User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Converts categories

Hi, you're doing neat work with the categories of Converts. These mostly end up in head category Category:Religious converts which is divided by adopted religion, and in Category:People by former religion which is (naturally) subdivided by former religion. The missing one in the latter is Category:Former Hindus which has been salted. The deletion log inaccurately states that it was deleted per CFD 28 Dec 2006; the decision is actually at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 1#Category:Former Hindus. Some others in the same day's discussions were kept, some others were deleted but have been re-created, and perhaps only this one was salted. It seems to me that it should be re-created as part of the Converts hierarchy. If you agree, what's the process -- DRV? - Fayenatic (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to re-create the Hindus one, I would just go ahead. I won't delete it as re-created, and it's not "officially" salted, meaning it is able to be re-created. The CfD was long ago enough that we can probably re-create without a DRV. That being said, if it does get speedily deleted by another admin (unlikely, I would think), then DRV would be the way to go. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I was unable to recreate it the other day, but just succeeded, thanks - Fayenatic (talk)

Also, Category:People by former religion is a mix of people who have changed religion and people who have changed denomination within Christianity. Do you think an intermediate cat for the latter would help? e.g. Christians by former denomination? Perhaps that wouldn't help at all, as (say) Former Protestants would still be a valid head category for sub-cats of converts to Catholicism and to Islam. Maybe it's best left as it is, just adding explanatory text. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've been wondering how to exactly work this all out, because most people who are converts to a Christian denom are not converts to Christianity, they are converts from another Christian denom; and those who leave one Christian denom are generally not former Christians. It all gets a bit confusing. I'd support whatever you choose to do to make it a bit clearer. I've been trying to get the names formatted consistently as a first step. That at least seems to be pretty much done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

Sorry for improperly formatting the cat on Iran-Israel relations. According to naming conventions, I think I also messed up this cat: Category:Intra-Palestinian Violence. Thoughts?ShamWow (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That's OK on the Iran-Israel one—the community has only just recently decided to use en-dashes in categories when it is appropriate. It will just automatically be renamed and the contents transferred, and I will keep a redirect in place from the old category. As for Category:Intra-Palestinian Violence, it should just be renamed to Category:Intra-Palestinian violence. The hyphen is correct. I can nominate it for a speedy rename too and it will be done shortly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, the Iran-Israel one was done already. The same thing will happen to the other one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you good sir.ShamWow (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.

I love having attempts to improve Wikipedia rebuffed by process fetishists. — goethean ॐ 15:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"Improve" is a relative concept at times, of course. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Politicians convicted of crimes

I noticed the the category Category:Politicians convicted of crimes, which had about 100 entries from all over the world. The majority were from the U.S., however. I thought the category was not very useful in that format, so I created a more specific category Category:American politicians convicted of crimes.

I did notice that there was a CFD for "American politicians with criminal records" from a couple years ago, but the difference in name, and the fact that Category:Politicians convicted of crimes exists and has subcats, led me to believe that an American subcategory would be helpful.

I moved about 70 articles from Category:Politicians convicted of crimes to Category:American politicians convicted of crimes, but hadn't finished when I went to bed the other night. Now I see that you have deleted it all anyway.

I don't understand why the logic of the "politicians with criminal records" CFD applies to the new category but not the old one.

I post this as an inquiry and not a complaint. Kestenbaum (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

One is for Americans, one is for any politician. The one for Americans was deleted in the CfD. By analogy the other one might be deleted in CfD, but to my knowledge there has not been a discussion apart from the American one. Category:American politicians convicted of crimes and Category:American politicians with criminal records are pretty much indistinguishable; it's just worded slightly differently. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Joseph Smith - Matthew

The latter day saints groups are known by most people as "mormons" whether they self-identify this way or not. Opinion is unimportant in this matter. If you wish to add something, okay, but don't remove it. --Fremte (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. See WP:LDSMOS and Talk:Joseph Smith—Matthew. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Military equipment of Austria-Hungary(?)

I see that you tagged Category:Military equipment of Austria-Hungary for speedy renaming to Category:Military equipment of Austria–Hungary on 29 September, but that it hasn't yet been moved. It doesn't appear to currently be in the speedy rename section of CFD. Did this one fall through the cracks, perhaps? — Bellhalla (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I probably forgot to list it or it got lost when it was being transferred to WP:CFDW. Is it OK with you if I just do it now? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Perfectly fine. I'll leave all the hyphen-dash (hyphen–dash?) decisions to others, for now… ;) — Bellhalla (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I may be dropping the issue myself for the time being, at least w.r.t. categories. Users are already starting to complain about speedy criterion #7. Sometimes I don't know why we bother with trying to enforce style guidelines. Even when "consensus" is reached to use a system, there are always unhappies. Thanks for the notice, by the way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

– to -

Hi, just a quick question I saw you were doing alot of CFD changes wrt dashes, and just wondered the reasoning behind or what have I missed? Not a problem at all just curious. Cheers ^Khukri 11:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Decision was made to use dashes in category names per the guidelines in the manual of style. Discussion was here. Converting a hyphen to an appropriate dash is now a speedy renaming criterion at WP:CFDS. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers ^Khukri 21:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Fooian members of Eastern Orthodoxy

Were you going to vote on this one? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 01:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably. I wanted to, but I still haven't figured out what I think is best. I was holding back a bit and seeing if consensus would adopt one way or another. I could probably support whatever garners the most support. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

At the moment it seems to be a tie over making any rename. Please conisder voting support for "whatever (rename) garners the most support" and just change your vote later if you feel such a desire. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 06:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of 'Alleged holocaust perpetrators' cat from the Charles Zentai webpage

G.O.: you removed the noted Alleged holocaust perpetrators cat from the Charles Zentai article after speedy deleting the same without discussion, reporting simply on your deletion summary: "they either are or aren't: we don't "allege"; duplicate of Category:Holocaust perpetrators".

Synopsis:

• IP 67.149.150.252 from Michigan, who has previously taunted other editors critical of Nazi figures as shown here, noted on this Charles Zentai discussion topic that Zentai, who had been arrested in Australia in 2005, has not been convicted of any war crimes;
• with that rational, 67.149.150.252 removed the Holocaust perpetrators Cat from the article.

Well that was all hunky-dory so far (the slang type, not the David Bowie type), since according to the tenets of law in most western countries its improper to address a rapist or murderer as such unless they've actually been convicted of the appellation. Until such time they're normally referred to as: John Doe, the alleged rapist/murderer.... etc....

• At this point, we now have the Charles Zentai article now without a connection to the Holocaust war crimes alleged of him and the reason for his arrest, hence, two days ago I created the new category: Alleged holocaust perpetrators, and
• I then tagged the Charles Zentai webpage with the new Cat, followed by:
• you speedy deleting everything without discussion or precedence.

G.O., what exactly is Charles Zentai? Is he a 'holocaust perpetrator' despite sitting at home in Australia waiting to be deported to Hungary for trail on war crimes, or is he an 'alleged holocaust perpetrator', as per the new cat created to fit his ilk?

So, when you say: "they [Zentai et al] either are or aren't: we [Wikipedia staff] don't allege, are you referring to Zentai is or isn't a convicted holocaust perpetrator? If he's not a convicted war criminal, then under the circumstances, doesn't that make him an 'alleged holocaust perpetrator'? You can't have your cake and eat too, can you? HarryZilber (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

With references, I assume you can refer to him as an "alleged" whatever in the text of an article. But Wikipedia doesn't categorize individuals (especially living individuals) by "alleged" statuses. If you want this can be taken to discussion at WP:CFD, but see here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I previously reviewed 'Category:Alleged war crimes' (plus similar), which referred specifically to allegations of war crimes committed by American Armed Forces, not to genocide –so I again submit that you speedy deleted the cat without precedence. Would you reconsider your deletion and restore the cat? HarryZilber (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll move it to WP:CFD, but I don't like its chances. Categories with names like this are fairly routinely deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Lodi Hosp

User:Lodi Hosp. Occuli (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy criteria

Hi! I noticed that the speedy category renaming criteria #7 hasn't been added to WP:CSD#C2 yet. The underlying question: Why do we have the same criteria listed in two places instead of just linking to the page that lists them? Jafeluv (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Good question. I totally forgot that they were listed at CSD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Antisemitic propaganda

I've been following this discussion with more than a little interest. I can appreciate the obvious concerns re motivation of the nom, though I don't think that this necessarily discredits the nomination from the outset. What I was interested in was your observation that there might be a difference between "antisemitic" and "anti-gay" propaganda. From my own view the same issues attach to each with the use of 'propaganda'. Perhaps a rename is in order? Anway, I'd be interested in any amplification to these remarks.

One more favour to ask of you. Would you mind taking a second look at a closure of mine at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_21#Category:Constituent_countries_of_the_United_Kingdom? This has been a bit controversial - on reflection I think that it might have been a bit of a marginal call. Your own reading of the debate would be appreciated - I'll spare you my reasoning for now, just so you approach it untainted!

Thanks, Xdamr^talk 10:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note re: the propaganda nom. I will consider further detail on my comments--I kind of wanted others to comment to try to avoid monopolizing the discussion, but if there is nothing forthcoming in the next few days, I may expand my comments.

I will look at that close when I get a minute. I'm shooting off right now but should be able to do it in the next few hours I'll get back to you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Constituent countries of the UK

Third party assessment

Interesting discussion; I think this could be approached from a number of different ways, but I'll try my best to clearly set out what I think.

I agree that it is a "close call" discussion. It would have been a difficult decision for me. First, there is definitely not a consensus to keep the original name—that much is clear. The result must either be to rename as nominated (which wasn't chosen) or to delete and upmerge to Category:United Kingdom (which was chosen).

A strict vote-count doesn't resolve the situation, since there were 4 (Twiceupon, Enaidmawr, Daicaregos, and Maisoui) who I would interpret as favouring deletion, and 4 (nominator, BritishWatcher, GoodDay, and Yorkshirian) who favoured renaming. Messy details: the bottom line for Daicaregos seems to be getting E/S/W included in Category:European countries, however that may be accomplished. Maisoui was also open to renaming, which I interpreted as meaning primarily that s/he just didn't want the category kept under its original name if it wasn't deleted (thus supporting issue for which there clearly was consensus).

One approach would be to just say that on the straight-up "delete vs. rename (implying keep)" issue there was a virtual tie, and therefore no consensus, and that therefore we must default to keep and consequently the category must be renamed. I wouldn't have criticised a closing like this, and it would probably be justifiable.

However, another approach is to go beyond mere vote-counting and to look at the underlying problematic issues. These issues were, frankly, only really addressed by the nominator, Daicaregos, and Enaidmawr in their extended back and forth discussion. Most other commenters focussed on explaining why the proposed name was better (or worse, in one case) than what already existed. Maisoui favoured deletion but didn't say why. Twiceupon appeared to think that subcategorization was redundant.

I think Enaidmawr made a key point when s/he said that the underlying problem is that the category system does not distinguish "countries" from "sovereign states". Also a really good point was made by the nominator was s/he suggested that if the category is deleted, then E/S/W and NI will end up in Category:European countries, and NI's presence in this country is a problem for many editors. However, I would point out that the same essential problem exists if the category is renamed as proposed: NI is still being labelled a "country", and this is a debatable issue.

In my reading, the lack of consensus really seems to revolve around the following issue: "is NI properly categorized as a 'country'?" There is no consensus on that issue. Because there is not, it makes sense to me to remove it from any category system that suggests that it is, until there is a consensus that it is. In my opinion, deletion/upmerging of the category can be justified as being more reflective of the lack of consensus if you look at things from this perspective. Therefore, I would also not criticise the close for being closed in the way it was.

