User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 15

Avoiding an edit war
Sir: I would ask that you look into a matter that is heading into an edit war which I don't want. User:Hoops gza reverted cats I added in good faith and we discussed them first on his talk page this morning and second on the cat talk page this morning, Category talk:Nazi leaders. Hoops can be a hard headed guy, who myself and others keep bumping into. You will see on his talk page, User talk:Hoops gza where mentorship was recommened to him and he wanted none of it. I will go with consensus on this matter but Hoops' editing is the bigger problem. Kierzek (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Have left a comment on his talk page. I think you're doing the right thing for now. Let me know if it continues to be a problem. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will let you know. Kierzek (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering also if an admin can do a forced archive of the user talk page. There are hundreds of entries and its very difficult to find active discussions.  I suggested this to the user, but there was no response or any action taken. -OberRanks (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"Lao" is the more common adjective as verified by Google results.
Compare "Lao royalty" to "Laotian royalty" using Google, etc. Wikicentral (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then propose a category rename per WP:CFD. The decision is for the community to make, not you or I unilaterally. Don't try to empty categories and rename them manually. It is done through community consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That only applies if the change is controversial. There is nothing controversial about using the more common and accepted term like "Lao". Search on Google for yourself. I'm simply making the categories consistent, but without even asking why I made those changes, you decided to undo all the work I've done for the past couple of hours.Wikicentral (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Show me where it says you can manually rename categories by emptying out old ones and creating new ones. Anyway, you can consider it controversial, so the point is moot. Proper process should be followed instead of you reversing the work that others before you have made. As far as consistencies go, you are in fact creating inconsistencies, since the parent category is now and always has been . Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "When a category is renamed or merged with another category, it may be helpful to use the Category redirect." So why else would there be Category redirect?Wikicentral (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because at categories for discussion a consensus decision is often made to rename or merge one category with another. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Often does not mean always. Sometimes it is not necessary to discuss something that is blatantly inconsistent. Using Google search, "Lao people" has 30,800,000 results, whereas "Laotian people" only has 57,100 results. We're talking about at least 30 million versus only roughly 57 thousand. You should not have undone my changes.Wikicentral (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm not interested in debating which should be used outside of a formal discussion. I've asked you not to unilaterally make the changes, which is a reasonable request, so if you're convinced the changes should be made, you can nominate some categories for renaming. But it's certainly inappropriate to make the changes yourself once another user has objected to that route, which I have. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I should add that you should also take a look at WP:CFDS. Changes listed there are mostly non-controversial, but there is still a process that is followed and a 48-hour waiting period to allow input from interested editors. None of these changes are made unilaterally upon a whim, and the changes you were making don't even meet any of the speedy rename criteria. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you have objected to my edits and have provided additional reasons that are reasonable, I have submitted a proposal to change the category at Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 1 as per your request. Please let me know if there is anything else you think I should do. Wikicentral (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
I've gone ahead and blocked as a sock of Tiramisoo. I imagine those baby name categories will have to go. I'm not so sure about the newly created ecoregion articles and I don't really have time and/or patience to clean up after him, so if you have time to help out, that would be great. I'll see what I can do this evening after I get some other stuff done. Valfontis (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Tiramisoo is one of the few editors for which I have reached the stage of simply deleting every new page his socks create, and rolling back every edit they make. I do this regardless of the perceived value of the edits in an attempt to communicate that continued sockpuppeting is futile. I don't know if it works at all, but it does make it a little bit easier to clean up after a block. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. I just cleaned up what I think were the last three. I sent you an e-mail a day or two ago about a couple other socks, I think those pretty much got cleaned up after already. Valfontis (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh jeez, my email. There was some sort of problem with it awhile ago, and since it's been fixed I haven't checked it for awhile. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Valfontis (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare categories
Thanks--I wondered about those names about 3/4 of the way into creating those categories, but figured I'd see if anyone else thought they should be renamed. Apologies! Aristophanes 68  (talk)  02:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's OK. If you agree they should be renamed, all the better. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and process those. I'd have done it manually myself, but I couldn't think of a quick way to do it.... Aristophanes 68   (talk)  02:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll get a bot to do it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks John, and thanks for your help/guidance there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Curious
What does the category you've added to Falklands War do? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just added a sorting key which makes that article the first to appear in . That's done because it is the main article for that category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Category
Hi, why did you remove the Category:Flora of the Arab World? Thanks. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't categorize biota for being in the Arab world. These are two separate concepts. One is environmental/scientific, the other is an ethnic/political grouping. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Your input
Hay,

As a very thorough Wikipedia admin, I would like you input at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement regarding some images of Marsh and Patten I found. Thanks.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan
Why did you delete Category:Populated places in South Sudan? Its Category:Populated places in Southern Sudan which is supposed to be deleted after renaming to Category:Populated places in South Sudan!♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You also nominated the landowners categories after some hard work. You're a joke.♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * And where was it (the category) renamed? It looks like the new one was just created and the old category was manually emptied. They are duplicate, so the old one should be nominated for renaming. This is being done here, so you might be interested in that. I'm not clear on how making a formal nomination makes one a joke, but whatever. Laugh away at me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Landowners It is not supposed to be for anybody you can afford land. It is supposed to be for the landowners in British history in which "landowner" or "feudal lord" was their chief occupation. The wealthy landowners who held country estates. In those days a Landowner was a formal occupation and they were often very powerful people. I personally am interested in this subject and I find it very useful to organize and for navigation between estate holders and their properties. Otherwise I couldn't find them. I asked User:Charles Matthews why we had no categories on this as it is a must for me to find articles. What harm actually is there in this? A true landowner or feudal lord is radically different from a mere individual who may just happen to own a plot of land. As long as the category asserts that it is for the traditional landowner not just anybody who happens to own a plot of land.♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The name of a category should reflect what it is for. Your comments as to your intent would probably be better placed in the discussion than here so others discussing the categories can see it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

There are now four South Sudan category rename discussions going on. I've recommended a speedy for all four. For instance, airports in South Sudan should be occupied with the airports in the area, counties is obvious, and state capitals is also obvious. Even the Populated places one is inevitable. I think WP:IAR applies to these four; otherwise, people will manually create categories not knowing they are already suggested from CfD. CycloneGU (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to reopen a recent CfD?
I am asking you this because you seem to know a lot about wikipedia mechanics.

In the still open CfD of Category:Former Roman Catholic church buildings established in the 14th century, someone cited a precedent to change the names of articles to cat names like 1912 Church buildings as a CfD done on June 9th that had three participants. It seems to me to be too small a group to make such a momentous decision, especially since 1912 Church buildings just begs overcat of every church building used as such in 1912, and if a church was used for 50 years it could then be put in 50 cats. I think they are really going for "Church buildings completed in 1912", but I have a sense that if I open the CfD on these cats in the normal way I will be told "this was discussed last month and a consensus was reached, there is no reason to reopen the discussion." So is there a better way to approach this issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That is a tough situation and WP doesn't have a really good method for dealing with situations like this. There is WP:DRV which can review decisions, but generally that procedure just makes sure that the person who closed the discussion correctly interpreted the consensus. It's not intended to re-open the debate on a renaming or deletion, so I wouldn't use it.


 * I think the only real option available is to renominate the categories and explain in your nominating statement why you feel this needs to be re-opened so soon after the first discussion—that there were insufficient numbers to make such a change, and so forth. You will be told "we just discussed this", so you need to address those concerns from the start by explaining why you are re-opening it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr
A User:GTBacchus changed the Joseph Smith, Jr page so that not only has the articl disapeared and redirects in an infinate loop. The history has also disapered. He seems to be on a Wikibrake (per his talk page). Can you fix it as an admin?--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 15:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The article's now at Joseph Smith, and the history is there now. I've fixed the link your provided to redirect to Joseph Smith. I guess there was a move discussion on the talk page where this was agreed to. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Catagory:Revolutionary
I, Krant M.L.Verma want to draw your kind attention towards the superfluous catagory of Revolutionary. There is already a page in en.wiki on this subject in which Ram Prasad Bismil has been catagorised under the alphabet R whereas on this page there is only one name (the same name) catagorised under the alphabet B. My suggestion is that this superfluous page must be deleted and the name of Ram Prasad Bismil should be indexed in the existing catagory of Revolutinary under the alphabet B as per language norms (Surnames comes first). With regards.Krantmlverma (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Versailles (band)
Hello Good olfactory, about de category, I separated -songs- from -singles- because in "singles" it is not a song, is as a maxi-single's or mini-albums that includes several songs, speak of "song" is not correct in this articles (specifically of Japanese artist). Pierrot de Lioncourt    カバー!!!カバー!!! 01:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would guess it would go in, then. But the article in question is Prince (song)—if that doesn't appropriately go in a "songs" category, then something is wrong with its name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Prince is a song, released as a digital download. Pierrot de Lioncourt     カバー!!!カバー!!! 14:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I kind of creeped over here, but songs would be correct. "Prince" isn't a single so you can't put it under that category, but then there is no point in making "Category:Versailles songs" for just 1 entry. However by titling it "Category:Versailles songs" that would encompass all of them (for instance see or ).


