User talk:Good Olfactory

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Good_Olfactory.

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Works originally published in economics magazines

Category:Works originally published in economics magazines, 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. Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Presiding Patriarch

I was wondering if I could have your input at Talk:Presiding Patriarch. I am confused as to the status of "Asahel Smith" and I know you are very Knowledgeable in LDS Church history, so you may be able to clear up my confusion.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 20:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Good Olfactory. You have new messages at Talk:Mark Hofmann.
Message added 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Evergreen Party

Hello, I see you've done this, could you also close the discussion? Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. I'm not sure on why this naming issue is being fought out over the categories. Talk:Evergreen Party of Alberta seems like the obvious choice for where there should be discussion on the matter. I wonder why no one is proposing a rename there? Though I agree that there's probably not a good case to change it from what the name is currently. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That's Me-123567-Me for you, he often doesn't make sense to me. 117Avenue (talk) 05:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

You just blocked User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). I just wondered: if this was done in response to the two copyvio investigations I posted on his talk page, then these are old violations which are still present in the articles, not new ones. If the block was based on things like the creation of Category:Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget or File:Axel Enström 1974.jpg or other things I am unaware off, then no problem, but I don't think blocking him for the copyvios I posted would be correct (since he received a general topic ban for his whole copyvio problem and nothing more). Fram (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I should have waited a few minutes. I note that your post on his talk page addresses this, so you may ignore my previous post here. Fram (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Right. Yeah, no connection to the copyvio investigations. I hadn't even seen those at the time of the block. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Astika and nastika

Please take a look at PhilPapers organization of Indian philosophy. If you merge these two, you have defeated the purpose of the organization. Please withdraw this proposal. It's just making more work for me.Greg Bard (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

It all seems a bit overly fine to me, but I've started a speedy rename to at least fix the spelling in the meantime. If I asked every editor who made more work for me to stop what they are doing ... well, that would be interesting. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

You do a lot of work on the categories, so I thought you could relate. Thanks for initiating a rename for the diacritics and thanks for all your work.Greg Bard (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

If anyone asks me to withdraw, I do honestly consider it, and it made sense to here after your explanation. Shall we keep a redirect on the non-diacritic versions of the names? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy rename of Category:Victoria College alumni

The rename you propose to this category that I created makes sense to me, for whatever that may be worth. If there is anything I should do to support that please let me know but I assume as a speedy request, it will just happen. --KenWalker | Talk 06:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup, it will just happen once it's been listed for 48 hours. A bot will make all the changes so there's nothing you need to do. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

AN/I notification concerning Target for Today

You might want to chime in on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Target for Today and category churning. Mangoe (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Cats

Can you explain why you removed this and other categories? Pass a Method talk 02:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Because there's no way that the category won't be deleted if it is nominated. Categories that classify people with an intersection of occupation and being either dead or alive almost never survive discussion. Do you want it to be nominated for discussion instead? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, i prefer a discussion. Pass a Method talk 09:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Nominated here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy rename Category:Aircraft Designation Systems‎

This should have been "Military aircraft designation systems" but I couldn't figure out how to do the rename after having created it - does a category rename require admin priviledges? Thanks!NiD.29 (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories can't really be moved like articles. The only way to do it is to delete the old category, change the category name on the articles, and create a new category. WP:CFD sets out the process for proposing renames of articles. If the consensus is to rename a category, then the admins have access to a bot which can automatically make all the changes.

I will just go ahead and make the change with a bot as you've set out; since you are the sole editor and just barely created it it's OK if we change it without discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!NiD.29 (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

DRC Provinces

I see you are trying to straighten out this confusion. The problem was that in 2006 the DRC accepted a constitution that said that by February 2009 all the districts would become separate provinces. A lot of articles were categorized as if the change had happened. But it never did happen, although perhaps some day it will. Who knows? Meanwhile we have duplicate pairs like Bas-Uele District and Bas-Uele Province which are exactly the same places. My instinct, which I think you share, is to reflect the de-facto reality rather than the (perhaps) de-jure new provinces. Two minor quibbles/questions.

• If Bas-Uele District is in Category:Bas-Uele District, which in turn is in Category:Districts of Orientale (province), should Bas-Uele District be also placed directly in Category:Districts of Orientale (province), or is that redundant?
• Would it be reasonable to try to dodge the issue, where possible, by using a name like "Bas-Uele" and within the article saying it is a province that may some day become a district? Or just merge the province into the district for now, and the move the district to the province if there is a need later. The land remains the same, with towns and rivers, people and politicians, factories and forest reserves. Two article invites forking.

