User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 21

Recreation of Category:American actresses
Given the closure at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_30, would you object to recreation (and repopulation) of Category:American actresses, given that you had deleted the U.S. version of the category based on an earlier CfD that appears to have been effectively overturned? Alansohn (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Recreating the category is the easy part, it's the repopulation that will take same time. I'll get started on this on Thursday, unless you have any objections. Alansohn (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been away for a little while; I thought the issue with Category:American actresses was going to be discussed at WP:DRV some weeks ago—at least that's what I was told—but I checked and see that it has not been, so I'm not too sure what's going on. Whatever the process is followed, it seems sensible to bring some consistency in results, at least. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Category : “People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox [Christian] descent”
Dear G.O.F.,

RE: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 28

As mentioned earlier, to avoid any risk of polemics/confusion for lay readers, this category could be renamed « People of Levantine Greek Orthodox descent» = simply removing the word « Christian » ... Cordially,  --B.Andersohn (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Empires
This sounds like one of those irregular verbs: "I work to change the contention, you block its implementation, he is a disruptive element..." Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Users complain a lot about conventions in category naming, but I rarely see one make a proposal on the guideline talk pages to change such conventions. The few I have seen have been quite productive. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

re deletion of Category:Former statues
It occurs to me that the only proper member of this should have been in Pygmalion (mythology). :) Mangoe (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Kamrupi mathematicians
Regarding this discussion, I can't help but double down on the point that merging to Category:People from Kamrup Metropolitan district creates a serious and unacceptable problem of veracity; historical references that speak of people from Kamrup cannot necessarily be interpreted as indicating that they lived in (or perhaps even in the immediate vicinity of) modern day Kamrup Metropolitan district, which is only a small fraction of Kamrup Rural district's geographical size, which is itself not the same as Kamrup region proper or ancient Kamarupa or Durjaya or Pragjyotishpura or any other Kamrupi locality. I also don't see any reason to believe that the nominator or either of the participants were remotely aware of this fact when reaching their respective conclusions. Mind giving it another look? —  C M B J  13:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Categories do this all the time—that is, they very often categorise people for being "from" a place when that place did not exist under such a name when the person was alive. Regardless of what the place is called, the place as a place is the same, so I don't see it as a huge problem. It's a broader issue than just this one category, in other words. But if you think there is a better way to categorise the one article in question, I don't think it would be a problem for you to adjust the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the thing, though—the place isn't geographically equivalent. This is perhaps best illustrated by comparing maps of Kamrup Metro, rural Kamrup, and historical Kamarupa. I can simply start Category:Kamrupi scholars and academics if that's agreeable, but since it's generally bad mojo for an involved party to outright defy a recent closure, I still feel obliged to discuss it first. —  C M B J   03:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I dunno—I think those who commented in the discussion were probably more concerned about the small nature of the category rather than the exact details of whether the target was appropriate. (The nominator's rationale was WP:SMALLCAT.) I agree that no one acknowledged (or probably understood) the point you were making. I can see that the target is inappropriate and it should be removed from that category. A simple merge to was probably the most obvious solution. I'm not sure if we should categorize by the person being "Kamrupi" or not unless there are others who would also be categorized in this way, though. I'll leave that up to you to make that call. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have amended the close to reflect our discussion. You should feel free to create a new category, if appropriate. I'll leave it up to your discretion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Categories for ambassadors and high commissioners of the UK
Hi Good Olfactory. I'm proposing a slightly different way (or should I say slightly better :-) ) of dealing with the ambassador/high commissioner dichotomy. You've been quite active with these diplomats categories so I'm hoping you can chime in here. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:EC 3.5.1
Any opinions on Category:EC 3.5.1? The name was no clue to me and after reading the intro, I still have no clue. Maybe this is strictly science jargon. I'm not sure that is bad in this case. Suggestions? Leave it alone? Rename? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've seen these before and have always been perplexed. There's a whole tree of them at Category:Hydrolases. I don't know much about it, but I think maybe renaming them to include "hydrolases" at the end may be the way to go. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Akhil Bharatiya Sena politicians
Category:Akhil Bharatiya Sena politicians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Lovy Singhal (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Long overdue