 * Also I just want to point out that even though "Philia" is a single the title of it's article is "Philia (song)", this is the correct disambiguation. So arguing between songs and singles really doesn't matter; songs should always be used. Xfansd (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, yes, Philia (song) was the article in question, not Prince (song). I was confused. But I agree with what Xfansd has said. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Cat re-direct needed?
You are such more well versed than me in the mechanics of Cats and I wanted to run something by you. The article, Josef Dietrich has a redirect from the English spelling of his name, Joseph Dietrich, which is understandable, but it could use a redirect from "Sepp Dietrich". Sepp Dietrich was what he was often known by and many history books use that name to id. him. Is there anyway to add a second redirect? What do you think? PS, I know it doesn't come up as much as Josef or Joseph on Google search but I still believe it is substantial. Kierzek (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, absolutely, and there is currently a redirect from Sepp Dietrich to the article, and has been since 2010. I just don't know what this has to do with categories? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I only saw the one redirect that was changed from Sepp to Joseph and was unaware of the "double redirect" apparently already in place. Well, thanks anyway. Now, I know. Kierzek (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

speedy cats
Did you really mean


 * Category:Lincoln University, New Zealand faculty to Category:Lincoln University (New Zealand) alumni
 * Category:Lincoln University, New Zealand faculty to Category:Lincoln University (New Zealand) alumni

? Rich Farmbrough, 22:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC).


 * No, I really didn't, of course. I'll fix it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There. That's what I meant. Thanks for letting me know. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Countries vs. regions
Is the ottoman, roman and byzantine empires considered coutries or regions. What about the British empire? Chesdovi (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a great question. I usually see the first three treated as countries, whereas I've never really seen the British Empire categorized as a country. There's probably some double standard there, but it may have something to do with the fact that the first three were contiguous whereas the British Empire was spread around the globe. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If the ottoman empire is a country, what was palestine under ottoman rule? A country within a coutnry, or a region? Chesdovi (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the Ottoman Empire divided up the Empire into administrative subdivisions, kind of like what we might call provinces. There was the District of Nablus, for example. I don't know much about the details, but I would hesitate to call Palestine under Ottoman rule a "country" as such. But at the same time it's not exactly a "region", since in my view "regions" usually tend to encompass more than one country's territory. (Though not always, I suppose.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Palestine for sure at present is not a country, right? On the list of soveregin states it appears as unrecognised or something. Also, do you mind checking over Category:Jews by region. I am not sure about the crimea, causicus, etc. Much obliged. Chesdovi (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a UN member state, but Palestine is recognized as a state by a majority of other states in the world. But it also lacks some of the features that true states have, since Israel controls the territory to a large extent. It's definitely a controversial issue. I'll have a look. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What is in Category:Jews by region now looks appropriate to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

e== Catholic University of Leuven ==

I don't know what happened, but I seems that you initiated a large move and merge of different categories that don't belong together.

Before 1968 there was a bilingual university, Catholic University of Leuven in the city of Leuven

After 1968 the university split into two parts :
 * Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, the current Dutch-speaking university in the city of Leuven
 * Université catholique de Louvain, the French-speaking counterpart in Louvain-la-Neuve

You mixed everything up with your category renaming. Please revert. Donar Reiskoffer (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, everything is still separate as it was before, they just have proper names now:


 * Category:Katholieke Universiteit Leuven alumni
 * Category:Université catholique de Louvain alumni
 * Category:Alumni of the Université catholique de Louvain before 1968
 * Nothing has changed sorting-wise. Just the names. The latter category should, however, be Category:Alumni of the Catholic University of Leuven before 1968, as it was before; perhaps that's the mistake you were referring to. I'll make sure that change happens. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with the category scheme is that there is one category too many. There's the pre-1968 university, the post-1968 French uni, and the post-1968 Dutch uni. But there have been four categories. I'll also revert the Category:Université catholique de Louvain alumni to Category:Catholic University of Leuven alumni because it seems to be the problematic one which needn't exist. The contents of it should probably be sorted into one of the other three, as appropriate, and then this can be worked out. should be Category:Université catholique de Louvain alumni.  Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Current situation. OK, after the reverts, this is the current situation:
 * Pre-1968 alum category: Category:Alumni of the Catholic University of Leuven before 1968
 * Post-1968 Dutch alum category: Category:Katholieke Universiteit Leuven alumni
 * Post-1968 French alum category: (which is currently nominated to be renamed to Category:Université catholique de Louvain alumni)
 * That leaves us with Category:Catholic University of Leuven alumni. I suppose it could be a container category for the other three, but that's not how it's currently being used, as articles are being added to it. Let me know if you have any other concerns. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ok, I can agree with the 'Current siuation'. Perhaps write a header in Category:Catholic University of Leuven alumni explaining that it is a container category for the three other categories. Donar Reiskoffer (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I also made the same sturcture for the parent categories (1 container for three sub-categories). The container-category might be useful to place articles hard to place in just one of the sub-categories. Donar Reiskoffer (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks good. Thanks for drawing my attention to this. I had thought I had gotten it right, but because of your note I recognized I hadn't quite. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