Aymatth2 (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're reading right what I am doing, and I agree with your instinct on how to deal with this. It doesn't make a lot of sense to categorize by yet non-existent entities.

Regarding the first point: different users have different opinions about how to approach that. I don't have a strong view one way or the other, so if you want to remove the articles from the Districts category if they are in the self-named parent category which is also in the Districts category, that is fine with me.

Regarding the second: I would be inclined for now to have the articles about the districts be the central article, with a section discussing the proposal that the district become a province. In most cases, I don't think we really need the articles about the proposed provinces—we certainly don't need categories and subcategories for them. I think though there are a few proposed provinces that don't correspond to current districts, if I'm not mistaken, like the proposed Kasai-oriental province, so it might not be practical to merge the proposed province article with a district article in each case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I am going to start merging articles on proposed provinces into articles on the districts where they are identical - unless you get there first. It can always be reversed. Where a proposed province is made of two or more districts or cities, I will leave the proposed province article but make that clear. I agree there is no need for proposed province categories. Populated places, people from etc. should link to the real districts. Of course as soon as this is all straightened out a presidential decree will be issued saying the new provinces exist and naming their governors. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Of course—it's bound to happen as soon as it's completed and squared away. :) Your plan sounds good to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I would be inclined to go with North Kivu, South Kivu. I sense those are the forms the NY Times or BBC would use. But I would keep Équateur, Bas-Congo and Orientale. They don't work in translation for me. Not consistent, but ... Aymatth2 (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I got more hits for the French versions, but that includes all languages; and it was close anyway, so that's fine ... Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I am done merging proposed provinces into districts. There were only three where it was not reasonable. The articles are depressingly short of information - I may add some. There is now a collection of empty categories under Category:Proposed provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Maybe they should be removed. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• It's looking great. If the empty categories stay there empty for 4 days, they will be tagged as empty and deleted, so I'm sure that will probably happen soon. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Interpretation

Greetings, If that move goes through, the mathematicians will immediately depopulate the category and propose to delete it. I think perhaps there will be a "logical interpretation" category someday, but I am not prepared to work on that immediately. The category is intended to help bring into the fold a great many different types of "conceptual models." I have been thinking about the creation of this category for some time now. Greg Bard (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The main article is declared to be Interpretation (logic). Interpretation is ambiguous—indeed, it is a disambiguation page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the category is to connect a great many articles to the fundamental categories in an organized way. It shows the various attempts to use models in reasoning things out in many and varies subject areas. As logic is universally applicable, these connections are often taken for granted. However, to try to portray a lot of these things as somehow "within" logic or mathematics will not go over very well. So all of these things can be seen as instances of the concept in the article interpretation (logic), but it would be inappropriate to call the category a "logic" category. Greg Bard (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hm, sounds like an issue for community discussion. What you are saying sounds a bit overly broad to me for categorization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've heard that type of thing in the past, however these days I have been making a lot of "abstract concept" type of categories work just fine. Previously they had been set up in a "hoi palloi" manner. Several had been deleted as "hopeless" or "too broad" as you are now saying. These days the philosophy department is perfectly capable of dealing with them appropriately. A perfect example is the category Vice, which has been deleted. Whereas left to the hoi polloi, the idea was that it couldn't be managed, any old thing would end up in there, etcetera. However, to ethicists and moral philosophers there is not a lot of controversy about dealing with these things appropriately.Greg Bard (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is run, edited, and read by the "hoi polloi", so ... It's good to commit to monitor things, but no one is around forever, in WP or in life. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that. I really would prefer that you not move that category. It is not a logic category, and there is not currently a an article interpretation (philosophy), which would be more appropriate. However I would still have to object to relegating the philosophy department to its own ghettoized categories. We don't need Category:Arguments (logic) too do we? Just how is that different? Greg Bard (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I moved an article from my user space into that article space a little earlier than I would have liked to. I hope this refocusing will help the situation.Greg Bard (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't it still need to be renamed to Category:Interpretation (philosophy)? As long as it's undifferentiated, it's ambiguous as a category. The difference with the arguments category is that the main article is argument; but interpretation is a disambiguation page. Categories generally match the name of the main article, with occasional adjustments for pluralization as necessary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't need any parenthetic title any more than Category:Arguments (logic) is needed. I think the keeping the title the same as the main article is overly pedantic. I try to discourage the use of parenthetic titles in the philosophy articles because there shouldn't be a difference in principle. There is no such thing as an argument "in the field of philosophy" as distinct from arguments used in many and varied fields. It's the same concept. The idea here isn't to claim certain categories and articles as being within philosophy, as there is an aversion by some for certain articles be classified as such. However, given the universal applicability of philosophical (e.g. logical, ethical, etc) principles, it is understandable that there would be some connection between philosophy and those many and varied fields. I'm trying to do it in a way that makes sense. In general, I am trying to make categories fairly consistent with the PhilPapers categories and the InPho categories. I did ask the American Philosophical Association if they had a standardized subject matter classification, but they didn't. Greg Bard (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

