User talk:Good Olfactory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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


don't know where to take this problem; strangenesssss....[edit]

I wind up at Talk:City_Of after clicking on the "talk" tab at the top of a diff. This happened a few times last night, also in regard to the same discussion page, and also for clicking on the "article" tab to the left of the "talk" tab I get the City_Of article from the same discussion; I think last night it also happened from diffs within the guideline's article page itself. I haven't noticed this happen re any other page; not so far anyway. @Fayenatic london: is this is of the same category of strangeness as edits that show up as my doing, when I was nowhere near the parts of the pages in question. Sounds like a job for a code warrior, whoever that might be; figured you guys would know.Skookum1 (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Huh, that is weird. I don't know enough about code to guess why that's happening. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
what department should this be "kicked upstairs" to? Given what's going on at that guideline ( see here for starters concerning the filibuster against needed changes that's ongoing, if you follow comments there by JHunterJ, Uysvdi, Cuchullain, CBW and myself), that it doesn't seem to be happening anywhere else is also "strange" but probably coincidental.Skookum1 (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure; I've never really gotten in to the "technical" side of things. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
well, I pinged Fayenatic as you can see, maybe he will know. Very odd.Skookum1 (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Moving categories[edit]

There is a discussion about having the option to move categories (like articles are moved) happening at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive262#Category pages will be movable soon. I think since you have closed many CFDs, I think your opinion would be valuable to hear. Liz Read! Talk! 19:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Kevin S. Hamilton nominated for deletion.[edit]

I am posting here to inform you, if you don't already know, that the article I started on Kevin S. Hamilton has been nominated for deletion. I have made my case for keeping the article on the relevant page, but was criticized for my comments. So while I will keep an eye on the way this develops, I don't intend to say more than I've already said. I wondered if you might be able to look over that AfD discussion and add your thoughts. If this page is deleted, I will have to question the notability of other articles written about current or former members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy. Anyways, just wanted to alert you to what was going on with that so you could comment if you choose. Perhaps you see this situation differently from me and have a better understanding of the policies and procedures involved. If you have any feedback on this comment, please leave it on my talk page, as I don't habitually check other users' talk pages for replies. On another note, I'm sorry if I've been difficult or unduly unreasonable in my interactions with you the last little while. I'm working through many personal issues that have me stressed out, so when your comments appeared to be criticism of work I had done wor am doing, I got a little defensive. Sorry about that. Just going through a rough patch. Thanks for any help you may be able to give. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about that discussion, I wasn't aware of it. I hope you're feeling better soon or that you get through your difficulties OK. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Films shot in...[edit]

Just wanted to take a moment to thank you for closing the CFD! Greatly appreciated! DonIago (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Pronounciation of Ether[edit]

You seem to know a lot about LDS, so I thought I would ask you, how do you pronounce "Ether"? Is it eth-er, or ee-ther? Thanks.Editor2020

I think most people pronounce it ee-ther, just like the chemical type, with the emphasis on the first syllable. There is a Book of Mormon pronunciation guide that the LDS Church publishes, which says it is ē´ther. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Mormon Folklore[edit]

A possible edit war is going on at Mormon folklore. It needs an intervention. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

edit you made[edit]

An edit you made got me thinking that you had a really good point that should apply to all WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement pages. I would apprecate your thoughts on it if your not busy. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#A different "parenthetical" question.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks—I made a couple of comments. And after some looking around the MOS, it looks like your idea is right on the money. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Not all texts are books[edit]

Dear Good Olfactory, I saw your revert, and you're right that not all texts are books. However, I find it even more strange to categorize (ancient) Christian texts via Christian media under Christian popular culture.

