it. Thanks Evanex (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

According to Señorita Panamá they are one in the same, but I'll take your word for it that this move would be controversial so I'll move it back. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Please unprotect this, and STOP deleting it

File:Downtown_Waterloo.png Please unprotect this page, and cease deleting it on CSD grounds. If you looked before you deleted the page speedily, repeatedly, and without due regard, then you would notice it is being used for categorization. Please restore it, unprotect it, and STOP deleting it. Thank you. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I know you have been categorizing it, and I have been examining it before deleting it. Please don't assume otherwise if you don't know. The point is that the page should not be created and categorized on Wikipedia because it is a mirror of a description page from Wikimedia Commons. It should be categorized at Wikimedia Commons, but not here. Mirror pages are only created on WP when they are used on DYK or if the image wins a WP award for image quality. Otherwise, they are speedily deleted under "F2: image description pages for Commons images". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the bots that copy over the images fail to copy over the categorization. I'd rather keep a local copy as well if that is the case. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You can just go to Wikicommons and categorize it there. IN general, the goal is actually to remove categorization on WP from mirror pages and only categorize the images that are housed at WP because of fair use issues, etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Until Commons smartens up, I don't use it. Until the bots or users that copy the images over can also copy the categorization, I request all my photos be retained as local copies. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly of interest: this has been submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for unprotection (permalink). I could very well be mistaken, but it seems like we're discouraged from deleting local copies of images marked with {{keep local}}; if that's correct, I don't see a problem respecting that when the template is effectively added after the fact. Probably not an ideal solution, but Floydian seems to feel pretty strongly about this, and it doesn't seem like a very big deal either way. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll note that I didn't know of that template until after the description page was protected, but the request was still the same. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I see now that you haven't been active for a few days (since 7 October); I'll wait a bit longer, but if there's still no reply and it's just the one image, I think I'll go ahead and unprotect it so that Floydian can upload a local copy. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

But why? There is no reason why having this file only on commons creates a problem or we need an exception to the existing polices and guidelines. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason for a guideline to delete description pages on en wiki for images on commons. Categorization on en.wiki does not affect the display of the commons description page, even on en.wiki (it shows, and the category is applied here). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

But that's just the thing: existing policies and guidelines seem to suggest that it's acceptable keep a local copy of a Commons image that is tagged with {{keep local}}. If not for the unusual fact of a protected image description page, it seems to me that Floydian would be acting completely within documented practice if they re-uploaded and tagged the image. If that's \]]correct -- and no one seems to be disputing that interpretation -- then we seem to have a page that's protected solely to keep an editor from doing something that they're already allowed to do by simply uploading under a different title (is that really the preferred outcome?). I realize that the request is unusual, but I'm having a hard time finding a particularly convincing reason to turn it down. Aside from citing WP:CSD#F8, the two TfD discussions for {{keep local}} are interesting reading. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history, it would appear that the sole reason is to categorize the image here on wikipedia. That is something that is clearly a violation of the categorization rules since we don't categorize material here that is located someplace else. The image categories here are limited. Commons has a better defined set of categories for the categorization of images. So if the image belongs there so do the categories. Clearly {{keep local}} was never intended to get around the categorization rules and guidelines. This likely traces back to an issue with a bot. Clearly the best way to deal with that is to fix the bot, not try to game the system! Vegaswikian (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, let's fix the bot. Who's going to look into that? Would unprotecting one page keep the bot from being fixed? From the pages I've just mentioned, it seems that enwiki's community generally respects the use of {{keep local}} and will keep a local copy of images tagged with it -- I notice it currently has over 900 transclusions. If you disagree with the template's use, I invite you to open a new discussion at WP:TFD, WT:CSD, or another appropriate forum. If you disagree with re-uploading the image, I invite you to send it through WP:FFD. In either case, stifling discussion via page protection seems unnecessary, and I'd just as soon get a few more uninvolved voices in the conversation by going through the usual channels. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"That is something that is clearly a violation of the categorization rules since we don't categorize material here"

Care to point out this rule? Cause last I checked we regularly apply categorization to images that wouldn't be appropriate on commons. This is a project categorization, for use with the Wikiproject in which I am the principal contributing member content-wise. I fail to see the damage caused by this and why we would have rules against it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You really need to correctly quote what people have written. That is something that is clearly a violation of the categorization rules since we don't categorize material here that is located someplace else. Files located on commons are categorized there. Since they are not on Wikipedia they don't get categorized here. Simple and clear. Moving files to Wikipedia so they can be categorized is making a duplicate copy which is strong discouraged as a waste of resources. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

On Colombian people

Hi, I noticed that you recently made some changes to the categories of Bertha Puga Martínez and Fanny Mikey, removing Category:Colombian people of Chilean descent and Category:Colombian people of Argentine descent, and changing it to Category:Chilean emigrants to Colombia Category:Argentine emigrants to Colombia respectivily and I just want to know your rationale for this so I can take it into consideration for other articles or revert the edits.