deletion of "Category:Solar Eclipse"
Why did you delete this? One is for the talk page to subcategorize in WikiProject Eclipses. The other is for the article. Did I pick to similar a name? Thanks. --TimL (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I just saw the name and figured in purpose it was a duplicate. I think for categorizing talk pages for WikiProjects, category names are meant to include the name of the WikiProject. It should be something like so something similar. Anyway, I've restored the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * agree about the category name. Thanks. --TimL (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Museum of Stuffed Insults
I thoroughly enjoyed reading thru your museum. A virtual museum for sure. I think Wikipedians often forget that everything they say is on the record permanently. Does Wikipedia bring out the worst in people? Or are people actually not all that? Some of the things on there are just bizarre and unfortunate. It's an interesting look at what I might have to face if I ever choose to become an admin. --TimL (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Er, yes, most of them do relate to an admin-related issue, so I must say if you ever take that route don't do anything unless you're prepared to put up with criticism—both the fair and the unfair. I do find it kind of funny that users get so upset over things in Wikipedia and that it seems to happen relatively frequently for some users. It reminds me of the cartoon of the guy on his computer who won't go to bed with his wife, because, as he says as he types, "I can't come right now. Someone on the Internet is wrong." Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That made me LOL, unlike these folks! --TimL (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Old Fart
Per CfD. Keep your insults to yourself. As an Admin, I would have hoped for more intelligent wordplay. Ephebi (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Comic relief often relieves tension and anxiety. I can't imagine that comment really offended you unless you are an "old fart". Certainly better than that trite bible quote you put on the edit summary. BTW, if you had used the "New Section" button up top, this would not look like a reply to my comment above. Thanks. --TimL (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was indeed intended to be slightly to moderately humorous; I'm glad there are editors who still have a sense of humor. I believe that the generic "Old Fartians" just has a nicer ring to it than the bland "Old Xians" or "Old FOOians". I think this gets filed under "taking things or oneself too seriously". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The CfD process is tedious, terse and adversarial enough without the addition of schoolboy vulgarity. You might get away with it once, but repetitiously using insulting language to describe a group of people is not going to win you over to your side. Know any good Hooser jokes, eh? Yours, Ephebi (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC) (aka 'an Old Fart', I guess).
 * I would have thought allowing oneself to have a laugh would help one deal with the tedium, and the terse, adversarial nature of the proceedings. Personally, I usually don't attempt to "win" anyone over, since those who comment at CFD have already made up their mind. Anyway, I suppose you can choose to be insulted or you can choose to take a joke. It's your decision, and I don't think it would be a good idea to shift the responsibility for that decision to anyone else. I certainly won't accept responsibility for your decision. "Hooser" jokes? No, I can't say that I'm familiar with that term. Did you mean "hoser"? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:19th-century Latter Day Saint temples
I noticed that you created this. I'll admit that I don't know the full classification of the various types of LDS religious buildings. They have temples, tabernacles, stake houses, meeting houses and so on. If any of these are also church buildings, then these should all be under Category:19th-century Latter Day Saint church buildings or some such with Category:19th-century Latter Day Saint temples being a subcategory. Do you know enough to create the correct categories in this tree? BTW, I'm not sure what missing denomination subcategories should be created under the parent tree here. So if you want to create some or make suggestions that would be appreciated. Once an example structure exists in one century, it can be expanded to the other centuries as needed. Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say tabernacles, stake centers, and meetinghouses could correctly be categorized as church buildings also. Temples—there's a bit of a dispute about that among editors—some say yes, they are analogous to churches, others say no—they are very different and similar to churches only in the same way that synagogues or mosques are like churches. I could take a stab at expanding the tree, though there are very few in and . Most LDS meetinghouses aren't terribly notable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks and free free to jump in. I hope that I did not misclassify any of the LDS meetinghouses as Quaker ones, articles are rather skimpy for a bunch.  I'm sure that if I did, someone will correct me.  I guess I'll create Category:19th-century Latter Day Saint church buildings and include all three of the above.  If anyone objects about the temples being included, then that can go directly into Category:19th-century religious buildings.  Right now it is in Category:19th-century church buildings. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Vegaswikian, I'm one of those people that see temples as a separate class of buildings from meetinghouses, so I made the changes you describe above. In doing so in noticed a chance to enhance our category structure for these buildings. Would either of you consider creating Category:Properties of the Latter Day Saint movement (or alternately Category:Properties related to the Latter Day Saint movement), with Category:Properties by religious organization and Category:Latter Day Saint movement as parent cats, and including as child cats Category:Properties of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Category:19th-century Latter Day Saint church buildings, Category:20th-century Latter Day Saint church buildings, Category:19th-century Latter Day Saint temples, Category:20th-century Latter Day Saint temples, & Category:21st-century Latter Day Saint temples? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced of the value of Category:Properties by religious organization. Category:Properties of the Holy See is kind of an odd ball here since the Holy See is considered a country. No part of the LDS movement is considered a country that I know of.  So maybe the question is, in what way would the LDS proprieties be in some way unique like this?  Are all of the buildings owned by some central authority?  If not, then the existing categories used for all of the other religion/church based buildings seems best. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Southern Sudan politicians
Category:Southern Sudan politicians, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Mysipswitch
If you have a moment, can you take a look at these edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mysipswitch&action=historysubmit&diff=441457481&oldid=441457307 I have already warned this guy, but I see no sign that he's getting the message. Thanks. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 02:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Somebody blocked him shortly after your message here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that later. Just as well. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  19:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Irish People of Jewish Descent
Hey, how come you deleted the page "as per deleted discussion". what?? I spent some time on that category, and I linked it in well with the 'Irish people by national or ethnic origin' categories, and 'People of Jewish descent by nationality'. I had two people in category, what more do you want to make it a legitimate page?? Colt .55 (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was deleted after a discussion about it here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe it should be recreated
I recently re-created the category Category:Irish people of Jewish descent. You'll notice the link is red, because it was delted as per you discussion here. However, as you may notice there are many categories with the formula 'X people of Jewish descent'. And while you may disagree with labeling living people, or misuse of categories, being of Jewish descent can only be true or false. I agree 'sloppy application' of the 'X Jews' categories are given, but that is because of people who identify themselves as being (or not being) Jewish. With Jewish descent however, you cannot dispute the fact that one of your anncestors may have been Jewish, in the same way if your anncestor was African. Whatever a person says about themselves, giving that person a 'x of jewish descent' cat is true - because its true. You get what I mean.

More to the point - my re-creation of the Irish people of Jewish descent (if you click the red link above), is actually different from the version that was deleted July 9th. My version has a properly structured cat links (following standard cats of 'X people of Jewish descent'), it links to the 'Irish people by ethnic or national origin' and 'people of jewish descent by nationality', both of which are container categories. You will also notice that the category is no longer empty, and in fact has Bob Geldof in it.

'''I believe that all the points I have made above, counteract all of the arguements used by yourself and others to delete the (not so well maintained version) originally. Please will you allow the category to reopen in the way which was created by me?''' Colt .55 (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

DRV
I suppose you could propose that it be re-created using WP:DRV. That's probably the most usual route to take. 23:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wildrose Alliance Party of Alberta
Hello, I see that you are again working on the name of political parties. Would you like to weigh in on Talk:Wildrose Alliance Party? Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and don't worry it will be quite easy to change the category names once the article is changed to Wildrose Party. Category names generally follow the article name so once the article name is changed we'll just speedily change and its subcategories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

new key for Category:[xx]: "*"
Some of your edits have popped up on my watchlist: is there some sort of consensus or guideline behind adding this key to the eponymous page in a category? I get that it will sort it to the top of the list in the category, but can't the same emphasis be given in the category by simply providing a wikilink in the text on the category page? (Category:Bloc Party is a simple example.) I think it may be better if we avoid weird (possibly non-intuitive) conventions like this. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 13:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's pretty standard, AFAIK, but not a big deal either way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I took a look around and it looks like the guideline at WP:SORTKEY suggests using a space instead of an asterisk. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 15:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. Either accomplishes essentially the same thing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Untitled
Hi. You reverted my paragraph with citing the reason. I've added a talk section on the matter, so you can respond there. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk • contribs) 14:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Treaties of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth
You've reverted my edit in the category writing unclear why this was done: the reason, however, was given in my edit summary: there was no political structure called Latvia or Estonia when PLC existed. They did not participate in concluding those treaties, they weren't given rights and duties according to them... What remains to be specified? 195.122.20.157 (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a grouping for convenience only since the PLC controlled the territory currently known as Latvia and Estonia at the time. It's not meant to communicate that they are successive political structures. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

