User talk:Oculi/Archive 5

Thanks
Thanks for your help at the CFD for Shells Albums. It seems that everything I touch these days is being proposed for deletion or reverted! I appreciate it.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Expert guidance???
Wow, thanks! --Kbdank71 13:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Request for comment
Hi. You recently participated in a debate regarding Categories for deletion criteria G6: Disambiguation fixes from an unqualified name. Your input would be appreciated at this RFC. Thanks for your time. Hiding T 14:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Footballers
" I think we are tending to use 'Foo players' rather than 'Fooers' anyway, and I agree that mentions of rugby sometimes add 'league' or 'union' but not 'football' these days. I also support the idea of head category renames being rolled out in a speedy way to subcats (and going to cfd if and only if contested)."

In North America maybe, but "footballer" is still very common for soccer players on the other side of the Atlantic. As regards rugby though, I support the move to RU/RL player - I was one of the people who proposed it!--MacRusgail (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You are quite right re footballers (actually looking rather than merely recalling is to be recommended). We are using Category:English footballers but Category:Manchester United F.C. players. Occuli (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Thank you for your recent input and support on the renaming of the category Rugby union footballers to Category:Rugby_union_players. The rename is done, but unfortunately all the subcats have not. I have asked the question at the CfD talk page as well, but are you perhaps aware of an easier way to do this huge renaming. Apart from the subcategories, there are a host of other categories that also need to be renamed... Any chance of a bot doing the hard labour? - Sahmejil (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Bots can certainly list categories for renaming. And there has been at least a brief period when these could have been speedy renames. I've passed your comment over to User:Good Olfactory who has greater powers than I, and might be aware of the present status quo. Occuli (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hi, sorry I didn't get back to you about the above issue; I was away for some holidays. But I see that the categories have been nominated for renaming.

I have a question about Pastorwayne. I think his initial "banishment" was before my time; or, at least, I didn't know about it at the time when it was first happening. If you remember, what exactly was the procedure that was followed in getting him banned from editing in category space? Was it just ad hoc—he was asked not to, and he kept doing it, so he got blocked temporarily, then blocked again for evading the block, etc.? Or was there some sort of formal discussion that happened where it was decided that he'd be banned from working with categories?