In summary: the discussion could have reasonably been closed as either a "rename" or a "delete/upmerge". I would say the selection of delete/merge was well within the discretion given to administrators in closing tough decisions, and is certainly justifiable based on the content on the discussion, even if strictly speaking there is no "obvious" consensus to delete the category at first glance or by vote counting. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

After-assessment discussion

You don't seem to get the main point - if it is to be upmerged, then everyone except one person wanted it to be upmerged into "European countries", not to "United Kingdom". Anyway, don't we default to not delete if there is no consensus, or is that not applicable to categories? Anyway, I'm rather concerned that you think that the question of NI is the main issue here - just because people can't agree on how to categorize one page (and there pretty much is agreement on that anyway, except for one or two people) that shouldn't be allowed to derail the proper categorization of other pages. I propose to recreate the category under the name "Countries of the United Kingdom", which is a solution that would satisfy almost everyone in the discussion, and hope it will remain unchallenged. --Kotniski (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Anybody can add the articles to the European countries category—that's not a big issue, in my opinion, since it can be done at any time by anybody. The close doesn't proscribe such action. If that's truly the main concern, then this is all much ado about nothing. I would guess that strictly speaking the close would proscribe creation of the category you initially proposed, since it would essentially be changing the close to the result you agree with. As for defaulting to "not delete"—I think that's one approach that could have been adopted; see starting at my paragraph 4, where I acknowledge this and then set out an alternate approach in the following paragraphs. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The core problem here is that Countries of the United Kingdom should not appear in lists or categories with other countries which are only sovereign states to avoid confusion. The idea there for was to put a countries of the UK template as a sub category to EUropean countries so that England, Wales etc appears under the United Kingdom, so its not misleading.

If this current option means that just the UK category remains on the articles i am ok with that on the condition, European Countries category is NOT readded to the England, Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland articles. If the current set up means people think it needs to be readded, then we must respect the vote. The current setup had no support. Either we keep Categories:Constituent countries of the United Kingdom or we rename it Categories:Countries of the United Kingdom. Those are the only to alternatives as far as im concerned. The European Countries category should not be readded to countries of the United Kingdom articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

My opinion about the discussion was asked, and I gave it. It was based solely on the text of the discussion that I read. If my interpretation of what I read clashes with anyone else's opinion, that's fine, but I'm not too concerned about it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"Anybody can add the articles to the European countries category—that's not a big issue, in my opinion," The whole reason there was a category, Constituent countries of the UK was so that England, Scotland etc do not have to be placed in the European countries category except if its in a dub division with them appearing under the UK. England may be a country but its a country of the United Kingdom and must not be placed in a list of sovereign states which could mislead people.

Thats why we wanted the category, and thats why we wanted to rename it to Countries of the UK so its in line with the Countries of the United Kingdom article. This is the heart of the problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I realise that. I was responding to Kotinski's concern about the merge target. My point is that if the merge target is the issue in question, anyone can add them to "European countries". The UK countries don't need their own little subcategory to be included in that category. I understand you disagree with the close, but also understand I have no power to unilaterally change it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is a category Category:Countries of the United Kingdom then there is no need for anyone to add European countries. But if its just Category:United Kingdom then some may try to add it. This was the whole reason for the requested change. The current verdict simply was not what the majority voted for. Some voted for delete, some voted for rename so i still dont understand how the outcome was merge with Category:United Kingdom which the majority of people clearly did not support. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

They do need their own sub category, to put England in a list of countries which are all sovereign states is misleading. There is a long history to this matter, it has only been in the past couple of years theres been agreement to start those articles introductions as "England is a country"., that only happened about 2 years ago. There use to be a list of "countries" at list of countries however because England, Scotland etc kept being added the article became a redirect to a list of sovereign states to prevent it being listed. We then went on to debate if all country lists should be renamed to sovereign states, but it was agreed then that saying country was ok and that England etc did not need to be added. I see no reason why categories should be treated any differently. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I understand your point of view. Really. No need to debate the wind here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories

Thanks, I think that your idea is valid, and I'll incorporate it there. I saw that discussion briefly as I was opening a page, and I couldn't find it again. Thanks again though as at least you're connecting the dots there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind assisting too. It would be good to get a "by nationality" and a "by jurisdiction" scheme going. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, GOF. This seemed like the best place to reply, as you and User:Ktr101 have a convenient sub-heading waiting for me! My own view, for what it's worth, is that new categories shouldn't be created and old categories emptied to populate them if that effectively bypasses discussion at WP:CFD about the appropriateness of the effective rename. I'd suggest discussion first and get consensus for a structure for rape-related categories, rather than ignore CFD and face accusations of acting "out-of-process" later – particularly when the current structure was kept in a CFD discussion earlier this year. Yes, there was some discussion about having "convicted of" categories, but I think it would be best to tread cautiously before making too many changes. Regards to you both. Bencherlite^Talk 23:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a reasonable suggestion. I doubt it would be that hard to find a consensus at CfD for at least making the "convicted of" categories subcategories of the existing rapists categories, but Bencherlite is correct that this needs to be approached quite delicately and make sure "consensus" would be on board with implementing it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Renaming Landlord-tenant law category

Hi Good Olfactory. I just created the Landlord-tenant law category, and I haven't given any thought as to whether I should use a dash or a hyphen. I fully support your suggested speedy renaming, and I thank you for your service! Verkhovensky (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I'll go ahead and do the change. I'll keep a redirect on the hyphenated version. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Western (genre) films

Hi! I left you a lengthy response in the Western (genre) films CfD regarding disambiguation in category names. A single CfD is probably not the best possible place to bring this up, but since it's directly related to that discussion I thought I'd raise the issue there. I'd really like to hear your opinion on the issue. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting; I think this is an issue because of one major reason. I've left a comment there; hopefully what I've said is not too confusing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Afro Asian

It's a good respectable category, so why would someone want to delete it?(LonerXL (talk) 06:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

Comments would go here, which is linked to from the category page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Guardians of Scotland history

Where to do think I should take this worseing disagreement next? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 11:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit unorthodox, but you could open a CfD about it to try to get input about what others think. That may or may not be productive, depending on whether users participate.

I guess the other main option would be to start a WP:RfC asking for input on the talk page.

Above all, don't edit war with the user, as that never leads to good results for anyone—you probably realise that, but the compulsion to click "undo" can be very tempting. If it's evident that he's not going to budge, you do need to pursue other methods.Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

removed cat?

Why did you "(Removed category Religion in Guyana (using HotCat))"? Smkolins (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's now in Category:Bahá'í Faith in Guyana, which is a subcategory of Category:Religion in Guyana. The article doesn't need to be in both the subcategory and the parent category. (Mind you, Category:Bahá'í Faith in Guyana has only one article, so I'm not sure if it's really needed.) See the duplicate categorization rule. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If you check the Category:Bahá'í Faith by country this arrangement you've done is the only country organized this way. As for the category with only one entry there has been a division in the development of the categories because the common other category linked in is one where people with wikipedia articles who are Baha'i from/in a particular country get collected is also in development. See Category:Bahá'í Faith in Australia for example. I don't really have an investment in which way the categories are organized but I'd think one way is better than arbitrary differences. Smkolins (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm just following the editing guidelines. Not every user is aware of them, so there is bound to be some inconsistencies. If you think it should be the other way, you could suggest a change to the guidelines, but I think it makes sense to eliminate redundancies. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you direct me towards something to read? Smkolins (talk) 10:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CAT#Duplicate_categorization_rule (also linked to above in my first response). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

wow youre still at it?

Heheh I am just about to be away (ithink)for a month from these damned eastern european keyboards - so here an issue: Category:Deaths due to animal attacks (and the tree/family of cats in either direction) - there is something that brings back horrible memories of you doing the planet with human death and related categories. Surely such categories are in fundamental very specific speciesist error - and all should be changed ? :) Human death - yes? Dont bother to reply at mine - here would be fine - i might just be able to check from middle europe to see the fallout :) Cheers and any other good wishes you may require after all this time SatuSuro 07:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes--possibly. I'm not sure what to propose with these. There are a lot of "death" subcategories that don't use "human". I'm not sure if it's ever been discussed. You probably could argue that it's implied to be human unless it says otherwise, but as you say a speciesist argument is available too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Gawd even you sit on the fence it must be the weekend in NZ as well - oh well, it never feels like the weekend in european hostels - the way this austrian one charges for time ill be broke before istanbul. Thanks for your response by the way :) SatuSuro 07:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well about discussing that stuff - having just been in the city of death and sex (according to some) (ok the vienna graveyard i have checked out is supposedly the biggest etc) I suppose I shall have to get around to start the death and dying project idea thing when I get back to oz shores :) SatuSuro 19:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Potential hoaxes

Thank you for restoring the category, after recognizing the error. I created the cat in an attempt to reduce potential BLP issues, particularly in response to Colorado balloon incident. The larger Category:Hoaxes is being trimmed down to include only confirmed ones. I'm just waiting for consensus to develop on its scope before populating it. Again, thanks for the quick fix! The Wordsmith^Communicate 01:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; yup—my mistake. I had thought it had been blanked, but then I noticed you had made only one edit. Sorry about that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Former/future IH category

Hello, I went through Category:Former and future Interstate Highways and moved all of the future Interstate Highways into Category:Future Interstate Highways, leaving only the former Interstate Highways in the original category. I'm not familiar with how WP:CFDWM works, so I'm not sure what the next step in the process is. – TMF 07:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, great. I'll just transfer what's left into the former category, delete the old category and then delete it from WP:CFDWM, and we're done. A bot will finish this off in the next few minutes. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

According to US intelligence analysts not all Taliban leaders were Pashtuns

You closed the discussion on Category:Pashtun Taliban leaders. The nominator asserted: "Redundant--as far as I know there are no Taliban leaders who aren't Pashtun."

Nominator's rationale was, unfortunately, based on a mere guess. Note: Although Saddam Hussein was a Sunni, and he appointed all his cousins to senior posts, his silver haired Minister of Information, um, Tariq Ali (?) was a Shiite.

Here are multiple references where Guantanamo intelligence analysts identified Taliban leaders who weren't even from Afghanistan:

• The detainee was identified as a Taliban leader of the rear line in Kabul where weapons training was conducted.
• The Moroccan was a Taliban leader of the rear line in Kabul, Afghanistan, where weapons training was conducted on the AK-47 rifle, hand grenades, and the teachings of Islam.
• {1.} The detainee stated that when he arrived in Kandahar, Afghanistan, he stayed at a guest house operated by a Saudi. The detainee stated the guest house housed between 50 to 70 people of various nationalities. (2.) The detainee stated his friend's apartment in Kabul, Afghanistan, where he stayed, was bought by the Taliban. The detainee stated he realized his friend was a Taliban recruiter.
• The detainee was the "70th Taliban Commander".
• The detainee grew heroin in Northern Afghanistan and was a Taliban commander.
• The detainee is reported to be a former Taliban commander.
• In 2001, the detainee served as a security guard under al Qaida associate Gharib Al Yemeni, Taliban commander for Arab fighters in Kabul, Afghanistan.
• The Taliban commander at the front lines was Abdul Salam, a Yemeni.

FWIW Geo Swan (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You're citing intelligence gathered from Guantanamo interrogations as reliable evidence? Wow, that's brave. Anyway, I don't really know anything about the topic—I just closed the discussion. If you think relisting would be productive we can do so. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Welsh self-government

This CfD was extremely badly publicised, and not mentioned on any of the pages affected. In particular, it is difficult to say that the Devolution Referendum of 1979, which was supported mainly by the Labour Party and the Liberals was "Welsh nationalism".--MacRusgail (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the issue—just closed the discussion. We can relist if you think it would be productive. If users care about categories I recommend that they keep them on their watch pages, since notice of CfDs is placed on the category page, not on the article pages. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Established dates

Re: please provide an example. Rich Farmbrough, 18:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC).

I think I fixed them all now—there were 15–30 or so, most of them ones where the article had multiple "establishment" dates, and only one was manually replaced. It can be changed back again. An example of one that was just missed outright was Duchy of Spoleto. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I would delete it but I can no longer do a straight revert of my edit and I would no doubt muck it up. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

UK constituent countries

Thanks for taking a second look at that (above). Sorry that you seemed to become the 'point man' on this, despite it being my closure. I've been out and about recently with limited internet access and next to zero wp activity - I really wasn't able to deal with questions or queries. --Xdamr^talk 22:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and welcome back. I was a bit surprised when everyone started questioning my assessment as if I had the power to change something. I thought I was just going to give an opinion, but I guess that was because you weren't around to respond. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Cumorah!

