User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 17

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Works originally published in economics magazines

Category:Works originally published in economics magazines, 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. Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Presiding Patriarch

I was wondering if I could have your input at Talk:Presiding Patriarch. I am confused as to the status of "Asahel Smith" and I know you are very Knowledgeable in LDS Church history, so you may be able to clear up my confusion.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 20:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Good Olfactory. You have new messages at Talk:Mark Hofmann.
Message added 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Evergreen Party

Hello, I see you've done this, could you also close the discussion? Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. I'm not sure on why this naming issue is being fought out over the categories. Talk:Evergreen Party of Alberta seems like the obvious choice for where there should be discussion on the matter. I wonder why no one is proposing a rename there? Though I agree that there's probably not a good case to change it from what the name is currently. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That's Me-123567-Me for you, he often doesn't make sense to me. 117Avenue (talk) 05:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

You just blocked User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). I just wondered: if this was done in response to the two copyvio investigations I posted on his talk page, then these are old violations which are still present in the articles, not new ones. If the block was based on things like the creation of Category:Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget or File:Axel Enström 1974.jpg or other things I am unaware off, then no problem, but I don't think blocking him for the copyvios I posted would be correct (since he received a general topic ban for his whole copyvio problem and nothing more). Fram (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I should have waited a few minutes. I note that your post on his talk page addresses this, so you may ignore my previous post here. Fram (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Right. Yeah, no connection to the copyvio investigations. I hadn't even seen those at the time of the block. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Astika and nastika

Please take a look at PhilPapers organization of Indian philosophy. If you merge these two, you have defeated the purpose of the organization. Please withdraw this proposal. It's just making more work for me.Greg Bard (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

It all seems a bit overly fine to me, but I've started a speedy rename to at least fix the spelling in the meantime. If I asked every editor who made more work for me to stop what they are doing ... well, that would be interesting. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

You do a lot of work on the categories, so I thought you could relate. Thanks for initiating a rename for the diacritics and thanks for all your work.Greg Bard (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

If anyone asks me to withdraw, I do honestly consider it, and it made sense to here after your explanation. Shall we keep a redirect on the non-diacritic versions of the names? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy rename of Category:Victoria College alumni

The rename you propose to this category that I created makes sense to me, for whatever that may be worth. If there is anything I should do to support that please let me know but I assume as a speedy request, it will just happen. --KenWalker | Talk 06:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup, it will just happen once it's been listed for 48 hours. A bot will make all the changes so there's nothing you need to do. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

AN/I notification concerning Target for Today

You might want to chime in on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Target for Today and category churning. Mangoe (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Cats

Can you explain why you removed this and other categories? Pass a Method talk 02:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Because there's no way that the category won't be deleted if it is nominated. Categories that classify people with an intersection of occupation and being either dead or alive almost never survive discussion. Do you want it to be nominated for discussion instead? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, i prefer a discussion. Pass a Method talk 09:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Nominated here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy rename Category:Aircraft Designation Systems‎

This should have been "Military aircraft designation systems" but I couldn't figure out how to do the rename after having created it - does a category rename require admin priviledges? Thanks!NiD.29 (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories can't really be moved like articles. The only way to do it is to delete the old category, change the category name on the articles, and create a new category. WP:CFD sets out the process for proposing renames of articles. If the consensus is to rename a category, then the admins have access to a bot which can automatically make all the changes.

I will just go ahead and make the change with a bot as you've set out; since you are the sole editor and just barely created it it's OK if we change it without discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!NiD.29 (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

DRC Provinces

I see you are trying to straighten out this confusion. The problem was that in 2006 the DRC accepted a constitution that said that by February 2009 all the districts would become separate provinces. A lot of articles were categorized as if the change had happened. But it never did happen, although perhaps some day it will. Who knows? Meanwhile we have duplicate pairs like Bas-Uele District and Bas-Uele Province which are exactly the same places. My instinct, which I think you share, is to reflect the de-facto reality rather than the (perhaps) de-jure new provinces. Two minor quibbles/questions.

• If Bas-Uele District is in Category:Bas-Uele District, which in turn is in Category:Districts of Orientale (province), should Bas-Uele District be also placed directly in Category:Districts of Orientale (province), or is that redundant?
• Would it be reasonable to try to dodge the issue, where possible, by using a name like "Bas-Uele" and within the article saying it is a province that may some day become a district? Or just merge the province into the district for now, and the move the district to the province if there is a need later. The land remains the same, with towns and rivers, people and politicians, factories and forest reserves. Two article invites forking.

Aymatth2 (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're reading right what I am doing, and I agree with your instinct on how to deal with this. It doesn't make a lot of sense to categorize by yet non-existent entities.

Regarding the first point: different users have different opinions about how to approach that. I don't have a strong view one way or the other, so if you want to remove the articles from the Districts category if they are in the self-named parent category which is also in the Districts category, that is fine with me.

Regarding the second: I would be inclined for now to have the articles about the districts be the central article, with a section discussing the proposal that the district become a province. In most cases, I don't think we really need the articles about the proposed provinces—we certainly don't need categories and subcategories for them. I think though there are a few proposed provinces that don't correspond to current districts, if I'm not mistaken, like the proposed Kasai-oriental province, so it might not be practical to merge the proposed province article with a district article in each case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I am going to start merging articles on proposed provinces into articles on the districts where they are identical - unless you get there first. It can always be reversed. Where a proposed province is made of two or more districts or cities, I will leave the proposed province article but make that clear. I agree there is no need for proposed province categories. Populated places, people from etc. should link to the real districts. Of course as soon as this is all straightened out a presidential decree will be issued saying the new provinces exist and naming their governors. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Of course—it's bound to happen as soon as it's completed and squared away. :) Your plan sounds good to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I would be inclined to go with North Kivu, South Kivu. I sense those are the forms the NY Times or BBC would use. But I would keep Équateur, Bas-Congo and Orientale. They don't work in translation for me. Not consistent, but ... Aymatth2 (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I got more hits for the French versions, but that includes all languages; and it was close anyway, so that's fine ... Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I am done merging proposed provinces into districts. There were only three where it was not reasonable. The articles are depressingly short of information - I may add some. There is now a collection of empty categories under Category:Proposed provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Maybe they should be removed. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• It's looking great. If the empty categories stay there empty for 4 days, they will be tagged as empty and deleted, so I'm sure that will probably happen soon. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Interpretation