I ask because I'm considering an attempt to get some restrictions placed on User:Levineps editing categories. From what I have seen of his efforts so far, he is at least as disruptive in his category creations as some of Pastorwayne's. The difference with Levineps is that it has been across an amazing variety of topics, not just religious ones. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What PW would do at first (when he was mainly concerned with United Methodist Bishops, on which he is an authority) was to take Bishop X and then create every conceivable category for Bishop X: some of these were fine, some debatable and others ludicrous. So perhaps 1/3 of his creations went to cfd and were usually deleted. (His idea of parent- and sub-cats was also shaky, and he never added descriptions.) The main admins involved were BHG and jc37. I think he was banned from any edits in category space (on the grounds that his category edits were disruptive), with the attempt to ban him from adding articles to categories. He just paid no attention for as long as possible and then set up socks. His talk page gives a reasonable survey of complaints etc. Occuli (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed it is nearly all on PW's talk page. Levineps shows some similar characteristics (there are some 'by year' categories so let us create 'foo by year' ad lib) ... why are some people so obsessed with the creation of categories, an onerous and tiresomely repetitive chore for which any rational being would require substantial remuneration? It seems to be an addiction as yet unknown to psychiatry ... they don't even use AWB or bot assistance. Occuli (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, the talk page. That is a goldmine, where I should have looked to first. Anyway, this has progressed frankly faster than I anticipated or even desired. I was going to go about it really carefully-like over the next few days—working closely with him, etc., but then it all blew up today. Incidentally, I caught another PW sock the other day: Naomi Nelson. Funny, this one nearly snuck by me. I hadn't seen PW around for a long time, and I almost just fixed all of the edits and went on my merry way, until something clicked ... hey ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had relaxed my PW-guard: checking the test pages shows a lot of action by NN (and also Levineps + Uncle Tom Cobbley) on PW-related pages (eg this one). Levineps does seem to be working from the same hymn sheet as the good pastor - no edit summaries, little logic, thick hide, ability to wind up BHG etc etc. Occuli (talk) 12:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of two cats
Thanks for letting me know. I agree and have so noted. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Evil grin
Thanks for making me laugh! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Association football
Just to let you know, I've added some categories to the nomination, relating to positions. The discussion can be found here. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you know what makes me wonder?
—Why neither you nor I have seen any sign of the good pastor for a number of weeks now. It's enough to make me paranoid and think that he's out there and we just haven't found him yet. If so, I guess he deserves a medal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed he hasn't sprung any of the traps I have laid along his usual tracks since Christmas. Maybe he is creating articles on UM Bishops, which is what he said he wanted to do. Occuli (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess if he's off doing that, we'll leave him be. Formally, is he banned completely or just banned from category-related edits? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't personally do anything if he reappeared and contented himself to fleshing out the UM articles, on which he has much material (with additions to categories and even the occasional creation within existing schemes). I expect he must be completely bannable for serial sockpuppetry. Occuli (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Wouldn't that be something, if he actually became somewhat productive? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Nirvana audio samples
I have nominated nirvana audio samples for renaming to nirvana (band) audio samples. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that but I see you have reverted your cfd edit to Category:Nirvana audio samples. Occuli (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Consistency I noticed that the other subcategories don't have the disambiguation (e.g. Category:Nirvana members; which itself is a pretty interesting category if you're thinking of that "other" Nirvana...) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion
Please see here Maybe this is a better CfD/CfR idea? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:American online journalists
Hi. I have added more and better entries to this category. Is it now satisfactory to you? If not, can you suggest how it might make it so? Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:Online journalists is fine, a useful addition IMO. The question now is whether it should be split by nationality when at present it is 95% US. I can see that your focus is on splitting up Category:American journalists into manageable bits but you need to take into account the wider picture (or spend a lot of time at cfd). (Some categories are split by nationality and some are not. I suppose you could seek out some other nationalities. Eg is split, and some of these might well qualify as online journalists.) Occuli (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion about checking out the blogger categories. I have been working on that. So far, Category:Online journalists has 17 articles that are not under Category:American online journalists. Maurreen (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

CFD and IP
Since when do we have an IP number running a CFD discussion? I find it disconcerting to see a whole range of agendas being run by an IP that hasnt any sign of either having anything on their talk page - and creating new agendas on the run - any thoughts? SatuSuro 01:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Which cfds? I'm not sure if there is any rule about this, apart from not sock-puppeting. Occuli (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_1#Category:Disused_railway_stations_in_the_United_Kingdom - SatuSuro 01:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh yes - I tend not to look back at cfds all that often, to avoid getting caught up in time-wasting arguments. I agree with you and have commented at their talk page. Occuli (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment there at the CFD - the issues are tangential to the issue in hand - one wonders... SatuSuro 14:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Cfd
As you have requested here, i've added on cfd also the Category:Saarpfalz. --79.26.6.93 (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Epon categories
I generally do this when I find them. My opinion is that once a category includes Category:Foos named after ... then that should be the only category with limited exceptions. What scares me is that I have seen differing categories used in the parent and the category with conflicting information. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Gnevin (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Aunsby and Dembleby
An article that you have been involved in editing, Aunsby and Dembleby, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Brunnian (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)
Hi, Occuli. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:CFD Category:Rugby league governing bodies in Europe
Category:Rugby league governing bodies in Europe is proposed to be merged with Category:Rugby league governing bodies. . You were involved in a related WP:CFD discussion (Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 9) and may wish to comment here: Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 6. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 08:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD potentially of interest to you
Because you took part in the CfD on the associated category, Articles for deletion/Curly bracket programming language may interest you. Pcap ping  13:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Many thanks - I'll probably not contribute as I am no expert, but there does seem to be a complete absence of sources. Occuli (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:TAD video albums
I have nominated tad video albums for renaming to tad (band) video albums. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Greetings
Hello, old friend - I was looking on my talk page for the note you posted last June, and to my great chagrin I discovered a very kind note you left there in November which I had never seen. I was largely absent from Wiki at that time, only checking in at very random intervals. All I can figure is that a bunch of other notes had been posted after yours, and I just never checked further up the page. So please accept my belated appreciation for your "invitation"...