By removing the categories "Colombian people of fooian descent" and replacing it with "fooian emigrants to Colombia" you are overlooking the fact that both this women were actual Colombian citizens, this aside from the fact that they lived most of the lives in Colombia, died in Colombia, and both were important figures in Colombia, one a former First Lady, and the other one of the most influential people in the arts of the country for the past 40 years. One thing is to be a immigrant, technically I am a "Colombian emigrants to the United States" however I am not an "American people of Colombian descent" due to the fact that I'm not a citizen of this country, as opposed to Puga and Mikey who were both citizens (nationalized) of Colombia.

I checked similar pages and found, in the case of Michael J. Fox for example, that he was categorized as both Category:American people of Canadian descent and Category:Canadian emigrants to the United States. Given this, is there any specific reason why you replaced the previous categories for those pages instead of adding the other ones? mijotoba (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It's just redundant since Category:Argentine emigrants to Colombia is a subcategory of Category:Colombian people of Argentine descent. There's no need to categorize it under both, as far as I can see. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Good Olfactory. You have new messages at Talk:Brigham Young#Grave.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Category browsing

When we browse through categories, there are usually these "plus" signs located next to a subcategory, which when we click on, gives a drop down menu further displaying the subcategories of that category. However, that sign seems to have disappeared and has been replaced by bullet points :/ Is it just happening on my computer, or are you experiencing it as well? Sorry if you found this question irrelevant, but I was tempted to ask someone, as I badly miss that option and want it back again. Are you aware of any pages dealing with technical errors where I can perhaps raise the issue? You don't have to reply to this, but it'd be great if you could. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away for awhile, so I haven't noticed any changes. Has it changed back now or are you still getting this? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Can U help me out...

I was experimenting and created this on a page: User:Kierzek/Usernav; but now have no need for it to accomplish what I want to do; can you delete it. Let me know. Kierzek (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Kierzek (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion on Category:Christian Monasteries of Portugal

I think we can get this out of the way immediately Good Olfactory. Since I was the one who created the category, and having seen (the light) on categorization structure, please fold the content. I will not disspute it. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 09:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Why

Why is it that "some users are unable to edit via an account for various reasons, usually involving the computer they access WP on?" —Eustress ^talk 12:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If someone only accesses WP from an employer's computer, I know that some employers allow their employees to do so on their free time, with the proviso that they do not create user accounts. I'm not sure what the rationale is of an employer to say this, but I've been told by 3 different users that that is their particular situation. It may have something to do with the individual computer systems being used to access WP. ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for catching that mistake on Category:Lists of number-one christian songs in the United States. Toa Nidhiki05 17:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Oct 2011

Good Olfactory, please reverse your block of editor Richard Arthur Norton. You are clearly WP:Involved with RAN; so you should not have been the one to apply the block even if it was warranted. As RAN has explained, even some of your regular editing decisions regarding reverts of RANs moves dont seem to have been properly reasearched. Also, your unwanted attention seems to be approaching wikihounding. So Im also asking that you disengage with RAN as much as possible. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

And you are ... ? I'm not involved except as the admin who has been turned to by editors to stop RAN's consistent making controversial moves without discussion. The entire situation has a considerable history which I doubt you are aware of. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Spouses of Wisconsin governors

Hi-Many thanks for saving the Spouses of Wisconsin governors category. I was the one who created the category. I kept in mind similiar categories. The Belle La Follette article is a good example; she was listed as being a spouse of an United States Senator, her husband Robert La Follette, Sr., etc. Also personally I did not the First Ladies and First Gentlemen of the Governors of Wisconsin category-too long and awkard. Again my thanks-RFD (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:United States nationality law

Category:United States nationality law, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Good Olfactory/Archive 16! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Teancum

If you have time & interest, could you take a look at Talk:Teancum#Images without reference? I don't care if you agree with my position(s), as it's probably I'm at least partially wrong, but it seems we need fresh eyes there. I've always found you to be evenhanded, and willing to tell me I'm wrong when I am, but also have enlightening insights when I've missed something. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

King Abdullah and President Obama.jpg

They do indeed have a higher resolution photograph of this file.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not know how to fix the file, so that is why I am asking you.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it's tagged to be moved to Wikimedia Commons. I've never done that before, but someone will get around to it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Article "Mormons"—correction of "Latter-Day"

Thank you for correcting my error. Even professional proofreaders are not infallible! I was misled by the form "Latter Day Saints" as it appears in the article without the hyphen, and I thought there had been a failure in consistency of construction. Appreciate your eagle eye! Thanks. --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What does F2 mean?

I'm wondering what you exactly delete when you delete images per "F2: File description page for a file on Commons"? Thanks. —Mike Allen 04:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that is deleted is the actual page on Wikipedia for that file. The mirror page that exists on Wikipedia which mirrors the content of the file page at Wikimedia Commons remains. So the image is still visible at the same address from Wikipedia, but the actual WP page is deleted in favor of merely having a mirror page of the commons file. We generally don't create actual WP pages of files that are mirrored to WP from commons. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