Hi,

There is nothing original about my contibutions to the "Cumorah" page. Here is an example of something that may be original research: equating the hill Shim with the hill Ramah. Where does that come from? This page needs help! I am more than willing to discuss each and every quote from LDS authorities that I have added. To not deal with D&C 128:20 up front seams amature and perhaps even a dodge. My contribution deserves to be included. please quit removing my contibutions! Onondaga (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but if it's not in secondary sources, it's original research. Finding other original research in the article does not justify adding your own—it justifies removing the other stuff too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

John Taylor

Hi there. I notice you moved John Taylor (cricketer, born 1937) to an alternative title — John Taylor (English cricketer) — however, he is not the only English cricketer on Wikipedia with this name. Others that exist are at:

• John Taylor (Yorkshire cricketer)
• John Taylor (cricketer, born 1849)
• John Taylor (cricketer, born 1923)
• John Taylor (cricketer, born 1819)

While one of these is still yet to be written, in the long run disambiguating one by nationality when three share the same nationality may get confusing. This article may, at some point, need to be moved back to its original location. Just running this by you to see what you think. Bobo. 08:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The problem (for me) was that only one was listed on the DAB page John Taylor. I'll move it back. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Partially my fault, I apologize. As I deal a lot with many cricketers who have the same name, sometimes having various names notable for the same thing can be a minefield - I completely understand the situation. Thank you for understanding. Please accept this smiley-face in honour of your good-natured response in a tricky situation.

PS, I promise I will get to sorting out that disambiguation page with the extra names later. Bobo. 10:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

River categories

I have added an alternative propsal to a few of the river categories' nominations. I think it has much merit. Please visit the discussion(s) again and add your commentary/opinion. Debresser (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; yes—I had thought about suggesting that sort of disambiguation, but there were so many opposing votes already that I decided that everyone might just be happy with the "FOO River" setup. I've agreed with your suggestions, but it may be a losing battle. I do think it's kind of hilarious though that anyone would think that "Euphrates River", "Mekong River", "Tigris River", etc. is the correct way of referring to these. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

African American cemeteries

Hi, thanks for your 'speedy renaming' help on the African American cemeteries category I created. That's my bad. I knew the naming rules at one time. It just sort of slipped my mind. I was hoping to get your opinion on the category name. I noticed another category of cemeteries is 'Roman Catholic cemeteries in the United States'. That makes me think this category should be something like 'African American cemeteries in the United States'. What do you think? Also, if it needs to be changed to this, I 'm not sure how to make the change. HornColumbia (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure about the name. "African American" kind of implies that they are in the United States, but not directly. There probably wouldn't be any African American cemeteries outside of the U.S. But then again, adding "in the United States" would add a bit of clarity, I suppose. If you want to change it, just empty the old category and create and populate the new one and then let me know and I will delete the old one. Since you are the creator of it and it is relatively new, it's OK to do it that way. Or if you want further input you can propose a change using a WP:CFD nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about it for a while I think adding "in the United States" would be redundant given that it is already in US specific categories. The only change needed then is the lower case "c". This will happen automatically? Thanks for your help on this HornColumbia (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, nothing else you need to do then. It will be moved by a bot. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Manual moves?

Why? What is the rationale for manually moving the content of category talk pages rather than moving them? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Because you can't move them, just like you can't move categories. You just have to create the new one with the same content and delete the old one. Same deal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Visitor attractions in Trivandrum

I had proposed that Category:Visitor attractions in Trivandrum be speedily renamed as Category:Visitor attractions in Thiruvananthapuram. You had later moved it for discussion. I have noticed that a few more categories are to be renamed, so that their names are consistent with the new name of the city. They are Category:Trivandrum, Category:Economy of Trivandrum, Category:Education in Trivandrum, Category:Geography of Trivandrum, Category:Government of Trivandrum, Category:History of Trivandrum, Category:Trivandrum culture, Category:Companies in Trivandrum and Category:Organisations based in Trivandrum. I am still not sure as to where the renaming has to be proposed. Can you please help? Paalappoo (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Once the first discussion is closed and we make sure it is renamed, we can nominate the rest. I'm sure it won't be a problem. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks! Paalappoo (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Category moves

Is there someplace I can review the discussion (or least the reasoning) of moving, for example, "Category:Cream albums" to "Category:Cream (band) albums"? It seems unnecessary. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:DRV, I suppose—though it's just based on a widely-applied speedy rename criterion (#6). If there is an eponymous category that is disambiguated, all of the subcategories are also disambiguated to match the parent category. It's been applied as a blanket rule to avoid having an individual debate on each and every subcategory. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I can see that if there were an article that exactly matches the category, but for more specific items its unnecessary and seems to be more for our (the editors') benefit than for the users. A bottle of cream is not going to produce an album! (John User:Jwy talk) 00:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. But it's just these sorts of considerations the convention is meant to avoid having to consider. There are a lot of bands out there and it would be a pain to have to individually consider possible alternate meanings (or lack thereof) for each subcategory of an eponymous category. The best solution is to just not have eponymous categories, which is recommended, partly to avoid this issue entirely! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

2010 cat delet ions

Hello. Re your good-faith deletions of Category:2010 singles and Category:2010 songs, I created those categories because in my work on categorization I kept needing to use them on new and existing articles, and was having to skip an obvious and necessary categorization on these articles. Note that Category:2010 albums exists with 77 entries, and there's far more under Category:2010 which contains many subcats, some of which are already quite full. It's nearly November 2009 now, so it's correct to be now using 2010 in categorization. Can you undelete the two categories please? Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's not 2010 yet, how can something be categorized as being written, produced, or released in 2010? Or is this all just crystalballing? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Quoting WP:CRYSTAL: "Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions.", so properly sourced articles indicating the release of works a few months away are a Good Thing®. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I withdraw my extreme skepticism. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Soft redirects

Is it a policy/guideline to turn all alternative spellings into soft redirects? I saw you did that with Category:People from Priština. I personally like to clean up more thoroughly. Nevertheless, if this is what we should do, I'll have to change a few more nominations. Debresser (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really, but that sequence of events was not exactly following a number of policies or guidelines, since it was moved out of process. In such instances, a redirect might better assist those who thought they knew where the category was and weren't notified of a pending change through the usual CFD notification procedures. The other alternative was to reverse the change, but that's probably on balance not conducive to progress since it could just be speedied. The redirect doesn't have to stay permanently, but I thought if it were in place for a week or so that would be good. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Debresser (talk) 05:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'll probably delete it tomorrow or the next day. As long as there is a CfD-speedy-type period of notification, it should be fine. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 20#Rulers in Europe by century

This CfD has genarated a lot of talk but only one vote. Nor has anyone proposed an alternative to my proposal. Please consider voting. Thanks. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 15:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Category MPs Implicated in expenses scandal

You know way back, you went from tepid to firm against the category for MPs implicated in expenses scandal, well this scandal is still not finished with and many are so tainted they are going, and people are generally more suspicious now of MPs full stop in Britain, so I still think the category removal was dumb, and whats annoying me is this - you have my quote , its 14th in the list, and it looks like , 'look what these nutters have said about me' - but what I said is true, the category would have been useful and in a miniscule way, in a symbolic way, you sided with corruption. Can't I remove my quote from your list of 'nutter quotes'? The scandal goes on, people arguing against the category said it would be forgotten in a trice - it wont . Sayerslle (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You again restated that I "sided with corruption" by voicing an opinion in favour of deleting a Wikipedia category and then in the very next sentence you ask me to remove a link to a quote of yours that apparently you think may suggest to others that I think you are a 'nutter'? Let's step back a bit and consider this. I'm just relishing the sweet irony ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Forget about 'relishing the irony', attend to the matter. You said after reading the discussion you went from tepid to firm in favour of deletion. Look at the caliber of argument that compelled your mind - 'Give it a month and the talk will be 'what expenses scandal...' Well that was plain wrong wasn't it.. - 'recentism at its worst' said another - No, this scandal is still news, it has emerged as defining the careers of such a diverse mob as Andrew MacKay Nicholas Winterton Ann Winterton, Anthony Steen, Margaret Moran David Wilshire Julie Kirkbride, Hazel Blears, , another said 'its too early to know whether the scandal will be defining', well it isn't now...another vote for deletion wrote 'delete - as all 600 MPs will end up here once the full receipts are published in July..' And these were the arguments that convinced you..lets stand back and relish the genius of that, and you quote me like I'm a mug, which is your prerogative , but forget the rhetorical posturing and think about the subject. I realise this sounds over heated for the matter, and I tend to write as the news is on, and the scandal was news again tonight as the reforms are being brought in to curb their corruption. Sayerslle (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe don't write when the news is on then. Because frankly, you're coming across as a bit of a kook. The issue was not about whether the information was notable or important or whether it would be on Wikipedia at all. The issue was whether the information should be conveyed in a category. That's all. Arguing that the information is better presented in an article or list does not make one a party to corruption, as much as you seem keen to draw that line. That's my opinion. But if you want to disagree and believe that it does—that's fine. But then don't be surprised or complain when I then link to a quote where you state your beliefs with respect to what I have done to abet corruption. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't label people you disagree with 'kooks' - that practice has a long and ignoble history you know, Soviet Union etc.. ..Why reiterate the issue -I know what the issue was. 'It will be forgotten in a month' - 'Its not defining' - 'Recentism at its worst' - these shoddy arguments were what won your support. And I'm the kook. The sodding irony. Sayerslle (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you called the list one for 'nutters', not me. But really, time to move on, partner. If a comment is not working towards contributing to the encyclopedia, I suggest you don't post it here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly time to move on. It is you that embalms quotes and mounts them on your user page, a pointless museum of stuffed sentences. To make this comment one that contributes to the encylopedia I think a new Wikipedia policy, WP:SP is needed, standing for wikipedia; supererogatory practices, - and it would be a rule that discourages unnecessary/excessive practices, under which rule , both my returning to an old argument about Categories, and your collection of embalmed quotes, would be discouraged, so that I could tag your list (WP:SP) and you could've tagged my first bit above with the tag and stopped the argument in its tracks. Sayerslle (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Mmmmm. (Smiles and nods). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Just butting in after dropping by about something else (BC border section below); my immediate reaction to the notion of the category in question is, other than specifying British MPs, it's "which expenses scandal" and of course I know the one you're talking about; but expenses scandals are common fare, Canada, Oz and elsewhere, though (usually) on an individual basis). It's because of the Wikipedia conventions about lower-case usage that a confusion could exist and more specification is needed; "MPs implicated in British parliamentary expenses scandal, 2008" for instance (or was it this year that it started?). I realize the category has gotten nowhere, but I just wanted to comment that categories of this kind have the potential to get ..... silly-ily huge. e.g. Category:Politicians who have broken campaign promises, [[:Category:Politicians engaged in pork-barrelling) which of course would be so big no single encyclopedia could contain them....Skookum1 (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

admin needed!

Hi Good Olfactory,

I saw you were on call. ;) Do you mind, if you have a moment, closing an Afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Hotel van Cleef), just now withdrawn by the nominator? If not, no worries, but I like to pick up after myself. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks for your quick work! I really appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Huzzah!

That's it, really. Just huzzah!  :) --Kbdank71 10:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hip-hip-huzzah. Get a load of the guy two above. So, when are you going to come and show us all how it's done at CfD? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Geez, what a nutter. Poor fellow doesn't seem to get the concept of categories. Thanks, btw, I had a guffaw when you called him a kook. (and before anyone calls for my head for calling someone a nutter, remember I'm from the US; I have no idea what a nutter is. (I am, however, familiar with the term kook))

You know when I'll be back. Besides, it looks like people have it well under control. I wonder if he thinks all of the closers he's taken to DRV are just my socks. (cue request for sockpuppet check in three... two... one...) --Kbdank71 13:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, Nutter McClennen & Fish, one of the great law firms in the U.S.? I thought we were talking about substantive due process, but he seems to have taken it another way. I'm bookmarking Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kbdank71. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, makes sense. Much like I was thinking of an unskilled surfer, skateboarder or snowboarder when I said kook. Oh well, some people always assume the worst. BTW, I'm bookmarking that as well, thanks. --Kbdank71 21:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Participate at CfD

Thank you for your recent run of commentary edits at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 25. My impression is yes, you do mean to be helpful, and yes, you are helpful. I do agree that one learns best by "doing", and learns little by making abstract commentary. If I say CfD documentary is poor, I don't mean to insult, or to say it is not there, just that I find it difficult to penetrate.

One problem I have with participating at CfD is that nearly every discussion is uncontroversial, in no need of discussion.

