User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 28

Category questions

hello my frend! Wen u created Category:Kidnapped people, was it designed also, tell me da truth, including adults who were killed off while captured? If yes is ur answer, add Madalyn Murray O'Hair and me Jon Garth Murray to it. Answer is?!... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Garth Murray (talk • contribs) 11:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure—I would think that it's for people who were kidnapped, regardless of what happened to them afterwards. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That was bizarre looking through this user's contributions and reading the articles they linked. (Claiming to be a dead person?) ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I also like how he made it sound like I was inclined to hide something about my answer ("tell me da truth"). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Upon going through his contribs., I made an attempt to fix a glitch in Deaths in 1995#September. Look at this... WHY arent the Murray-O'Hairs, nor the two images, showing after this impostor added the real Jon Garth to that section? 172.56.27.66 (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I dunno, they're showing for me, but I reverted the edit anyway since he had removed two other names without explanation. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation in templates

Consensus I did not see that you had changed these templates to include disambiguations in them--I just made two passes with AWB. Categories such as Heavenly (British band) albums don't need disambiguations in the text of the template: it's already present in the title of the category itself a few pixels above and it implies that the actual name of a group is "Heavenly (British band)" rather than simply "Heavenly". This is compounded by the fact that there actually are groups with deliberately obscure names like Sun O))) and Was (Not Was) which include parts that might appear to be editorial notes in the name of the group themselves. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore There is a hatnote right above the text of the template: that's honestly overkill. There is no prospect that someone will get confused by this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Suit yourself, but honestly—the way you're setting them out is more confusing than clear for a reader unfamiliar with the band's name. I don't really see why we need to pipe everything in a category header. It's not article text. As for confusion—I am literally removing dozens of articles from band categories that don't belong and have been included simply because of a similar name. This is not a hypothetical issue—I've probably done 30 or 40 over the past week. (Not to mention the hundreds of categories that have been using {{albums category}} that have been linking to disambiguation pages or the wrong page through an unamended application of the template.) All in all, it's a real mess. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Categories Don't get me wrong--you're doing a lot of good work. As you know, I have also proposed hundreds of such categories at WP:CFDS. I'm glad that I'm not maintaining 17,000 of them by myself. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

And I didn't mean to sound like you are responsible for the messiness of it all. That's not what I meant; I have just been a little bit overwhelmed by the state of that tree. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Category:Armenian people of American descent for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Category:Armenian people of American descent is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Category:Armenian people of American descent until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hovhannes Karapetyan 23:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This needs to be nominated using WP:CFD, not WP:AFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Album/song category templates

Missing syntax Categories such as Category:Natalie Merchant songs should link to Category:Natalie Merchant albums and Category:10,000 Maniacs songs. These templates don't have that functionality yet. If you add it, they can be replaced. Until then, you can't replace them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The change auto adds the Category:Natalie Merchant albums one. The other one just has to be added manually, just as it is now. I don't see what the problem is. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

See also {{Catseealso}} allows for multiple listings. Now you're going to have two separate lines that say, "See also..."? Why would it be better to employ two templates to say the same thing across two lines? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

That may be true, but it's the vast minority of cases that need to link to more than one. I'm sure there's a workaround (or the template can be excluded on those if it's that big of a deal), but I don't see why that means the link shouldn't be produced in the majority of cases. 80 per cent of the time I'm adding it it's linking to a category that wasn't previously linked to, so I don't see why it should not be implemented with these. I'm not a coding expert, but I'm willing to get some assistance to resolve your concern, but while I'm attempting to apply the system across many categories it's very difficult when the lines of coding keep getting deleted and the template reset to the queue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Truce Well, we can work on the songs template (and add "Songs written by [X]" as well). Please leave the albums template and categories for the time being. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

But it's much easier for me to delete the {{Catseealso}} from the corresponding albums categories as I go through the songs categories one-by-one, and I can't delete that part if the albums template stays the same, otherwise the link will disappear. I'm going through and making sure there are no duplications, so the only issue when (they are done) is going to be the multiple line issue. I can leave them, but I've already done W–Z where I've deleted some of the {{Catseealso}} uses, so it's not going to be good for those. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This is really the key to the issue. If it can be set up so that the manual adding of the see also songs category overrides the template's auto application of this, then there would be no issue at all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:13, 19 October 2014