So the "page" was created when I categorized them in Category:Saw films and Category:Law & Order: Special Victims Unit? I did not know that wasn't allowed. :-\ Thanks for the explanation. —Mike Allen 04:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That's right—adding the categories creates the page on WP. Occasionally pages like this are created, but I think it's only if an image is selected as a winner of one of Wikipedia's best photographs, or if it appears on the DYK page one day. If you actually hit the button to create the page on a mirror page, a pink warning screen comes up that asks you not to create the page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

your last edit at missionary (lds) article

Please do explain why did You delete the external link at Missionary (LDS Church) article. Are you suggesting that http://www.lds4u.com does not have relevant information about Mormon missionaries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.122.1.84 (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting it is an inappropriate link per WP:ELNO #11. That's why I included that reasoning in my edit summary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

-- that website is not a blog, personal web page, or a fansite. Please let me remind you that Wikipedia is not a property of LDS Church and its goal is to provide actual information to its readers, not peddle the church line. Thank you. --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.122.1.84 (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, who owns it then? It's certainly not a reliable source from what I can see. I'm not sure of the relevance of your last sentence beginning "Please let me remind you...", or what would have prompted you to state that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Why would that be relevant who owns it? "Personal webpage" definition is about content, not the ownership. Have you actually read the site? Are you a Mormon? That is exactly what prompted me to that last sentence. You probably didn't serve on a mission also if you failed to determine the relevancy of that site to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.122.1.84 (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Who owns it would help in determining if it is a reliable source or if it is just a personal website. For instance, nytimes.com is considered a reliable source because of who owns it. I have not said that the content of the article is not relevant; I have said it is not a reliable source because it appears to just be personal musings on a personal website. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you look up a definition of a "personal website" on wikipedia at the very least. You will see there

""Personal web pages are World Wide Web pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature "" Also when a Mormon like you deletes information that might not be approved by your prophets or apostles that is very fishy to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.122.1.84 (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be a reliable source, which is really the central issue. And you've made an assumption that I am a Mormon, which is mistaken. I have found that assuming that you know the nature of another user's personal beliefs—religious or otherwise—based on a limited number of edits on Wikipedia will almost always lead to errors and misunderstandings. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Mexico – United States border

Category:Mexico – United States border, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

More dubious religious categories

User:Daniel the Monk is creating slews of categories and is not parenting them properly. It seems to me that Category:Roman Catholic Religious Sisters (weaker condition) should contain Category:Roman Catholic nuns and Category:Beatified people (weaker condition) should contain Category:Roman Catholic saints (rather than vice versa). Occuli (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was asking Johnbod about these awhile ago. He suggested putting the Religious Sisters categories as subcategories of nuns categories. I don't know much about the relation between the two, but you are probably right. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy Page

I have a quick question for you (as someone much more knowledgeable then myself on Wikipedia) FYI: Currently I am not having any kind of issue with this type of editor, but one popped up on my "Watch" list, so it got me thinking. You also probably noticed User:Canstusdis recent edit summary on Wilford Woodruff, since you have edit it in the past. It got me thinking about the users that I run into once in a while that insists that you have to "discuss" even minor changes, legitimate or otherwise, to any part of a page that changes what they have edited in the past. I am not talking about major changes.

If you notice the issue User:Canstusdis has is really minor, in my opinion. The edits didn't really change much and the edits in question were added by Canstusdis (who has never edit the page in the past), changed by two different edits, and then "reverted" by Canstusdis with his demand that everyone had to ask him first before they could change his edits.

User:Canstusdis is the old "you have to ask me first" type editor. Obviously this is not what Wikipedia is all about. To be honest the devil in me wanted to revert his edit just to say something rude back to him, but that would be wp:uncivil, so I refrained.

I have never been able to find a Wikipedia Policy Page the quite fit this type of situation. I was wondering if you knew one. WP:civil is good for rudeness, but that is not what I'm talking about. WP:bold isn't quite right. I even found this list of alot of the civility type of pages, but none see quite right. I'm talking about the "you have to ask me first" type demands.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:OWN? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Close enough. You got me to Wikipedia:No vested contributors (threw the WP:OWN page) and I think that is good. If you can find one better I would love to hear it.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 21:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Cydebot

Cydebot seems to be stalling. The problem seems to be someplace in the speedy section. So I wanted to have it ignore those to see if we can get the growing backlog processed. If not that, at least to have a smaller list to see where it is broken. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I know what busted it. It was a crazy and bizarre user page of a "draft" article that was a mess and contained a billion categories. After it processed that one, it stopped working. I've removed all the categories from that page. We just need to kick start it again somehow. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is back in the speedy section. So we need to wait. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's zipping along again. By the way, I resolved the Category:Short-lived states issue and it is slowly emptying. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Want to nominate short lived states of WWI and WWII? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering about those—I suppose perhaps they could be renamed to something like "puppet states created during WWII" or similar; I'm not sure if outright deletion is the preferred option. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, short lived is subjective as was the 10 years on Category:Short-lived states. Would something like Category:Temporary states of World War I or Category:Temporary states following World War I work? The category introductions leave me wanting. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a tough one to rename, since some lasted only during the war, while others existed for a couple years but only after the war had ended, while some were created during the war and lasted for some time after the war. There may not be a good solution here apart from deletion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Propose deletion pending a valid target name? As it is now, it looks like a catch all for temporary states created for various reasons. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I think that's right. Should I do it? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes please. I'm still doing the manual cleanup of amusement rides. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Nom is here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

Just wanted to let you know that I mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations and always try to inform users whenever I mention them anywhere that they might not be aware of.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very considerate. I see you weren't the first to bring up my name, but I'm glad you let me know when it came into the discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Anytime. Not that it matters but I don't see your name anywhere other than my opening post on the move issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, you're right. I missed that one. I thought RAN was the first to raise it, but I see that now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

please help me understand categories

Hi, Good Olfactory,

I'm just starting to dabble in categories and I appear to have screwed something up, because you made a couple of changes to some categories I've been using, relating to the Judicial Committee. Could you help me to understand how the categories work?