One Vote Only
Only a younger brother, in my household knowledge, I'm only defending my user page thus is final.--Corusant (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. if sneaking around is the primary example, then of course yes, he does, forgive him as I'm trying to make some edits for a new article.--Corusant (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What to do...What to do...
As a uninvolved admin, who I trusted and respect, I want to grip (not at you and I am sorry) and ask for some help. I am a bit confused at what I see as a blatant lack of caring that the WP:SPA Nottoohappy is constantly vandalizing Kevin Garn while using misleading summaries to hide isi it. I am hoping to get some direction from a trusted admin. The Kevin Garn falls under the higher BLP standard, but even excluding that, Nottoohappy has used this page as a personal sounding board to accuses both Garn of Child Molestation and the LDS Church of actively teaching members that child molestation should be done, not tolerated, should be done. Nottoohappy actually has the highest number of edit, not even counting his sockpuppet IP edits, since every time he posts they are undone. This has gone on for over 8 months. Several editor, myself included, have run the "give him warnings", the ANI route and the sockpuppet route (since he last switched to his IP to avoid using his username. In the end only the IP address was blocked for three days). Clearly Nottoohappy knows the system, so I'm convinced that the editor has a real account out there to do normal edit, but comes back to the Garn page using only Nottoohappy. I hate to say that I, and other editor, are a bit annoyed at the lack of caring shown by the admins who are asked for help thew ANI and SP. All we hear is stuff like, "This isn't a fast enough edit war to really do much about it." and "The issue is not ripe for action until he edits again". In response to the "Fast enough" I say weather someone shot you with a gun or injects you with AIDS, your going to die. Sure one takes longer, but in the end your dead. If this guy vandalizes the page all at once or over 8 months, in the end it's vandalized. EVERY edit he make is vandalism, so speed should count. I understand that one of the Goals of Wikipedia is to allow everyone to edit, but what dose it take to get an admin to take a stand? Now that I'm off my grip stand, again I'm sorry, am I not doing something that needs to be done to block this guy indefinitely? Am I not complaining enough, or to much, or in the wrong places? I'm just so tired seeing this guy doing what he is and no one is willing to "make the call", even though this is the most obvious case of repeated vandalism I have ever seen.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 05:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I see you've given him a "last warning". Let me know if it happens again. If it does, I will have no problem blocking the Nottoohappy account indefinitely. I would have no problem doing it immediately since he only seems to be involved in repeated vandalism, but I suppose to err on the side of caution we should give him the one last chance implied by the "last warning" template. But after the next time, then let me know. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am very very sorry. My griping was not meant to get you to do anything, but honesty I would love to have you block him.  I really wanted some help understanding the vandalism process.  I really want to know if I doing it the wrong way, or not doing something that needs to be done, or going to the in the wrong places (ie WP:AN/I), or is this really the how the processes is oppose to go (so I better just get used to it)?
 * On a different but similar subject, five editors have an issue at No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith with [User:John Foxe]]. Can you direct me to the next step (Ie. WP:AN3 or WP:AN/I or elsewhere) if he is using a borderline prejudice view of editors (ie all the editors are Mormon (which is actually not correct) so they must be liars) to ignore the consensus and pushing his POV and violate BLP rules.  There has already been a "Neutral point of view/Noticeboard", ironically opened by Fox, but then ignored since he didn't get the answer he wanted.  I thought about WP:AN3, but it dose say "even egregious point of view edits" are not "Edit Waring" when it come to WP:AN3.  Then I thought about Mediation, but what good is that going to do when 5 editor have come to the same consensus which he ignores justifying it on baseless accusations of the other editor pushing a combined POV.  Even if we do Medication he's still going to ignore it, since he already did it on the NPV noticeboard.  However, arbitration doesn't see likely to be accepted.  As I see it this is case of "Slow edit waring" by Foxe.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 15:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I can sympathize with your frustration over how we deal with vandalism. I don't think your approach has been missing anything—you seem to have used all the regular routes. There does seem to be a hesitancy to act in all but the most egregious cases, which I don't really understand. In many ways slow but persistent vandalism can be more disruptive than fast bursts of it, because it requires you to always be on your guard for problematic edits from the user. But most admins seem hesitant to do anything about the slow vandalism problems.
 * John Foxe has a bit of a history of being intolerant of page changes. Someone else invited me to that dispute, but I steered clear of it because sometimes I find him frustrating to deal with. And I have been strongly criticized in the past for trying to act as a neutral admin in pages that have to do with the Latter Day Saint movement because I do some editing in that area, so I don't think I can intervene as an admin safely. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Facts, Facts, Facts
WOW.... just voting, factual argument opinions at an order of miniminum XD, anyway thank you for your factual listings, on the dangerous topic, always, smooth sailing & Carry on;). --Corusant (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ? I'm not sure what this means. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:Czechoslovakia
Hi GO - sounds like a good scheme. I get the feeling that there's pretty vague uses of the terms "Communist Czechoslovakia" and "Czeckoslovak Socialist Republic" in WP, so tidying those up would be A Good Thing (tm). Grutness...wha?  00:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Adding article cats. to files
Please explain seems like a bad idea to me... why would these categories contain files rather than just the articles themselves? Only the album in question in the main namespace was recorded at this venue, not the cover art... If there's something I'm missing here, please respond on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is it a bad idea? Non-commons files are notoriously undercategorized. It makes sense for an albums category to contain files of the albums artwork. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Purpose The categories are about the albums themselves, not the album art. This is why (e.g.) we have schemes like Category:albums by artist separate from Category:Album covers by recording artist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The album art is an integral part of the album. Album cover categories are routinely placed as subcategories of album categories. Same idea here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus At the risk of sounding dismissive--I'm honestly not--I simply think this should be taken to WT:ALBUM, as this is a pretty radical change. Should album artwork be categorized by arranger, cover artist, date, conductor, sales certification, album type, format, genre, language, producer artist, year, decade, record label, artist nationality, and recording location? I'm not being facetious here... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to take it there. I don't think it's a particularly radical change for the simple reason that non-commons images are not well-categorized at all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay I'll post to WT:ALBUM, but I'm still asking you to please refrain per BRD. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but you need to refrain from removing them then if the system is to work. Otherwise you'll have no exhibits to show. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See here I think that users will be able to understand without examples, but I'm willing to leave them be for now. If there is no consensus to categorize the media like this, I will take out the categories though. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it will make the most sense to others if you stick to what was actually done and not set up straw men arguments, such as categorizing media by year, which I have never suggested we do. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks re:Warren Jeffs
Thank you for fixing my Warren Jeffs edit. I accidentally deleted the text. --Javaweb (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
 * Oh, OK. No problem. Initially I wasn't sure if it was accidental or not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Omuta/Omuta, Fufuoka
You seem to have been involved in a glacial move war at this page. There is a discussion here; your comments are invited. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)
I have edited the Talk page for The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) In response to JRNicklow, and the changes made regarding the former acceptance of the term "Mormon," and would appreciate it if you would read over my comments and served as arbitrator, deciding whether my former addition should be included, or simply to stick with the citation of modern belief you have added with no reference to the historical acceptance of the term. I'd rather get your opinion on it before editing than for the page to just go through a bunch of revisions and undos with explanations attached. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N Jude (talk • contribs)

Category Health in the United States Virgin Islands
Thanks for spotting my mistake: I agree. Otherthinker (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Czech stubs
Hi GO - I'm not sure you understand exactly what was being proposed at Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2011/August/11 when you made your comment... would you care for another look? Grutness...wha?  02:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * D'oh, yes, thank you very much. I was reading way too fast and completely overlooked your first sentence somehow. I'm tired, I think. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

temples and Category:yyyy architecture
I see you have been adding this category in. The problem is why? The definition of the category is rather ambiguous. I'd suggest that any modern building is designed over a period of years, so to classify it into a single year is somewhat subjective. This is the nuts and bolts of the building established/completed and other forms of category discussion. We know when the building was completed, but not when the design was finished. The finish day can well be after the start of construction. So without a definitive source saying that the design was finished and no changes were made, it is had to put this into a group of years, much less into a single year. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Dunno—it looked like an established scheme to me, and it looked to me like it usually contains buildings for when the building is announced or commenced. I don't know much about the scheme. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The dates have tended to be the completion dates with a few exceptions. And announced or commenced is not defining architecturally.  I have become aware that architecture apparently means different things in different countries.  I think many of the temples that you added were in the tree for the years completed and those entries were converted to Category:Religious buildings completed in yyyy, a subcategory. The religious buildings are migrating, albeit slowly, to Category:Religious buildings by century. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen a variety of definitions for them. If they are ambiguous or lacking significance, I agree they should all be changed to the buildings completed in YYYY format. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * While not temples, the group I did today in one architecture category had more then 5% that did not support the category year for anything. With thousands and the NRHP generator continuing to add 'bad' categories, it is an uphill battle. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Desert News
Is there a way to definitively establish that "Desert News" is a WP:V source? Like a Administrators board that makes that kind of call. I keep running into a select groups of people who automatically assume that any article from there is automatically not reliable and should be removed since it is owned by the LDS Church, even though they are independent of the church and the subject of that artical isn't really something that the LDS Church would care about "covering up", so to speak.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'm not sure. I think Deseret News definitely has a political bias, but no more than any other newspaper. I find it's helpful, if possible, to include a parellel citation to the Salt Lake Tribune whenever a Deseret News citation is used, because the Trib obviously has a bias that is different that the DN. But of course that won't always be possible. I dunno—do we remove all Washington Times references because it's owned by the Unification Church leader? The Times definitely has a bias, but it doesn't make it unreliable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhapes your comments would be helpful on this subject. (No_original_research/Noticeboard)--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Years in religion categories
Hi. I noticed you adding Years in religion categories to one or two articles, so I've created a few missing ones from 1980-1995 as lots of articles had been added to these categories, and each category has at least one article and sub-category. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a long-term work in progress. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems useful, well done... I'll join you. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. Definitely something we should expand. I'll take a look around and see what else I can do. TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If anyone wants to work more on these, the articles in Category:Lists of religious leaders by year are articles that need to be added to the appropriate year category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, you added them to the Category:Religious buildings completed in yyyy categories, but there are still many articles that need to be added to that tree. These can be found in Category:yyyy architecture and Category:Buildings and structures completed in yyyy.  There may also be some outliers in the mosque and synagogue categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And I know I've added some to the Category:Religious buildings completed in yyyy categories from the 1800s and they haven't been created yet, but I will in the next few days, just so you know I'm not going to let the redlinks languish. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought I had everything created from 1800 on to 1907. The first missing ones should be Category:Religious buildings completed in 1799 and Category:Religious buildings completed in 1908. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you do. I just meant I have added the Category:YYYY in religion categories to these for the ones in the 1800s, but I haven't yet created all the Category:YYYY in religion categories, so they are redlinked right now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