Alright, so per your request, and since it appears you're not in the mood to let this go, I'm going to leave alone the albums template and categories. I don't really see what the big deal is, especially when the change I made has added hundreds of links to songs categories that weren't previously there. I doubt I will be adding these manually, and the W–Z ones are a bit buggered now. It's stuff like this that makes users lose their vim for trying to make stepwise improvements over a period of time longer than a week. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Categorization Sorry--I didn't see you'd responded here. I'm not trying to put you down for what you're doing: you're definitely adding a lot of value to this scheme. Creating reciprocal {{catseealso}} links between album and song categories is something I can do (and will do as soon as I'm done with one more task). I'm glad that you're doing what you're doing and it's good work, even if we sometimes have different preferences. Re this edit, these ethnic categories are sorted with a space in many other places, so using a "+" for some of them breaks the scheme that was already established at (e.g.) Category:Albums by Hong Kong artists and Category:Rock albums by Puerto Rican artists. The "x by genre" categories still come first by using two spaces as a sortkey. "+" is used to sort by album types. See (e.g.) Category:Punk rock albums where "*" is for sub-genres, "+" is for album types, and " " is by ethnicity. Does that make sense? I actually started using those characters because someone else requested something other than " " for album types, sub-genres, and by ethnicity subcats. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore You're right: petty fighting is exactly what discourages contributions. Especially the valuable ones you've made when you have a lot of other stuff you can do with your time. All the things you've done add value to the encyclopedia, even if they are not what I would prefer or if they unintentionally differ from some preexisting arbitrary scheme. I'd like to work together on making this album category scheme stronger: as you can see, I've made probably 300,000 edits and created about 10,000 categories in this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your words. Why wouldn't it be a good idea for categories like the Gibraltarian, Puerto Rican, Hong Kong, etc. to sort them under a header that is separate from the corresponding "x by genre" subcategory? If "x by genre" uses a space to sort, could we use something else for to sort the subnationality ones under, like a "!" or something similar? It just seems weird to lump them with the "x by genre" ones. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not blowing you off--I just don't watch your talk page. I'd be fine with some kind of operator that is different than a space for these (in fact, upon reflection, it's probably a good idea!) but I would prefer to not use "+" or "*" as they are used for different purposes under the Category:Albums scheme. I'll apply "!" to them and I think that might be the best way to sort them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem; I'm never in a hurry. I'm fine using anything that works. "!" or "-" are possibilities. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion

I would like Your opinion on a Redirect for Deletion discussion I open. I think that the recently created Moron Church and Moron church redirects to the Mormon Church, created a few days ago, as some kind of POV attack on the LDS Church (i.e. a chance to call it the Moron Church). However, I can see that it is possible to view them as misspelling redirects. I was wondering if you thought that was the case or not. Redirect don't necessarily have to be NPOV, but I just find it highly suspect. If you think I'm wrong, I would be more then willing to withdraw my discussion.--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 21:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion

August 24th[1] and August 25th[2] at least are in need of closing and they may be more....William 12:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Flim-Flam!

Should we keep the Prometheus Books cat since the Crowell printing was so small and the later edition is essentially how the book is known? I leave the edit to your discretion, just posing a question. An answer that increases my knowledge of policy would be helpful but if your busy you can just ignore this message. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to have both. Usually we only include the first publication, but in cases where it is very small in comparison to the subsequent one, there's no harm in including both. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:German Baptists

Category:German Baptists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

" this is a level of detail best covered in Genetics and the Book of Mormon"

I'm discussing this there. The sources for this do not discuss Mormon ideas, and thus don't belong in the article, right? So far as I can see all the sources in [Genetics and the Book of Mormon]] discuss the subject of the article. Would you like to comment at Talk:Genetics and the Book of Mormon? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding {{LDS70pres}}

You made some excellent changed to {{LDS70pres}} and taught me some things about how the {{Navbox with collapsible groups}} works. However, I am trying to understand one of your decisions regarding your changes. You choose to make the default look like this, using plain as the only choice:

I thought the standard for all Navboxs was to use "autocollapse" making it look like this, when in the presences of other Navboxs

Did you do this on purpose? I'm just trying to follow your logic.--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 13:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't do that on purpose. I think the default should be to use autocollapse. That was one thing I couldn't quite figure out, so thanks for figuring it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Categorization

Hi, you've been adding the genus category to articles where a higher rank category is also present, i.e. you've been adding a child category when a parent category is also present.