I made a new category page, which has since been renamed or deleted : Canadian Cases of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council => Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases on appeal from Canada . Was my original name in breach of a naming convention or something?

Second, I had put both this category and "Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases" on some pages relating to JCPC cases, but I see you've been deleting the "Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases"; how come? is there a problem with having both of them on? I was thinking it would be helpful to have both, so that someone who's interested in JCPC cases generally could use one category to find all JCPC cases, and someone who's just interested in Canadian JCPC cases could use the other. Have I tripped up somehow?

Thanks, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

First issue: it was not really in breach of anything, but the capitalization on "Cases" needed to be fixed per the guidelines. So I also proposed that the name be changed to match the other by-country subcategories in the JCPC category. I do a lot of category name clean up, and this was just one instance. If anything was terribly wrong or problematic, I would have notified you. Second issue: there is a general principle that if an is in CategoryB and CategoryB is a subcategory of CategoryA, the article should be removed from CategoryA because the application of that category is "redundant". For instance, if an article is in Category:American basketball players, it doesn't have also be in Category:American sportspeople and Category:American people. However, this rule is only loosely applied and in some circumstances editors are happy to ignore the principle and include redundant categories. In this case, it would probably be OK having them in both, but I just did what I did to implement the usual procedure. You can add Category:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases to them all if you wish and I wouldn't object. (Others might, but I wouldn't.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Where do I find the guidelines you mentioned on naming? I tried looking for it but unsuccessfully; only found a funky complicated chart with arrows going everywhere that I couldn't understand. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The guidelines on naming are voluminous—there are tons of them for all sorts of imaginable topics. On capitalization, they are at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. For category names matching names of other similar categories, see WP:CFD#C2C. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Cat

Why did u delete Category:Anti-Palestinian ? Pass a Method talk 09:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It looked like a personal attack to place such a category on an article. Wouldn't it be an attack to create a category called Category:Anti-Semitic and place it on an article about a person or organization? So same deal here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

In regards to the file Shailendra Banka

Why the contents of this page was deleted? The contents can be verified at any point of time, it is correct and the photograph shown in the file is of the same person. It was an article of a political person and there must be some rival or biased person who had an objection on it. Because, rivals can't bear their opposition to be famous. The page was containing the early life and contact details of the person, thus non-objectionable. Therefore, kindly restore it, if possible or allow to write the article.

Shaily07YC (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Only the duplicate WP page was deleted. It is a file on Wikimedia Commons, and the page is still mirrored on Wikipedia. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I tried to view the said file on the WP,file is there but the contents are not visible. Please inform me the possible reason as well as the solution. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaily07YC (talk • contribs) 02:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The link is here: [1]. I am not sure why you would not be able to view it. What is the exact message you are getting? Is it a message from Wikipedia or from your browser or from your Internet provider? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleting file description pages as F2

Why did you delete File:Qxz-ad125.gif and File:Qxz-ad123.gif? The templates were useful for navigation. You'll note under CSD#F8, it says, "If there is any information not relevant to any other project on the image description page (like {{FeaturedPicture}}), the image description page must be undeleted after the file deletion." Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not a featured picture template, but if that particular template is thought to be somehow relevant to someone, that's fine. It seems to me like something that would be better organized via Commons, but ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, but the thing is that they were all uploaded here, so a lot of the images are still local. And the link still exists, so if you click on the template on another image, it will bring you to this one, but now it won't have the template to bring you back. Look, I think all this wikispam is silly but apparently it means something to somebody. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the pages. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Shows vs Programs

Just as a footnote to the commentary on the CFDS page - "game shows" would be an exception, as I've never heard the term "game programs". ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. That one is OK to stay. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Henry B. Eyring (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Colonia Juárez

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy category move of Bronze Age Europe -> Bronze Age in Europe

I'm not familiar with the CFDS process, but I'm assuming you used it because you thought this move was uncontroversial because it was creating an "x in y" format. But that convention doesn't apply here. The Bronze Age is a historical period, and the original form is how historical periods in a certain region are described, i.e. it's analogous to Category:Medieval Italy not Category:Cathedrals in Italy. Besides you only moved Bronze Age leaving it inconsistent with dozens of other prehistory categories. Kindly move it back? joe•roe^t•c 10:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It was actually based on criterion C2D. The main article is named Bronze Age in Europe. So the category is renamed to match the article. If you don't like the name, the article can be nominated for renaming, and then the category name follows the article name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah I see, sorry for jumping to the wrong conclusion. That article is clearly titled out of step with similar ones, so I'll go ahead and move it. joe•roe^t•c 10:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that the article is now moved, I'll move the category back. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

How the hell...