As you may have noticed, I have begun dipping my toes in at CFD recently. We'll see how it goes... I've mostly confined myself to low-stress editing of Classical music articles, etc. (Though I've found myself sucked into editing the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article of late.) Btw, I just posted an alternate proposal in the CFD for Category:Alternative theories of the September 11 attacks. See what you think. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I had indeed noticed your return, with pleasure. Cfd seems a relatively peaceful place these days, with few subsequent drvs. Occuli (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, the late-lamented Category:Wines (looking to see what I said in Nov). That was an exception to the general placidity ... if one wants a rational categorisation of wines then it.wikipedia.org is the place to go. Occuli (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In case you haven't seen this, I'm having a little fun with Otto. :) Cgingold (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I find cfd is more relaxing if one opines and moves on, so I hadn't seen that. I expect Otto will realise the force of the comparison and reverse his stance. Otto did create Category:LGBT-related television episodes which produced this cfd. Occuli (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But no, O has stuck to his guns. Occuli (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Marooned
Good call on the song. I, myself, restored "Any Colour You Like", "Brain Damage", and "Eclipse", as well as all of the Final Cut songs, as there was clearly no consensus for those redirects. I didn't do the Division Bell songs, because I didn't want to make it look like I was just doing a blanket revert of the redirects. However, I'm very happy that you saw fit to do it. I have gone on record with my dislike for The Division Bell, and said that I don't consider it to be a true Pink Floyd album. My opinion, however, counts for nothing, and the Division Bell songs, from an encyclopaedic standard, must get equal treatment with every other Pink Floyd song. Thanks for the note. I'm pretty sure this user was not prepared for the backlash that all of his redirects would cause. All the best-Mk5384 (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * After giving it more thought, I have returned the remaining Division Bell redirects. I don't want to give anyone the idea that I only returned the songs that I like. As I have said, my personal opinion about these songs is irrevalant, and they need to be treated like all other Pink Floyd songs for encyclopaedic purposes.Mk5384 (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

MEPs
I was going to post something here about my MEPs nominations, but I see that you've already commented there. Oh well, for completeness and just so I get to spam you, here is my message:

Thanks for your comments on the MEPs CFD that I started. Just to let you know, I've withdrawn that relatively complicated nomination and have started three other nominations that are a little more modest and are more in line with where the discussion was headed. If these proposals are accepted, we can follow them up with future ones to resolve the other issues. Because you commented in the original discussion, I thought you might like to participate there. The three discussions are here, here, and here. (I'm sure you would have run across these in any case, but I did want you to know since I withdrew the nomination that you offered comments in.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well done - if you can bring coherence and harmony to the wiki-EU, I expect a lucrative position in the real one will be yours for the asking in Brussels. Occuli (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

My RfA, Q6
Howdy. I think that my answer to Q6 at my RfA may have been misinterpreted, and I have posted a clarifying statement on that.

It seems to me that the meaning you seem to have taken from it is far from the meaning I meant, and I'd guess that's a matter of my not having written clearly. I understand this may not change your !vote for whatever reason, and that's cool, but I would prefer to be "heard" correctly. Please let me know if I can clarify further. Thanks for your consideration. -- j &#9883; e decker  talk  14:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wine cocktail cats
As of right now, I BOLDly moved all the items in Category:Wine cocktails to Category:Cocktails with wine, sparkling wine, or port. You can just CfR that to Category:Cocktails with wine to complete the cycle  Pur ple  back pack 89    18:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, have done so. Occuli (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Oz cats
Hello, that was quick! saved me from nominating all the 50 odd others (see my user page). If you have a look at these Australian categories you will see that they are split considerably over half in favour (favor?) of using no dab and I was about to attempt to standardise, for which I would have expected agreement from Australian contributors. There is a push on to remove compulsory State dab from placenames in Australia (which I am on record of opposing) so this is not a part of that move. I would rather my approach than see Category:People from Ballarat, Victoria (there is a village in California called Ballarat, apparently) or even Category:People from Wollongong, New South Wales which would standardise (standardize?) the other way in a rather ugly fashion. Anyway, my nominations look OK from where I sit but I won't add the lot until I get some further feedback. Regards (Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)).