Can I ask you to invite me to comment in any debate where my comment might have some value? Also, what do think of the idea that contested CfDs should be relisted and a means of flagging for further opinions? See Wikipedia_talk:Coordination#Request_for_relisted_non-AfD_XfDs for my suggested mechanism of flagging. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I could see that this system could be desirable if there were many more discussions every day/week/month. At this stage, I'm not sure if the number of discussions at CfD would warrant it, since I don't think it's currently too onerous to look through the daily entries and quickly get an idea of which ones are being opposed. Relisting would presumably mean a discussion would be open for two weeks, which seems excessive for most cases of controversial nominations. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there are enough Mfd, CfD, RfD, MfD and FfD relists of controversial nominations collective to warrent it. Also, an empty such section is a thing of beauty.

Relisting (WP:RELIST) is only for cases where relisting is warrented. ie. where there is contention, and only a few participants. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

CfD seems loath to produce "no censensus" closes. Perhaps this is because categories are not really content, and the "no censensus defaults to keep" paradigm was intended for content discussions. Perhaps anything that looks like it could be judged a no consensus should be relisted, at least once? Please excuse this relaps into abstreact commentary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but that assumes that closing administrators at CfD are recognising that certain discussions are "no consensus" but are deciding to ignore that and to "do what they please". While that may be some other user's perception, I don't know of any admins who I think do this and don't know of any who have said they have done this. If they aren't identifying discussions as "no consensus", they wouldn't be relisting them per your paradigm. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No, let's not suggest that anyone says closing admins "do what they please". I've only seen closing admins do what they think is right. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how we precisely phrase it—if every admin is closing discussions in a way that they think is right, the system still wouldn't work, because the proposed system only leads to relistings of discussions that would have otherwise been closed by the same admin as "no consensus". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, there have been times I've relisted something because there was no consensus after one week but I thought another week would help. I didn't close the discussion, however. Just changed the dates and relisted it. But if I didn't think consensus was likely, even with more time, I would close it as "no consensus". This never stopped anyone else relisting it if they chose. --Kbdank71 03:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have done that too. Relisting at CfD is not unheard of or anything like that. It does happen. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Malayali organizations

Hi there....I created that category.....Now if the Wikipedia policy is as such, then do speedily rename it......I Support the decision......

ARUNKUMAR P.R^Talk 02:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Container-cat

Template:Container-cat has been nominated for merging with Template:Parent category. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 07:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Unnacceptable

I am not wasting two hours of my life creating and populating Category:Sportspeople convicted of a crime for you to just come along and do this, without even discussing with me, or even leaving me a way of finding out what the hell happened. I want this deletion reviewed, because that Cfd debate (from April 2008!) is totally bogus. Convicted sportspeople aren't treated any differently? Wtf is that? Trivia? Come off it. 'We don't need this because we have a list'. I don't think so (or, am I now supposed to waste another two hours and go and add it to See Also sections for all these articles?) Like it or not, people equate these incidents, and it is a defining characteristic. I am not in the habit of creating stuff I don't use, or see other people using, and I have been around long enough to know a trivial cat when I see one. Either delete both or neither, but it is patent rubbish to pretend an incomplete orphaned list that nobody will ever know exists is doing anything for the project. You might have missed the fact that as soon as I created and populated the cat, the list, was updated by multiple people. Page views, had you given it a chance to register by leaving it for a day, would have gone through the roof, increasing its quality and compliance. Which reminds me - the only argument that even comes close to a decent reason for this pointless destruction and annoyance of others, is BLP, and I am not stupid, I had considered this, as soon as I saw that we already have Category:Criminals by occupation, with clergy, politicians and police in it, I thought no problem. MickMacNee (talk) 07:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable with two ns? Whoa, this must be serious; I'm going to have to look into this. But it will have to wait, as I'm going on a bit of a break over my spring weekend. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I took your first response as it was posted, so the DRV is already open. MickMacNee (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

BC border cat

I notice you've added Pope's Peak and Mount Columbia (Canada) to the new "Borders of BC" cat, I went and added some of the marine boundary last night, a few items left there yet to be made (Pearse Canal, A-B Line), but I'm not sure at all that including the mountain peaks studding the border is a good idea, there's just too many of them; but if so, other than the dozens in the Rockies (several dozens, I'd say) there's all the numbered boundary peaks (some of which have names e.g. Mount Nesselrode) as well as numbers and of course Mt Fairweather (the summit of which is actually fully in BC, but most of the mountain itself isn't). The Chilkoot Pass, White Pass etc are also boundary-markers, though I'm not sure if the Hay-Herbert Treaty mentions them specifically; it probably does but I'd have to get out t he fine-tooth comb....; then do we include lakes spanning the border, e.g. Atlin Lake? Teslin Lake? Chilliwack Lake?? I can see the point of the category for things defining the border, but think it would be too cluttered if everything that simply was on the border was to be in it; as it happens, though, the numbered border peaks along hte Alaska frontier do define the border (in treaty/by law); whereas Mt Columbia only happens to be on the Continentnal Divide, and only incidentally is on the BC-AB border, i.e. it's not named as part of it like the 120th Meridian or 60th Parallel or Strait of Juan de Fuca is....Skookum1 (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Go crazy. But keep in mind the parent category is Category:Internal borders of Canada. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

But that's not clear from the category title, which is why I've already added Strait of Juan de Fuca, Haro Strait, Pearse Canal etc....as for summits, it maybe would be best if for the Rockies/Continental Divide one a subcat of Category:Canadian Rockies and also of Category:Great Divide of North America and this one would be Category:Peaks and passes on the British Columnbia-Alberta boundary, as there'll be so many. A parallel subcat of Category:Boundary Ranges and (if there is one) Category:Saint Elias Mountains would also be suitable but I haven't given thought to a proper name for it; maybe Category:Boundary peaks and passes of the Alaska-British Columbia border? Bit wordy, but you get the idea... You'll note I took out Taku River from the Canada-US border category, as it's not a river forming the boundary. And I'm taking it as a given that "border towns" on internal borders is a subjective matter; most if not all are, unlike Lloydminster SK/AB, a few miles from the border. e.g. Teslin, Dawson Creek, Sparwood, Field....anyway I think the priority is on grouping the Rockies summits in one subcategory, and also coming to terms with teh fact that the category name does not state internal boundaries of Canada and so must also be a subcat of the Canada-US border cat....Skookum1 (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would consider a non-internal border of BC to be a border of Canada, but that's just me. I'll set out some category definitions for clarity. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And to further note that Boundary Ranges peaks which are on the boundary, and are in fact legal definitions of it by treaty, have secondary names like Boundary Peak 71 and Boundary Peak 93 (which are Devils Paw and Devils Thumb, though maybe not respectively); even Fairweather has a "number" like that....I'm unsure if maybe the "Boundary Peaks" category for that area could maybe put the category on a redirect for the "Boundary Peak X" name....or at least somewhere a directory/list of such peaks can be made; NB not all major ones are on the boundary, which does not follow a divide....Skookum1 (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to note I've created, or started to, List of Boundary Peaks of the Alaska-British Columbia border, which of course needs a bunch of variant-name redirects to go with it; BCGNIS is malfunctioning right now although they're all listed in there as well (though not in CGNDB); the list is incomplete (most is "commented out" until I format it...) and needs to be alphabetized and consolidated a bit....GNIS has two, sometimes three, refs for some peaks i.e. when they have a name as well as a number e.g. Mount London which has a third name, Mount Atlin; all elevation are currently in feet because that's what gnis uses, and the "range/region" is currently the county/borough/CDA, I'll be updating it to subrange/icefield/locality instead once I'm done. This was relatively easy to search, it'll be a lot harder with List of boundary peaks of the British Columbia-Alberta border, which NB is not capitalized "Boundary Peaks" because they're not so-officially titled; there's also actual peaks named Boundary Peak, such as one in Idaho....Skookum1 (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a question about the list article, but I've left it on the article talk page as that's probably a better place. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

College football categories

I've opened up a discussion that I think you may be interested in participating in. VegaDark (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Category talk:Guineans of Igbo descent - Category Name Change to Equatoguineans of Igbo descent

There are three countries in Africa with Guinea as part of their name: 1) Equatorial Guinea, 2) Guinea-Bissau 3) Republic of Guinea. All three countries have distinctly different histories. There is also Papau New Guinea located in South Pacific. This category refers to Guineans of Igbo descent from Equatorial Guinea, thus should have the name Equatoguineans of Igbo descent to clear up any likely confusion. At least, that is what I'm suggesting. Bab-a-lot (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why you're telling me this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what's this all about?

Why are you depopulating this category? [1] <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no discussion about this on any talk page or at any associated policy page that I can find, I assume you are being bold. I have reverted you per WP:BRD and initiated discussion at the category talk page. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Occasionally when I see a small category that is obviously one that will be deleted if it went to CfD I will just empty it out. Someone at CfD asked me recently why I didn't do that more often with ridiculous categories instead of formally going through the CfD process. I told the person it was because whenever I do that, someone pops up on my talk page and complains, which forces it into CfD anyway, so it's easier just to start with a formal nomination from the start. I'll have to point my friend to this example as a text book case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly at least one other person doesn't think it's ridiculous... considering someone (me) created the thing. I find your out-of-hand assumption that it is "ridiculous" to be dismissive and rude. Actually, your entire demeanor is fucking condescending. If you simply must see it deleted, send it to CfD so it can be discussed. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right—if it's created, it must be OK. But fucking condescending? I was shooting more for brutally honest. To each his own descriptor. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Did someone push you down in a mud puddle today or do you always walk around with a big chip on your shoulder? You depopulated a category I created without a single word to me or any attempt at discussion. I couldn't figure out why, so I ask you on your talk page and you immediately cop a big attitude? Your own user page says people may ask you why you do some of the things you do... maybe you should add a footnote that says "only for masochists who enjoy being insulted and spoken down to". <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 07:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(Actually yes, that did happen—but that's another story...) I did not intend to offend you, though it appears that I did because I was honest. And because of that I apologise. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I take no personal offense at someone expressing an opinion regarding content. I took offense at the dismissive response to my query. People generally don't like that so much. :-/ Anyway, as I said, if you think it should be deleted please feel free to CfD it. I welcome a consensus-based decision. Maybe some new options should be added to speedy deletion for categories that don't meet guidelines or something. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I came across that way. (I was being dismissive, but it was nothing really to do with you or your inquiry. Mud puddle and all ... ) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Denialism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Denialism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

Huge swathe of speedy renaimings declined

I have declined a huge swathe of renamings here. An objection had been raised, which should trigger a full discussion. Since User:Koavf has acted on the request even though an objection has been made, I do not have the time to make a full listing of the categories, as I have to undo the changes Koavf has implemented pending discussion. I leave it to you to decide how to proceed. I would respectfully suggest that criteria #6 is considered contentious until the current situation is resolved. I apologise for the inconvenience caused. Hiding T 09:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. There have been problems in the past with Koavf doing stuff like that out-of-process. I'm certainly not going to spend the time to nominate them all for full discussions; that's why #6 has existed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: You do realise, however, that if you deny the renaming you need to remove the cfr-speedy tag from the categories, don't you? Just kidding, you don't have to. But neither do I feel that the nominators should have to. I think those who opposed the renames should be required to, since the nominators were doing nothing that wasn't in conformity with the then-accepted guidelines. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There's hundreds of changes to revert here. I'd appreciate any help anyone can give, even if that means removing the speedy tags. I'd actually argue that part of nominating a category for speedy is a recognition that if it fails you are prepared to remove the tags, to be honest, and am a bit disappointed you see it otherwise. After all, Wikipedia is not a battleground, yeah? ;) I think criteria 6 is going to have to be reviewed to clarify what it means. I don't have the time to research the history of the criteria, why it was proposed etc right now, but that definitely needs doing. These changes were in no sense un-objectionable, and if they come from an attempt to comply with #6, then there is a flaw with #6. Hiding T 10:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't trying to suggest a battleground attitude; sorry if it came across that way. Overall, I was kind of being flippant. I can revert the ones I nominated, which will be easy enough to just use self-rollback to accomplish. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Input