On the talk page I suggested, as an alternative, moving the 'Christian texts' category up, to become a direct subcategory of Christianity. Is that okay with you? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Aren't texts a form of media? Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
They're not Media in the current way of categorization, since Media has been defined as a subcategory of Popular culture. (Ancient) texts are definitely not a grandchild of Popular culture. Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, then. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Bantu vs Category:Bantu people[edit]

It seems that some people are determined to keep the waters muddied as to the norms usually used for ethno categories, or just completely unaware of the norms across ethno categories globally.... please see Talk:Northern_Ndebele_people#Bantu_category_edit_war. I weary of such obstinacy in face of the obvious; in some areas the category trees are jumbled this way; Europe is especially knotty, seems Africa is as well. I haven't looked at the provenance of the subcats of Category:Bantu people, which are in the "FOO people" format but are functioning as main ethno cats; I suspect they were either CFDSd after undiscussed moves to add the people disambiguation, or were just never organized or titled properly; I'm sure you're well aware of titles in the Category:Indigenous peoples of North America and Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia hierarchies....why should Africa be different?Skookum1 (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

By now you've seen the CfD, which IMO is a waste of time; all that was needed was to make Category:Bantu peoples and deprecate/depopulate Category:Bantu people since it apparently shouldn't exist at all. The various "FOO people"-titled subcats of it which belong in Category:Bantu peoples instead are the usual problematic of titles categoried like that; nearly all could use a "FOO" parent, I'd have made them by now if not for.....edit warring by my usual opponent who believes in "all things FOO people" and continues to reassert dab pages, including using misleading dabs e.g. see where Kavango language goes (to "not a dab")..Skookum1 (talk) 06:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Mormon Church of Tonga[edit]


A tag has been placed on Mormon Church of Tonga, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo, or other unlikely search term.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

That's fine—the only reason the redirect existed was because it's the original name that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Tonga used. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit]

I need some help. User:Beyond My Ken has just reverted 30 insistence where pages have incorrectly used the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when "THE" is per MOS:LDS, "The" is part of the Name and capitalized. I could uses some help convincing him he is wrong.ARTEST4ECHO (talk)

The discussion is now here--ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
That is little more than a project style guide, unless I am mistaken and therefore is not obligatory. Although the dispute seems a tad...simple. We should do whatever the consensus of editors is.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Why are comments being made here when a discussion is open? I think the comments would be valuable there; here, not so much. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Mormonism and violence[edit]

To answer your question "has anyone editing actually read Alma 51" I have not. I only reverted what was clearly original research. The section really needs some further context and inline citations however.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thumbs up. I agree. I wasn't actually thinking of you when I made that comment, since the "executions" text existed before your edits. I agreed with your edits and what you did there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Terence M. Vinson and Gregory A. Schwitzer nominated for deletion.[edit]

Hey, I thought you'd like to know that the articles about Terence M. Vinson and Gregory A. Schwitzer have been nominated for deletion. I have made my case for keeping them and will leave it to the consensus to decide. If you'd care to comment, I'm sure your perspective, whatever it might be, would be welcome. Thanks for all your great work on Wikipedia! --Jgstokes (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Zahara (South African musician)[edit]

Why did you remove Category:Zahara (South African musician) from its parent article? You didn't leave an explanation in the edit summary. Versace1608 (Talk) 00:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The category was deleted at CFD. I thought it was self-explanatory since the category that was removed is now red-linked. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! Versace1608 (Talk) 00:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I will try to remember to link to the discussion that deleted it when removing them in the future. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Closing CFDs[edit]

Hi, when closing a CFD, please make sure that you put the {{subst:cfd bottom}} on a new line, otherwise the four hyphens are displayed verbatim (see this edit), and are not shown as the intended horizontal rule. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

OK; thanks for letting me know that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Protection for Eric Cantor[edit]

Hi Good Ol - I see you're on - could you add temporary semi protection on Eric Cantor - his primary defeat being a big news story, we're being inundated with IPs, many making crap edits, and it's impossible to keep up. Probably only need for a day or two, but it would be a big help. There's such a backlog at WP:RFPP that I thought it made sense to go to an admin directly, lucky you. Thanks - if you can. Tvoz/talk 01:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I had a look—it looks like a good idea to me. I put a 7-day protection on it, autoconfirmed users only. Let me know if it needs adjusting or reinstated after the week. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Will do. Tvoz/talk 01:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Of the twenty-two unregistered edits to the article in the past month, only three of them were clearly disruptive. Is that really enough to warrant protection? Evan (talk|contribs) 01:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Another editor requested this, so I suppose some have a different interpretation of what is disruptive. I note that the three "in the past month" all occurred in the past few hours and are obviously related to Cantor's election defeat, so it's a little bit deceptive to say there were only three in a month. We could just as accurately say there have been three in the past three hours. Anyway, it's only for a week and it only restricts non-autoconfirmed users, so I don't think it's a big deal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. Evan (talk|contribs) 03:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria politicians[edit]