 * Why thanks—sometimes when I do it, I wish I hadn't when the blowback comes! But I'm almost always happy to help. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Haha! I feel you, for sure.   delldot   &nabla;.  00:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Automobile repair shops
Do you think Category:Automobile repair shops is worth keeping? Three of the member article are historic places and may no longer be actual automobile repair shops and one is spamish and non-notable IMO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure—in some sense, it seems hard to think of a more appropriate categorization for some of these. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

thanks
for cleaning up after me at the murder in australia scene - cheers SatuSuro 23:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

GAA hurlers
I think that your moving the long-established "Tipperary hurlers" category to the tautologous "Tipperary GAA hurlers" was not justified and would ask you to reconsider. There were three move proposals made; the first (by an editor with a history of moving multiple GAA pages without discussion, so this at least was a small advance) was to move to "Hurlers with Tipperary GAA", and this received one other vote in support. The second proposal was to move all GAA sportsperson categories to the format "county GAA sportsperson", which would mean e.g. "Tipperary GAA hurlers", "Cork GAA camogie players", "Tyrone GAA Gaelic footballers", "Dublin GAA Gaelic handballers" - affecting potentially over a hundred categories just at the county level, but categories like this also exist for provinces and for individual GAA clubs, of which there are over 2,500. This second proposal had two votes in favour: the proposer, who may or may not have been joking, and the proposer of the first option who switched his/her vote. There were then three votes in favour of renaming this one category, Tipperary hurlers, to "Tipperary GAA hurlers", with no mention of a wholesale renaming of all GAA player categories. Three editors voted against any renaming. The final score: option 1, 1 vote; option 2, 2 votes; option 3, 3 votes; no change, 3 votes.

As an editor of many GAA articles I feel strongly that this move was wrong in itself, in that it creates one category that differs from every other county hurlers category, and in that it is tautologous: all hurlers are GAA hurlers, just as all camogie players, Gaelic football players and Gaelic handballers are GAA people. The name of the team that they GAA county players play for is, in every single case, one word - the name of the historic county, without adding "GAA".