Appreciate your input at WP:VPP#Disambiguating categories. Thanks, Hiding T 10:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I noticed that your have removed Category:Member belongs to Crown Prince Party, could you explain to me why? As far as I know, the inter-struggle of CCP is very fierce, at times even deadly, and to understand it we need articles like Tuanpai and Crown Prince Party, kind of party within a party kind of things. Is it OK to create Category:Crown Prince Party and Category:Tuanpai ? Arilang ^talk 18:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that calling someone a member of the "Crown Prince Party" carries a negative connotation. I view it essentially as an attack label, and as such would be inappropriate, in my view. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It may sound like an attack label, but it is not. I have done extensive reading of CCP history, as can be seen here:s:zh:用戶:Arilang1234, and commons:Communist Party of China, which is created by me. I have done major contributions to both zh:wikisource and wiki commons on this topic. To really understand CCP, readers need to understand complex topics such as Comintern and internationl politics. Crown Prince Party and Tuanpai are essential subjects that readers need to know. Plus, it is a open secret that Chinese Communists no longer believe, or know anything called " orthodox Marxist theory" anymore. Arilang ^talk 05:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Why then does the second sentence in Crown Prince Party say, "It is not a political party, but an informal, and often derogatory, categorization to signify those benefiting from nepotism and cronyism, by analogy with Crown Princes in hereditary monarchies"? It sounds like a pretty derogatory term to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, it may sounds like "Derogatory", the point is the Chinese communist just don't care anymore, because the "core value" of the CCP is to stay in power, by hook or by crook, by whatever means, and the catch phrase is "Stability is paramount" zh:稳定压倒一切. If you read Chinese, 压倒一切 literary means "everything else has to be suppressed" . I know it is very difficult for a layman to understand how CCP works, one need to read a lot just to see through the mist. Arilang ^talk 12:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think saying the leaders of the CCP don't care anymore is a good enough reason to apply a derogatory label to them. That's my opinion about this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong diff

In your list of people's opinions about you, you seem to have accidentally posted the diff to removing the HAravard template twice at 21. as well as at 22. instead of linking to the Anti-Mormon etc quote. Munci (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, crucial mistake. Thanks, I'll try to fix. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Categories

So as I'm sure you noticed, your CfDs to speedily rename Category:Dynasty characters‎, Category:Dynasty images‎, and Category:Dynasty episode redirects to lists‎ (among others) were declined due to an objection. After your renaming of the main category, I agree with these derivative changes and was going to boldly rename them myself (I created the categories and am probably just about the only one who monitors them) ... until I discovered that categories don't have the Move option (at least for us common schlubs, LOL). As an administrator, do you have that ability? In any case, I'm not an expert on the nuances of such renaming so I don't know whether you feel you need to bring them up in formal CfDs, but should you choose to move/rename them, I'm volunteering to update the related articles, images and redirects using AWB. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 20:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. No, admins can't move them like articles—they have to be deleted and the contents manually moved either by hand or by a bot. Apparently there's developed a dispute as to whether these changes should qualify for speedy moves at WP:CFDS, so if you want them moved you need to use the full WP:CFD proposal method to get them moved. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Resp

Comical or conical? I suppose it could be conical, if we could make the cone into a dunce cap. ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Section

Perhaps you'd care to write the details about [2] in a private e-mail (link on my page)? I have this intuitive feeling that this is not stuff for a talkpage. Debresser (talk) 06:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints which you contributed to, is currently up for deletion

You are welcome to comment in this deletion discussion. Ikip (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha

[3] - You have to laugh really, don't you? It's rather like it's some kind of comforter for the lad. --Xdamr^talk 01:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I now have enough comic material for a full-length feature. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hell, I'm adding myself to it... --Xdamr^talk 01:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a confession to make. I need to tell someone to get it off my chest. I may as well tell you:

Stunning confession (look only if you dare!)
I broke CfD this afternoon. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)|}

zOMG!!?! What'dya do? Why'd you do it? You finally cracked up under the pressure? What will I do for fun now? (maybe write content, or take up stamp collecting perhaps....) --Xdamr^talk 02:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You can help me edit my full-length feature. Act I, scene i: Good Olfactory, assuming most other Wikipedians to be normal human beings, tries to help out. Hilarity ensues. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Always a mistake making wild assumptions like that... You know my feelings on Wikipedians - they're like mushrooms, keep them in the dark and feed them on sh*... um, chocolate. (must AGF more...) --Xdamr^talk 02:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Heeeeeeeyyyyy ... I think I know someone who you might just get along with quite nicely ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Outrageously high levels of WP:CLUE, that boy - manages to knows what I think 6 months before I think it... (Just wish the sagacious purple monkey would appear a little more often to help the poor fellow out) --Xdamr^talk 03:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You know, all it would take to cause a new round of complaining about admin abuse would be someone like me dropping by to add to this discussion. Er, um.... --Kbdank71 20:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Crack on - we're clearly on a roll here... --Xdamr^talk 20:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Kbdank, you make it sound as if users actually keep an eye on my talkpage. (Hi, Alansohn!) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As of right now you've got 94 people watching your talkpage. I'll be willing to bet my entire WP Admin salary that Alan is one of them. --Kbdank71 21:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

How did you calculate that, amazing admin-powers guy? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have amazing admin-powers, how else? Or... click on History. Up at the top there are about four external links, one of them is "Number of watchers". --Kbdank71 01:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll be—a tool for everything. Now, what I really want to know if how I can make a good omlette when cooking on a gas stove. Can't get it right. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Can't help you there. According to my wife, I always burn eggs when I cook them. --Kbdank71 21:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha Ha

Broke again? Or have I broken you? Did I want to see more relisted and no consensus closes? I may have said something like that, but no, that is not what I really want.

If I can risk being honest, participating in CfDs leaves me feeling out of my depth. It is much harder than diving into AfD, MfD or DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, SmokeyJoe, there is a Santa Claus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not a response I expected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

New messages

Hello, I wondered if you might know how to fix a new problem on a page you've edited before. It's at the top of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Pearcy_(activist)

There's an unrelated "new messages (last change)" heading at the top of that page that makes no sense to me. There's no sign of it in the history of revisions, so it's a more advanced edit than I know how to make.

Thank you in advance for any help.70.133.76.98 (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That notice is something that appears on every page you look at when someone leaves a new message on your talk page. Check User talk:70.133.76.98. Someone has left a message based on an edit made by the IP address you are using. If the message doesn't apply to an edit you made, you can ignore it and avoid such problems by creating and using a user name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Museum category

Hi Good Olfactory, on August 31 you deleted Category:Local museums in the United States. I find no CfD link to see why. This I found after having created and populated Category:Local museums in the United Kingdom. This is quite consistent with Category:Museums by type. I'd like to start the deleted category as there are enough US Local Museum articles under Category:Local museums to justify its creation. Please, let me know about it. Hoverfish Talk 21:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You can re-create it. It was only deleted because it was empty. See Wikipedia:CSD#C1. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Hoverfish Talk 22:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

deletion of Category:45 deaths

Hi - your edit was in good faith I'm sure. But now when someone updates a date of death for 45 CE, or adds someone who died then, they have to go create the category if they do the job properly. How did your deletion improve Wikipedia in any way? You just are creating extra work for contributors. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

We never pre-create empty categories based on future anticipated need. See Wikipedia:CSD#C1. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. What a stupid rule! You didn't answer my question: How did your deletion improve Wikipedia in any way? Clearly among the exceptions should be years of death and birth. It just created a bunch of extra work for me as I corrected the death of Vardanes. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

My action consisted of applying a rule which allows for the elimination of an empty category. I'm not the ultimate arbiter of how particular rules "improve" WP; such matters are subject to much broader consensus-based discussions and decisions. I suppose you could imagine various scenarios whereby the inability to delete empty categories could be problematic—causing frustration for readers, etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! Have a nice day... Geĸrίtzl (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Georgia (country) international footballers

Hi, I'm the editor who proposed this category for a speedy rename, and I'm going to take it to CfD instead. Can I start the process right awar or do I have to wait 48 hours? Cheers, GiantSnowman 00:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you can do it anytime. (The 48 hour thing just means that if no one starts a full discussion the speedy nomination can be removed by an editor from the speedy section after 48 hours.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK, thanks. Should I remove the speedy notice from the category when I add the CfD one, or leave them both there? GiantSnowman 00:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably remove the speedy one. Full discussions supercede the speedy listings, so there's not really a reason to keep the speedy tag on there. We can leave a note in the speedy section that the discussion has been moved to full. Do you want to copy the votes listed so far or do you just want to start "afresh"? Probably either way is OK. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll start afresh and notify everyone who !voted about the new discussion. Thanks for all your help, it's much appreciated. Cheers, GiantSnowman 00:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. You can consider me notified. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Recycle Bin

Hi again, here are two museum subcategories I emptied for speedy. The first I created but proved too small to be useful, oh well... Category:Equestrian museums by country. The second was simply against the grain. Subcats of Museums by [Country] are by region, by city, but not by type, so since no other country had this step I bypassed it: Category:Museums in France by type. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 18:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Quick question...

Is there a standard warning template for users who have violated 1RR? If there is, I cannot find it. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is, because unless it is imposed on them, 1RR isn't a mandatory rule that must be followed, so we can't really warn users to follow it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I was not clear. There is a 1RR in place on all articles related to the Troubles, and there is a template for warning people when they have violated it. But, it's a moot point, 'cause I found one. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that issue. Yes, there should be one for that. Sorry I'm not connecting the dots—I should have guessed that's what you meant as I do know you edit Troubles articles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment by Ethiopia

I have nominated Category:Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment by Ethiopia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Redirect from Alternate Name

Hi - I noticed Category:Redirect from Alternate Name was merged to another category, but I also find myself periodically picking it by accident when using hotcat - since it still shows up as an autocomplete. Do you know if something needs to be changed in hotcat to prevent that from happening, or should we recreate the category as a redirect to the new/merged category? Thanks.  7  07:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not sure about that. I think I've seen hotcat take a few days to reset and register that a deleted category has been deleted, but it should have done so by now with this category since it was deleted over a week ago. I would ask the hot cat guy how this works. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Will do - thanks.  7  08:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine illustrated books

Hi Good Ol'factory; I have responded to your question as best I can on the category talk page. Cheers. Maias (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thx for responding. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wines

Someone has emptied Category:Wines, under the misapprehension that it is the same as Category:Wine. I haven't looked all that carefully at the exact edits but suspect someone with admin tools (+ an understanding of categories) might be able to effect some mass roll-back. Naturally I thought of you. (Eg Category:Wine styles should be something like Category:Wines by style, with some pruning/reorganising. Category:Italian wines has been emptied and deleted although we still have Category:Wines of Apulia. Annoying. Just look at the Google cache.) Occuli (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm that someone but I don't understand the "misapprehension" part and Occuli, whom I can't immediately recall as an active contributor to our wine-related articles, is most welcome to discuss over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Tomas e, Wikiprojects do not "own" articles and categories, even if they have placed their banner on the applicable talk pages. It's almost always inappropriate to manually empty a category without going through WP:CFD. Occuli, I see that a discussion about these actions has been started here, so maybe I'll hold off doing anything until we see what editors think. If the view is that things should be restored I am more than willing to work on accomplishing that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that Wikiprojects do not own articles and categories, theoretically, project members should have a solid grasp of their subject matter so their input should be viewed in that light. While the input of non-project members can be quite constructive, there is not much progress to be made when their objections are based on faulty understanding of the subject (as Occuli's objection is below). Again, I'm not arguing for ownership of wine articles, but I respectfully ask that people not take a cookie-cutter WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST approach by take the rules of another subject's categorization (such as Opera) and apply it to wine. When you deal with wine and have a solid understanding of it, it is easy to see when things don't make sense. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Please take comments to the open CfD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If someone makes the claim that the Wine Project is having ownership issues over on the CfD, I certainly will. But it was you, I was responding to. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What did this have to do with my comment, then?: "I respectfully ask that people not take a cookie-cutter WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST approach by take the rules of another subject's categorization (such as Opera) and apply it to wine. When you deal with wine and have a solid understanding of it, it is easy to see when things don't make sense". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It was in response partly to your comment but mostly to your previous actions in restoring the category. I was respectfully asking not to take a cookie cutter approach, though I did use Occuli's Opera example from the Cfd but that was just because it was fresh in my mind. :) But anyways, I see that you are tired of the subject so I will let you be. I think I was mostly drawn to your talk page because you're username. I found a good nose to be such an attractive quality in people. :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not tired of the topic, I just don't want to be roped into discussing the merits. My action was an administrative action to reverse an action that was taken out-of-process. I have no opinion on what the result of the process should be. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wines of Apulia