How long?‎
Hi there. Actually, no, I think the suggestions from you and others have worked! He just created Category:Works about events per my suggestion on his talk page, as a replacement for his troubled Category:Media about events, which has now been speedied, saving us the trouble of doing so. He's now taking part in CfDs, recently supporting two all the current deletions of his categories. He's going to diligently populate the "Works about" tree, I'm sure. He will continue to need watching in the future I think, as he has trouble telling a good idea from a bad one sometimes, but his work ethic and collegiality are solid, I think, and he's truly playing ball with the rest of us in good faith. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Great to hear it! Thanks for all your efforts in this area, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Perspectives on Muhammad
Since you've been working recently on the categories on Islam. Please see Category talk:Perspectives on Muhammad. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

CFD
Hi, I saw that you arranged for Cydebot to delete the two categories I'd added, Category:RiffTrax episodes and Category:Cinematic Titanic episodes. While I can understand if there were previous deletion discussions for the RiffTrax category, is it not even open to discussion? Moreover, the previous comments seemed to indicate that such categories could apply if the films in question were notable in large part because of their appearance on said programs, as is the case with Cinematic Titanic films. I have nothing to gain from either category's existence; I'm just trying to contribute. Thanks for listening! --Cheesemeister (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to appeal the deletions that were made because of the previous discussions you could use deletion review. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories named after *** people
You seem to be removing these categories en masse from eponymous categories. May I inquire about the reason? Favonian (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The ones I removed are also in categories for "categories named after FOOian musicians" which is a subcategory of "categories named after FOOian people". It is unnecessary to have the eponymous categories in parent and subcategory. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, silly me. You are absolutely right.  Carry on  Favonian (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Aaronic.. disamb
Thanks for your reminder on cleaning up disamb links. Appreciate your tireless efforts. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll try to help out with these too. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, as it turned out there wasn't that many of them, so I did them. Many of them were just links from a template. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Heroes in Hell
A page you have edited has been involved in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Mechanism. If you wish to take part please click here. Some of the editors working on it have been accused of being sock puppets including myself, information on that can be found here. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

NT verses
Hi, I wondered why you were depopulating] the Category:New Testament verses. I have no objection to sub-categories, but some articles were removed and I couldn't figure out why. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The ones I removed were not articles about verses. Most of them were articles about incidents, concepts, or commentary that span several verses. I would think that the only articles that go in that category are articles named after NT verses, as with John 3:16. There are other categories, such as, that are probably better applied to some of the stuff that was in there before. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are, also including Category:New Testament words and phrases and Category:Gospel episodes -- so let's populate them instead. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ignore all rules: Dates of VISTA and Peace Corps (volunteers)
Hi Olfactory!

IMHO, the benefits of juxtaposing the two discussions outweigh the costs of having a peace-corps discussion the day after the VISTA discussion.

If you agree, in retrospect, please place the Peace Corps discussion next the VISTA discussion again.

Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Why don't you just link the two discussions through a wikilink. That is what is normally done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Great French War stubs
Hi GO - I've made a suggestion at the now long-past doing-something-with nomination at Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/July/19. Care to have a look? Grutness...wha?  01:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

First Sino–Japanese War listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect First Sino–Japanese War. Since you had some involvement with the First Sino–Japanese War redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Society by nationality
Hi, do you know the origin or justification for society and culture categories being "by nationality" rather than "by country"? This 2005 CFD seemed to point to Category:Society by country, but Category:Society by nationality was created instead. This guideline states the rule, but I'm not the only one thinking that only people have nationalities. Lots of the sub-cats are called "by country" anyway. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know the original reason for that; it's been that way certainly since before I came on the scene. I suppose it probably has something to do with the fact that the categories are formatted in the "FOOian culture" format, just as the people by nationality categories are "FOOian people". Maybe the thinking was "FOOian" means "by nationality" and "in FOO" or "of FOO" means "by country"? I think it's normal to speak of a "national culture" or "national society", but whether you would refer to "culture by nationality"—that's another issue and it does sound kind of weird. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Escapees in relation to Category:Missing or escaped animals
I saw you added the parent Category:Escapees to Category:Missing or escaped animals. I don't think that works as a parent category for a few reasons. If you read the decription of Escapees it says "people who are famous for an escape from a detention in places like prisons, POW camps or penal colonies."

First, I'd agree that all people are animals (we're mamals after all) but I don't think all animals are people.

Second I really really don't think it would be a good idea to let the categorization say that all farm animals, family pets, and zoo animals are in "prison". Some of the individual articles in the Category:Missing or escaped animals are also in an animal rights category of some kind and that makes sense in cases where animal rights issues are an explicitly addressed part of the article.

Third we can't ask the individual animals if they got accidentally lost or intentionally escaped. Some are clearly at one end or the other of the lost/escaped spectrum. Some are unclear unless we get to interview the animal. :-) (The dog who disappeared then travelled for thousands of miles to find it's family was clearly not an escape. The cow who leaped a slaughterhouse fence sure reads like an escape. Was the seal who swam off when his zoo area flooded an escape? Was he just lost and confused in an emergency situation? I sure don't know.) Cloveapple (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I should add that I thought there would be a parent category for animals housed or raised by humans, but there doesn't seem to be any category like that. (I was thinking of something that included zoo animals, lab animals, pets, livestock, working animals.) There's Category:Domesticated animals, but it's parent is plain old animals. I don't see any category at all for animals in zoos. Cloveapple (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Because of the nature of categories, from what I have seen they operate quite a bit more fluidly or imprecisely than one might expect the text of a particular article to be. We try to approximate good connections using the parent–child category system, but there are always flaws in getting it to work together perfectly. I'm not dead set on having it within the tree, but it certainly seems like a reasonable connection to me to place a category for animals that may have escaped within the concept of "escapees", even if all them are not necessarily escapees. I don't see any reason that the definition in on the category  couldn't be altered. But I don't feel it's a huge deal to me one way or the other. I was just trying to help make some category connections. Maybe  is a better parent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I hadn't realized categories were fluid in that way. It's giving me something to think over. Cloveapple (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Category change: request for review/ discussion
Hello! I understand that you may have been responsible for initiating a category change earlier this month for the Category:New York State College of Forestry, speedily changing it to Category:State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry. As one of the initiators of the original category, this caught me by surprise. After some reflection, the new category does make sense. On the other hand, I would argue that the former category remains valid, as well. See History of the New York State College of Forestry, and the discussion at Category talk:State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Thanks in advance for your thoughts, after reviewing these pages, on the best way forward on this at this time. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've restored the former category since it sounds like the discussion has decided that it would be helpful to have both. That's fine with me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, very good; thanks! Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ram[s,es,ess]es & Co.
Hi GO.

It's great that you're doing such work to sort out classic and ancient names. The RM at Talk:Ramesses II is amicably set aside for the time being, and as I suggest there it will be a good idea to review all articles with forms of that name. Do you want to work on that? Would you like some assistance? A fair amount of research would be needed before opening a new multiple RM. No rush! But we could do preliminary assessment of the task at least.

On Google searching, by the way, see the two recent RMs at Talk:Crêpe. Quite a saga, and instructive for a few people. (In fact, it has triggered a big action at WP:ANI, but that's another story.)