In general, so that too many small categories don't get created, for plants we look for a minimum of 10 possible articles, i.e. for a genus there should be at least 9 species which could have articles. Otherwise we categorize at a higher rank. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Categorization. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't really make much sense to me. For instance, Uvularia should be of course the main article of Category:Uvularia, and that is the normal way to categorize. Every other categorization scheme that I have seen on WP does it like this, not the way you are suggesting. As far as I can see, you are the sole editor of the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Categorization, so I'm not convinced that this is a consensus-based approach at this stage. I'd like to see some formal proposals to delete categories with fewer than 9 species in it; I would be surprised if consensus would be in favour of deletion when a category has 7 or 8 articles. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I just want to see that it has some support. The only way we can find out is for someone to propose it, rather than doing it unilaterally. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually I only wrote up this stuff. I don't remotely claim ownership. Indeed I was originally quite strongly in favour of the cleaner approach of making the category hierarchy match the taxonomic hierarchy, regardless of category size. It was only after being corrected by various more experienced members of WP:PLANTS that I thought the consensus there should be documented to help other plant editors. If you think this approach is wrong, then I suggest you discuss it at WT:PLANTS. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I just want to see some evidence that there is some sort of a consensus-based system operating here. I haven't seen any so far. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

On a slightly different topic, I have manually emptied dozens of plant categories that were too small and then nominated them for speedy deletion, which has always been done by an admin until now. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It's kinda—well not kinda, exactly—"out of process" to empty existing categories and then nominate them for speedy deletion. You should be nominating them for deletion using the full WP:CFD process. This is my formal request that you do so, as I'd like to see that there is a consensus for not keeping these categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not that interested in categorization, and I'm certainly not going to get involved in CFD processes. I was simply pointing out that other admins have always been quite happy to delete categories in this way in the past. I won't bother in future. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, manually emptying categories and nominating them for speedy deletion involves you in the process whether you want to be involved or not ... I'm not terribly surprised that there are admins who will delete an empty category without checking whether the user who nominated it manually emptied it. But that doesn't mean it's a good practice or one that is encouraged. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

See here. I realize you've said you're not interested, but I just wanted to post this here for full transparency. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I've drawn attention to the discussion here. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Child and parent categories

I made the responses above before noticing your reverts to some of my edits. I don't understand why WP:SUBCAT doesn't apply to Balthasaria, for example. You've now put it into both a parent and a child category. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I simply repopulated the category Category:Balthasaria, which you manually emptied and then nominated for speedy deletion as "empty". I've never seen any other editor, ever, argue that an article shouldn't be placed in a category of the same name, if that category exists. It's definitely not what one would call an "orthodox" (meaning commonly accepted) interpretation of WP:SUBCAT. Removing the parent when a child is present might be, but not removing and manually emptying the child. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:SUBCAT simply says that the parent and child category should not, in most cases, both be present. I fixed this by removing the child because it resulted in a very small category, contrary to the general understanding within WP:PLANTS of WP:SMALLCAT. I can only repeat that this is what has regularly been the practice with plant taxonomic categories; I wasn't doing anything that isn't done regularly, particularly for categories that were bot-created. (See e.g. User talk:Stemonitis#Other categories for deletion for a long list of categories that were deleted for the reason you seem to reject.)