Greetings, If that move goes through, the mathematicians will immediately depopulate the category and propose to delete it. I think perhaps there will be a "logical interpretation" category someday, but I am not prepared to work on that immediately. The category is intended to help bring into the fold a great many different types of "conceptual models." I have been thinking about the creation of this category for some time now. Greg Bard (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The main article is declared to be Interpretation (logic). Interpretation is ambiguous—indeed, it is a disambiguation page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the category is to connect a great many articles to the fundamental categories in an organized way. It shows the various attempts to use models in reasoning things out in many and varies subject areas. As logic is universally applicable, these connections are often taken for granted. However, to try to portray a lot of these things as somehow "within" logic or mathematics will not go over very well. So all of these things can be seen as instances of the concept in the article interpretation (logic), but it would be inappropriate to call the category a "logic" category. Greg Bard (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hm, sounds like an issue for community discussion. What you are saying sounds a bit overly broad to me for categorization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've heard that type of thing in the past, however these days I have been making a lot of "abstract concept" type of categories work just fine. Previously they had been set up in a "hoi palloi" manner. Several had been deleted as "hopeless" or "too broad" as you are now saying. These days the philosophy department is perfectly capable of dealing with them appropriately. A perfect example is the category Vice, which has been deleted. Whereas left to the hoi polloi, the idea was that it couldn't be managed, any old thing would end up in there, etcetera. However, to ethicists and moral philosophers there is not a lot of controversy about dealing with these things appropriately.Greg Bard (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is run, edited, and read by the "hoi polloi", so ... It's good to commit to monitor things, but no one is around forever, in WP or in life. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that. I really would prefer that you not move that category. It is not a logic category, and there is not currently a an article interpretation (philosophy), which would be more appropriate. However I would still have to object to relegating the philosophy department to its own ghettoized categories. We don't need Category:Arguments (logic) too do we? Just how is that different? Greg Bard (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I moved an article from my user space into that article space a little earlier than I would have liked to. I hope this refocusing will help the situation.Greg Bard (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't it still need to be renamed to Category:Interpretation (philosophy)? As long as it's undifferentiated, it's ambiguous as a category. The difference with the arguments category is that the main article is argument; but interpretation is a disambiguation page. Categories generally match the name of the main article, with occasional adjustments for pluralization as necessary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't need any parenthetic title any more than Category:Arguments (logic) is needed. I think the keeping the title the same as the main article is overly pedantic. I try to discourage the use of parenthetic titles in the philosophy articles because there shouldn't be a difference in principle. There is no such thing as an argument "in the field of philosophy" as distinct from arguments used in many and varied fields. It's the same concept. The idea here isn't to claim certain categories and articles as being within philosophy, as there is an aversion by some for certain articles be classified as such. However, given the universal applicability of philosophical (e.g. logical, ethical, etc) principles, it is understandable that there would be some connection between philosophy and those many and varied fields. I'm trying to do it in a way that makes sense. In general, I am trying to make categories fairly consistent with the PhilPapers categories and the InPho categories. I did ask the American Philosophical Association if they had a standardized subject matter classification, but they didn't. Greg Bard (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

One could call it overpedantic, or one could just see it as avoiding a philosophy-centric categorization scheme. Full nomination is here. It's not that cool to remove a rename template that has been placed by an editor before the rename proposal is resolved one way or the other. The template itself says "Please do not remove or change this Template:Cfr-speedy message until the survey and discussion at WP:CFD is closed". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Target for Tomorrow

I've collected TfT's entire contribution list (as visible to me) at User:Oculi/testd as I expect socks to spring up (see eg suspects, loudly quacking). I can't however see their deleted creations, in particular categories, from my lowly vantage point. If you have some ready way of adding the deleted list please do so, in case it is needed to demonstrate a case in future. Oculi (talk) 09:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, impressive. Preparing for the future! (It shouldn't be too hard, though—just monitor pages related to Getteysburg...) Yes, I can see contributions to deleted content, so I'll try to add to the list. Is it in any particular order or just add to the end? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that's the lot. I added them in—alphabetically, I see. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. AWB does the list in no time: list user contribs, then filter to remove repetitions and sort, then save list. It doesn't retain info on creations tho'. Oculi (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Quack. See eg the (only) 2 cfd discussions to which this editor has contributed. Oculi (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. Begun already, has he? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Glam metal

Could you take a look here? Several editors are making the same edits. Thanks. – Confession0791 ^talk 05:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Pretty obvious. I've blocked User:DFWRaider and the IPs for jointly violating the 3RR. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Changes to Template:Infobox Swiss town

Hello, I'm not sure why you made some changes to the Infobox Swiss town template, but I think you were using an older version because you reverted several changes that I had had done to other parts of the template a few weeks ago. Can you either take down the protection for a little while or revert the changes that were made to the snow_image section and the section that searches for municipality maps. Thanks Tobyc75 (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I'm not sure how I managed to do that. I'll fix it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There. Let me know if that hasn't got it right. The diff between the previous edit and all of mine is here. Those are the only changes I intended to make. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks good now, thanks Tobyc75 (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

For our collection

Saw this, glanced at this, blocked this. I haven't been around for a while so there may be more socks editing "decades" articles, forest and regional articles, and creating bad cats. I haven't had a chance to clean up after this socks contribs yet. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Like shooting ducks in a barrel. Valfontis (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you look into this? I tried to prod it but it was contested. I know you tend to delete/revert his contribs outright, but I'm not sure about this one. AfD? Redirect? Valfontis (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Mormons Good Article review

The Mormon article is undergoing a GA review, and has been put on hold to deal with concerns. More details at Talk:Mormons/GA1. Your input would be valued. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Improvement Era cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Improvement Era cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:People of Black African descent

• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Category:People_of_Black_African_descent

Posted this due to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_5#Category:Saudi_Arabian_people_of_Black_African_descent.

In case I am drawn away from Wikipedia again, wanted to place this on your radar.

I'm also going to drop a note at User talk:TonyStarks (the nom) and User talk:Mangoe (apparently the creator). The three of you are the only ones listed in the category page's edit history. If you think anyone else should be notified, please feel free : )

Thanks, and hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 19:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Green Party of Albert/Alberta Greens

It has been requested that Alberta Greens be moved back to Green Party of Alberta. Since you participated in the previous discussion, you may wish to participate in this one aswell. Regards,--kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Mormons

This user helped promote Mormons to good article status.

Well done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

1931 Cleveland Indians (NFL) seasons

This is what I was talking about before, you reverting blindly without checking for mistakes. Please remove the plural from seasons and move it back to season. — Moe ε 02:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It's difficult to catch some things like this when you're involved in reverting so many undiscussed and ill-conceived moves. The sheer volume was the problem, but I'm glad you caught this one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Oh and hi : ) - jc37 05:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, good to hear from you. I've been trying to figure out how much I can put into Wikipedia due to a change in life circumstance. I may be editing at a reduced clip. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I can understand that. I've faced similar choices myself.