 * Canada has gone the way you are suggesting - removed dabs from articles and categories if there is no ambiguity. There are other examples going the other way after much argument; eg Birmingham but Category:Birmingham, West Midlands; Boston but Category:Boston, Massachusetts; New Orleans but . I would certainly try a few at cfd before nominating the lot. Subcats will usually follow the head category (if brought to cfd); see eg the Birmingham example. Occuli (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Pageantry cats
I see you're removing the "American beauty pageant winners" categories from articles. Could you refrain from doing this? There is obviously a discussion going on whether they belong in bios and no consensus has been reached, making your actions premature. Thanks!  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 13:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No consensus is required to remove articles from redundant categories, so I shall continue. Occuli (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I see no consensus that the categories in question are redundant. You're jumping to conclusions before the CfD is settled.    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 14:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The redundancy issue is under discussion, so it's bad form to unilaterally proceed while that's going on. You may ultimately be right, but even if so it just engenders ill will to act upon that certainty before there is agreement, and if you're not right then you're just wasting your own time and someone else's to revert afterwards.  postdlf (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have now seen that this is a disagreement between Mbinebri and the nom which has spilled over needlessly into cfd. The vast majority in Category:Miss USA winners and Category:Miss America winners are properly categorised and the ones which are not are the recent work of Mbinebri. They'll soon be in American people too. Occuli (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you demonstrate the prior disagreement between myself and the nominator that led to this CfD? Because I have no recollection of dealings with the person on the issue of American beauty pageant winners or any other topic.    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 15:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your talk page, or this diff (both today). I've no particular wish to continue this converstion BTW. Occuli (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Skid Row CfDs
Slight change I figured that I'd let you know that I consolidated four nominations at today's CfD into Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_3. You only gave input on two of them when they were separate, but I'm pretty sure that you won't mind me collapsing those two into one comment for all four. Please post on my talk if you need to respond. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Microformats
You recently !voted on Requests for comment/Microformats. This is a courtesy note to let you now that I have now posted, as promised, my view there, and to ask you revisit the debate. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A most impressive contribution too. I have set aside the afternoon to absorb your remarks. Occuli (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How's that going? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response - very well put ;-) Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