If you think that WP:PLANT's understanding of WP:SMALLCAT is wrong and it's not inappropriate to have small categories in such cases (and I don't want to get into a dispute about this), then remove the parent, don't just restore the child. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm only restoring the categories that were manually emptied out of process. I've nothing to do with WP:PLANTS or implementing its preferred ways. I'll leave that to other editors. (Just as you're able not not involve yourself in certain WP projects and processes that are relevant to the issue at hand, so too can other editors. I think that's OK.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Help

Perhaps you can help clear up my confusion at Template talk:Latter Day Saint movement.--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 21:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the Community of Christ, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Schaal. 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) 11:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Name Change

I've alwasy been a little confused as to what point we switch from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Most of the time it is pretty clear which name to use. However, on occasion a leader will serve until that small window between the 1844 death of Smith and the 1851 incorporation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints under Young. MOS:LDS isn't 100% clear what to do in that case. When I run into this, I usually go with the idea that, if the person followed Young after Smith's death, even if it' only until 1850, then The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is correct. However, I'm not 100% sure that is right. What do you do?--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 15:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much what I do too. If it falls within the 1844–1850 time frame, I usually look at where the person ended up. If they ultimately followed Young and ended up in the west, then I think it's usually safe to use LDS Church. If they didn't follow Young or remained in the midwest, then I default back to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. There are some pretty ambiguous points, as when the church excommunicated Sidney Rigdon in 1844. But I think it's fair to take the point at which Young and the Twelve assumed control of the church to be more or less the start of the LDS Church, even if the name wasn't formally "changed" until after they arrived in Utah. Another possibility would be to take December 1847 as the transition point, when Young reorganized the First Presidency and became President of the Church. But there is quite a bit of Mormon pioneer stuff that happened before that that would fall squarely within LDS Church-related history, and not so much the rest of the movement. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Kingdom of God

I would be nice to have your comments at Talk:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Kingdom of God as someone who understand the "The" issue when it come to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 21:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I see you are very knowledgeable with LDS articles

I commend you on your LDS knowledge and willingness to contribute there. My specialty has been bringing back important articles that were pushed aside sometimes many years ago. I have been editing as an IP since 2006 under whatever IP I have at the time. The Dru Sjodin story is one of the most well known kidnapping, rape and murders in the U.S. The U.S. Department of Justice even maintains a web page of her and the is a law known as Dru's law to honor her memory. http://www.nsopw.gov/en-US/Home/DruSjodin?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 It is not appropriate to dedicate to much of her article to her murderer and outside the scope of the article. Many years ago someone suggested combining the two articles and an IP did that in 2008. There it sat untouched for over 6 years. I have a great deal of knowledge about the case from a Criminal Sociology class some years ago. I decided to revisit the subject and improve both articles as time permits (which is quite limited). I understand the standard format of articles but there is no cookie cutter format that fits all. There was no early life or even half the article before I got started. Most people could really care less about the early life of a multiple rapist/kidnapper and murderer. Some even find it offensive. Most are there to read about his crimes not his childhood. In the interest of reasonable sensibilities I put it at the end. It could possibly fit somewhere higher in the future if the article flowed that way. I have not progressed far enough improving on the article to decide where. My edits clearly state it is an ongoing project. I do understand your first edit but the revert without any discussion and consensus on the talk page is counter productive. I do not have the time or inclination to edit war so if you want to take the responsibility for improving the article please do so, I will move on. If not could you please let me improve it in peace and see how it turns out before reverting. I actually see this more often than I care. It usually starts with the usual prejudice and stereotypes about IP editors and they must not know what they are doing. So some editor (sometimes quite inexperienced based on edit history) decides to jump in and "help out" with some "good ideas". What usually results is some arguing back and forth and the editor that was actually doing all the real work researching and improving the article quits as they have had enough with someone who has not spent much time (many times none at all) researching the article in question. I ask that you not cause that scenario unless you really want to take on something that was ignored for over 6 years. Please let me know on the articles talk page Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr. asap because my time is limited so I will move on if that is your intent. Thanks 172.56.10.79 (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC) p.s. My IP changes to frequently so posting on my talk page may never get a response.

It's not a huge deal, but in a biographical article it makes sense to include the section on early life first after the lead, and then to proceed chronologically through the person's life. I stated as much in the edit summary, and I don't really have anything to add to that. It would be unusual to have a bio article with the "early life" section at the end, even though it does include what might be seen as the least significant or notable information in it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a section title change would work better because early implies it goes first. I will think of something better. 172.56.10.79 (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_7

About this CfD. The conclusion (delete) surprised me. Maybe it was my own change of !vote that confused the matter.