I hope that you will revert this controversial move, to spare everyone the time and energy involved in formally contesting it. Brocach (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't just count votes. The main reason the move appears to be a good idea is that the parent category is, and almost all other trees for sportspeople by teams use the format "TEAM PLAYERS", where TEAM is the name of the parent category for the team—in this case, Tipperary GAA—and PLAYERS is the type of player—in this case, hurlers. So the standard format would dictate . (Though I realize that the team is simply called "Tipperary" colloquially.) The fact that this is not yet widespread among the GAA categories is worth noting, but it's probably more a reflection of the fact that these have not yet been conformed to the near-universal standard in WP categories. There's no reason that the others couldn't be changed. Anyway, the argument that "Tipperary hurlers" could be interpreted to mean hurlers from (or even born in) the geographical locale (county) of Tipperary is significant, and Tipperary GAA hurlers makes it clear what is being referred to. So I don't find it tautologous at all, nor do I see why the GAA categories should have a category format that is different than the vast majority of other players-by-team categories. If you'd like to appeal my decision, you are free to use the DRV process and I wouldn't object to it going there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The team is just called "Tipperary" - honestly. The same applies to all GAA counties, the team name, as it appears on programmes, scoreboards etc. is simply the county name without the word GAA. Brocach (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I believe you about the team name. What I meant to communicate was not what the real team name is, but that the fact that the parent category is dictates the subcategories' names. The argument that "Tipperary hurlers" is ambiguous has some significance as well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Drew University cleanup
Any suggestions on how to best cleanup the mess at Category:Drew University people? It's amazing what a well-intentioned person can do with the most basic tools available to a Wikipedia editor to create a gigantic mess. Alansohn (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There was discussion at Talk:Drew University about creating a unified category for faculty, alumni, and university presidents. I see no advantage of having a separate category for each one.  DavidinNJ (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, the advantage is that it allows the categories to fit into the larger schemes of categorizing alumni by university and faculty by university. It's a broader issue than just what is good in the context of Drew University. And anyway, there is a huge difference in roles between an alumnus and a faculty member. I think we need to go through the articles one-by-one and re-place them into the appropriate subcategory. There is no reason cannot exist as a container category for both. I have little doubt that there would be hardly any support in the broader WP community for merging the two categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was going to use AWB when I had a chance, but you seem to have addressed the issue. Alansohn (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I got the alumni done just from the article about the list of alumni. I think those remaining are faculty. There may be some presidents. Do we categorize presidents as faculty? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good Ol'factory & Alansohn, Thank you for cleaning up the categories. I previously merged the categories because they were unlinked.  Specifically, there were an alumni category linked to the main Drew University article, a faculty category which wasn't connected to anything (I stumbled on it by accident), and university presidents which weren't in any category.  I think using Category:Drew University people as a main category, and having the two subcategories makes more sense.  Thank you for your help. DavidinNJ (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Away
Note: I'm anticipating that I will be away for a few days. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Solar power stations in the United States
Can you add a delsort of "space" to the two categories that are not specific to a state in Category:Solar power stations in the United States? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Following up on the CfD for Heads of mission of the UK
Hi Good Olfactory. The CfD was just closed in line with my amended proposal. This is easy enough to apply in the UK case but there are two basic ideas that should be extended throughout the ambassadors subtree. First, high commissioners categories should be placed in both the "ambassadors" and "high commissioners" parent categories and second top-ranking diplomats should be categorized as ambassadors regardless of their actual title. I suspect that the first one won't be controversial (although on Wikipedia, you never know...) but I feel like the second might be and it would perhaps be wise to find some forum that would give others a chance to have their say. I was thinking Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations. Thoughts? Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * First issue—probably not a big deal there—you shouldn't encounter resistance. The second issue—why is that necessary, if they are in a high commissioners category and that high commissioners category is (through multiple routes) a subcategory of the "Ambassadors of COUNTRY" category? It would seem to me like article OCAT to actually catgorize each article as an ambassador as well since they are already within the overall ambassadors category tree. I'm probably the wrong user to ask about the correct WikiProject to contact. There are so many, and I can never figure out who takes care of what and why. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a misunderstanding about part 2. I'm definitely not suggesting categorizing say Abul Fateh as both a high commissioner and as an ambassador (something you politely label as "unnecessary" though it's arguably plain stupid). I'm talking about categorizing as ambassadors people who didn't have the ambassador or high commissioner title but were nevertheless the head of the diplomatic mission. Anyhoo, I'll probably start a discussion at the international relations talk page when I get a chance. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I see—gotcha. Yes, I think that would be fine—preferable, actually, as you have no doubt already determined. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:People from the Phoenix Islands
I moved the category from Category:Phoenix Islands to Category:Phoenix Islands (Kiribati), because: If there is ever an article of someone genuinely from the U.S. Phoenix Islands (namely Howland and Baker islands), the category can be split? - Gilgamesh (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Only those of the Phoenix Islands that belong to Kiribati are inhabited.
 * 2) The only article in the category is of someone from Kiribati.
 * 3) The people category is a subcategory of Category:People by island group in Kiribati, when the Phoenix Islands as an archipelago are a divided region between the United States and Kiribati.