Do it enough and you'll have newbies coming just short of calling you a newbie too : )

Though it's been interesting how the more things change, the more they stay the same : )

Anyway, hope life has been treating you well : ) - jc37 15:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

User: 208.92.184.171

Good Olfactory: Just wanted to drop a line to thank you for helping me fix problems with the recent addition of Richard J. Maynes to the Presidency of the Seventy. User: 208.92.184.171 keeps insisting on Maynes's WP page that the change is not effective until March 31, 2012. But according to my source, the change is effective immediately. What can we do about this user? I don't know what proper WP procedure is on things like this because I'm not used to dealing with users with only an IP address. Thanks for your help. I really appreciate it coming from you, because I'm afraid I might have offended you in the past with my comments/actions. Thanks again. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that too that he was changing it to 31 March when the source says "effective immediately". I'll see if I can talk to the editor on his talk page if it keeps up. It's difficult when a user won't respond but I think we'll try and then go from there. You have not offended me in the past; we've had some interesting discussions I feel. I'm just a grumpy guy sometimes and probably wrote things in a way that sounded like I was mad at you. But I very rarely get mad or offended at anyone on WP; I just need to work on being nicer to people. Good to hear from you again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sagar district

I noticed you moved Sagar District to Sagar district. What is the right thing to do with the talk pages? The copyright notice at Talk:Sagar District belongs with the article, I think. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out—yes, the talk page should normally follow the page when it was moved. I'm not sure how I overlooked to do this—probably because the page Talk:Sagar district already existed as a duplicate page and I had to delete it to move Talk:Sagar District over it. It should be fixed now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of things named after Indira Gandhi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indira Gandhi Institute of Technology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Click to show

Hey, Good guy, I like your User page museums. I used to keep all my barnstars around, but I got tired of seeing them one day. I also used to collect the "best of" nasty remarks people made about me. One of these days I'll start wading through 10 years of user talk and see if I can dredge up these relics from the past. Happy sniffing! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Triangulation

Please undo your changes. You have merged two almost completely unrelated subjects into a single category and in so doing made a mess. Category:Triangulation is about partitions of the plane into triangles. Triangulation is not — it's about pinpointing locations by using distances from two or more points. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well then the category is misnamed, isn't it? A category called Category:Triangulation should have as its main article Triangulation. Otherwise something is stuffed up. You mention "changes" (plural). What changes other than adding Triangulation to Category:Triangulation are you referring to? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of things called triangulation — see Triangulation (disambiguation). Triangulation happens to be one of them, but not one that makes sense to have as its own category. And yes, something is stuffed up: mathematical terminology. It would be much nicer if we didn't have this situation where the same word was used with multiple meanings. But there we are. As for plural: I meant both adding Trianhulation as the main article, and removing Triangulation (geometry). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't remove Triangulation (geometry) from the category, I was just fiddling with the sort key. Anyway, I've nominated the category for renaming: as this incident demonstrates, confusion is bound to result under the current naming scheme. You know, there is a user out there, heavily involved in the logic and mathematics categorization, who tries to set up these "meta-categories", that attempt to categorize everything that exists that happens to use the same name. It's almost like creating a category that serves as a disambiguation category. I admit that when I saw this category I thought it was another example that the user had created, so my intent was to try to consolidate it and nominate it for division. I didn't get that far and then you chimed in, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Smith

It's more likely Smith was convicted, but the evidence is ambiguous; it's not correct to say he was acquitted.--John Foxe (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, but I don't think it's correct to delete that information and call it a "stylistic tweak". I don't know what the reference says about the conviction, but my concern is with accuracy of edit summaries on such a delicate issue. If we're removing it because it's a questionable statement and not supported by the sources, that's what we should say we are doing, which is fine with me. (Finally, I would note that the text said "not convicted", which is certainly not the same as "acquitted", but that's just the lawyer-dick in me speaking.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, you're right that I shouldn't have called that edit a stylistic tweak.--John Foxe (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Caste page moves

Something needed to be standardised re: Indian caste article titles but yours is the second attempt recently to do so and I am confused. I don't understand your edit summary for, as an example, the move of Nairs to Nair. I presume that it refers to some article titling policy? - Sitush (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't move Nairs to Nair. All I did was change the sort key of Nair for how it appears in Category:Nair. The change I made made it so that Nair will appear at the top of the category listing instead of under the "N". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Bugger! I have misunderstood what is going on, sorry. One day I will get the hang of categories, and in particular the much-abused overcategorisation that goes on in caste articles. Thanks for the elucidation. - Sitush (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. The summary was actually generated by "HotCat", which can be a bit confusing from time to time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

What about Sainis to Saini ? The whole area is a minefield, eg: do we title article Gaur Rajput, Gaurs, Gaur or Gaur Rajputs. The only policy I know of is WP:COMMONNAME ... but that is often tricky to apply in these situations. No worries if you are unsure: the entire issue probably needs to be discussed at WT:INB, when I can get my head round it, because localised talk page discussion never seems to have achieved consensus. - Sitush (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Sainis to Saini. In my opinion that's just a simply de-pluralization, since one would talk about the "Saini caste", not the "Sainis caste". But whatever. I suppose either could be acceptable, since the people of the caste are "Sainis". I just looked around and saw that most of the articles were singular, so I changed this one to correspond. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It gets very messy and it would probably not be a bad thing to have some sort of community discussion at some stage. For example, academic texts sometimes say "the Nair are" and at other times say "the Nairs are", and in both cases mean the community as a whole. They are an absolute nightmare, these things, and maintaining consistency even within one article is pretty tough. - Sitush (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I can see WikiProject Indian Castes forming in your mind as we speak. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

President of the Church

While I agree with most the changes you made here, I think you may have made one error.

Isn't "President of the Church" a proper name of a LDS church Position? (see capitalization at President of the Church). All the other changes make sense to me, but that one dosn't.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that one can probably be categorized if it's being used as a proper noun position title. Wikipedia:MOSLDS#Avoidance_of_Mormon_jargon_and_additional_recommendations suggests avoiding capitalization of leadership positions in the church generally, but you could probably get away with capitalizing this one. Personally, I don't support the capitalization of "General Authority", for instance—but I can understand why others disagree. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Categories

Please, stop "speedily renaming" and recategorizing of categories without at least some examining its current content. This instance gave you image of an user who poorly understands categories' structure, does not investigate problems and does not think about such consequences as indirect categorization of articles. Were you attempts with Category:English th succeed, articles Th-alveolarization, Th-debuccalization and even Voiceless dental fricative would become categorized in a direct subcategory of Category:Digraphs. Enough said. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a common issue with all categorization—does every article contained in the category be a type of the thing that the parent category is named after? Category:France is categorized in Category:European countries, but not every article in Category:France is a European country. So your concern is understandable, but not particularly unique to this category scheme. Finally, I would suggest that you assume good faith and not assume that I did not examine the contents of a category that I edit. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

A brilliant example of WP: other stuff exists reasoning. Of course, I know even more impressive examples where an attempt to imply transitivity to categories results in a mess. But in this particular case renaming to Category:Th (digraph) just adds a confusion without any gains. If you need such category (about a digraph, not phonemes /θ/ and /ð/), just create it. Leave Category:English th where it lies, because there are no problems with it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Just trying to give an example of a common issue that exists, friend. If you're already aware of it–great. I have no way of knowing because within my memory I have never interacted with you before. But there's no need to be snippy. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Smile

In the interest of promoting sweetness and light, you are hereby granted the coveted: Chocolate Chip Cookie Smile Award Awarded by: - jc37 (talk) - 01:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Cookie?  : ) - jc37 01:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I could use one. I've been getting a bit of blow-back the past few days—I actually welcome and enjoy blow-back, just not the rude kind—and I just discovered kind of a randomly placed take down of me from last July. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Nod, you were showing up more and more on my watchlist. (It's a shame that some people can't seem to inform, question, or even disagree, without threats or accusations...)