Regarding your edits to Category:Wines of Apulia could I ask you to explain it over at Category talk:Wines of Apulia giving your reliable sources explaining why the Denominazione di origine controllata (DOC) regions, i.e. protected designations of origin, contained therein in this case should be categorized as "wines" and removed from "wine regions". Thank you. Tomas e (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

See conversation immediately above and on your talk page. A category was inappropriately emptied (by you). A CfD discussion is now ongoing about this. I've added the category so it won't get deleted again as empty. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

'Brindisi Rosso is a red DOC (Denominazione di Origine Controllata) wine' is quite clear: it is a wine, not a region. If you ask for Brindisi Rosso in a supermarket, you are expecting to purchase a bottle of wine, not an acreage in Italy (sadly). Occuli (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Umm....no. It is hard to talk about wine and correct errors without coming across as snobbish, so please don't think I'm speaking ill of you but you are clearly off base here. Denominazione di Origine Controllata or (DOC)s are quality level designations, not specific wines. Within a single DOC there are literally thousands of specific wines that meet the requirements to be labeled with the DOC. One of these requirements is, of course, to be grown within the acreage of land that make up the boundary of the particular DOC. When you go to the supermarket and ask for Brindisi Rosso, you are asking for any number of wines that meet the DOC requirements to be labeled as Brindisi Rosso-not a specific wine. Your statement above is akin to saying that when you go to a ticket agent and ask to see Manchester United, you are asking to see a specific player. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is this discussion taking place here? There is an ongoing CfD where these issues can be discussed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, because Occuli didn't make his Brindisi Rosso is a "specific wine" statement over on the CfD. :) It would be silly to correct his misunderstanding of wine over there. However, it was important to correct him because it is seems that his good faith objections to Tomas' categorization work is driven, in part, by some misunderstandings about the subject of wine. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the entire discussion, not just your comment. You two or three don't need me to mediate your conversation, do you? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Confused

Hey there Good Olfactory, I noticed you recently added several categories to WP:CFDW, linking to the discussion from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 23. Not sure if there's a mistake or I'm missing something, but I don't see how that adds up; I'm not seeing anything related to those several categories you added to be renamed being mentioned anywhere on that page (then again, I only skimmed it...). — ξ^xplicit 06:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_23#Category:Sports_lore_and_subcategories. The sports "lore" categories. Someone has re-created them, but this time broken down by team. I'm assuming you can't get around a decision this way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, the basic recreation, with a twist. Just making sure, thanks for clarifying that. — ξ^xplicit 07:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The creator of these categories—well, let's just say there have been some concerns expressed repeatedly about a lot of his creations. Do you remember the NHL "Minor League Affilates/Fram Teams" categories? Same guy. He's also the same user who was creating a lot of sparsely populated ethnicity categories like Category:British American politicians and the like. I'm a bit at the end of my rope with some of his stuff. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the categories he created do appear to be overcategorizaton, even flat out pointless at times (seems to go across the board with articles as well). I think one of the main problems is his execution. As you noted on his talk, he creates several categories at a time and then fails to populate them afterward. I'm pretty sure that gets stressful, especially when you contact the user and get replies that don't answer the question your asking. One can only hope he can grasp the ropes a little better. — ξ^xplicit 07:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of them I have no problem with—but why create a one-item category when it should have dozens or hundreds of entries. I think that's frustrating for readers—worse than not having the category at all. My main concern is he's been unresponsive to inquiries from the very start—not just to me, but to all users. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I did notice that his responses did seem very Sarah Palin-ish; he doesn't answer questions at all most of the time. I'll monitor the user (after some sleep, of course) and see how things go from there. — ξ^xplicit 08:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I take it your a Democrat? so am I, but thanks for the compliment. You betcha!--Levineps (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

American politics spilling on to my talk page! All right! Abortion! Guns! Health care (i.e., lack thereof)! Earmarks! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Shoo, that looks like very disturbing answers to a mad lib. "If you perform an ________ (noun) with a whole lot of _________ (plural noun), someone is going to need some pretty darn good _________ (noun), and if your aim is off, you'll just end up with a bunch of ________ (plural noun)". --Kbdank71 20:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha. Mad libs. (wipes tear) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not recall creating NHL articles. I think you cherry pick your points. I helped create seasons, coaches, head coaches, etc which have gotten a lot of acclaim. Also, other people before me had created the race/ethnicity categories for politicians. I still believe that was the right way to go but I have put that behind me. If you have specific suggestions, feel free to tell me. I have spent all night populating the various categories as well as preventing them from overcategorizing(which is huge).--Levineps (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't remember—that's not a good sign. But I do have digital red-eye reduction evidence. ("Cherry picking" is an interesting allegation. Would you rather I say all your edits are problematic, or just the ones I actually identify as such?) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't recall all the edits I've ever done, just creating minor league affliates doesn't seem like me at all. I did minor league baseball ones as I am a bigger baseball fan than hockey. I just think you present me in a pretty bad light and don't focus on the total package. On another note, how does a popular culture instead of a culture and lore sound. Look at the Steelers one--Levineps (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the "in popular culture" ones (or is it just one?) have ever been discussed. The way I create categories is I don't generally create them unless I come across a situation that I think needs categorization. I don't know if there would be enough popular culture articles about sportsteams to justify categories for them. If you're ever creating a category and you get a pink notice on the screen that indicates the category has been deleted before, that's a good sign that you should probably think twice about creating it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I do avoid creating them, I haven't recreated an article in quite a while. But anyways the Steelers have them and you could probably find the same amount for just about every other major sports team and some division I programs. I think thats a happy medium.--Levineps (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to categories. The pink notice comes up for deleted categories too. I believe the "in popular culture" categories for other topics (countries, cities, etc.) are limited to books, films, TV shows, etc. that involve the thing. They don't apply to what some would call sports "lore", mascots, team songs, etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

cfd stats

Nice. I kept track of my own drv numbers, but I was too lazy to figure out how many discussions I closed (you didn't happen to track individual closers, did you?). While I agree that it doesn't show the whole picture, it certainly shows a lot of it. If I had a 99.whatever % when I was in school, I'd have been extremely happy, and anyone who said I was a failure, well, let's just say they probably live in bizarro world. --Kbdank71 19:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't pay too much attention to the closers, as I didn't actually link up the DRVs with the actual CFDs. I recognized the ones I had closed—I think one of the 5 "overturns" was mine, and I had a bunch of "endorses" (are you surprised?). It would be fairly easy to check as there were only 33 DRVs, and I have recorded the dates for each. Now that I've done the hard part I might keep an ongoing running total—adding the CFDs and DRVs each month. I need to think up a good table format or something .... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Nuts. I know which DRV's are mine, but I only have how many endorses per total number of DRV's. I don't have number of DRV's per total number of closes. That would be interesting to know, how close I am to the 99.x overall number. Good idea, though, keeping up with it. Might be something to add to WT:CFD or WT:CFD/W. --Kbdank71 20:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Tabulating who closed the 4000+ discussions would be mammoth. It would be a pain to keep up with even on a daily basis. The 0.23% is so tiny that probably many closers have a 100% rate, with a few more active closers (who tend to close more "difficult" cases) hovering around 99.7+%. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear oh dear, you seriously have too much time on your hands... Actually, once you've worked out the DRVs/number of closes ratio (!), perhaps we could award a prize to the admin who has, per capita, done the most to break Cfd this year? It's a thought... --Xdamr^talk 22:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea—so long as we can create a user category for the winners. And we need a name for the award, of course. I was thinking along the lines of the "SO-AND-SO Memorial CFD Award", with SO-AND-SO being the gadfly elected by a plurality of admins who have closed at least 10 discussions in the past year. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Category dashes

Re: User talk:Black Falcon#Category dashes

My primary objective was to have a consensus on the matter so that the "dash versus hyphen" question would not continually come up in CfD discussions. I no longer have a strong preference for either option; for the most part, I'm just glad that the issue is settled … as much as anything on Wikipedia ever can be settled, I suppose. :)

My other goal was to have a speedy renaming criterion for dash-to-hyphen and hyphen-to-dash changes so that such changes—which are supposed to be uncontroversial, at least in theory—would not have to undergo the full 7-day CfD process. I see that criterion C2-7 takes care of that.

Thanks (and hi again after several weeks), –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and welcome back. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Orlando Magic broadcasters

Dear Mr or Ms. Factory, Any chance we can keep that category. Notice I didn't even start this category the last time it was tried to be reincarnated. Every other NBA team has a broadcasters category. I think it would be very appropriate.--Levineps (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What a coincidence, I just started a discussion to determine what the present attitude was towards the newly-created announcers-by-team categories. The Orlando one was deleted in the past, but they haven't been discussed in the context of an existing "scheme". Hopefully we can find out in the coming week what users think. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell if your being condescending to me or not?--Levineps (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not. I started the discussion in good faith, just prior to your comment here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

dropouts

I discussed the high school dropout situation in the BLPN noticeboard and nobody said it was prohibited. But based on that, I think a kinder way of saying things might be "Notable persons who did not complete high school" rather than dropout. Why did you delete the category so fast? Just curious. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The category has been discussed and deleted twice at CFD, as linked on deletion notice. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I did not know. I didn't see any warning to that effect. It seems that at least 3 people have independently thought of the same thing. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Each has had a slightly different name with respect to capitalization, etc., so users who are re-creating under the new name are not seeing that it was deleted before. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I see the CFD. It is more than 2 years old. However, I am in no mood to campaign for the category. It is a bit negative and the last thing I want to do is to smear people. That violates the spirit of BLP. That's not to say that we should censor bad information but needless smearing is not good. BLP is one of the most important policies of WP. Mr. Jimbo Wales said so and rightly so. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This one is more recent, and the same basic idea. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

diplomatic conf subcat

Hi. Thanks for your help with the new sub-categories for diplomatic conferences by century. Appreciate it. that was fast! With your help and all your other recent efforts, this category is really starting to look better. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. uhhh, hmmm. actually, that was more than great, that was kinda unbelievable. :-) how did you do that? do you have some kind of software like twinkle or something which lets you populate categories really fast? never saw that before. whatever that wasm, that was really great. thanks!!! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

never mind, just figured out. :) thanks! (saw the following entry: 17:43, 23 November 2009 Good Olfactory (talk | contribs) m (4,956 bytes) (Quick-adding category 20th-century diplomatic conferences (using HotCat)) (undo) ) thanks! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy to do this; was on my eventual to-do list, so when I saw them created, I thought I may as well. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Actors appearing in The Bill

It is generally considered due diligence to notify the creator of something you're nominating for deletion. HJMitchell You rang? 06:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's considered a courtesy, but I don't think "due diligence" has anything to do with it. However, I've had too many incidents of users criticising me for doing so because they are mad that I've nominated "their" category in the first place. Tired of getting yelled at through text. So now I assume if users care about a page, it will be on their watchlists, and since the category is tagged for discussion, it serves as notice. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That's hardly an attitude for an administrator to take- admins are supposedly held to a higher standard. I was assuming good faith but that sounds suspiciously like an attempt to get rid of pages you don't like through the back door. HJMitchell You rang? 07:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(Sigh.) No offence, but it doesn't require a "back door" to get rid of a category that is the same type as literally hundreds of other categories that have been previously deleted, so it's unlikely that's my motive. You look good up there on your high horse, by the way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with HJ in this case. HJ and myself have been working on this article for the past two days as it was recommended that we set up this article to try and assist in getting the main article for The Bill up to GA standard. It is courtesy to let someone know if you've nominated their article for deletion, it takes 2 seconds to copy and paste a template to someones talk page to let them know of this --5 albert square (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean category? I have not nominated an article for deletion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I mean category, am just used to referring to everything on Wikipedia as an article --5 albert square (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Rebuke acknowledged. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Puerto Rican Evangelicals

I have nominated Category:Puerto Rican Evangelicals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Puerto Rican evangelicals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ἀλήθεια 14:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Lyon's Inn

Just wondering; why remove the "legal organisations" tag? Ironholds (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It's also in Category:Inns of Chancery, which is already a subcategory of Category:Legal organizations, so no need to double categorize. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi. You recently participated in a debate regarding Categories for deletion criteria G6: Disambiguation fixes from an unqualified name. Your input would be appreciated at this RFC. Thanks for your time. Hiding T 14:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've mentioned to Debresser so I'll mention to you too that my intention is to let the RFC run at least a week but allow longer if the conversation requires it, and then find someone neutral and experienced to close and summarise the debate. Hope that is acceptable. Hiding T 00:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Fine by me. It can stay open as long as needed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Urallgay

Is this suicide threat something we need to take seriously? What I mean is, does this seem like a serious threat? The user in question seems like a goofball, but still... I thought an admin. should have a word with him. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the procedure is when suicide threats are issued. You may want to post this at WP:ANI just to be sure. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen suicide threats, whether serious or not, posted there in the past. So, I will follow suit. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Category removal

Hi Good Olfactory, I've noticed that you removed the category Category:People from Gibraltar on the grounds that it was a duplicate of Category:Gibraltarian people. However, if you read Gibraltarian status you'll notice that the people born in the town before its capture by the British cannot be described as Gibraltarians (seems a little bit strange, but it seems it's that way). As long as there is a single article for Gibraltar (not one for the town and other for the territory, much in the like of Taiwan and Republic of China), possibly the right way to proceed would be having the category Category:People from Gibraltar directly under Category:Gibraltar and Category:Gibraltarian people under Category:People from Gibraltar. You'll see that there is an extensive discussion on the issue of "Gibraltarian vs. Gibraltar-born" in Talk:Gibraltar.