 * I dunno—doesn't make sense given the names of the categories. It's, not . It should only be moved if the name is changed. The Phoenix Islands in Kiribati are uninhabited too. There was a guy who tried to settle them. It didn't work out. But all that was before Kiribati existed as such, so makes more sense. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, Kanton Island is still inhabited. It is the only inhabited island in the Phoenix Islands. - Gilgamesh (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh, 24 people. Did not know that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Pets by country
There is a need for: Can you create them please? There is a Category:Cats by country. Category:Pets and Category:Dogs have country specific articles. There is other stuff that can be categorised (eg Category:Dog breeds by country of origin. I will have a rummage. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:Pets by country
 * Category:Pets in the United Kingdom
 * Category:Pets in the United States
 * Category:Dogs by country
 * Category:Dogs in the United Kingdom
 * Category:Dogs in the United States


 * I will take it to the "cat" WikiProject. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Mae L. Wien
Thank you for tightening up Mae L. Wien Awards‎ and Category:Mae L. Wien Awards‎! — Robert Greer (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Native American actors who performed in a Native American language
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Native American actors who performed in a Native American language. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal on Lists of Notable Drew University People
A proposal has been initiated on the Drew University talk page regarding how notable alumni, faculty, and presidents should be listed. Feel free to join the discussion. DavidinNJ (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
—Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ctgr Actresses
Hi! I recreated one of the ctgr regardind actresses, that was deleted by you. I'm currently in process of repop./rectrg. such ctgrs. Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic (talk) 10:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I created it but just decided that at that time I didn't feel like doing the work to properly populate it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of William Henry Kimball


The article William Henry Kimball has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This is a biography article that fails to meet any of the WP:BIO notability criteria. His only claim to fame appears to be that he is the son of an early Mormon leader.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 92.25.21.108 (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of mention of wife, children, etc.
To what extent are the wife or children of a person worth mentioning in a biographical articles. The most immediate reason I am asking this relates to a recent edit of the article on Andrew Kimball by [92.25.21.108] where he claims that the menion of such is of "no encyclopedic interest". Considering that Andrew Kimball was the father of Spencer W. Kimball, the claim that mention of his son is "of no encyclopedic interest" seems a bit overblown. In the case of his wife and father-in-law (the clearly notable Edwin D. Woolley, although that might not make the relationship worth mentioning) it is possibly more of a border-line case. I have to say that this user has just rubbed me the wrong way. His mass attempt at deleting articles I created is frustrating, and his downright insulting way of phrasing things, especially in relationship to removing things he deems "unencyclopedic" is really annoying. He is probably right on some of his points, but has chosen an extremely combative way of making them, and seems to have as his ultimate goal alientating me so much that I will stop editing wikipedia. He seems to have the attidtude "your contributions do not live up to the level of erudition I feel an encyclopedia should have, so I want you to leave this project and go away." Maybe I am over-reacting to his statements, but I dobut it. I have never seen any indication that wikipedia has policies agaisnt listing parents, spuses or children in biographical articles. He may be right that they do not need to be in all articles, but his extreme position that they only are worth listing in biographies of royalty would not be supported. Maybe he is right that the spouse and children of Andrew Kimball are not worth listing, but I would at least like a second opinion on this matter. Also, is there any guidelines on listing such in articles. Considering how many articles I have read where they mention the persons 2nd-great grandfather or futher back was an immigrant from England or Germany to the US, it seems this guy is arguing against something that is at least common. OK, maybe I am over-reacting, but his methods of communication are needlessly abrasive and dismissive. I would think that if someone had a son who is notable that at least is worth mentioning in the article, but maybe I am wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there are any guidelines on this sort of thing. I think mentioning spouse and/or children is fairly common in bio articles, though it's probably unnecessary to name them by name unless they themselves (the spouse or the children) are independently notable. In the case of Andrew Kimball–Spencer W. Kimball, I think it's obvious that the family connection should be mentioned. Whether it's necessary to mention distant ancestors—probably not, unless it is particularly significant for some reason. That's just my opinion, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:African Union chairpersons
Hi, i recently created Category:African Union chairpersons and later found the existence of Category:Chairmen of the African Union, as an admin, i would like to seek your help to delete any of them. Thanks.Kingroyos (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. I kept the "chairpersons" one since the article uses the word "chairpersons" rather than "chairmen". Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Shintoho listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Category:Shintoho. Since you had some involvement with the Category:Shintoho redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Andy Dingley (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