I first proposed to have the articles categorised in it, not the categories (so: not Category:Temperature categorised in here, but Temperature). This suggestion gained articlulated support from three other editors (as "DePieps first argument"). Then I changed my !vote into "no changes" and these three clearly pointed to my first option. Another editor mentioned to delete because of an onthrstuffexist, IMO. So I had expected that the closing would honor those three editors (and my opinion that I could live with that recategorising, but not with deletion).

With this, could you reconsider? I propose to recreate the category, and add the articles. -DePiep (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

OK—yes, upon re-reading, I see much clearer now. It's OK for you to re-create and categorize the articles. I've amended the close to allow for re-creation. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. -DePiep (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Dyslexia, and Developmental Dyslexia

There are problems with the recent category changes, which are mainly to due to a lack of understanding of Dyslexia. Dyslexia is the general term describing problems with decoding and recoding the visual notation of speech, or the graphic symbols society chooses to represent the sounds of speech. There are two types of dyslexia Alexia or acquired dyslexia which is caused by brain injury, stroke, atrophy etc, and Develelopmental Dyslexia whic has a genetic origin. And the related Wikipedia articles and categoroes need to reflect the intenrational research regarding these issues. So you need to have a general Dyslexia article and category together with articles and sub categories relating to both Alexia (acquired dyslexia) and developmental dyslexia dolfrog (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

At this stage, there's no lack of understanding on my part. The article about developmental dyslexia is dyslexia, so the category name should match. I think we've been through this before. Note that there is a category for the genetic variety: it is at Category:Alexia (condition) to match the article name Alexia (condition). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

the problem is that dyslexia is the overall term, and there should be an article that briefly outlines dyslexia, and then two further articles, one concerning Developmental Dyslexia, which is currently most of the content of the current dyslexia article, and the Alexia article which need to be renamed as dyslexia is not a condition in any form it is a shared symptom of various underlying issues, which have the subject of international research over the last decade or so. The problem has been the influence of the dyslexia industry and its marketing needs, which should be ignored by wikipedia. Wikipedia should reflect international research, and not the maketing needs for program providers and their marketing organisations. dolfrog (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like an article issue, not so much a category issue. I suggest you raise it at Talk:Dyslexia. Categories generally follow the lead of what is written in article space. The real content in Wikipedia is in its articles; categories are just one way of organizing the pre-existing articles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Po-mo

Hi, were you going to look at the contents of Category:Postmodern terminology for selective re-categorising before deletion? If not, you may have overlooked listing it for deletion, as I just found I had for several others that I had closed. – Fayenatic London 00:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I had left this message to the nominator. If I don't hear anything soon, we can probably just delete it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, good work. I think it's worth leaving it a little longer – I moved a few pages myself, and have left a note at WT:PHIL. – Fayenatic London 06:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't planning on moving on it right away. The user seems at least semi-regular, so I think he won't be away for long. I would do it, but I'm totally incompetent in that area. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you take a look at these categories?

User:Ruminant recently created these categories:

• Category:Thai female models of American descent
• Category:Thai people of American descent by occupation
• Category:Thai female models by ethnic or national origin
• Category:Thai female singers of American descent
• Category:Thai female singers by ethnic or national origin
• Category:Thai women of American descent by occupation
• Category:Thai female models of Indian descent
• Category:Thai people of Indian descent by occupation
• Category:Thai people by ethnic or national origin and occupation
• Category:Thai women by ethnic or national origin and occupation
• Category:Thai women by ethnic or national origin
• Category:Women by ethnic or national origin
• Category:Thai actresses of Indian descent
• Category:Thai actresses by ethnic or national origin
• Category:Thai women by occupation and ethnic or national origin
• Category:Thai actresses of American descent
• Category:Thai female models of British descent
• Category:Thai women of British descent by occupation
• Category:Thai people of British descent by occupation
• Category:Thai actresses of British descent

I thought they seemed like overcategorisation, but I'm not familiar with the way such category intersections are used and accepted. Could you take a look and see if they should be CfDed? --Paul_012 (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

They do seem link overcategorization to me. The general trend has been against having categories like these. I'm not sure if they should all be nominated together, though. Maybe the Thai ones could be. Users might want to consider Category:Women by ethnic or national origin separately, I'm not sure. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Succession lists