Category:Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria 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. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


Hi! Following your closure of this CFD, you appear to have missed off Category:Igbo volleyball players. Any chance you could delete this? Thanks SFB 18:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for catching this. I'm not sure how I missed that one, I will delete it now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

ICJ case names[edit]

Since you've shown an interest, can I ask for your opinion with the public international law case names? You see there are pretty much three options, and the 35 odd case pages for the ICJ don't have an consistency: it's

  • follow the report exactly, eg Case concerning maritime delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v Ukraine) [2009] ICJ 3 --- the trouble is these names tend to be long, and they are repetitive, but accurate following the reports;
  • take the first part, which contains the subject name, eg Case concerning maritime delimitation in the Black Sea - the trouble here is that they are still long, but not accurate;
  • take the second part, Romania v Ukraine, which has the virtue of being short and neat, although there can be duplicates (though surprisingly few, given 200 countries, but only 160 ICJ judgments).

My preference, as you saw, was the country names, but whatever we go for there has to be some consistency. Wikidea 16:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the principles of WP:COMMONNAME should govern the individual cases. This may or may not lead to consistency across articles. But if they are going to be changed at all, I think we need WP:RM discussions on them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmmmm, I suppose that must mean following the reports - most textbooks would usually do the same. Thanks for your input. Wikidea 09:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I think in a lot of cases the common name will be the first part only, without the countries in parentheses. In some cases, the countries in parentheses may need to be added as disambiguation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Presidents of the United Nations Security Council[edit]

Category:Presidents of the United Nations Security Council, 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


It wasnt specifically you as such, more the generic nature of how I perceive the process, and I must say your persistence over the years in maintaining the rage/discipline is commendable and impressive. I like to dive in and make my unhelpful point that the notification part of the categories area still imho leaves a lot to be desired. I have commented there, and apologise here as well if needed. I am but a pinprick within the process when it comes to providing the elements of the arguments, and could not possibly even stand let alone crawl in the boots of the ... but such allusions are more deserving offline. Trust the ice has started showing up down your way, oz apparently has snow. satusuro 00:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That's OK ... I appreciate your words. I can understand the possibilities of being frustrated with the process or system—I think we've all been there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to Consensus for a unified approach to bias categories at Category:Antisemitism[edit]

Due to your involvement in the 2011 CFD that decided on a unified approach to bias categories, you may be interested in a current proposal to change that approach with regard to the Category:Antisemitism. Dlv999 (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


I've noticed that we have a number of 'wives' categories, but not 'husbands'. Should we create them, so as to balance? Or merge into "spouses"?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Who did you have in mind? Are there many people who have had enough husbands to justify having a list article about the husbands? Polygyny has been common throughout history; polyandry is has been much more rare. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. It's a good point. It's just a bit weird to only have a wives category. There must be an example no? It doesn't have to be polyandry, it could for example be a ruler who had multiple husbands in serial fashion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I've thought about it—I can't really think of anyone except the old classic of Elizabeth Tayor, but she only had seven serially, I think. There might be someone, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Mary Stuart and Catherine Parr are two examples I've found, they each had 4 or so husbands.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Category Paul's helpers and converts[edit]

Dear Good Olfactory, I noticed your decision in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_25#Category:Paul.27s_helpers_and_converts. I started my activity here in this category business merely as a reader who was utterly amazed to find so many related articles in one category. This way it is impossible for me to decide which articles could be the most related to the article that I was reading originally. Meanwhile I got to understand that many more categories contain a huge amount of articles, but I'm still amazed. It seems like categorization is being done for the sake itself rather than for the sake of helping readers towards related articles. You know, at my work the perceived "ideal" number of articles in a category is as low as five...