Greetings and... How the hell did you get there ahead of me?? I went back to Category:Police brutality in California to add the third parent cat... and it was already there. Thought I was losing my mind or something! :) Anyway, I thought it was about time for this new category -- way overdue, actually -- given what's been going on of late. (I assume you've been hearing about it, where ever you may be residing at the moment.) Regards, Cgingold (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

WP has given me psychic powers of the disturbing kind .... No—I just saw in in the recent creations queue, so I thought I'd take a peek. When I added the parent, I didn't realise you had just created it (a 19-minute lag, I see). (Soon I'm going to start some self-discipline and decide that I won't edit anything until it is 24 hours old—so as not the drive people crazy.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Please show some respect

Such edit summaries as "silly" and "this is ridiculous" are inappropriate. I believe that I am at least due some respect for my arguments, given that I do think that I'm the resident medieval Chinese history writer here. No, that doesn't mean that what I say trumps other people's, but please do not simply consider them "silly" or "ridiculous" without considering whether there is some actual legitimacy to my argument. --Nlu (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think your opinions on the merits are silly, but I do think it's silly for you to suggest that there is no consensus is the discussion you referred to. I see quite a clear consensus. And I do believe it is ridiculous that I have to move all the categories to a full discussion, since they are speediable. But I'm doing it nevertheless, because all it takes is one editor to object to bounce something from the speedy section. It's a pain, but it's the way the system works. So I am giving your substantive arguments respect, which is why I'm busting my ass creating a full nomination for these categories when they are otherwise speediable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Or you can withdraw them. No one is forcing you to do one. --Nlu (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I could withdraw them. But no, I think they are clear-cut enough that they should be done. Withdrawing them might actually be more work than proceeding, because all of the CFD templates would have to be removed from each one. So yes, I am essentially being forced to do work—if I want to be a good WP community member, that is. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You are free to do that, and I respect your bringing it to a full discussion — but it wouldn't have been more work to withdraw them. You could simply revert yourself on each of the edits. --Nlu (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That wouldn't work well, because I also made other category sorting edits in the same edits as the nomination. To revert the nominations would also revert the sorting edits, which also needed to be done. I'm not complaining, apart from saying "this is ridiculous" in an edit summary. I'll do the work. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

All done! And my ass wasn't even busted by it. (Except for that time when I fell off my chair—but that was unrelated to the work involved ....) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

October CfDs

These three October 20th discussions and this multi-part one from October 30th remain open. Will you be the one to close them?--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I've closed the 20th as a non-admin. Would one of you care to implement the changes? otherwise I'll ask Tim. These are the decisions that need to be implemented: Category:Works based on other authors and Works based on Shakespeare. (I've done all the ones to be kept.) – Fayenatic (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I've implemented the changes on the "other authors" category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

All closed now for both dates. – Fayenatic (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry—I would have helped out, but was away from editing over the weekend. I'm glad to see they got done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

, United States

I would like to better understand the addition of ", United States" you keep making to pages like W. Wallace Smith. I'm just confused. It seems to me that Wikipedia:PLACE#United_States implies that the "United States" is not necessary. However, I admit I probably wrong, so I would like to know what WP policy applies here.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 18:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PLACE#United_States definitely does apply to article names. We generally name them with the city and state. For the templates, I was just including them for completeness. There were some in which the person was born in another country and died in the U.S., and I thought it looked a bit funny (or, if nothing else, American-centric) to include the country for the entry on birth place but not when U.S. places are referred to in the same template. And as these people are leading international organizations, not just American-only organizations, it seemed appropriate to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I bring it up is that it seems to cause the text to wrap into anther line added another line to some of the really long infoboxes.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh. That probably depends on the size of your screen, I suppose. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it has more to do with the size of the infobox. Even when I change screens (ie computers) the infobox seems to stay the same. I need to look into setting the infoboxs to a set width.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Tillsonburg categories

You can't remove the speedy template. I made a two new categories both from Tillsonburg. Category:Tillsonburg, Ontario replaces Category:Tillsonburg and Category:People from Tillsonburg, Ontario replaces Category:People from Tillsonburg. I move all the articles into the new categories into the both new Tillsonburg category names. I fix very short and easy for about 10 minutes. I put both old Tillsonburg categories to mark for Speedy deletion. Do not remove the speedy template. The two old Tillsonburg categories has to be speedy deleted in order to match the main article Tillsonburg. Steam5 (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually I can, for three reasons. (1) You're not supposed to rename categories outside of the WP:CFD process, as you did. (2) A category has to be empty for 4 days to legitimately nominate it for speedy deletion. (3) An admin has the discretion to refuse a speedy deletion request and to remove the template if it doesn't meet the criteria.