You've been cleaning up succession lists, such as Amy B. Lyman's. You have been removing |} and </center>, but not {| and <center>. An example. Bgwhite (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to make any difference one way or the other on my browsers, but I won't remove the |} and </center> any more in case it is affecting it for others. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Iranian Azerbaijanis people by occupation

Hey there, Good Olfactory - I was wondering if you might have the time to take care of Speedy Renaming Category:Iranian Azerbaijanis people by occupation and all of its numerous subcats to correct the mistaken pluralization of "Azerbaijani" (all created by the same editor, AFAICS). I'm afraid I simply haven't got the time, or I'd be more than happy to do it myself. I stumbled upon the problem purely by accident after spotting Category:Iranian Azerbaijanis Opera singers‎, which I've already taken to CFR-SPEEDY. In any event, these categories all need to be fixed, whether by you or somebody else. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, should be able to do that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Listed here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

CFD close on Category:Video games featuring female antagonists

Hello. First of all, thank you for actually closing old CFD debates that had been stale forever, and apologies on the slow reaction (since it's been literally months since the debate happened). Anyway, I was wondering if you could expand on your decision at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_2#Category:Video_games_featuring_female_antagonists, and if there's a productive direction to move forward - DRV? Relist? Yes, it was 6-6 on raw votecount, so I can see the "no consensus" close, but it should probably be noted that the "deletes" included long-time members of WikiProject Video Games. I'll spare you rehashing the arguments made on the page, but none of the keeps really addressed how this category could possibly be sanely maintained, or any "category by antagonist" - Books with English Antagonists? Movies with Teenage Antagonists? (Of course, being the nominator, I suppose I'm biased, and I'm certainly sympathetic to the idea that there comes a time to just let a matter drop and move on, but this case is weird, partially due to the extremely long delay between nomination & closing.)

Basically, could you reconsider your decision? And if not (which would be entirely reasonable), would you recommend a new CFD, an RFC, or something else? SnowFire (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Although it was 6-6, as you say, on balance I personally was more swayed by those in favour of deletion, and the arguments seemed more solid. I was not able to close it as "delete", though—it just didn't seem to quite make it, but I'd have to say you were close in that discussion. (Much closer than the other side was to achieving a "keep", in any case.) In this instance, I doubt that you would get much out of a DRV—it is a rather hard argument to make that this should have been closed as anything but "no consensus". The benefit of a "no conensus" result is that it doesn't preclude another CFD—in fact, in my opinion it kind of suggests that another one should be held, since the issue remains unresolved. So that would be my initial sense—that another CFD should be held at some point.

I think that part of the problem in attracting other editors to the conversation was the length/detail of the arguments and the back and forth. As you know, a lot of users see stuff like that and just respond with TLDR, and therefore they don't participate. If the nominating statement itself were shorter and crisper, it could help in this regard. But it is difficult when those who participate give long reasons, and often those long reasons need to be directly addressed, and it all expands from there ...

As for when a renomination occurs, that's up to you. Sometimes users complain when a renomination happens immediately after closing. There was over a month between the last comment and the closing, though, so if you nominated it now it wouldn't exactly be an immediate renomination. If you would like to re-nominate it soon, I could amend the close to include a suggestion that it be re-nominated, which might help in preventing some of the protests that might erupt with a re-nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

No need to amend the close, but I'll definitely mention if I renominate at CFD that I checked with the closer and got their OK. Thanks. SnowFire (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Burials and subcats - why??

I came across Category:Burials in British Columbia, which has only two articles in it, and followed up the hierarchy and have to wonder what the point of the categories is meant to be. In BC's case, virtually would cover anyone who died in the province and its predecessor territories/colonies, ranging from Klatassine to James Douglas (governor) and Gassy Jack to most premiers and deceased MPs/MLAs and .... well, nearly anybody who wasn't cremated or, as in the case of many retired politicians and others, who moved to California for their later years. Seeing only two entries in the BC cat, my instinct was to file a CfD or CfM, rather than to populate it with.....probably hundreds of bios. What use is this category? Not quite the opposite of the "people from" categories, which often aren't "born in"; there is no Category:Births in British Columbia, for example.Skookum1 (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Good question. I've long wondered what the point of these is. I could see such a category as perhaps having some utility in holding subcategories for people buried in particular places (such as in a church like Westminster Abbey) that carry with it some honor or specific notability, but such burial places seem to be comparatively rare, and there are no categories for burials in specific places in B.C. right now, which suggests that this particular category is relatively useless. That's what I think, anyway. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