PW-esque?
And what do you think about Charlesdolphharding? Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't listened in at my surveillance pages for some days but there is a loud quacking emanating therefrom. (It's a more imaginative name than usual.) Occuli (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I may give him a bit of space because he hasn't done anything too terribly outrageous yet. We'll see how it goes—let me know if you notice anything unusual (or should I say, "usual"). Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see Charlesdolphharding has been blocked. I think User:Willthacheerleader18 is someone else. Occuli (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I need to trust my instincts more. :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: American pageant contestant categories
Ok. Thanks for letting me know. I won't be adding anyone else to that category. MissAmericaGirl (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Now you mention it
I seem to wonder what and which guide/template/reference point one should use when looking at the ever smoky realm of cfd - are you assuming that real world usage is the best guide? If that is the case when there are inconsistencies in the real world - the default is? Common usage or common sense? SatuSuro 02:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I expect most countries have decided whether they are using 'defence' or 'defense' in their official English communications and Wikipedia should defer to this (as it does with the US, Australia, Canada etc). does as it should IMO at the top level: I only see 'z's. In Category:Organizations by location I see one 's' (which I would change if asked). In Category:Organizations by continent I see one 's', Australia, which is good, and the rest are 'z'. In Category:Organizations by country I would expect to see 's' or 'z' depending on which each country prefers, and there are some surprises. ( does not behave at the top level, as we see 'Driving licences'.) In the transport/transportation argument, there will be categories with both alternatives on view whatever one does, so I would probably follow the example of, taking the z down from the top until it is definitely wrong. (There is perhaps a feeling that it is always, unfairly, US Eng at the top.) Occuli (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are generous with your time and explanation - I appreciate that - at times I can see that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/English_Dialects could if it was set up properly - might alleviate a certain level of suffering if it was setup, operational and reasonable - however whatever happens - as long as I see South Australia legislation it reminds me of my experience listening to the usage of polish speakers informations - one thing is english and its usage does change over time - cheers  SatuSuro 08:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This agrees with you. I would probably suggest legislation in South Australia, although we did decide on things like . Americans seem very happy with nouns bundled together, eg Category:California State Polytechnic University, Pomona alumni. (This is another example of inconsistency as the UK wiki-formulation is 'Alumni of foo'. Have you ever looked at the talk page of yoghurt?) Occuli (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I dare not - I know there are some subjects I keep very clear or get hurt scrambling through my mess of an office looking out for my spanish silver crucifix (hmmm) before hitting the return key on search xxxx  SatuSuro 10:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Try Talk:Yoghurt/Archive_2, and perhaps later archives. It became hilarious. (I am not suggesting you should join in. There was something similar about Barbecue.) Occuli (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * shuddddhheer - I know even old fact has a few areas he will not venture - you're a brave person - I mean cfd at the best of times has enough smoke and shrapnel - let alone the residual grave yards of the issues... I have a week end long first aid course to get into - I am out of here - (remembers flack jacket for real life) SatuSuro 10:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
I'm seriously interested in what is being missed by myself...Care to elaborate? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Mac
Hi. See, here's a new IP that just popped up, from Spain, displaying many of Mac's interests. I'm sure it's him and will keep an eye out. No smoking gun yet. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated
Since you are an editor with special interest in the categorization structure and its maintenance and development your input would be most appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. __meco (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I would leave and its subcats well alone, per WP:NotWithABargePole. I would certainly not add any more or start intersecting them, per WP:LifeIsTooShort. Occuli (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Cgingold
Done so :) Munci (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You also need to tag the category. Occuli (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah thanks. I should know that by now.. Munci (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

CFDs
They certainly merit discussion rather than being a speedy delete. I am persuaded by the argument that it is a container category. I was looking particularly at the usefulness of Pw's categories, and trying to delete the cats with few entrants. Part of my thinking was to encourage him to retire. But I hear your thoughts. I might turn to his recent edits. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  19:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good Ol'factory was rolling back all edits of recent socks (but has not been doing it for the ones confirmed by checkuser) in the (vain) hope of deterring the incorrigible pastor. EstherLois on the whole created fairly defensible categories (as do some of the socks) which is why it took some months to unmask her/him. I will ask GO to resume this habit. Occuli (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Isish Bishops.
Yes, I was thinking about that over the weekend and I agree that I should not have put Anglican bishops into RC exclusive categories. I'll remove them. But the "Bishop of X or Y or of Z" is legitimate. It covers the situation where a current diocese is a result of a merger between neighbouring dioceses. It can often be difficult to uncover this merger and de-meger trail. This is particularly true of the Anglican succession. This category is designed to throw light on the problem by highlighting all entities that may previously have existed in 1 handy place. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You might be trying to express something that is too complicated to convey via categories, especially as you have Anglican and RC dioceses together. And then there are Archbishops and bishops mixed up too, not to mention different meanings of Irish over the millennia. Occuli (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point. In the Irish Church, one always has to think in terms of remote antiquity (almost legend like), post the great Synods of 1111 and 1152, the the different succession post the English Reformation. Within all that, both denominations merged and demerged bishoprics with alarming regularity. It's hard to keep a fix with so many goalposts moving at the same time. This was my attempt at a compendium. I've put them all into the more generic parent category of Category:Irish bishops. Let me know what you think of the result. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So what do you think then? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry - am of no fixed abode at present and internet access is variable. The solution you have described sounds much better. (All religious categories that I have looked at are rather a mess. It is often to do with goalposts moving or being uprooted etc. When I last looked John Sentamu was in via subcats, which might be a surprise to him.)  Occuli (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Quaker clergy
You can't really call Category:Quaker clergy by nationality a "scheme"...the category has no pages and only one subcategory (American Quaker clergy), so I've nominated it. With regard to the clergy-minister thing, it's kind of complicated, as the Society of Friends is one of those religions that chooses it ministers from its congregation, often choosing people with no clerical training.  Pur ple  back pack 89    16:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:XXX by nationality should (in general) never have any pages. I concede that the scheme is undeveloped, which is typical of Pastorwayne. Occuli (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