Could you consider to restore the category, especially considering that it contains four articles? Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

OK sorry for the delay. I must have misunderstood. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!!!

No matters, I know that being an administrator does not leave much more time :-) --Ecemaml (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Prisoners sentenced to death by the Republic of Hawaii

I have nominated Category:Prisoners sentenced to death by the Republic of Hawaii (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ray^Talk 15:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

United States Census Definitions

The definitions of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Metropolitan Divisions, Micropolitan Statistical Areas, Combined Statistical Areas, and New England City and Town Areas in the United States and Puerto Rico are established by the United States Office of Management and Budget. The current definitions of these areas are set in OMB Bulletin No. 09-01. Wikipedia articles dealing with these areas should properly use the names established by this bulletin. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be some major inconsistencies across these articles in this respect. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

ndash

wow good to see that some never give up the fight for clarity, consistency, justice and wikipedia format... im roaring to start the death project (next year) so hope you never put your death cats on your watch list :) SatuSuro 02:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

CF Y St C

Re your recent move of the article, How is one supposed to type an n-dash when entering the title as a search term? I do not consider this to be a good move. No arguement of using the n-dash in text if that is what you want to do, but not in the title. Mjroots (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I see you've moved lots of articles. I've raised the issue at WT:MOS. Would you please not move any more articles while this is discussed there. Mjroots (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The answer is there in the manual of style, which is why I linked to it in my summary of the move. It says, under "En dashes in page names": "When naming an article, a hyphen is not used as a substitute for an en dash that properly belongs in the title, for example in Eye–hand span. However, editors should provide a redirect page to such an article, using a hyphen in place of the en dash (e.g., Eye-hand span), to allow the name to be typed easily when searching Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)." Until that changes, I'm not going to change what I'm doing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

en dashes in article titles

I support your gnoming work to introduce correct punctuation into article titles. Please let me know if you encounter any trouble. Tony (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. No problems, except that users don't always read the section of the manual of style that has been linked to in the edit summary I provided prior to complaining ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of just changing the title? Surely if something is worth doing it should be done consistently, in the body of the article and in all visible links to it from other articles.Downsize43 (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have unlimited time in which to edit Wikipedia? I don't. I do the best with what I have. There's always more to do, isn't there? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Move of German railway articles

Please help me understand why you are moving German railway articles when they already meet the existing Wiki and German railway project conventions. For example MOS:ENDASH shows the convention as e.g. Dublin–Belfast route with no spaces which is the convention used by the Rail transport in Germany task force. Also when it is the name of a company, the normal dash applies since it is not necessarily indicating a route. Please do not move any further articles at least without a discussion on the project page. Thanks. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific if you want a specific answer. I've been following the general convention you mention, not any particular wikiproject's. The en dash is not just used to indicate routes, but the connection of two self-standing names. That said, I could have made a mistake, but I don't know without more information. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Cfd multiple merges?

I'm looking to close up on the 18th. The trouble is that there is a fairly mega multiple merge target debate waiting to be sorted out there. Rather than simply shunting it off to CFD/W/M for some other poor sap to sort out, I was wondering if you knew if any of the bots can handle these?

Xdamr^talk 22:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of, though I've always wished there was one. The manual list tends to languish. I know Cydebot can't handle them. Might be worth asking the operators of the bots listed at the top of WP:CFDW. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:CAMs

Hi Good Ol'factory. You recently closed this CfD which resulted in Cydebot deleting Category:CAMs and recreating it as Category:Cell adhesion molecules. However, I notice that the new category is uncategorised, whereas I'm fairly sure the old one was categorised (refer this discussion). Are you able to examine the history of Category:CAMs to tell me what category it was in, so I can add the category to Category:Cell adhesion molecules? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it was in Category:Membrane proteins. Somehow the category got placed in the CFR template portion of the category text, so it wasn't copied by the bot that did the copying. I'll restore it to the new category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Benkenobi18

Mr. User:Benkenobi18 is not really listening to my reasons given here. Please consider giving him a 2nd opinion/warning, (assuming he has not reversed his edits, al a category emptying, by the time you read this, which seems unlikely). Thank you. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 09:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

What was the reason behind moving the "Nagpur-Aurangabad-Mumbai Express highway" page?

What was the reason behind moving the "Nagpur-Aurangabad-Mumbai express highway" page?

This seems to be clearly unnecessary move. Please mention the reason. Else I'll have to revert your edits. Thanks.
- Despardes7 (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason was mentioned in the edit summary. See the Manual of Style section on use of hyphens vs. en dashes: MOS:ENDASH. This is clearly a case where an en dash would be called for, not a hyphen. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

edit of Corrective rape page

Olfactory, I will not start an 'edit war' with you. Seems this has been happening quite often with other contribs. Will do my best to understand why you've deleted the sentence.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.171.199 (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Good; I agree there's no need to edit war over the issue. You can add the sentence if you really think it's needed—I just thought it was kind of silly and went without saying. Of course someone being raped isn't going to change their sexual orientation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Indian surnames

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Indian surnames. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Twri (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Endashes

I'm asking you because you've recently been moving rail-related articles. Are names like IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line (the line is built under Broadway and Seventh Avenue) and 59th Street–Columbus Circle (New York City Subway) (Columbus Circle is at the intersection of 59th Street, Broadway, and Eighth Avenue) correct? --NE2 08:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct in what sense? In the sense of the purely technical question of the spacing around the en dash, yes they are correct, because if one of the "items" being connected with an en dash has a space in it, there is spacing around the en dash per the MOS. Here were are connecting "Broadway" and "Seventh Avenue"—the latter has a space. "59th Street" is being connected to "Columbus Circle"—both have spaces. Whether these articles are correctly named in other non-technical senses, I wouldn't know. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct as in whether they use endashes correctly. I'm having some trouble understanding the difference between these and McGraw-Hill. Perhaps a clearer example would be South Ferry – Whitehall Street, which resulted from the 'merger' of two separate stations, South Ferry on the 1 and Whitehall Street on the N/R/W. --NE2 09:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about McGraw-Hill or the NYC subway, so I may not be the best person to ask. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Trouble is the set of people knowledgeable about both the NYC Subway and proper dash usage may be empty :| --NE2 15:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Very true. My guess is that it's correct as it is now, but I can't explain why that is different than McGraw-Hill. I don't fully understand the McGraw-Hill situation myself, either. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Double redirects

I notice that you've been doing page moves that created double redirects (A redirects to B, you move B to C, but A then still redirects, not to C, but to B) without fixing the double redirects. I've just attended to this for Nash–Moser theorem. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought a bot did this after 24 hours. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's all done only by hand. I think there may be objections to such a bot on the grounds that there are some exceptions to the desirability of such changes. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It is done by bot, and the "move succeeded" page says so: "Check what links here to see whether the move has created any double redirects, and fix the most serious ones. A bot will fix the rest later on." --NE2 09:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly Xqbot used to fix them, but I believe it stopped doing so about 6 days ago, following this discussion (notice that "solve double redirects" is crossed out in the list of tasks on Xqbot's user page). I'm not sure if any other bots still fix them. DH85868993 (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Xqbot is fixing them again. Thank you Xqt. --NE2 09:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Pine Hill, Dunedin

Hi GO _I've just re-moved this to Pine Hill, Otago, per the New Zealand naming conventions - by region, not by city! Grutness...wha? 05:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, belay that -I've moved it back to Pine Hill, New Zealand. There isn't a Pine Hill in Auckland - there's a Pinehill, but the standard way of dabbing that is by hatnotes on the two articles. Grutness...wha? 05:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I thought if they were that close, we would disambiguate. Maybe not. Thanks for being on top of it, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

International islands

Is this a neologism in its usage to describe islands with two states? Are there references to it? And why two and not say three states? kind regards --Merbabu (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Possibly; I didn't invent it but it's of limited use. Yes, but categories don't contain references. Because it only takes two states to make it inter- national ("between nations"). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Levineps

Can you help me out with this guy? Check his recent contributions. He's currently in Appalachian State sports categories creating new ones that don't really need to be made. I'm tired of following him around all the time and fixing his edits. I know you've had dealings with him in the past and maybe you could take a look and see if this stuff is as unnecessary as it seems. Geologik (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've tried a number of times in the past, to seemingly no avail. If I point out any problem with categories he's created he just brushes it off as "cherry picking", but there have been numerous problems with his creations in the past month or so. Maybe we need to start to think about some sort of community-imposed restriction on category creation? Do you have any ideas about what you think might help? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I chimed in with my two cents. Take care. Geologik (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Junko Sakurada

An article that you have been involved in editing, Junko Sakurada, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junko Sakurada. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Northwestgnome (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Re-creation

Category:People from Culcheth upmerged by yourself per cfd a few months ago has been recreated. Occuli (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thx. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Categorization Issues

Hello,

I noticed your comments in the topic that I started on User:Levineps' talk page and I just wanted to contact you because I am a little concerned with what is going on, especially because I noticed a few other users have expressed similar concerns. My primary concerns result from the category changes made to two pages on my watchlist ([4] and [5]). Regarding the first change, Levineps removed the Lehigh University article from Category:Patriot League, however after browsing through a number of the subcategories in Category:College athletics conferences (of which Category:Patriot League is a member) it seems like most of the college conference categories contain the schools that are members of the conference. In my opinion, the second change I mentioned removed a number of relevant categories, so I reverted Levineps' change and wrote him a note explaining why on his talk page.

My current concern is that based on his user contributions, Levineps is making a large number of category changes even after others have expressed concern with some of these changes. I believe that at this point a community discussion should be initiated, however I am not exactly sure what would be the most appropriate forum to begin this conversation in, so I was contacting you to see if you had any suggestions (or if you think this is not necessary at all).

I don't mean to be pointing fingers as I've mentioned on Levineps' talk page that categorization is by no means an area I am very familiar with on wikipedia, but it does seem to me that such a large amount of seemingly unilateral and somewhat controversial changes by one editor should at least have a community discussion. Thanks. --Aka042 (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. See also the inquiry above from another user. I've been debating about what to do here too. I've tried a number of times to talk directly to Levineps. He usually acknowledges my comments and says he takes them to heart, but the problems continue and he seems to have recently suggested that he thinks other users just don't understand and/or are overly sensitive or expressing ownership over categories.