I don't condone your unilateral action in renaming the category, but I'm willing to let it slide and not reverse the change, because it looks like a logical rename to propose. But if you're going to act outside of the regular processes, at least let the 4 days pass to give someone the opportunity to object to what you have done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You make me upset. I'm very professional at making new categories. And you're mean to me. I need to get rid of both of the old Tillsonburg categories. I don't want make actions on myself. And I have been a Wikipedia for a long time. And I would've put category redirect first. :-( Steam5 (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to upset you or be mean. I've just seen too many problems that result when users change category names without using the regular processes for changing them. If you like you can just make the old ones into category redirects, or you can wait and they can be deleted after a few days. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? So I can put the category redirect for the moment for 4 days? Or stay the old Tillsonburg categories for 4 days until speedy deletion. OK. That's fine. I'm professional at Wikipedia in a long time and make good edits. So wait maybe December 6 for speedy deletion? Both options would be very nice. :-) Steam5 (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The category redirects can be made permanent if you want—there's really no harm to them being on the old name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

India categories

I was not aware of what you had proposed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy and would have wished to object to Category:European rule in India being renamed as Category:Colonial India, as much European rule in India did not take a colonial form, and also to Category:British rule in India being renamed as Category:British Raj, as the meaning of "British Raj" is so uncertain and disputed. Both of those changes seem to me to merit fuller discussions. Could you please advise me on my talk page how to reopen these two questions? Thank you for your help. Moonraker (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I, too, am surprised. You appear to have arranged a speedy move of Category:Criminal tribes in India to Category:Denotified tribes of India without attempting to inform me, the creator of the category. Prior to political whitewashing, they were indeed known as criminal tribes and in fact still are referred to as such by anthropologists etc.. The new category is meaningless to most people outside India, in my opinion. - Sitush (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually. I've now raised the issue at ANI in this thread. I don't particularly want any drama but something seems a little odd here, probably because I do not do a lot of category work. - Sitush (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, with regard to the British Raj category, are you aware that the British Raj is often considered to run from the Indian Rebellion of 1857, whereas the Brits themselves were in India for many years before that in the guise of the East India Company? Power was vested in the EIC until the rebellion. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

CfD, neither the normal process or the speedy, does not require notification of the category creator, and Twinkle does not provide notifcation in its function for nominating either. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't choose the article names, I just implement the C2D criterion. When that criterion was adopted, I was slightly leery of it and expressed some vague warnings that it would be problematic in some instances, but consensus was to go with it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Good Olfactory, could you perhaps just explain more about what happened? I really don't understand how this process happened. Was there a community discussion? Was it done via a speedy process? What is the "C2D criterion"? Also, I just noticed that it looks like neither I nor Sitush mentioned that this issue was also raised on WP:ANI at WP:ANI#Non-admin close creating new category naming guideline; technically "you" weren't mentioned, but a link to this discussion was and we should have notified you, my apologies. I think maybe the problem is that this process seems somehow different form other processes, and I can't figure out what actually happened here, or what needs to be done to revert these (since at least some of theme seem to be pretty POV. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, my apologies for not making my notification of the ANI thread more clear. Maybe I should have used the default notification. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• What category is being referred to? I think there are a couple here as referred to above. I'll refer to one for simplicity and clarity: Category:Criminal tribes in India was renamed to Category:Denotified tribes of India via the speedy rename process. What was the justification?: Since the main article for the category is Denotified tribes of India, the C2D criterion states that a category can be speedily renamed to match the name of the main article within that category (since category names generally follow the name of the main article for that category). Category:Criminal tribes in India was tagged by me with Template:cfr-speedy; I added it to the speedy rename queue; it was processed because no one objected after 48 hours. That's all I know about it, and I hardly think it's a matter for ANI. If someone wants to rename it back, I suggest just starting a nomination using WP:CFD and propose naming it back. Or, it could be taken to WP:DRV, but I would advise that a fresh nomination would probably be the least frustrating route. As I mentioned above, when it was proposed/adopted I could foresee that C2D could be a problem in certain circumstances, but for the most part it works fine. Occasionally there are some instances like this though where users prefer a different name for the category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Please forgive my lack of detailed knowledge of category issues in what follows. As far as I can recall I named no main article for the criminal tribes category, nor was it intended to have such. I accept that it might have been better worded as "Tribes formerly classified as criminal in India", or something like that, but all of the linked articles clearly use the "criminal" word etc & this is indeed the correct term, as per the Criminal Tribes Act. Furthermore, as far as I am aware, there is no requirement for a category to even have a main article.

Your other effort (British rule in India --> British Raj) is dubious at best & should have been raised at, say, WT:IN. I do not particularly care that the former article redirects to the latter: it is blatantly the case, as the latter article itself says, that A does not equal B. The Raj period is from 1857/58; British rule in India runs from a century or so before that and through to Indian independence in 1947. The earlier period is covered by Company rule in India. A lot of India-related articles are incorrectly categorised but there is no need to make a bad situation worse. The situation is clearly complex and the structure should probably be to have a stub article British rule in India that contains links to East India Company rule in India and British Raj ... or something similar. It is a pretty complex area, as appears to be practically anything related to that country and its pre-partition variants.