20th century (Mormonism)
As an uninvolved third party who's opinion I respect, and given you are knowledgeable about both Mormonism and WP's guidelines, do you see any merit in the characterization made by of my comments at Talk:20th century (Mormonism), &/or my recent edits of Chronology of Mormonism, 20th century (Mormonism), &/or 21st century (Mormonism)? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that we should not add that so-and-so was the first Mormon in a particular country or place. I could agree with adding information about Mormon missionaries beginning work in a particular country, but I don't think we need to identify the first convert or member by name. In the broad scope of Mormon history, missionaries entering a country is a significant event. Being the first member somewhere is much less so. I'll add this comment to Talk:20th century (Mormonism). Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Mormon blogosphere
I am completely befuddled with what's going on at Talk:Mormon blogosphere. I know that you're not my mentor or anything, but I could really use some advice on how to stay out of drama like this. As a wikignome I tried to stick to a "Just the facts, ma'am" approach, but apparently I'm failing at that when I am again branching out to non-wikignome tasks. I've now had two different people in as many days be upset or offended by me, and I really don't understand what I'm doing wrong. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry too much about this—it looks like it's just one editor pushing a position that's not very supportable. Other editors there seem largely in agreement with you. It is difficult to keep yourself aloof from all conflict because if there's a particular editor out there who has a position to push, you will hear about it if you do something that challenges their position. I think you only need to worry about things when you upset multiple unaffiliated users on the same issue—then maybe you can examine and see if there's something that you are doing that may not quite be right. Personally, I don't think you did anything wrong in either instance, and it may just be coincidence that it happened so close together. As you know, some Latter Day Saints (and former Latter Day Saints) can be quite—how shall I put it?—"enthusiasic" about their beliefs, so there's bound to be the odd editor out there in this area who doesn't play well with others. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess one of the reasons I keep retreating into gnomish behavior is because of such examples of needlessly vehement styles of communicating. I'm usually fine when strong opinions are being expressed about the actual topics at hand, but don't seem to deal well when things turn to argumentum ad hominem; I guess need a thicker skin. Thank you for the advice and for double-checking that I wasn't behaving in any obvious way to actually deserved this, as the confidence boost was definitely needed. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In my experience you have consistently been an example of model behavior. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Category renaming
The categories: and others in Category:State parks in the United States should all be renamed to the form "[State parks] of [State]". This is to ensure consistency with the vast majority of articles per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Can you do a CFD on my behalf? Thanks. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:Alabama state parks‎ → [[Category:State parks of Alabama]]
 * Category:Alaska state parks‎ → [[Category:State parks of Alaska]]
 * etc → ?


 * Holy smokes, that's a huge nomination to start; as in—a lot of work. But if there is a prohibition on you from editing categories, is it within the spirit of that prohibition for you to be proposing significant changes to category names? I'm not sure as I don't know much about the background for the prohibition. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Surely, if you are maybe even in partial agreement with the proposal, you should list it a CFD on me behalf. My topic ban says I cannot edit categories, therefore I cannot list it at CFD correctly, but there is nothing in my topic ban to say that I cannot suggest a CFD. The topic ban is pretty damn pathetic as it is and if there are editors who think I should not even suggest a CFD I would seriously question their usefulness to WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * (The whole issue sounds like a conflict I want to steer clear of right now.) But mainly, it's just a big job to ask someone to do. Maybe if you posted it on WT:CFD someone might be keen to do the work. What can I say, I'm quite lazy today. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Will do,. That was the other avenue I was going to try. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)