N oetica Tea? 07:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I would welcome any help on those that you could offer. I kind of rushed into that particular nomination late one night, thinking that it was obvious and not really realising that there was more than 2 possible spelling options. I think it's pretty clear that the "Ramesses" spelling is probably not the most common for RII, but it sounds like some editors would prefer an assessment across all the Egyptian rulers by that name so the spelling can be the same for all of them. That makes some sense. If you're unable to work on it, I will probably get to it eventually, but wasn't going to work on it immediately. If you do, you could notify me of any nomination that is made and I would participate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Categories named after towers
Category:Categories named after towers, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Editor2020 (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing categories
Stop it please. The files are neither corrupt or empty. Perhaps it might have been polite to ask first and find out what I'm up to? Pdfpdf (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please re-instate them - you can do that MUCH more quickly than I can. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they are not corrupt or empty, but you are creating WP pages that are merely description pages of images on Wikimedia Commons. (See the rest of the speedy deletion ratioale.) Such WP pages are deleted on sight, because they are auto-mirrored from Commons. Such pages are only to be created on WP in special circumstances, as when a file becomes a featured image on WP. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are making false assumptions based on failure to seek information. I repeat:
 * Stop it please. The files are neither corrupt or empty. Perhaps it might have been polite to ask first and find out what I'm up to? Pdfpdf (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please re-instate them - you can do that MUCH more quickly than I can. Pdfpdf ([[User
 * I want you to re-read what I posted above. The pages you are creating come under the speedy deletion criteria not because they are corrupt or empty, but because they are file description pages from Commons. See SD: "Files that are corrupt, empty, or that contain superfluous and blatant non-metadata information. This also includes image description pages for Commons images." (emphasis added) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to read what I wrote ... (Note: NOT re-read, there's NO evidence that you read it, and you certainly haven't asked any questions!) Y'know, being an admin doe NOT make you god, and does NOT absolve you from being polite.

Of course, if you have a simpler way of me creating a category of pictures of Houses in Adelaide, than the complicated process upon which I am embarking, please educate me - I didn't realise my chosen method was going to be so tedious, and I certainly didn't realise I was going to be sabotaged by an over-zealous admin who was going to delete without asking what I was up to. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I did read what you wrote: both times. Perhaps rather than assuming that I did something wrong or "over-zealous" or committed "sabotage", you could perhaps look into the policy on what you did? Here is a perhaps clearer explanation: By adding a category to a Wikimedia Commons description page, you created a Wikipedia page. Even though it shows up in Wikipedia prior to you adding a category to it, it's really just a mirror page of the Commons page. (You can tell that by seeing the little Commons image in the right-hand corner.) We don't create Wikipedia pages for images found on Commons except in rare circumstances, as when the Commons image becomes a featured picture on Wikipedia or used in a DYK segment. (If you don't believe me, click the "create this page" button on one of these mirror pages—you will receive a prominent pink warning not to create the page unless you know what you are doing.) When such pages are created by editors adding a category to the mirror page, the speedy delete criterion F2 applies. I didn't invent this criterion; it has been around for a while now and is widely applied. (In fact, many of the pages you created were re-creations by you: they had been deleted in 2010 under the same speedy rename criterion after you had created them in 2008 by adding a category.) The way to create a category for images of houses in Adelaide is to do it within Wikimedia Commons, where they have the same sort of category system that is implemented. If you want to link to the Wikimedia Commons category from a Wikipedia page, you can then add a link like to the Wikipedia page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * After looking, I see that there is a Wikimedia Commons category for Houses in Adelaide. You could work on adding Commons files to that category, and then they can be linked from WP like this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Category:Historic Houses in Adelaide appears to be the older and more well-populated category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know, and did know. (I still don't like your approach and attitutde, but let's just drop that - there's no future in it.)
 * So, I want to expand Category:Houses in Adelaide to include the pictures of these houses, some of which are in commons. Adding the pictures that are in en.wikipedia is straight-forward. To my question "How do I link the pictures that are in commons to Category:Houses in Adelaide", You've answered: you can then add a link like  to the Wikipedia page.
 * I'm not sure I understand. (i.e. Where do I use ?)
 * If I understand you correctly (which I probably don't) I think you are saying:
 * There needs to be a commons category "Houses in Adelaide", and the pictures-in-commons I want need to be in that commons category
 * Then I need to put somewhere.
 * Is that right?
 * If so, where do I put it? On the Category:Houses in Adelaide page?
 * Pdfpdf (talk) 10:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That puts the little Commons icon thingy on the Category:Houses in Adelaide page. Is there any way to get the commons pictures in the category (other than what I did, which you don't like)? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there any way to get the commons pictures in the en.wikipedia category? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think there's a way to get the commons image directly in the Wikipedia category. That's why we link from the Wikipedia category to the Commons category. It's not that I "didn't like" what you did; I was just cleaning up things per our normal practices. I don't think I did anything unusual or exceptional. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Children of Entertainers: Please look at Tyrone Power's background
Tyrone Power's comes from a family of entertainers who have been entertainers since the late 1700's. Is this DNA or Environment? Tyrone Power's daughter is an entertainer, but she did not know her father. DNA or Environment? Nature v. Nurture? Perhaps it is a little of both according to Dr. Antonio Damasio ... our environment changes our thinking and when our thinking changes we change our DNA! I know that there are families who have been in the farming business for centuries, or bakers and so on, but it is very very difficult to find these families and then to follow their lineage. With entertainers it is very different. Entertainers are accustomed to being in public, and by doing so, their behavior is recorded. That is why this subject is important. As for the title "Children of Entertainers" I used words that are common and more or less not personal, but short and to the point. Chaos4tu (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a nice theory, but I don't think we generally promote this kind of thing via categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

File deletion
Hi, I am puzzled as to why you deleted File:Remains of Wikimedia cake made for Girl Geeks v Wikimeet, Bristol, UK. 18 August 2011.jpg and File:Wikimedia cake.jpg. My understanding is that Wikipedia file pages are automatically created when files are used in Wikipedia articles, in this case the last issue of Wikipedia Signpost/2011-08-22/News and notes. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The files themselves reside at Wikimedia Commons, as the pages say: "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below." In such cases, the pages that shows up in Wikipedia space is essentially content that is mirrored from Commons. It is possible to actually create these pages in Wikipedia, but we only do so in special circumstances, mentioned below. Normally, if a Wikipedia page like this is actually created, they are speedily deleted according to speedy criterion F2, as an "image description pages for Commons images". That's why I deleted the page. But even though the Wikipedia page is deleted, the mirror still shows up in Wikipedia. The page can be actually created in Wikipedia in a couple of different ways. The first way is to go to the page and click on the "create this page" tab at the top. If you do so, you'll notice that there's a pink warning that states: "This image is on Wikimedia Commons—not on Wikipedia. Any descriptions should be placed there. This page should rarely be used except to indicate featured pictures." In other words, we only create Wikipedia pages for images when the image has been a featured picture on Wikipedia. A second way to create these pages is to use hotcat to add a category to the page. Because it's done through hotcat, users don't see the same warning that suggests the page should not be created. I think that's how you created the pages, so it's understandable you weren't aware that they shouldn't be created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, I won't add categories to the Wikipedia mirrors in future. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Category
Hi, Good Olfactory.
 * Did you dislike Category:Executed people because of the Izmir conspiracy ?
 * What do you think of those categories ?
 * Category:Khans of descent from Jochi, Category:Khans of descent from Siban, Category:Khans of descent from Toqa Temur
 * Category:Turkish people of Turkish descent

See you. Takabeg (talk) 10:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * On the first issue, it seems too narrow. Category:People executed for treason against Turkey is better because it is more broad.
 * One the second issue—we don't categorize people for being descended from other people. On the last category—that would probably be a problem. One, it's confusing; two, it's a borderline tautology unless one can figure out that we are talking about Turkish nationals who are ethnically Turkish. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But as long as I understand with this edit. I think you misunderstood difference between nationality and ethnicity. About a half of Iranian citizens are Persian (Farsi). Do you think that Iranian people = Persian people ? See you. Takabeg (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not that clear in English. One of the definitions of "Persian" in English is "a person from Persia (modern-day Iran)", which—minus the time-frame difference—would be equivalent to saying "Iranian". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merci. I've tried to explain in CfD discussion page, it can damage the neutrality of Wikipedia. But don't I have better ideas, at present. Do you have any good ideas ? Regards. Takabeg (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Licenced vandalism.
I used the adjective "licenced" in relation to vandalism, i.e. not outside the rules. I consider something vandalism if it is detrimental to the appearance, functionality etc etc of Wikipedia. It's as simple as that. A youth can spray paint a wall, but a local authority/council (whatever they call them in your part of the world) can as well, it just does so within its own rules, which it has created.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Responded on your talk page. (I usually think it's helpful to keep discussions together in one place.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Sylvester Stallone
Category:Sylvester Stallone, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

MLS
I rather liked this. Occuli (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing like farm-lingo. (And "Anglo-Nubian" itself in retrospect is a rather unfortunate name choice for a breed ...) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

== Per your !vote here ==

Please see here Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

CFD for Dover
I know the previous discussion closed recently but I feel there needed to be more consensus. Please see Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_1. Simply south...... eating shoes for 5 years So much for ER 18:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on Smith family being poor.
Hi, Good Ol'.