The C2D process is clearly a mess in these two respects and it should not take the esotericism of CfD to fix these anomalies, and certainly not without raising a formal notice on the project talk page. I am not even sure that C2D is mandatory: it refers to "could" and has other vaguities. I accept that your action was a bold one but I am not entirely sure how it can be undone, especially in the latter case where, IIRC, I think there was already a British Raj category & so now the articles are likely to be hopelessly mixed up. If any of the preceding sounds a bit rude or strident then please accept my apologies: I just cannot figure out how better to phrase this, despite sitting on the issue for a good few hours. - Sitush (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If there is a concern with the way something is named on Wikipedia, it generally needs to start with the article. For instance, if denotified tribes of India is not the appropriate name, then it needs to be raised at Talk:Denotified tribes of India. The category names generally just follow the lead of the article names in that regard. As for the other specific issue, it sounds like you do not care for things that I generally do care about, and perhaps vice versa as well, so a more generalized discussion would seem to me to be appropriate. I don't see my opinion as the focus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I had a thought—maybe with the British Raj category I should nominate it to be named back to the previous name; this would give some editors a chance to weigh in with an opinion about it. Ultimately, the best solution might just be to have both categories and carry out a manual split, but I would leave that decision to consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied

At my talk page, so I'd ask you to stop reverting me long enough to actually reply. — Moe ε 00:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Grammy Award categories

I realized it was odd to name a category with the word category, although understandable in context. Since there was an article on the List of Grammy Award categories, it did seem to make sense to me. However, I am not sure why categories (in Wikipedia terms) of the individual award categories (in Grammy terms) should be categorized in Category:Categories named after awards. The award itself is the Grammy, so I would think only Category:Grammy Awards should be in the "named after" scheme. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: the latter point, I suppose it's debatable. I was including them in Category:Categories named after awards more out of convenience. I use those categories as a guide to helping me find categories that need to be deleted or renamed. Really, it seems to me that most of those Grammy categories need to be renamed. They shouldn't be "named after" the award in the literal sense. Shouldn't they be "GRAMMY-AWARD-NAME winners" or something like that? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that's also an area of debate that I'm having with User:Another Believer. Aren't the winners the people who actually receive the award, especially in the "best performance" categories, not a particular song? Along with a rename for clarification, there can be a scheme for each Grammy category being placed into a parent cat of "Grammy Award winners" (individuals), "Grammy Award-winning albums" or "Grammy Award-winning songs"? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right on that point, but if it's a category for the songs or the albums, the category name has have something more than just the name of the award, does it not? "GRAMMY-AWARD-NAME-winning albums", for example. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree, renames are needed but how do you think they would best be categorized? Using Category:Academy Award winners as precedent, film categories (Best Picture, Best Animated Feature, Best Documentary) are populated with the films themselves, while categories for Screenplay, Editing, Special Effects, etc. have the individuals who won for a particular film. What about the Grammy Award for Best Comedy Album as an example? Lewis Black won the award last year for Stark Raving Black. Black is thus categorized under Category:Grammy Award winners. So, the name of Category:Grammy Award for Best Comedy Album can be renamed to Category:Grammy Award winners for Best Comedy Album or Category:Best Comedy Album Grammy Award winners, with parent category Category:Grammy Award-winning albums, and include the winning albums. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the point that I'm not at all sure about. On balance, I think it's probably more appropriate to categorize the song/album that way than the human winner. Categorizing the human winner that way seems to be creeping into WP:OC#AWARDS category, whereas categorizing the song/album that way would seem to be fairly defining and not as problematic. I would categorize the human winner in the generic Category:Grammy Award winners, but keep the very specific categories for the songs/albums. But I'm not positive about this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll try putting Category:Grammy Award for Album of the Year up for CfD as a test case and request a rename to Category:Grammy Award winners for Album of the Year, and we can see what issues are raised there, unless you have another suggestion. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. It would be helpful to find out what everybody else thinks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hunter-gatherer categories

Thanks so much for fixing the display / key for the continental Category:Hunter-gatherers, I found out that was the right syntax, but I didn't know where to put it. Looks much better on the main category page!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

FOP

A good, intelligent close, thank you.

I think it would be better if (unlike last time) I waited a few days and drafted my deletion proposal, thought about it, and copyedited it to the point where it seemed coherent and likely to be understandable (and perhaps even persuasive) before actually posting it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've done that before myself when I've drafted a particularly complex or confusing nomination. It might take a little while for the files to transfer over to the new name anyway, since we have to wait for the template to reset. But the rename will be complete eventually. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The need for patience conveniently complements my inclination to procrastinate. -- Hoary (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Familiar?

user:71.150.253.197 remind you of anyone? Occuli (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the fact that the first-ever edit by the IP was made to Lesbian kiss episode was a bit of a dead giveaway. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Categorisation of "South-West Africa"

Hullo. You've added South-West Africa to the category "United Nations Trust Territories". To me this is an incorrect categorisation, since South-West Africa was never a Trust Territory. But perhaps you added it to the category with the reasoning that it was a sui generis case that belongs with the Trust Territories, since any sensible discussion of the latter territories also requires mention of the former? A shame that there's no way of distinguishing something within a category as a "See also"! Anyway, I'm interested in hearing your line of thought on this one. Regards, Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

You are right now that I think about it more carefully. I had known it was a League mandate, but you're right that it never did make the transition to UNTT. I think it should probably come out of the category. You're right that it's a shame categories are all-or-none—but in this case I would say we don't apply it. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough! As it happens, Moonraker has already removed the categorisation. Cheers, Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

Thanks!

Sorry for creating some work for you with my misspelling of Wikipedia categories lately (and also in the past). But your correction efforts are highly appreciated!