CFR
Hi Occuli - could I get you to have another look at Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 12, please? Grutness...wha?  10:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Schools
Hi Occuli. This is a generic message so please bear with  me if you  are already  aware of the situation. In early  September changes were made to  an infobox template that  affected the display of hundreds of school crests/logos in  the UK schools infobox. This is now being taken care of and you  may  find the discussions on  this page interesting: Template talk:Infobox UK school,  do  however leave a message here or here if you  come across any  that  are still  not displaying  correctly. If you are still  actively  interested in schools and and are not  already  a member, and would like to  help  out on  school pages and school  templates, you  may  wish  to  consider joining  the WP:WPSCHOOLS project where you  can also  stay  abreast  of developments by  adding  its talk  page to  your watchlist. Happy editing!--Kudpung (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

CFDS comment
See my comment to your comment at WP:CFDS. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See there again—I'm now unclear on what you are proposing. Before you said the nominated category needs to be renamed and a subcategory be created; now you're just saying a subcategory needs to be created. So can we renamed that one to be the subcategory and then you will create a desired parent category? You can respond at CFDS. Thx, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Raymond W. Copp
I just had a question about your undoing of my redirect here. Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but I haven't just redirected the article. When I changed it to a redirect, I also incorporated most of the referenced content in Raymond W. Copp into Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church with this edit. Is this acceptable? -- Lear's Fool 04:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry - my oversight - you are clearly no-one's fool. I have restored your redirect with a couple of tweaks. Occuli (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see on closer inspection that this and other similar articles were created by none other than the notorious user:Pastorwayne in one or other of his disguises. Never a good sign. Occuli (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

European Footballers of the Year
You asked to be notified when Category:European Footballer of the Year winners was created. So here you go.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

CfD
Since you commented on 'Modern American Weapons' at CfD, the proposal has been modified somewhat. I thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to take another look at the modified proposal. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