I agree that we do need to have some sort of wider discussion involving the concerned editors. A few weeks ago someone started a discussion about it at the College football wikiproject, but I think we need a wider venue than just a specific wikiproject, since the categories have been in sports, media, politics, history, and other areas. We could try having a discussion at WT:Categorization, I suppose. That probably wouldn't get many views, but we could notify users who have expressed concern in the past. We probably wouldn't put something like this at WP:ANI, since here we're talking about not an incident or a series of incidents but a long overall pattern of category creations. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I notice you left another message on his talk page and I'll continue to follow the discussion to see how it develops. Hopefully the issue can be resolved painlessly. --Aka042 (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

heheh

WikiProject Death - just found someone else had the idea as well I do hope you dont have a watch page for old edits of yours - it is about to happen :) happy christmas SatuSuro 09:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Tagging - it all sort of comes to a short stop when confronted by such talk page marvels as this : -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Ukraine - one wonders if they even have a project :( SatuSuro 01:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That's quite the discourse on that talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Its good to see you have breaks , puff, ill never catch up with you SatuSuro 05:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for responding - i realise when you are on a run there is nothing more annoying than the popping up orange bar - but it is very reassuring you havent gone completely automaton yet :) SatuSuro 06:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been using the "Modern" skin, and in that skin the message bar is a less startling blue colour. Sometimes I miss seeing it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow - have just jumped into the modern skin and the beta version - different planet - and so much easier to look at SatuSuro 11:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm using the modern skin, but I changed my css to turn the you have new messages bar back to orange. I found the blue easy to miss. See User:Kbdank71/modern.css if you're interested. --Kbdank71 20:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 3#Category:Filmed deaths

Hi

I thought I will inform you as as per requirement of WP:DRV, which I disagree with the decision for no concenus centrally for one of the category as one factor largely ignored was that live deaths during dangerous sporting event is as common as watching someone dying of a heart attack on the street and I want to nominate this on the deletion review but I have been instructed to do so before I nominate it. I feel I would like to put this through deletion review, but only for the category Category:Filmed deaths in sports, just to inform you as I am required to. Donnie Park (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. You can do that if you want, but I can't see how users will say the discussion demonstrated anything other than a lack of consensus on what to do. It may make more sense to simply renominate the one category for deletion again. I would have no problem with an immediate re-nomination because the result was no consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:People murdered in Finland

I take it the difference between Category:Finnish murder victims and Category:People murdered in Finland is that the former is for Finnish people who have been murdered anywhere, and the second is for any people who have been murdered in Finland? JIP | Talk 22:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Category:Finnish people murdered abroad were not murdered in Finland, for example. Nikolay Bobrikov was murdered in Finland, but was Russian. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Endash

Just curious as to why you reverted the move of the Alabama–LSU rivalry, saying the spacing wasn't necessary (quoting MOS:ENDASH). You moved the Ole Miss article and the Mississippi State article, using the same rationale when you reverted the LSU article. – Latics ^Talk! 20:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a section within MOS:ENDASH that refers to spacing. The standard is no space, but a space is added if one of the items being "connected" with the dash contains a space in it. "Ole Miss" and "Mississippi State" contain a dash, but neither of "Alabama" or "LSU" does. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible re-name

I am deeply offended by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cancelled_things - it upsets the moral ecology of the cat tagger - it is what I spend hours trying to not meet when tagging - what would you say to projects - it makes a lot of sense - do you agree? I suspect a speedy? but then I may be wrong - I kept thinking yesterday was Friday :) SatuSuro 00:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Pity we cannot just slip down to the pub and have a drink on this one - my recent experience of the Jordan Syria border is one that is funny but not repeatable here :) SatuSuro 03:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be nice. "Cancelled things". Hm. Definitely needs a rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing - I have mooted the issue with the creator in a normal comment - not by template - SatuSuro 03:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Creator of the category has agreed in principle to changing it to Cancelled projects - so its ready to go - would you like to do the honours? SatuSuro 12:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok I have put it up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_18#Category:Cancelled_things - cheers SatuSuro 12:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Category emptied

I found Category:Jewish American gangs and tagged it for speedy as empty. I admit I was a little surprised finding it empty. Now Hmains posted on my talkpage that it used to be populated. If you know how to repopulate it, could you do so, or give us a hint what to do? Debresser (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A good way to check is to search for it in google and if you find the page check the cached version: [6]. The Bugs and Meyer Mob and Yiddish Black Hand were in it on 7 Dec. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem solved, see my talk page. Thanks for the tip. Debresser (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I typed "Jewish American gangs" in Google and found Jewish-American organized crime. Then I just looked up the name of such an organisation, and checked what had happened to its article. Debresser (talk) 05:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Technology conventions

Loved the close. I guess I can now get away with no opposition suggestions by simply proposing the opposite of what I want and then voting against. ;-) Vegaswikian (talk) 03:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably the funniest discussion I have ever closed. It is a good tactic—if nothing else, it confuses everyone into silence. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

How to delete a page?

Hi, If a child page with contents, which can be given as a sub topic of a parent page is found and the child page is clubbed with the parent page, How to delete the child page? kindly help - wasifwasif

If I understand correctly, probably what you want to do is redirect the sub page to the parent page rather than deleting it. You can replace all the contents of the sub page with #REDIRECT[[XXXXXXX]] where XXXXXXX is the parent page being redirected to. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. My job is done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasifwasif (talk • contribs)

Contacting the creator and working with the creator

I created Category:X-rated films I note that you put this category up for deletion:

1. You did not message me first, so we could work toward other options before deletion, such as deleting the category and moving the category to a new topic. "Remember that deletion is a last resort."
2. You did not contact me that you were putting the category up for deletion.

Neither suggestion is required, but the first step helps avoid the adversarial atmosphere which deletion nominations create. The second step is also not required, but it is a traditional courtesy which most courteous editors extend to others.

Such discourtesy is the reason:

1. that I no longer regularly write articles,
2. journalists are so universally negative about our deletion policy, and
3. that wikipedia editing has been dropping since 2006.

Ikip 11:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy holidays all around. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Why?

As they say, you might speculate, but I couldn't possibly comment ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Wisdom required

A cfder writes (to me): "Thank you for your recent input and support on the renaming of the category Rugby union footballers to Category:Rugby_union_players. The rename is done, but unfortunately all the subcats have not. I have asked the question at the CfD talk page as well, but are you perhaps aware of an easier way to do this huge renaming. Apart from the subcategories, there are a host of other categories that also need to be renamed... Any chance of a bot doing the hard labour? - Sahmejil (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)."

I expect you are party to the latest wisdom on the matter of renaming down from the head category. Occuli (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Canadian Wiccans

I have nominated Category:Canadian Wiccans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:Wiccans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Australian Wiccans

I have nominated Category:Australian Wiccans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:Wiccans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Good day, Canadian

Cant your please a transfer this file an commons? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nicholas_Liverpool.jpg many thnaks --Fredy.00 (talk) 07:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really do much work at Commons or with images. A bit beyond my skill set, I'm ashamed to say. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Discographies by decade

Can you possibly let the CM projects know if similar music cats are discussed? We only saw this when they were being removed. There are a lot of opera and classical discographies. Not that anyone is probably going to miss the deleted cats, so that shouldn't be a problem. . . . Thanks and regards. --Kleinzach 09:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't rely on me for notification. I was just the closer—I hadn't really seen or considered the nomination prior to my closing it. If you're interested in a category I suggest you add it to your watch list like any other page; that's really the only way to guarantee "notification" in case of a discussion, since the category must be tagged for discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your secret nomination

As the author of [[Category:New Zealand musical acts that have charted internationally]] it actually would have been nice to get a notification on my talk page about its nomination. And yet you decided not to...--AtlanticDeep (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't on your watchlist? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There are no excuses for not notifying.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. You can consider this your notification. Had you assumed good faith, maybe you would have considered that I retroactively notify creators of all the categories I nominate in one swath, which sometimes happens a day or two after an individual nomination. Unless by "secret" you are referring to the women's deodorant. In which case I have no idea what you are talking about. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a minute of your time please

Or two of your time - is required - there I was rambling in Milhist and - jumped over to death - and kapow - like a bloody beer bottle to the solar plexus. I find the inadequate text in the 'headers' of the Priests category really problematic - but not sure which way to line the bazooka up though - which is why I am rambling here. In good old secular 21st century - the meaning and context could be pejorative, acrimonious and hysterical - of singers, mobsters or criminals - it does not seem sufficiently unambiguous - what had caught the eye was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Priests_by_cause_of_death and the text on the page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Priests - I mean shiver me timbers and walk me bloody plank - is that sort of calcification in the cork page adequate? I dont think so. I am not a bot and sober just in case you ask. It is 40 degrees C here though

Is it a good way to clarify a category in your opinion?:-

See article priest for a definition of those in this category.

This category is not limited to the "priests" of a single religious denomination, although it is limited to priests in a context of religion. This category is not intended for people that are only called priest in a figurative sense, or for religious leaders that are not called priest usually, notwithstanding some similarity in the function they exert in their respective religions (e.g. imams).

Episcopalian clerics are also known as priests.

The category Christian ministers is related.

If it doesnt jump out at you like me - I do think priests is too broad - and should be clarified - the whole thingo looks like it needs a shake up - the generality of the term and lack of recent debate or loopy comments on the talk pages suggests the time is right. SatuSuro 06:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "priests" is very broad, but I'm not sure how to attack this problem. The more I deal with categories, the more stuff I see that is really f'ed up. I think the definition would help—it certainly wouldn't hurt, but I'm not sure it solves the problem. You could propose eliminating the category as being too broad—it's just grouping things together that happen to share the name "priest", but there really is not much of a connection between them all. I would support your argument there, but like a lot of good arguments at CFD I can see it failing to win users over. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[7] - also bothers me - improper politically correct bar room humour and puns would make a real hash of that - interested in what your cat experience would suggest to do - leave it or not SatuSuro 07:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I created this one and at the time thought it was worded properly. Maybe not, though I don't know what I would suggest as an alternative. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that I'll chew over it all - as they say... thanks and no offence intended about the second one - I have an idea - I'll get back to you - cheers SatuSuro 11:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Never offence taken. Many times I have seen others improve my wordings, so I'm always open to improvements. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My thought about the horrible 'priests' conundrum - is to have 'priests' as a redirect/disambig term and not even deal with it as at present - and simply distribute categories to the allegiances the 'priests' may have, so it is a redirct to 'catholic priests', protestant, etc - the scope of the word goes well out of christianity - and religion is even limited on some of the more far fetched items - as a category - it should lead to the subisidiary immediately and not go up itself in qualifications on the page. Just an idea - but I understand what you mean about CFD though.. will ponder further - thanks SatuSuro 11:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Freddie Prinze Sr. not a suicide

I've removed the two categories you added to Freddie Prinze's entry, both of which indicate suicide. If you had actually read the entire article, you would have seen that the initial finding of suicide in 1977 was set aside in 1984 when a jury determined that his death was accidental and the result of him being high on drugs and using a handgun. (75.69.241.91 (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC))

As long as we're getting into accusations of who did what when, if you had actually bothered to check, you would have seen that I was not the editor who added the initial suicide category to this article. See the version as it existed before I ever edited it: [8]. I was subdividing a category that was pre-existing. But who's checking or making assumptions about what another user did, right? It rarely hurts to just fix something up and refrain from telling someone they made a mistake, let alone making an assumption about why the mistake was made. And, as I keep telling myself, it rarely hurts to avoid being so touchy. But we all have our faults, don't we? Man, I have problems. And so you see, this matter from months ago probably shouldn't trouble us, when I have so many other psychological issues to deal with. If only Freddie Prinze Sr. was here to give us some advice on how to deal with things when there is no alcohol or guns around to play with. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean to cause you distress if you are dealing with some things right now.(75.69.241.91 (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

No, no. I was just teasing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Another

I am taking deep moral offence at the usage of 'Asia' as a coverall for some rather ridiculous collections - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Asia and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_history_of_Asia - this is not canvassing in any way - I would appreciate your guidance in this matter - is this the peapod that might become a snowball - or do you have a good flamethrower ready? I fail to see any practical purpose of the use of the term of Asia in wikipedia as it is now - it gives lazy geographically challenged idiots the opportunity to tie Singapore to Syria. If I am indeed misguided in your opinion I would appreciate any comment of any tone in response SatuSuro 02:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed this—can't say it's offended me—but I've noticed that there is a tendency for users to categorize by continent. I also can't say that I ever find it very useful, except maybe for some geographic or biology categories where political borders are irrelevant. Stuff like history, military, kings and queens, etc.—it seems awfully strange to me put Indonesia and Israel and Bangladesh in the same categories. I don't think you're misguided, but I can also see people arguing that it's just an "obvious" and neutral way of organizing stuff that's already done by country. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment - we'll see what happens SatuSuro 02:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm withdrawn both in AGF - I remain unconvinced that they can tidy up their own mess though - they need something like that to get them thinking - imho SatuSuro 03:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15