As for "fait accompli", I've said that myself concerning some things I've seen some editors do on wikipedia.... But (in my opinion at least) you are no where near that whatsoever. Y (or rather his I suppose) MMV : ) - jc37 01:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Not even sure how he has roped me in to being "responsible" for it all—I actually have some qualms with the scheme. I do know he's got a long-standing grudge against me because he manually emptied this cat and immediately nominated it for speedy deletion, which I reversed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No way! A conscientious and thorough admin, who checks the situation and edit histories before blindly deleting? Seriously? : ) - jc37 15:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi everybody! So, what'd I miss lately? --Kbdank71 17:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh nothing really. I'm a dick, and people keep telling me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh look. I mention the idea of a conscientious and thorough admin, and two show up : ) - jc37 22:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't take any credit. I'm conscientious only because I'm afraid people will keep calling me a dick. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I know it can be annoying, but one person's opinion does not a consensus make : ) - jc37 00:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so you're a dick. (Do two people's opinion make a consensus? Past CFD closures say yes!) I was reading through my old rfc, and by extension, my rfa, and someone linked to two discussions I had with people regarding some of my non-admin closures, and my responses were so dickish that if that happened today, my rfa would have crashed and burned like, well, much like if someone was a GFT and tried an rfa. Allegedly. Totally not talking about anyone specific. Even though I am. But I'm not. (wink) Anyway, my point is, there will always be someone around here, even a few someones, who think you're a dick. You're not. So don't worry about it. Dick. --Kbdank71 17:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Disturbingly reassuring. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Consider yourself lucky: I take a break for a few months and stop closing CFDs and no one cares enough to continue calling me a dick. I have feelings too, you know. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, one more thing... hi! -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I can set you up with some users who will call you a dick for doing less than you imagine possible—no more closing pesky CFDs required! I can also set you up with some handy phrases to use that will trigger the outcome you are looking for. For example,

1. "I think consensus has gone the other way on this issue ...",
2. "Shouldn't we follow the process rather than just emptying a category and then asking that it be speedily deleted as empty? ...",
3. "Would you like to participate in this discussion about a category?" ..., and
4. "Could you explain the meaning of the word 'eponymous' to me? ..."

More available if you pay the registration fee. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Will you match us based on 29 dimensions of compatibility? :) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

With the addition of "dickery, ability to dish it out/dickery, ability to identify it without hesitation", we're now up to 30. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, if that doesn't guarantee "... and they lived happily ever after", then I don't know what does. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Category advice requested

Hi, would you be able to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#english copyediting ? Some advice from people who are familiar with category issues would be useful. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I would love to help with that, but I'm afraid I'm not too familiar with the categories that are applied by template to the talk pages. I would say what I know about it if I knew anything, but really I'd just be guessing. I'm more familiar with the non-talk page categories only. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Capitalisation in respect of "District" and "Division" in article titles

May I request you to please inform as to why capitalisation is being removed from the terms "District" and "Division" in the names of WikiProject India articles. This topic has come up on the Noticeboard for discussion. It would be great if you could post there itself. If you'd rather answer here, I'll pass on the information myself. Thanks in advance. AshLin (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

:Oops, I did not notice Sitush's message above. This is a different issue. AshLin (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I've commented there. I do wonder, though, if perhaps "Why WP:INDIA sucks big time!!!!" is not the ideal name for the discussion section if we are attempting to attract comments on a specific issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey

I want to bring back the categories regarding Brazilian, Cuban, and Puerto Rican people of African descent. The reasoning is ridiculous. You want those deleted, but the European descent categories don't get touched? I want to bring them back. How can I do it? Please put your answer on my talk page. B-Machine (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I "want those deleted"? How do you figure? The discussion to delete them was held here; I didn't comment on the issue one way or the other. It's nothing to do with me, really. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

Looks like you've been busy, but FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tiramisoo. Valfontis (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Heber C. Kimball, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nauvoo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Michael Franks

I'd like to nominate this category for deletion. Should I wait until your request for speedy rename has completed first? Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No, just go ahead and nominate it for a full discussion. We can put the speedy on hold as a back-up if for whatever reason (unlikely) the main discussion results in "keep". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Nuns v religious sisters

• You state: "nuns and Religious Sisters are not equivalents"; could you explain the difference. Also why did you rv my edits re Sister Isolina Ferré when we are both in agreement that Puerto Ricans are American citizens? Quis separabit? 21:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The difference is discussed here. Personally, I'm not sure we should be separating the two at all, but Religious Sister was originally a subtype of nun, not vice versa. To merge all nuns to "Religious Sisters" is definitely not correct. On the PR issue, I did it because we do categorize people as "Puerto Rican FOOs", and then the PR category is a subcategory of the American ones. PR people are American citizens now, but that has not always been the case, so keeping the distinction is helpful. If you thing the PR category should be deleted and merged to the American category, you should nominate it for merging, not just unilaterally decide to merge it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Assured Way Church

Thanks for catching yourself on the Assured Way Church article, LOL--that was precisely the point I was trying to make. The guy didn't even say why he was doing this, provided not one single word of explanation for his action, either on the article's talk page, or by way of Deletion talk page. I'd just like him to give his reasonings, especially since this was thrashed out so thoroughly, not eighteen months ago. If he thinks he's just going to stick a "deletion" tag on it and just have it deleted without explaining why, he's going to have a war on his hands before he does... I know you meant well, of course; no questions there, so please don't take anything I've written here as indicating anything otherwise, LOL. Thanks, and cheers!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

A little bit odd—he probably didn't realize there had been a discussion about it until he tried to start the nomination. But I'm not sure why he didn't just abandon it when he must have seen the old discussion—instead he tried to have the tag remain. I don't know what he was thinking. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for jumping in quickly with kind words to support my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Category keys?

Hi Good Olfactory, you made this edit yesterday. Could you please direct me to a page that explains the purpose of this pipe symbol? I have seen it before but cannot understand what it does. Thanks in advance, Pgallert (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:SORTKEY is probably what you are looking for. Specifically, there is one point that says this:

Use a space as the sort key for an article matching an eponymous category, or for a key article for the category. Typically, these eponymous articles or categories are best listed first even if they do not appear first in alphabetical order. For example, the article Barack Obama includes the category sort key [[Category:Barack Obama| ]]. This places the article at the start of the listing for that category.

— Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, now it is clear to me. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Good Olfactory. You have new messages at Armbrust's talk page.
Message added 03:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 03:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:AARP people

Category:AARP people, 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. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation of buildings

Hi. You moved St John's Cathedral, Oban, stating that "buildings are disambiguated by parentheses, not by comma set off as is done for cities and towns". I wasn't aware of this and don't see that guideline at WP:NCDAB, or any building-specific naming convention - is it given somewhere else? Looking at lists on disambiguation pages it seems there is no consistency. For example, at St John's Church it is mainly US articles preferring parentheses and mainly UK articles preferring commas. On St Mary's Church it is only US and Egyptian churches which go for parentheses, with all others going for commas. Can I suggest wider discussion is required before wholesale moving of these articles takes place? Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you can suggest it. No wholesale moving has taken place. But the guideline you cite says disambiguation can be done via parentheses (not "must" of course). The only mention of disambiguating by comma set-off is for geographical placenames. This reflects the general practice, which is that buildings and landforms are disambiguated by parentheses, while cities and towns are done by comma set-off. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I was only attempting to point out that this "general practice" isn't so general, at least in terms of the church pages above, and I was concerned that loads of pages were going to be moved en masse, as appears to have been done with St Johns cathedrals. But if that isnt happening then it isnt an issue. Thanks anyway, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I wasn't going to move any en masse. The ones I have seen it's been a general practice, but of course I don't have a full knowledge of all the buildings articles across WP. It's possible it is not general practice among certain classes of buildings or for buildings in certain areas of the world. You can feel free to move the articles back if you like, and sorry for worrying you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Malt-O-Meal Company brands

Category:Malt-O-Meal Company brands, 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. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Blind people from GB/America

The rename proposals are fine. I based the UK one on Category:Paralympic competitors for Great Britain. Should this/these be renamed also? Moondyne (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the reason that one is named the way it is is because at the Olympics and Paralympics, people from the UK compete on the country team named "Great Britain". So it's more of a quirk of the Olympic naming system than anything else. It's kind of discussed in Great Britain at the Olympics—apparently some from Northern Ireland oppose the GB team name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Moondyne (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Allergens as a category

I have a question here. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

New cfds regarding "Old Fooians"

Two new cfds propose the renaming of some twenty categories. Most of those who took part in last year's cfd "Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom" seem unaware of them, so I am notifying all those who took part in that discussion, to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Please consider contributing here and here. Moonraker (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

STOP

Your terrible proposals end up being considered by people who ALSO don't know what they are doing, and it only takes a small number of them to nullify any stabilizing influence that a knowledgeable philosophy department could have on this process. We don't have a swarm of people able to correct your mistakes, and they remain. The process is a failure, and I don't have to sit here and pretend it isn't. STOP MAKING THE PROPOSALS. DON'T CLAIM THAT IT ISN'T JUST YOU. Once you put the question to the hoi polloi, there is no rhyme or reason. Fixing it after the fact takes a grand effort. Stop making more work. Please. Again. Greg Bard (talk) 03:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Greg, calm down. We disagree on some of the appropriate names for articles and categories, but that's nothing to spazz out about. I won't stop making proposals that I think will improve WP. Regarding the philosophy articles and categories that you have created and edited, I have never made any name change to any of them unilaterally—all my proposals are done through established WP process and nothing is changed unless my proposal gains a consensus. That's how WP works, and that's a process I support. You're always free to voice your opinion on the issues in the discussions, but you can't dictate what others can and cannot do. I don't really share your non-confidence in what you call the "hoi polloi", so perhaps we just have a different WP or life PHILOSOPHY. (Get it, get it?) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Dictating? I have asked you how many times to stop?!?! Pointing to the consensus process as justification for doing whatever you want, with little or no knowledge of what you are doing (you certainly haven't given me ANY reason to think you have any education in this area, and I have asked several times) is VERY disingenuous. You are an experienced editor and so am I. For the most part people like us do a lot of things without any challenge. However, I am very surprised at the fact that you are plowing forward, after my numerous requests. I'm telling you that you are causing problems. You can either dismiss me, or stop what you are doing. You can either take it as a big insult, or you can stop and reflect for a moment. Like I said before, I had a lot of respect for you up until this point. Please study some logic before getting involved further. I'm sick of this nonsense. I knew you would screw around with logical consequence. I was right. How about this... There is no way on this earth that "entailment" is going to be the main article, nor the name of any category. The question is how many years, and how much effort are you going to put me through. So how is it going to be? More problems? Greg Bard (talk) 04:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to calm down. Judging by what you have written, it sounds to me like you are quite upset and would do well to step away and come back later after a cool down. Until then, I'm not sure attempting to discuss this here will be productive. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Critics of Islam

Can you take a look at Category talk:Critics of Islam and reconsider the speedy deletion? Thanks. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

And a notification would have been nice. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I tagged the category. One of the purposes of doing that is notification. It hasn't been deleted, nor will I do it—I just tagged it as reposted material. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the speedy tag. I think I am allowed to do that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The tag says: "If this category does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page, and you disagree with its proposed speedy deletion, clicking the button below will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place to explain why you believe this category should not be deleted." [bold in original]. An admin then checks out the tag, checks out the category, checks out the talk page, and makes a judgment call from there about what to do. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Bilateral relations of China

Hi Good Olfactory. I can't really say I disagree with your recent edit to Category:China–Philippines relations but it does bring up an interesting problem. On one hand we have Category:Bilateral relations of China which on last count contains 7 articles of the form China–Foo relations and 15 categories of the form Category:China–Foo relations. On the other hand Category:Bilateral relations of the People's Republic of China has only Category:People's Republic of China–Trinidad and Tobago relations but over a hundred articles of type Foo–People's Republic of China relations. I may be missing something but I'm pretty sure the two categories have the same intended scope. So there's a massive renaming battle to wage here. Do we rename the 100+ articles and move everything to Category:Bilateral relations of China or do we move the 22 articles and categories in the China category to the more verbose Category:Bilateral relations of the People's Republic of China. I personally favour the first option but I don't know how viable that is politically. Thoughts? Pichpich (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup, it's a problem. Given that People's Republic of China redirects to China, I think that ideally I agree with your first approach too and that now the articles and categories that are PRC–FOO relations should be moved to a China–FOO relations. For awhile there was a distinction arising that editors would use PRC–FOO if there were no pre-1949 relations to speak of, but that's probably not the preferred approach anymore. To my knowledge, this issue hasn't been tackled yet with the articles or the categories. There was this recent discussion that I am aware of. It's a big issue I've been dreading for awhile. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The good news is that this recent discussion was surprisingly dull so maybe we're overestimating the risk of an emotionally charged debate. Perhaps we can float the idea at a couple of relevant places like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China. A little bit of initial feedback wouldn't hurt. Pichpich (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I think you're right that it might turn out to be surprisingly easy. It just looks overwhelming right now because of the current structure, and if anyone put up a large stink it could get complicated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... As I was preparing to float those trial balloons, I noticed that there's currently a requested move of Republic of China to Taiwan so this might not be the best time for trial balloons in that area. Honestly, I'm tempted to just put this in my vast pile of things I know need fixing at some point. Pichpich (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ha—it's been in my similar pile for awhile now too! If we both keep it in mind, surely someone will get to it eventually... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Removing category