Having said that, here's my question, would there be any formal objection in subcategorizing New Testament people in:

  1. People in the Gospels
  2. People in Acts of the Apostles
  3. People in the Epistles

I wouldn't expect so, but this time I'd better check before putting any effort in it. Thanks for your answer, Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I just closed the discussion; I didn't really have an opinion on the categorization as such. For an opinion it might be better if you checked with those that opposed the creation of the other category and assess whether the same guidelines would support or discourage such categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Lynn G. Robbins[edit]

Hey there Good Olfactory.

I understand that you have a contention with my edit to the article on a member of the Presidency of the Seventy, Lynn G. Robbins. As an active member of the Church, I hope you can understand my necessary effort instilled into research and deciphering facts as they pertain to the biographical elements of general authorities. The evidence that Will is a) his son and b) openly gay is sufficient to cross the threshold of plausibility so much so that it may be contained in a Wikipedia article.

Please accept my gratitude for your participation in this great open source knowledge project, for "the glory of God is intelligence" (D&C 93:36). Tkfy7cf (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I've opened a thread on this at Talk:Lynn G. Robbins. In a nutshell, twitter, facebook, and personal profiles on do not constitute reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. The standard is not plausibility, it's verifiability. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the initiative. Let's try to solve this question. Tkfy7cf (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your understanding. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Have you been able to locate anything reliable that would indicate that Will is Lynn's son? Tkfy7cf (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
No, I can't even find many sources about Lynn that aren't associated with the LDS Church (i.e., not, Ensign, Liahona, Church News, etc.). Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I found this (a photo of Will, on the right, with President Hinckley and Lynn to the right of Pres. Hinckley. This photo can be accessed by clicking on Will's profile, clicking on his Facebook link on the profile, and then going to the photos section. There is also a photo of Elder Scott and Lynn, along with Will Do you think we've made some headway? Tkfy7cf (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


I had some sort of page at User:Oculi/observe but someone objected to it. Could you perhaps retrieve it? Oculi (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

As you were, I see there is User:An76/test which is no doubt a copy. This is quite nice. And Tridia does show up on Check 13. Oculi (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
As I was going through all the edits I had no doubt it was him. He was editing tons of pages that no one else had edited but EstherLois. All reverted now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
My test page flags up this. I would say it's not PW but I might have missed something. Oculi (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I would agree with you—probably not. Have you seen the goings on at User talk:TridiaChaplain? Looks like PW is starting some efforts to come clean and get unblocked. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Help needed for an uncontroversial move[edit]

Hi Good Olfactory! Could you help me move Zhang Yi (Warring States Period) to Zhang Yi (Warring States period), please? The main article is Warring States period, so the same format should apply to the disambiguation. I tried to move it myself, but the move failed. Keep up the good work! Madalibi (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure, done! Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Giovanni di Cosimo de' Medici[edit]

You reverted Tridi's addition of a category. I can't imagine why. It seemed appropriate. Is there a reason for the reversion? Amandajm (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The user was a sockpuppet being used to evade a block and thus all of the edits made by the user were mass reverted. If there are appropriate edits that was made, they can be restored by any user. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Edits by User:TridiaChaplain[edit]

I see the principle on which have these have been deleted, but they were actually useful edits and also v numerous - is there a chance of restoring them? cutting off the nose to spite the face otherwise. Jsmith1000 (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Some users may see some of the edits as useful and productive, but I can also see the a possible argument that much of the edits were not. To completely avoid making such judgments (by me), everything was reverted. This doesn't prevent any user from re-instating the edits that they thought were good ones or re-creating the categories that are thought to be good by someone. With this particular user, it's a long term issue and we really are at the stage where the consensus has been that it's best to revert all contributions that are made by his sockpuppets. It's not a matter of spite against the user, it's just because so many of his category creations have been deemed to be problematic in the past, it has been thought best to just wipe the slate clean and start over whenever one of his sockpuppets pops up. (This is such a long-standing problem now that it may be worthwhile to re-raise it for a general discussion just to make sure we have continuing consensus for what we're doing.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
OK - thanks for a helpful reply.Jsmith1000 (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Strongman/Strength athlete[edit]