		Ukrainian Barnstar of National Merit
		I give you this Ukrainian Barnstar of National Merit (note the raspberry color of the ribbon, the historical color of the Zaporozhian Cossacks) for correcting tons of new Ukrainian related Wikipedia categories (all created by me )! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all—glad to help. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

West Coast Region (the Gambia)

he Gambia is divided into five regions and two municipalities, the City of Banjul and Kanifing municipality. The five regions are the Western Region, Lower River Region, Central River Region, Upper River Region and the North Bank Region. (after Lands Commission Act 2007). And 2010 changes the name Western Region to 'West Coast Region. --Atamari (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The "regions" as you call them are also commonly called "divisions". Right now all the WP articles about the areas use "FOO Division", except the West Coast one. It's easy to find references to the Gambian "West Coast Division" and to the Gambian "West Coast Region". If they would be better off renamed as "regions", that's fine, but they would all need to be moved to be consistent: see here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

divisions are the older version. The gambia government changes 2007 the term. "West Coast Division" is 100% an imaginative name. --Atamari (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the term is used. If you think that they should be changed, I suggest you use WP:RM. All we need is a good source that says they have been changed and they could all be nominated together. I suspect the name "division" is still used by ISO, which is probably why they haven't changed on WP. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Can't you read ? Western Region to 'West Coast Region. Of course, not all the old books updated. I thought the Wikipedia is written to the right, this is not true for the English wikipedia? --Atamari (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't be rude. That source does not say that the "division" designation was formally changed to the "region" designation. It just uses the terms "region" without comment. I can also find sources that use "division" without comment. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I see you're not willing to recognize the truth and not respect the source "Gambia Bureau of Statistics". I wish you a nice day. --Atamari (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you're getting a bit hot under the collar about this. This Gambian government webpage still refers to the five "rural divisions". I'm just saying there are two different usages going on, and if we want to change them, we should start a nomination to change them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Prohibition Party (United States)

Category:Prohibition Party (United States), which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. The Evil IP address (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

JSJr.

You're too kind. Keep up the great work. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?

Hi Good Olfactory. You participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations, in which a one-month topic ban on creating new articles and making page moves was imposed on Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs). The closing admin has asked for community input about whether to remove the topic ban or make it indefinite at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?. Cunard (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for cleaning up my Category:Shibboleths entries. — Robert Greer (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Socially responsible businesses

Please look at the content of Category:Socially responsible businesses. This edit was inappropriate, see http://www.benjerry.com/activism/ Whether their activism is objectively socially responsible is not at issue; however, it is quite clear they hold themselves out as being so. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The category name doesn't differentiate between subjective and objective criteria. It just says point blank "soccially responsible businesses", which is why I think it's an inappropriate form of categorization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly Category:Social entrepreneurship could be used, but a subcategory seems more appropriate. It is clearly notable as was shown by the appearance of Ben and Jerry recently at the National Press Club where they discussed their support of Occupy Wall Street. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to use that name the best solution for me might just be for me to nominate it for a rename to get other suggestions of how we can deal with that issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Northern Irish people

I hadn't realised that you had previously taken part in a couple of these debates, when discussing this with you recently. I added another log to your list here - feel free to remove again if I have overstepped my bounds of editing in your namespace. --86.130.252.87 (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, though I think what I've done there on the NI ones is only keep the ones from the past couple of years, since it has changed several times since 2005. I think it's fair to say that the discussions from 2006 have been superseded by the several discussions that have been held since. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, obviously the more recent ones are more pertinent. I think there were other nominations or proposals in the past as well possibly, but I thought those couple I added were enough to just give s more complete picture. --86.130.252.87 (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

German administrative district categories

Hi GO, I see you are mass-moving German district and regional categories. Can you show me where the logic for this was discussed? --Bermicourt (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

They are speedy-rename eligible under criterion C2D: renames to match an article name to the article of the same name. The subcategories then follow the same naming pattern per C2B. (The process is that names are generally chosen for the articles in question, and then the categories simply follow the naming that was selected for the articles. I could not tell you where the discussion was that determined the current names for the articles.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Permanent Representatives of Trinidad and Tobago to the United Nations

Category:Permanent Representatives of Trinidad and Tobago to the United Nations, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Shadowjams (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:High Commissioners of Trinidad and Tobago

Category:High Commissioners of Trinidad and Tobago, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Shadowjams (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Crime victims by nationality

Please note that the subcategories of Category:Crime victims by nationality are up for renaming again. Given that you participated in the previous discussion, you may be interested in participating in this on, too. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy new year

very long time no speak - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_21#Victoria - it has all happened before - its a bit like the historically/geographically challenged kids who want to put Java (programming) before the Island - I'd say it would be worth concurring with what is left of the Australia project (lively? the whole wiki wide reduction in editors and editing is making yourself and a few others look like grandads of a dissapearing glacier....) ... cheers SatuSuro 10:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care which format is used, but I'm trying to figure out what the deal is with the applicable guideline. It doesn't seem to be followed much. On the other hand, some users seem wedded to it in some contexts. HNY to you too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

May yours be a safe one away from rumbling ground... SatuSuro 05:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Good Olfactory. You have new messages at The Bushranger's talk page.
Message added 04:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)