Hello, thanks for being there. I found you removing a category "Category:Sikh people", from some of my articles, without mentioning any reason. why you removed the category? It was rightly placed. TariButtar (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The category is at Category:Sikhs. Most of the times I removed it was because the article was already in Category:Indian Sikhs, which is a more specific subcategory. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Concordia University

Hi. Could I get your advice or help with something? The Talk page for what is now called Concordia University (Quebec) bears a tag that cautions editors not to move it from Concordia University, stating "Please do not move this article unilaterally. Consensus has been established three times as of 2010." And yet that is exactly with User:EdwinHJ did without consultation, and I see that since then there has been zero opposition to it from the community, to date. Have I missed something? Is this not completely out-of-process and unacceptable page move? thank you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think in a case like that it's best to just move it back. Had there not been previous discussions on the issue, it would be another story, but given the history, it certainly should be discussed before getting moved to ensure that consensus has indeed changed. So I've just moved it back. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on occupation categories

I think it would save us a lot of effort if we worked out a general principle on this. See Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#On the categorization of biographies by (perhaps) incidental occupation. Mangoe (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Good Olfactory!

Thanks for your help cleaning up the categorization.

I quoted lyrics from the self-deprecating song "Indiscipline" by King Crimson---thinking of my own wanting to finish the categories and list of Crook art and also the deletion-proposer, without an overflowing of love for either character's focus.

I don't think that the additional categorization was worth the bother, now. If Crook had more work noted on WP, then of course I would agree that the categories should be improved, and be consistent!

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It's fine—when I first read it I thought it was nastier than I thought, but then I realised it wasn't so bad and was obviously a quote from somewhere, probably lyrics. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

who care when you see what else is around...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Coast_Range&diff=480787204&oldid=480787122

that edit is why I think pruning west Coast Range from West Coast Range Tasmania is wrong. If it had the qualifier in the title - less of a need for a confused template at the beginning SatuSuro 08:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Just saw your user page edits - hahaha - at least you're physically away from those that create the stuff... - just as long you dont take it too seriously (but hell looking at the list you sure get some crap... in any meaning of the word (aware of the possible variants in canadian, new zealnd or austrilian)SatuSuro 08:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Maritime

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_24#Category:Portuguese_maritime_history

I've commented there and would like to ask your thoughts on it there. Thanks : ) - jc37 20:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Added what I think may be a solution (for now), to be followed up with a bigger nom later. - jc37 23:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Doc Savage Magazine

Perhaps this is a dumb question, but, do we generally leave categories on redirects? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 03:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The guideline on this is at WP:CATR. To summarise, the answer is that we usually do not categorize redirects, with a few exceptions. One of the exceptions is for cases where it would be inappropriate to place the category in question on the target article itself. This is the case here, since we wouldn't want to categorize the target article Doc Savage as a pulp magazine. So we can place it on the redirect in this case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. I have never run across such a situation. Thanks! ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 17:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here's a related question. The article The Avenger is about the character, not the magazine. But, a look at the categories shows it is categorized under magazines, and the cat cannot be removed. Why is that? This is not the first such situation I have encountered in the last few days. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The template {{Infobox pulps character}} appears to add several categories which can't be removed in the normal way (templates should be banned from adding categories). Oculi (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I figured it had to be something like that. In this case, it is adding articles to incorrect categories. I really fail to see how that is helpful. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 03:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, at some point the "template automatically adding categories" issue needs to be revisited, because it still causes some problems. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Mmm ... wiki-self-love ....

Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

(Intended to visit, but then pulls the shades, and leaves to give Go'F some apparently needed private alone time (and at least to take that recent edit summary off the watchlist : ) - jc37 07:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

"Take myself out to dinner, ..., spend a little time with myself, making a scene with a magazine, I don't get weird about it, I don't tie myself up or nothin."

— Tom Waits

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Republic of China article

Since you have previously shared your view in a CfD about the Republic of China, I guess you are interested to share your insight at Talk:Republic of China#Requested Move (February 2012) too. Thanks for your attention. 61.18.170.212 (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't really—but thank you for the invite. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Your help with Category Lewisia

Hello! I just created the Category Lewisia a few minutes ago, and I've been populating it with species that had been on the category page for Portulaceae. I was just about to move Lewisia itself, when I saw you'd already gone and saved me the trouble. Thanks! Uporządnicki (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh! No problem. I didn't mean to interfere—I wasn't sure if it was done or not, and I had just noticed it was a new category and that that article had been omitted. I wasn't aware you were still working on it. My apologies if I caused confusion or surprise. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Nolo problemo! You gave my typing fingers a break, and allowed my eyeballs to uncross. I'm a new registered user (although I've been re-ordering stuff on Category pages for years as an IP user), and if there's a better way to move things in categories other than plodding through one by one, I don't know it. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in using "HotCat". It makes re-categorization a little bit easier—it at least makes it so you don't have to type the "[[Category:" and the "]]" at the end. You can activate it on the "gadgets" panel of your preferences. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

PESA

I don't understand the speedy rename rationale for Category:PESA. Oranjblud (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I've responded at WP:CFDS. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Roads in Chatham–Kent

Greetings, I have a problem about the template called Template:Roads in Chatham–Kent. I was going to move to it's new title to hyphen it to match the main article but the template cannot be moved. So do me a favour, Could you go to the Template:Roads in Chatham–Kent template page and move the title from an en dash to it's hyphen symbol between Chatham and Kent to form Chatham-Kent to match the main article. And this is to make the new template title Template:Roads in Chatham-Kent. If you please. And let me know if the template is already move to match the main article. Thanks. Steam5 (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've moved it to Template:Roads in Chatham-Kent now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Factory. Oh, And I forgot to tell you something, On the template talk page titled Template talk:Roads in Chatham–Kent. There is an en dash also only at the template talk page. Could you go to the template talk page titled Template talk:Roads in Chatham–Kent there is also an en dash. Move it to a hyphen between Chatham and Kent just like you did it before to form a new title. Just only go to the template talk page and if you see an en dash at the template talk page. Just fix like you did before. Let me know if this problem is solved. Thanks. Steam5 (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, yes I did that one too. I thought I had done the talk page at the same time; I'm not sure why it didn't work that way. Anyway it is all done now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	of unsung templates, categories and moves. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

• Wikipedia:AN/I#Mass_canvassing.2C_meatpuppets_or_botfarm

You've been mentioned. Thought you might like to know. - jc37 08:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I had a feeling at the time that I was probably being invited by a blocked user, given that it came from an IP ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Acid0057/Userboxes/User Ford Focus‎‎

Why did you remove the category Category:Ford Focus from the userbox User:Acid0057/Userboxes/User Ford Focus‎‎? You said it was adding user pages to the category. Is there a different category that should be added? Also, on Ford Focus, you added "| " to Category:Ford Focus. May I ask why? I've seen this in lots of categories, but I thought it was a typo. What does it do/accomplish? Thanks for further educating me on the finer points of Wikipedia. Allen (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Generally, userpages should not show up in regular categories that contain articles. User pages do show up in categories in the Category:Wikipedians tree, but I'm not sure that Category:Wikipedians who drive a Ford Focus would be a subcategory that would be deemed productive. I don't know all that much about the Wikipedian categories.