burials of note - as with being buried in Westminster Abbey, as you note - are maybe best addressed in cemetery-type categories e.g. the cemetery in Sapperton, New Westminster is where the graves and occasional tomb of many notable individuals can be found today; same with the Ross Bay Cemetery in Victoria. "people buried in FOO cemetery" or something of that kind makes sense; the act of burial is not notable in and of itself, nor the place of burial, whereas funerals can be though whether it's Lord Mountbatten, Princess Diana, Nathan Cirillo or Joe Fortes and my own grandfather Endre Johannes Cleven (all of those major civic/national funerals) there is no separate article or cat for their burials or place of burial (I actually don't know where Granddad is buried, I should ask my cousins I guess; somewhere in Winnipeg). When the place of entombment or burial (or shrine for cremated remains of course) is notable, as with Westminster Abbey or the Wat Po in Bangkok (where three or four of the Chakri Dynasty kings' ashes are in stupas there - chedi I think is the Thai term) it's a bit different.Skookum1 (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Edgar Hunt

Hi! Why did you remove Edgar Hunt from Category:British recorder players? He most definitely was both of those things. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

He was the only one subdivided by nationality. I put it in Category:Recorder players because the other articles in it are not divided by nationality. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Postmodern terminology

Category:Postmodern terminology had a discussion which you closed as delete is still hanging around. Were you waiting for some cleanup? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, see here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Unenrolled politicians in Maine

I was not made aware of a discussion in July that moved a category I started and populated was up for renaming. To answer the question you posed 5 months ago, yes, there is a reason. In Maine, you cannot register to vote as an "independent", only as unenrolled. For how long this has been the case, I am not certain but there is a clear distinction. In the future, please notify the creator of content if you are seeking to rename it. It's not fun to only find out 5 months after the fact.--TM 23:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like registering as independent and being unenrolled in Maine are pretty much the same. The national and international media always calls politicians from Maine who are "unrolled" as "independent", so it's probably the common name for them in any case. (I'm not sure if the local Maine media bothers with the distinction.) But if you're interested in what categories you create get nominated, you could place them on your watchlist. The entire purpose of tagging the category is to provide notification for interested users. I'm not keen to create a new notification requirement. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The article unenrolled voter explains. Either way, I am going to work to change it back to accurately reflect what exists.--TM 23:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The category is about unenrolled politicians, though, not voters, so we have to look at what such politicians are commonly called. Given the common usage, I doubt users will be wanting to change it back. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Postmodern terminology

Please let me know if I should be posting this somewhere else, or not bothering at all, but I see you closed Category:Postmodern terminology as delete 17 days ago, and it is still there. There seems to be a greater lag in these things, these days, perhaps due to a shortage of admins? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

See here. I was waiting for the nominator to perform a selective merge. I would do it but I think the topic is a bit beyond me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I may start by removing the subcategories which were discussed and should not be present going forward. Most of these also have their main article present. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to participate in the process of the selective merge. It's been awhile now since I notified the nominator. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Move SV

Please move sub-categories of Category:Swami Vivekananda too. Regards. --Tito☸Dutta 13:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Please see here, sub-categories were also nominated for renaming Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_29#Category:Vivekananda --Tito☸Dutta 01:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • • The subcategories were not tagged for renaming, so I tagged them and listed them at WP:CFDS. They should be done soon, as there's only a 48-hour waiting period of these. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Cfd

Could you have a look at this one with a view to closing it? The nom didn't tag anything so I tagged the ones which I thought were supported. So the first and second groups (untagged) are moot anyway, and consensus for the 4th (mainland country) group seems clear, indeed unanimous. Oculi (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure—it looks reasonably clear once they are considered as groups. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks - I thought it looked clear (in parts). Oculi (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Bishops of Csanád

FYI. I restore the above category. There are more than one dioceses which were established on the territory of the one-time Diocese of Csanád: the Roman Catholic Diocese of Szeged-Csanád (in Hungary) and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Timişoara (in Romania). Borsoka (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The rename was the result of this discussion. You might want to bring up the issue with the user who was the nominator in that discussion. You can nominate it for renaming back if you wish. But in the meantime, please don't re-create it because the renaming was the result of a formal process. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

My recent absence from Wikipedia.