I don't want to see this one debated in depth at the article and as you seem to have a good grasp on the research of this information I thought I'd bend your ear here. I agree that by modern definition the Smith family lived in poverty, but for those times I wonder if the term lower class would not be a better way to describe the family than 'poor'. When I read 'poor' I get the sense they were nomadic and destitute, but given the times they lived in it is likely they were better off than many others. As you mentioned Bushman's research I notice that while he used the term 'poor', he was quick to qualify the term ("though poor, Joseph and Lucy would not starve or be shorthanded when they needed help."). I don't have a problem with pointing out Joseph Smith's humble upbringing, I just think the term 'lower class' describes the family better than the unqualified term 'poor.' I'll leave this one to you and trust your judgment here.-- Canad iandy  talk  05:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you're probably right on the principle: the only problem I see is that I'm not sure if there are any sources available that discuss this in the context of the family being "lower class". When I wrote that they were essentially lower class, I was interpreting what I think Bushman was getting at overall, but he never actually comes out and says it in this way. I think maybe it might even sound out of place to refer to a family in the early 1800s being "lower class". (I'm not sure when the "upper class"/"lower class" designations were invented.) On the other hand, there are several sources I can see that talk about the family being poor or "in poverty". But I do agree that it's quite an imprecise and relative term. In a sense they were somewhat nomadic between Joseph's birth and their settling in Palmyra area, having moved numerous times due to work changes and crop failures, etc. But I know what you are saying—they weren't eating bark of the trees to survive. I'll look around at some more biographies of his early life or family's history and see how they approach this issue. Maybe the solution is to just provide a bit more detail rather than simply calling the family "poor". Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe simply placing the term in quotes with a link to Bushman's Lucy Smith reference? Thanks for your fair consideration.-- Canad iandy  talk  13:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that could be one way to do it. Maybe just quote Lucy's statement that due to the collapse of their family ginseng business, the family knew the "embarrassment of poverty". Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. Very fair. It seems more accurate and reliable as a statement, and less narrative.-- Canad iandy  talk  01:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Expatriates
Hi. A few months ago, you added, for example, the Expatriates in the United States categories to the American people of X descent categories (example). This needs to be reversed, since not everyone who ever lived in the U.S. is American (although they were expatriates in the U.S). Are people living in the U.S. temporarily, for example with a work visa, Americans in your opinion? --V111P (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's included more out of convenience than anything else. "American people" doesn't necessarily mean "American citizens", it can also mean "people from the United States". If an expatriate is living in the United States, they could roughly be said to be "from the United States" for that period of time. They are secluded in a separate subcategory, so I don't think there is any risk of misunderstanding. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to chime in here, not my main knowledge base. I will add that Canadians view themselves as 'North' Americans and I suppose Mexicans view themselves as 'Central' Americans. The United States ofAmerica does not mean they are the only Americans. Maybe there's a class action trademark lawsuit in this that we could make some money on (at least those of us Canadians and Mexicans). Smiles all.-- Canad iandy  talk  01:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Any bets?
Any bets on how many IPs and new accounts will contest your speedy deletion request on that category before it's all said and done? Lady of  Shalott  04:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha!—all bets are off on that one. It's quite entertaining to see the comments flow in. Essentially we are going to have a situation with the main discussion where we're going to have a bunch of individuals who don't know much about WP commenting on it, so it should be very interesting. I can't say that I'm optimistic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That page is getting awesome! Have I done a bad thing?—it seems that all the outside commenters are being diverted to use the talk page to oppose the speedy deletion rather than following the link to the main discussion .... Mind you, all the comments are little more than "I like it" comments, but still, I'm wondering if I've sabotaged things here. ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know... you could put a not on the CfD discussion pointing people to the talk page so the discussions comments are linked. Lady  of  Shalott  11:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, that's already been done, I see. Lady  of  Shalott  11:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:RoboCop
I'm intrigued by your rationale for moving this. It seems inappropriate to use a disambiguator. It's all about "RoboCop" whether we're talking about the film, character, francise, video games, whatever. As the CFD wasn't left open long enough, I'm CfDing again for a revert back to RoboCop. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * RoboCop (franchise) is the article that covers the entire gamut. RoboCop is about the film. RoboCop (character) is about the character. Since the category covers everything to do with the franchise, the category name should match the article name about the franchise. Disambiguation doesn't work quite the same in categories as is does with articles—almost always, the category name matches the article name, even if there is no other category name of the same name that we need to disambiguate from. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Keith Walton Tantlinger
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) seems to have gone back to his old ways of disruptive moves that clearly go against WP:COMMONNAME, despite knowing better and having been warned multiple times. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you were the administrator who dealt with the problems he caused last time. I wanted to move Keith Walton Tantlinger back to its old name that the sources indicate is the common name, but I am unable to (maybe because he moved it twice? I don't know.) Would you or another administrator be able to help out? Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was me. I can move it back and leave a note for him again. Is the common name Keith Tantlinger? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Skimming through the recent news coverage of his death, it looks that way, yes.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and good luck with the note; time and time again this user has shown that they have no interest in following any rules but their own, but maybe you can get through.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Restoring incorrect categories
Maintaing categories is important, and if you need to tell somebody how to work with the properly, as you did to Matthias, great. If he can learn how to do it properly, the better. Deleting a good category and restoring incorrect categories is, however, more of a problem... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 23:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. A person can't rename a category out-of-process. That's the limit of my concern there. See my extended comment here, which is where the discussion should take place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, but why do I need to fix the damage you caused? With all due respect, and I do support most of your related edits but the two linked, you restored incorrect categories, thus damaging the two articles in question. SOFIXIT - sure, I did . No hard feelings, it is a tiny matter and you were acting in good faith, but in the future, please pay more attention to restoring categories where they may be incorrect. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 23:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was paying attention. Your issue is that you are assuming they are incorrectly applied. Depending on how one interprets the category name, they were not incorrect. That's the danger of assuming your interpretation is the only correct one—you accuse others of not knowing what they are doing when they know perfectly well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

JN
This is the sort of category creation which reminds me of PW (+ no edit summaries, + the presence of BHG and GO on their talk page + it's a 'death' category which the good pastor found fascinating). I suppose I could try that Editcompare thing. Occuli (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Which gives this. It must be said that the good pastor's other identities were much less subtle than this one, whose user page suggests no familiarity with Ohio. Perhaps a Japanese convert to PW's school of bizarre category creations? Occuli (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, it seems to me that I asked you about this possibility once, or vice versa. I know we've thought about it before. But I agree that it's not as obvious, and I think other PW socks have been active since this account was created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Almost Naked Animals
Why did you remove the Cartoon Network category from Almost Naked Animals? The category was renamed explicitly so it could include shows that air on the network despite not being in-house creations. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't that a recipe for overcategorization? We can categorize a television show for being broadcast on any given television channel? Does this apply to syndicated programmes? Some users pointed out this problem in the relevant discussion; it sounds like it may need to be revisited. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Colombian ambassadors
Oops - yeah - my fault. I misread the nom. Grutness...wha?  03:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Permanent residents
Since you have been involved in many "x people of x descent" and "x expatriates in x" categories, I think you might know the answer to my question and would like your input on the matter. My question is: Should a person who is a permanent resident of the United States be categorised into "Category:American people of x descent" or "Category:x expatriates in the United States"? Mar4d (talk) 10:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of either being preferred in such a situation. That is one problem with these categories—depending on how one interprets them, there is a tremendous amount of overlap to them. Does "American people" mean citizens of the United States or just people "from" the United States? There's no real answer. If you think "American people" means citizens only, then you'd have to put the article in the expatriates category. But if "American people" means "people from the United States", then it would be OK in the "American people of X descent" category. My preferred interpretation is the latter, but I don't think it necessarily has to be the correct interpretation. For now, I think the best solution is to let users put articles where they think they fit and just ensure that the expatriates category is a subcategory of the "of X descent" category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving Categories
Hello Good Olfactory,

I'm contacting you to request your help since you seem to be the categories expert here :). I want to move Category:Moroccan tribes to Category:Tribes of Morocco since the latter seems to be more standard practice here. I don't know how this can be done, is there a special process for moving cats? Please tell me your opinion on this move.