As for the "| " issue, you can read about that at WP:SORTKEY: "*Use a space as the sort key for an article matching an eponymous category, or for a key article for the category. Typically, these eponymous articles or categories are best listed first even if they do not appear first in alphabetical order. For example, the article Barack Obama includes the category sort key [[Category:Barack Obama| ]]. This places the article at the start of the listing for that category." It simply adds that article to the very top of the list of articles when the category is viewed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Cats:Immgrants -> Emigrants

Hi! I see that I made a mistake. Sorry for that. Thanks for the corrections. Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem, As you know it's been fixed now, so not a big deal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"United Arab Emirati" or "Emirati"?

Recently, I have been going through UAE related categories and a misnomer that I have identified is that all categories using the denonym, for some strange reason, are named "United Arab Emirati" instead of "Emirati". The official term however is Emirati (see for instance the article Emirati people, the denonynm listed in the infobox on the UAE article) while I can find no official usage of the term "Untied Arab Emirati" apart from Wikipedia. All newspapers and sources refer to a native of the UAE (or anything related to the country in general) as "Emirati". My question is, do you think all categories should be renamed accordingly? And if they should, how should the proposal be listed? I am not quite familiar with mass-scale category moves. Looking forward to your input on this; thanks, Mar4d (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. This is the only recent discussion from CFD that I know about related to this issue. As you can see, I participated and you participated, but there was not much else.

I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, but from what I have seen, "United Arab Emirati" is pretty much limited in use to Wikipedia categories. So I think I agree with you that they could be changed. I don't know exactly why the category system developed that way—whether it was thought it was more clear, or if there is indeed some other meaning to "Emirati" (I'm sceptical about that).

A proposal to do so could be approached in two different ways: (1) all the categories that use "United Arab Emirati" could be nominated together. This would be a relatively big job. (2) We could have a "test nomination" for Category:United Arab Emirati people. This one category could be nominated for renaming to "test" if there is a consensus for the general change. If it's successful, then we can go ahead and later nominate all the rest. But if it fails, you save the hassle of having started a massive nomination.

So if you're unsure of yourself in starting a large nomination, you might want to go with #2. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have proposed a rename of the category here. Please give your input in the discussion. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I could blame my eyes or brain; the eyes seemed less sensitive. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Union Nationale

I see from the history that you moved Union Nationale (Quebec) to Union nationale (Quebec) once upon a time (and then some bot stomped over it much later, so it can't be moved back without admin intervention). However, the term "Union Nationale" was often used in English, and always with a capital N; Quebec always had a sizeable English minority and the party was prominent for decades, so there were countless stories in the Montreal Gazette for instance, even some from recent years that discuss historical events. And I don't have a copy of Conrad Black's biography of Duplessis, but I'd be astonished if he spelled it with a lowercase-n. I'd like to have it moved back. Before I initiate that request mechanism, I don't suppose I can persuade you that this would be an "uncontroversial technical fix"? -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You can, and did. Your reasoning makes sense to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks... -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for contribting to Alcan Lynemouth Aluminium Smelter Ottawahitech (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Is this need to lobby? Like this. Esc2003 (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not clear on what you are asking me. I deleted Category:Anti-Turkish sentiment, which you created, because it was a re-creation of Category:Anti-Turkism, which was deleted by consensus here. You must have known this, since you had previously attempted to re-create Category:Anti-Turkism and it was deleted. Were you trying to get around the previous deletion by changing the name slightly? I'm not sure and I hope not, but it could be interpreted that way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I only say with an example: Iranian users are kept this (Anti-Iranian sentiments) category with their lobby. Esc2003 (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That is interesting. What has it to do with me, though? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course lobbying is not their intent. But they are doing similar things. I do not expect a solution. These examples (1, 2) clearly Anti-Turkism. Should be a category. Esc2003 (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

OK .... If you are looking to pursue a solution (I'm suspecting that you might want to, since you posted here), I guess WP:DRV could be your next stop. You could ask that the deletion decision be overturned. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Two Talk Page Title Errors

Greetings, I have a problem with the two talk page titles, On the first talk page titled Talk:Chatham–Kent there is an en-dash error on the the talk page. The en-dash is wrong. So could you go to Chatham-Kent talk page and switch it from an en-dash to a hyphen to form Talk:Chatham-Kent. The Talk:Chatham-Kent new title at the talk page is to follow the Chatham-Kent main article. And second, there is another talk page titled Talk:Drumheller, Alberta there is a comma-province in the talk page title that is wrong also. Could you also go to the talk page titled Talk:Drumheller, Alberta and move it to it's new title to form Talk:Drumheller. The new title is to follow the Drumheller main article without the comma-province included. Let me know for both talk page title errors has been fixed. Thanks. Steam5 (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed both. Thanks for catching these—I see that both errors were originally mine! I will be more careful now when moving content that the talk page will follow. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Robin Ficker

You've previously edited the Robin Ficker article. Please take a look at the current discussion and contribute to it if you have an opinion. Thanks. -- Pemilligan (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

What to do, what to do...

Hi, Good Olfactory. I'm kind of torn on how to deal with Category:Songs by country, and I was wondering if I could get some insight from you. As you may remember, a CFD regarding the subcategories of Category:Albums by artist took place nearly two years ago. It resulted in Fooian albums being renamed to Albums by Fooian artists. The songs categories currently follow the Fooians songs format, and the change to Songs by Fooian artists is long overdue, but matters are far more complicated for this category. I attempted to get a solid approach from WP:SONG in this thread (with three options of going about this rename) shortly after the albums category CFD succeeded, only to receive no response and getting archived away. I tried again over a week ago, but it looks like that thread will be archived without any response, too. With no interest from the related WikiProject for nearly two years, I'm stuck on what to do. How do you think I should proceed from here? — ξ^xplicit 07:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi; You know, I really think you've done your due diligence here, so from my standpoint, you're pretty much free to do what you think it the best option. If I had to decide, and I knew that you were going to be the one leading the effort, I would choose your option C. You could keep the FOOian songs categories and just create subcategories called "Songs by FOOian artists" as needed. The categories for specific artists could go in the new categories you create, with the folk songs and national anthems and so forth just remaining in the broader FOOian songs category. I suppose doing this runs a slight risk of someone getting upset at this seemingly "unilateral" change, but really, it wouldn't be much different than what happens all the time when users create new categories. There's technically no requirement to consult with anyone to start a new category scheme, so I think you'd be safe, especially if you can point to the work you did to try to ask others what they thought. That said, maybe you don't think option C is the best. I would go with whatever you have the most confidence in yourself as being the correct move to make. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. There's really no easy way around this. Either get yelled at for nominating the categories, or get yelled at for creating categories and going through tens of thousands of changes. I suppose option C is the cleanest way to go about this, so I have a heavy load of work ahead of me. — ξ^xplicit 19:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of cats