One could call it overpedantic, or one could just see it as avoiding a philosophy-centric categorization scheme. Full nomination is here. It's not that cool to remove a rename template that has been placed by an editor before the rename proposal is resolved one way or the other. The template itself says "Please do not remove or change this Template:Cfr-speedy message until the survey and discussion at WP:CFD is closed". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Target for Tomorrow

I've collected TfT's entire contribution list (as visible to me) at User:Oculi/testd as I expect socks to spring up (see eg suspects, loudly quacking). I can't however see their deleted creations, in particular categories, from my lowly vantage point. If you have some ready way of adding the deleted list please do so, in case it is needed to demonstrate a case in future. Oculi (talk) 09:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, impressive. Preparing for the future! (It shouldn't be too hard, though—just monitor pages related to Getteysburg...) Yes, I can see contributions to deleted content, so I'll try to add to the list. Is it in any particular order or just add to the end? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that's the lot. I added them in—alphabetically, I see. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. AWB does the list in no time: list user contribs, then filter to remove repetitions and sort, then save list. It doesn't retain info on creations tho'. Oculi (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Quack. See eg the (only) 2 cfd discussions to which this editor has contributed. Oculi (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. Begun already, has he? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Glam metal

Could you take a look here? Several editors are making the same edits. Thanks. – Confession0791 ^talk 05:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Pretty obvious. I've blocked User:DFWRaider and the IPs for jointly violating the 3RR. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Changes to Template:Infobox Swiss town

Hello, I'm not sure why you made some changes to the Infobox Swiss town template, but I think you were using an older version because you reverted several changes that I had had done to other parts of the template a few weeks ago. Can you either take down the protection for a little while or revert the changes that were made to the snow_image section and the section that searches for municipality maps. Thanks Tobyc75 (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I'm not sure how I managed to do that. I'll fix it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There. Let me know if that hasn't got it right. The diff between the previous edit and all of mine is here. Those are the only changes I intended to make. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks good now, thanks Tobyc75 (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

For our collection

Saw this, glanced at this, blocked this. I haven't been around for a while so there may be more socks editing "decades" articles, forest and regional articles, and creating bad cats. I haven't had a chance to clean up after this socks contribs yet. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Like shooting ducks in a barrel. Valfontis (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you look into this? I tried to prod it but it was contested. I know you tend to delete/revert his contribs outright, but I'm not sure about this one. AfD? Redirect? Valfontis (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Mormons Good Article review

The Mormon article is undergoing a GA review, and has been put on hold to deal with concerns. More details at Talk:Mormons/GA1. Your input would be valued. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Improvement Era cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Improvement Era cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:People of Black African descent

• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Category:People_of_Black_African_descent

Posted this due to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_5#Category:Saudi_Arabian_people_of_Black_African_descent.

In case I am drawn away from Wikipedia again, wanted to place this on your radar.

I'm also going to drop a note at User talk:TonyStarks (the nom) and User talk:Mangoe (apparently the creator). The three of you are the only ones listed in the category page's edit history. If you think anyone else should be notified, please feel free : )

Thanks, and hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 19:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Green Party of Albert/Alberta Greens

It has been requested that Alberta Greens be moved back to Green Party of Alberta. Since you participated in the previous discussion, you may wish to participate in this one aswell. Regards,--kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Mormons

	This user helped promote the article Mormons to good article status.

Well done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

1931 Cleveland Indians (NFL) seasons

This is what I was talking about before, you reverting blindly without checking for mistakes. Please remove the plural from seasons and move it back to season. — Moe ε 02:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It's difficult to catch some things like this when you're involved in reverting so many undiscussed and ill-conceived moves. The sheer volume was the problem, but I'm glad you caught this one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Oh and hi : ) - jc37 05:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, good to hear from you. I've been trying to figure out how much I can put into Wikipedia due to a change in life circumstance. I may be editing at a reduced clip. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I can understand that. I've faced similar choices myself.

Do it enough and you'll have newbies coming just short of calling you a newbie too : )

Though it's been interesting how the more things change, the more they stay the same : )

Anyway, hope life has been treating you well : ) - jc37 15:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)