Thanks in advance and have a nice day. Regards --Tachfin (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To propose that a category name be changed, you use WP:CFD. The instructions are set out there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks a lot! Tachfin (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Latter Day Saint architecture
Would you be willing to create Category:Latter Day Saint architecture, which would include as parent cats Category:Latter Day Saint movement and Category:Church buildings by denomination? The following could fit under that category: Thank you for your consideration. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:19th-century Latter Day Saint church buildings
 * Category:20th-century Latter Day Saint church buildings
 * Category:Latter Day Saint temples
 * Category:Places of worship of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints


 * How about ? Would that accomplish what we're needing? I asked someone about the Category:Latter Day Saint architecture suggestion, and they thought it more had the connotation of a particular architectural style. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, that'd work just fine. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That looks great! Thanks -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Try that on for size. I've added subcategories for Latter Day Saint places of worship by century and for Community of Christ places of worship. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Black-and-white media
Category:Black-and-white media, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy renames various Indian University Alumni
You appear to have put through some speedy renames even though there was an objection. This does not seem to be in line with Wikipedia policy. It would have done no harm to put them through cfd as there were several possibilities for rename which could have been investigated such as Category:Asutosh College (Kolkata) alumni (as for Texas categories such as Category:Lee College (Texas) alumni). Cjc13 (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * They can still be nominated if you'd like to propose an alternative. In the meantime, they met the speedy criteria. I don't think you can object to a speedy rename when it meets the criteria just because you think there might be better options. In such a case, the onus is on you to nominate them; you can't shift that onus to someone else just by issuing a formal objection when the criteria are otherwise met. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That it is not what it says in the guidance given. It just says that if there is an objection then they do not meet the speedu criteria and it should go to Cfd for 7 days. There do not seem to be any qualifications on that. Cjc13 (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, I'm not into gaming the system in this way. As I said, if you really have an alternate proposal—just nominate them. The changes are without prejudice to any full discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if you are going to get involved you should stick to the conventions. If someone as experienced as you is not going to follow the system than who is? As you say there is the alternative of nominating the categories myself but it would be much easier if people stuck to the guidelines. Cjc13 (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Easier for who? As I suggested, I think your reading of the guideline is overly technical and appears to be an attempt to game the system. If there is a legitimate rename suggestion that needs to be discussed, the time you spend hectoring could be spent starting the nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am just trying to follow the system and the reading of the guideline seems very simple. I am not the one trying to put a spin on it. Cjc13 (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK—your next step then would be to start full nominations for ones you wish to rename. I personally won't allow the system to be gamed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but in what way am I trying to game the system. It was a genuine objection to the rename that I had. Cjc13 (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * By making a big deal out of this and wasting time hectoring me about it. If you have a better suggestion, as you have suggested you do, then nominate the category or categories for a full discussion. If you don't, then fine. The categories were renamed speedily to match the standard format. Either way, nothing is accomplished by continuing to worry about the fact that they were processed before you thought they should have been. A speedy rename is never the final word about the name of a category. (If you need help nominating something and that is the issue, let me know and I can help.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy rename: Category:Paleo-Indian Archaeological sites in Colorado -- sounds good!
Hi, I saw your speedy rename of the category. Sounds good!

I wanted to also add "Category:Ancient puebloan archaeological sites in Colorado" as another sub-category to Archaeological sites in Colorado. (I'm working on a series of articles in those categories.) Would that work?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don't know much about the topic, so I couldn't say one way or the other. My nomination was just to fix the capitalization on the category; I don't really know much about the topic itself. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried creating the category with the resived spelling by entering the new name in the search box, but it routes to the current category/spelling. Is there another way to create the new subcategory?  Thanks!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A bot usually makes the change after it has been posted for 48 hours. To do it, it actually deletes the old category and creates a new one. I'll try to activate it immediately to make the change since you've said you agree with it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It was done! Yeah, and I didn't need to edit the category article names in the articles, that was done, too. Double-yeah!  Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the bot is an amazing thing. It does all the work when they need renaming, which is nice. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Page move
Hi. Both names are in usage but the formal name of this establishment is University of Babylon, see here: http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/ملف:شعار_جامعة_بابل.gif It is also the more common name if you look on Google books, search, etc. Would you mind moving the article to University of Babylon? EStudent 82 (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

== Could you explain me why you removed the category ConvertSpecs in Eyewear 23rd of September that I posted ? I don't have any intention to do any kind of advertising, just letting people know about this kind of glasses ==

'''Thanks. —Utillia (utillia)26 September 2011 (EST)'''


 * It did sound an awful lot like advertising, but I take your word for it that it was not intended to be. In any case, it should have been created in article space, at ConvertSpecs, not at Category:ConvertSpecs. Categories are intended to group multiple articles of related content together, not to provide text information about a topic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Many thanks GO for fixing my duplication of the Slovak films items. I have done so little work with templates and category creation I appreciate your correction of my edits. One question - when I am entering items in the country field of the film infobox should I type. Thanks again and my apologies for taking up your time in cleaning up my work. MarnetteD | Talk 07:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You can still type and it will apply the correct categories. If you want to, the template could be moved to Template:Film Slovak so that you could type , but it's probably fine where you originally created it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

WT:Overcategorization
Just wondering if you had any thoughts on the suggestion I made there for a definition of defining. Uniplex (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

L-S customs union
Hi, quick request. Could you show me the guidelines you mentioned that means categorising a redirect is policy?- J.Logan`t : 20:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Categorizing redirects. If the target article would be inappropriate for the category but contains information about the topic of the category, the redirect can be categorized. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. But all Customs union has is the fact that there is a customs union. There's no detail in there. Perhaps it should redirect to somewhere with more data, the relations page for example (prior that, maybe the Swiss FR page would have been better?). It just seemed a little crazy when I saw it. Also, where are the bilateral relation pages' conventions. I know they're there but I can't find them. Was it just an WP:IR convention? People seem to cite different laws on it.- J.Logan`t : 21:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, yes, you are right in that regard. For some reason I thought that there was more specific information in the target article. If that's all there is, I agree with you that it doesn't need to have the category. And hm, I can't seem to find the bilateral relations guidelines either. I thought they existed. Perhaps I'm wrong on that too, though they do seem to fairly uniformly be in the format whereby countries in article names are listed alphabetically, so there is some sort of convention happening, even if it's only latent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Just wanted to check the guidelines because someone has corrected all the EU bilateral articles to something else and I've only just finished fixing all the links! Thanks.- J.Logan`t : 06:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Abner Cole
Hi - you wrote "in Smith's writings, he claims there were earlier critics of his claims; though they did not publish" -- but, why would we care about people who commented but didn't publish their comments? That's like saying my son commented to me on my book while I was writing it, so he's the first critic. It doesn't seem to me that it counts.

The point is, while Smith's book was at the publisher, before ever being published, Cole was able to sneak a read in, and he PUBLISHED his comments not only before other critics, but before the book was published.

Your thoughts? Thanks. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Cole was probably the first published critic, but according to Smith and his followers Cole was definitely not the first critic of Smith's claims. Smith claims he was being heavily criticized (even "persecuted", in his words) as far back as 1820 by locals he told about his spiritual manifestations. So it's simply misleading to say that Cole was the first critic of Smith or of the Latter Day Saint movement. A critic does not have to be published to be a critic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. It's not that important to me at all, but I might go back and reword, saying he was first to publish criticism, because I think it's important (and fascinating) that he did so before Smith's work was publicly produced, because he was able to read the manuscripts at the publisher's house. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. It may be true to say that he was the earliest critic of the Book of Mormon. Most of the pre-Cole criticism was related to Smith's other claims and not related directly to the Book of Mormon. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Nuns
Actually, see Nun - there seems to have been an official RC distinction between 1917 and some date before the present. But I think it is too tenuous, and too likely to be got wrong/missed by most editors, to use as a basis for categorizing. Johnbod (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I trust your judgment on that. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)