Hi Good Olfactory, I notice that you removed these categories : Category:Persecutors of Serer people and Category:Anti-Serer religion from both War Jabi and Maba Diakhou Bâ's articles. Unfortunately I don't know why they were removed. Would you kindly elucidate? Best regards.Tamsier (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

For starters, these are not great categories from the standpoint of requiring a neutral point of view. To call someone a "persecutor" of Serer people is a strong statement, and probably not a neutral descriptor. Same story with describing someone as being "Anti-Serer religion". In the second place, nothing in War Jabi is stated in the text that would justify the categories. There is nothing in the text that says he persecuted Serers or was anti-Serer religion. Maba Diakhou Bâ talks more broadly about wars/jihads against Serer people, but nothing is written there that would up that from garden-variety warring to "persecution" or being "anti-Serer religion". Such categories never really work well because they express a particular POV about the topics in question. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Good Olfactory for your swift reply. War Jabi's article is a stub. His actions and his son's actions (Leb) have been convered in Serer history (medieval era to present). I did not create War Jabi's article and I agree with you that there is not much in War Jabi's article. More could be written about War Jabi than the stub article at present. As for Maba, he has been covered extensively in the surprise of Mbin or Ngor on Maad a Sinig Kumba Ndoffene Famak Joof's article [1] as well as in The Battle of Fandane-Thiouthioune. Again I did not create Maba's article. Some of my later edits were removed by an editor so I stopped editing that page. I appreciate what you are saying about neutral point of view, however it begs the question, from a Serer historical perspective, what would you recommend them to be categorized as? It is also my understanding that similar categories exist on Wikipedia - e.g. : Category:Homophobia, Category:Persecution of gay and lesbian people as used in Hitler's article and Category:Antisemitism in Germany again in Hitler among others. Best regards. Tamsier (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

There was a discussion a little while ago in which there was consensus that biographical articles should not be placed in categories like Category:Antisemitism, Category:Homophobia, and the like. This is a hard standard to enforce because it requires constant patrolling of category contents and I am sure it is breached often by editors, but breaches of it doesn't make it right to expand the problem. I would say based on past consensus, biographical articles never belong in any such categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok that's fair enough. Thank you for your reply. Best regards.Tamsier (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Good Olfactory. You have new messages at Ottawahitech's talk page.
Message added 13:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles

Hi Good Olfactory,

I recently added to the "Living Christ" post and you took out the part where I said that the reference to Christ being the "Firstborn" in the document is directly related to the "elder brother" colloquialism used in the Mormon church, as it is the doctrine that the saying is based on. Just wondered what made you take that out, whether you are a Mormon yourself (I am), etc. Esp in light of reference #2 in the article, which is a 18 page treatise on that very doctrine. Thanks! Playerpage (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It just looked like original research or conjecture to me, since there was no citation for the claim that "Firstborn" refers to this doctrine. It probably does, but readers with no background could suppose that it just means the same thing as "Only Begotten", especially in light of the footnote #2, which says the document does not mention Jesus's status as elder brother of mortals. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

But just in reading the first two sentences of that paper (footnote number 2) the concept of firstborn and elder brother are connected. In fact, after reading the paper and the statement of the elder brother omission being "noteworthy" in context, may I suggest the whole issue be removed, as it really has nothing to do with the Testimony at all. (Volluz is simply wondering aloud WHETHER the omission is noteworthy, or if it was merely so self-evident to Latter-Day Saints, that there was no point in going into it in a letter that was, essentially, for a worldwide audience.)Playerpage (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think it should be removed, partly because this is one of the only treatments of the document in a source. The paragraph states, in part:

Nowhere in this document do they state that Jesus is the elder spirit brother of mankind. Is this omission significant, or is this to be explained because of editorial reasons, such as not wanting to state a doctrinally intricate concept in a declaration meant for public consumption? It is understandable that there would be times when the use of the title is not preferable. Although we do not know the exact reasons behind this, the omission of such a traditionally accepted concept relating to Jesus Christ is noteworthy.

I think it constitutes original research to then jump in and supplement Volluz's comments above with the statement of "But! But! The document says he is the 'Firstborn'! and 'Firstborn' means that Jesus is the elder spirit brother of mankind." Latter Day Saints might be able to figure that out for themselves, but Volluz's point (I believe) is that the doctrine has not been explicitly stated in the testimony in the same way it has been explicitly declared in the past by LDS Church leaders. No where does Volluz link the word "Firstborn" in the testimony to the doctrine, so neither should we (unless you have another source that does so). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Well Volluz also says that the testimony is a document for a different audience, and he has already made the firstborn connection, as I said, from the beginning. I would not call that original research using his own. But (I don't know why--is this an issue of an LDS person seeing it one way and an outside reader seeing it another?) we are not going to see eye to eye on this and I have no interest in getting into a link/unlink post/repost war with you on the page, so unless and until they lock it to a single author I'll just leave it as is and say good day. Thanks for the insights. Playerpage (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not that interested in the theological issue in the abstract. I can recognise that many Latter Day Saints would probably understand the full meaning use of the term "Firstborn" in the Testimony. However, Volluz does not recognise this meaning of the word in the context of it being used in the Testimony. That may have been an oversight on his part, or a mistake—but he simply does not make the connection in his paper between the use of that word in the Testimony and what the Testimony appears to declare. In fact, he says the exact opposite: that "Nowhere in this document do they state that Jesus is the elder spirit brother of mankind." So in other words, I'm more interested in what the sources have said about the Testimony, and I think the quoted part from Volluz above is pretty much the crux of what has been written about it. I can see your point of view, it just seems like original research or extrapolation to me.

One final point: Volluz also states this in the paper:

The statement that Jesus is the firstborn, when found in the scriptures, usually has reference to his being the first to be resurrected from the dead, not to his being the firstborn in the premortal existence. Colossians 1:18 speaks of the Savior as “the firstborn from the dead,” which clearly has ref- erence to Jesus being the first to be resurrected, and firmly established that, in the language of Paul, to be resurrected was synonymous with a type of birth. Three verses prior to this usage (Col. 1:15), Paul refers to Jesus as the “firstborn of every creature” in a context that could denote a birth prior to the creation, but just as Christ is “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8), he could also be the “firstborn from the dead” from before the creation.

So in other words, in the scriptural context, calling Jesus the "Firstborn" is not necessarily a reference to his spiritual brotherhood to mankind. This seems like an important point you have not mentioned. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Category for Odex

Hi Good Olfactory, thanks for adding a new category for Odex. Just wondering, will the old category "Odex's licensed anime be deleted"? If so, I'll redirect it to the new category for the mean time. And do you need help in transferring the page to the new category? --Vaktug (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)