What about ...
Category:People from Singapore. ? Kittybrewster   &#9742;  22:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's wrong too - A is a subcat of B means members of A have to be in B (with a few exceptions such as lists, templates or main articles, usually sorted outside A-Z). Note that initially Category:People from Singapore was a subcat of Category:Singapore, ie Singapore-related, which is fine. It doesn't seem a particularly good idea to insist that people do not have Fooian citizenship as I could challenge you to prove it: the Ugandan Asian might have been a Ugandan citizen. This is the sort of thing Pastorwayne might well do: never a good sign. (I'm pretty sure he created Category:American expatriates in Singapore - yes, indeed. Are they 'from Singapore'? If not, why not?) Occuli (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As you say, it is very PW. Can you sort them out please? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  11:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've done what I consider to be correct - of course someone else might well undo my edits. We have 'Fooian people', 'Immigrants to Foo', 'Emigrants from Boo to Foo', 'Expatriates in Foo', so I would steer clear of any more of these ... it's almost impossible to decide who goes in which anyway as we are not usually privy to passport info or residence status. Occuli (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it odd that there are only two such categories. Singapore & Uganda. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  15:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have 'People from Brighton' (say), then Category:People from East Sussex (good), then Category:People from South East England (good), then Category:People by region in England (good), then Category:English people by location in England, which is wrong, as someone from Brighton might well not be British, let alone English. (My father was from Manchester but was 100% Scottish. Eric Cantona could easily be described as 'from Manchester' as he spent 5 or 6 years there.) There are too many PWs at large fiddling endlessly with categories and cfd just rights the occasional wrong (or indeed vice versa). I think Gus Poyet is managing Brighton at the moment - he could conceivably be British (naturalised) but certainly not English. Occuli (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Persons convicted of fraud
Since you Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_26 in the recent CfD of Category:Persons convicted of fraud I wanted to inform you that the category was recently recreated and relisted. Here is a link to the current CfD should you wish to participate. Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_20. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:History books
To me it leads to less confusion because I find the grammar of "American(or British) history books" to be ambiguous as to whether the adjective is on books themselves, or the content of the books. Are the history books American/British, or is the history contained within the books American/British? So to me specifying categories such as "History books about America/the United Kingdom" for history books about American/British history and leaving "American/British history books" as history books that are American/British satisfactorily distinguishes between the two rather than having one catch-all category for history books about something that is X and history books that are X. To me this seems more appropriate as we are trying to create categories for the articles about the books themselves, not about the subjects the books refer to, so the categorical adjectives should apply to the classification of the subject of articles, which is the book, rather than the classification of the material the book is on. Also, this is keeping in line with the precedent set further upstream in the categorical chain in having both Category:Books by country and Category:Books about countries. MRDXII (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Previous editors have created to hold 'Books about the history of the United Kingdom'. This was created with this remit in 2006. You have created  very recently and it contains nothing about American history, and this is confusing. I agree that 'Fooian history books' is ambiguous, and yet you have created Category:Hungarian history books recently ... this could be 'history books written in Hungarian', 'history books about Hungary', 'history books by Hungarian authors'. The answer IMO is to suggest a rename of  (etc) at cfd rather than creating even more ambiguously-named categories. Occuli (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is entirely fair that you think "American/British/Hungarian/etc. history books" taken alone as categories are ambiguous, and I agree with you. But as mentioned previously, I'm just trying to keep it in line with the organization (loosely) held by Category:Books by country and Category:Books about countries. As to renaming the categories first or "creating even more ambiguously-named categories", what I'm currently trying to do is clean up Category:History books as there are, at my last count, 184 pages just floating about in there (along with many more "ambiguously-named categories" originally) that should be put into appropriate subcategories, so I'm looking to create appropriate places for them under what I've taken to be some kind of precedent already set elsewhere, although I admit the precedent is very loosely set, is faulty, and needs to be firmed up. I fully agree with you that the designations are ambiguous, but what you're seeing is the first few steps in a work-in-progress, that is nowhere near complete or perfect, to address that issue. However, you are entirely free to help me out with this project of cleaning up Category:History books and create appropriately less ambiguous categories such as "History books by language", "History books by nationality of author", "History books by country of origin", with respective subcategories of "History books written in X", "History books by X authors", "History books from X", and so on, to clear up the ambiguity of categories such as Category:Hungarian history books. MRDXII (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Categorisation is by 'defining characteristics'. I don't myself think that the country of publication, or the nationality of the author, are defining. I would support the renaming at cfd of 'Fooian history books' to 'History books about foo' and would oppose creation of the others you mention. Occuli (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is totally an option if you think categorizing by country of publication/author is invalid and I encourage you to do so, but I would just keep in mind that there is already 'History books about Foo" categories, so you're looking at a merger. Myself personally I do find nationality of author and/or country of origin are defining characteristics because, like I said in regards to sorting by religion, authors never write from a neutral standpoint so it may be useful to categorize by bias in a sense. For example, histories of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may be dramatically different depending on whether the book/author is from Israel or Palestine. Other examples would include the possible difference between Chinese, Taiwanese, and Tibetan histories; Russian histories and those of authors/books from the former Soviet states themselves; French and British perspectives on their long and entwined history, etc. To me to not assert these as defining characteristics is to claim that authors have no bias and that whatever is the most widely-accepted history is somehow the most correct, thereby preempting the legitimacy of anything written by an alternative or minority perspective. And while it would be nice if authors titled their work with their biases in mind so we can have one "History about Foo" category with both "The Fooian History of Foo" and "The Non-Fooian History of Foo" within, the reality is that such biases are generally not stated explicitly so we would end up with a category with various variations of the generic "A History of Foo" without any differentiation as to the bias of the authors. And to me as history is never written neutrally, the biases of the author have just as much influence on the content as the topic does. However, that's just my personal take on it, and if you post to Cfd and the categories do get merged into Category:History books about countries and nothing ever comes from sorting by nationality of author or country of origin then we will have a more definite answer as to where the whole of Wikipedia stands on the issue as this does seem like something that needs clarification. Cheers. MRDXII (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)