Hello. You may have noticed that I have not been active on Wikipedia for about a month. Long story short, I got a job. I still intend to edit Wikipedia regularly, but getting into the groove of the job has left me unable to edit during the last month. So I wanted to drop a line and ask if there were any major changes on Wikipedia pages of interest that I needed to be aware of. You know my interests well enough by now to know what I mean by that. So if you could bring me up to speed, that would be great! Please leave any reply on my talk page as per my usual request. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Armenian people of Iranian descent

Category:Armenian people of Iranian descent, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Hovhannes Karapetyan 01:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

2 perfumes

Hi, did you mean to nominate Minaj's perfumes for upmerging? I just implemented that without realising until afterwards. (permalink) There are only 2, but the same goes for Lavigne's. (Cydebot contribs) – Fayenatic London 14:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to do that. I must have been tired. I can fix the Minaj one. They maybe could be upmerged, but of course it would take a full cfd. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Bishops and Archbishops of Vienna

Hey Good Olfactory, just now I executed the split as discussed in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_29#Category:Archbishops_and_bishops_of_Vienna. I vaguely remember there is a kind of worklist for the execution of CfD decisions but don't remember where this worklist is. The original Category:Archbishops and bishops of Vienna - which is empty now - is yet to be deleted, that's something I can't do, but apart from that it can be removed from the worklist. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's at WP:CFDWM. I'll take care of deleting that category now that you've done the split. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it from the manual work queue now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll copy WP:CFDWM to my sandbox so that I won't forget for a second time. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Your new categories

Hi,

Please see Category talk:American law by year#Why not create Category:United States law by year instead. Thanks, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Ghana cedi

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ghana cedi, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Figure skaters categories

I see you closed the discussion to upmerge 'figure skaters from city' categories. You closed for all of them to be upmerge to both 'sportspeople from city' and to 'figure skater from country'. However this has caused a doubling since all the figure skater articles were already in a subcategory (e.g. Category:Ukrainian female ice dancers, Category:Ukrainian male ice dancers‎, Category:Ukrainian female pair skaters‎, Category:Ukrainian male pair skaters, Category:Ukrainian female single skaters, Category:Ukrainian male single skaters) of their country figure skater category (e.g. Category:Ukrainian figure skaters). Thus can the bot remove the Category:Ukrainian figure skaters, Category:Russian figure skaters, and Category:Chinese figure skaters that it added? Regards, Kirin13 (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Since it was a merge with more than one target, it had to have been done manually, by an editor. So the editor should have been using judgment and not merging it to those categories if it was already in a subcategory, as you describe. I assume that you're saying that the user didn't therefore do this properly? There's no bot that I know of that can fix this, we may just have to contact the user who did it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The 'upmerge' was done by ArmbrustBot. The bot removed the 'figure skaters from city' and added 'sportspeople from city' & 'country figure skaters' (e.g. Chinese, Ukrainian, Russian). The problem is since all Chinese, Ukrainian, and Russian figure skater are already in subcategory of 'country figure skaters', none of them should have been added to that category. I've already manually removed the category from all the skaters on my watchlist, but looking at Category:Ukrainian figure skaters, Category:Russian figure skaters, and Category:Chinese figure skaters there is still quite a few more (these top-level categories shouldn't have any skaters since each skater is in a 'country gender discipline skater' sub-category). Regards, Kirin13 (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I should be able to reverse these fairly quickly later today and then get a bot to just move them again to the single category. Thanks for letting me know. I'll also mention it to the user who runs the bot that in these double merges we need to be smarter than just doing them blindly like this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It should be all sorted now. Let me know if there are still any issues with it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks for taking care of this! Regards, Kirin13 (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

That's for catching that. Obviously my mind went seriously wrong there. Editor2020, Talk 01:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It's OK—it happens to everybody occasionally. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Launching and Category:Current spaceflights

Hi; since you commented at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 23#Category:Current spaceflights, you may be interested in the discussion at Template talk:Launching#Recent edits and Category:Current spaceflights concerning the categories emitted by {{Launching}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)