I don't have CfD watchlisted, nor RM, anymore, in order to stay out of the way and it's hazardous to do so, as I've learned too often ("Squamish" for starters), things slip by that shouldn't be decided so "pat". I found out because I have Doug Hepburn (who I knew personally and also as a local sports hero) watchlisted. @Obi-Wan Kenobi: says he can't tell the difference; well strongman and lifting sports people can and do; note Strongman (strength athlete) and Strength athlete. There is indeed a tangled set of categories in this area as you will find on talkpage discussions; one non-category discussion is at Talk:Strongman (strength athlete)#Merge from Strength athlete and note the content at Strength athlete and also that someone wanted to merge Strength athlete to Strongman, the reverse of what this CfD is wrong. The fact is that strongmen, whether the modern televised sport and its super-athletes or the carnival strongman show/person, is only a subset of strength sports/strength athletes, and that there are enough of them to warrant a distinct category, the same as Olympic lifting and Powerlifting, Bodybuilding and things like discus throwing and shotputting are all strength sports with their own categories....but, now, not "strongmen". This is one of those cases where those unfamiliar with a topic have seen fit to nominate/comment/vote on name changes that fly in the face of what those who know the field know; and why I strongly believe that RMs and CfDs that do not notify related WikiProjects should be told to do so, rather than "the blind leading the blind". Obi-wan, a cursory read through the articles should have shown you that they are not the same thing. There's a discussion on one talkpage somewhere, I'll have to try and find it, I think on a talk:bio page for someone in particular, about the tangle of categories and definitions and about the meaning of the terms and why one is not the same as the other.

This CfD should be reversed and the category reinstated, and though there are various categorization issues in this area, deleting a distinct subsport within the larger set of sports was not the way to go; WP:WikiProject Sports and WP:WikiProject Bodybuilding should have been notified, and people who work and write and read in those areas should have been consulted. The nomination was defective; "can't tell the difference" means that not enough research/thinking was done, no effort to understand why the categories existed separately; doing things in isolation from reality and from actual knowledge is increasingly a problem in Wikipedia, and I'll reserve comment on the various RMs and CfDs that went the wrong way because of the uninformed closing uninformed nominations and counting uninformed "votes". It was closed within 9 days, with no apparent effort to enlist input from editors in the series of articles in question; oh, but that would be "polling" and we can't have people with information and valid opinions getting in the way of those who are without huh? Olympic weightlifting, powerlifting, and other strength sports should not be similarly merged any more than Strongman was (and shouldn't have been). Skookum1 (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

That other discussion was started by me on WPSports and is now archived; and though I said there that they were redundant, that was because the Strength athlete category was mostly strongmen, not because they were the same thing.Skookum1 (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Category talk:Cities and towns in Russia#Continental categories". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Paradoctor (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:CFD close[edit]

If you need help on the renaming for Category:All Wikipedia vital articles in Biology and health sciences so you feel comfortable closing it, what you do is go to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working#To_be_emptied_or_moved and list it under the "Move/merge then delete" section. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Administrator_instructions which is complicated for that reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe there are some template edits that would need to happen—I had a look and I couldn't figure out what needed to be changed. I know how to close CFDs, it's just that implementing this close is beyond my technical capability. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, cool. Obviously I do have an ulterior motive in getting it closed lol. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Old category merge proposal[edit]

Dear Good Olfactory, I've reacted on a pretty old category merge proposal of yours that wasn't closed yet, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_30, feel free to add your opinion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Swazi categories[edit]

Hi. FYI I am busy with the split of Category:Bantu people per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 24#Category:Bantu people, which will involve changing some category definitions. I created Category:Swaziland people as there was no category for individual Swazi people by ethnicity. You have undone my edits, I understand why and I am moving on as I have a lot more to do still and I cannot afford to get derailed if I am to get through it all. I previously advertised about this job in progress, which I volunteered for in order to sort out the mess, on Category talk:Bantu people, Category talk:Bantu peoples, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa and on my talk page to warn people as reverting me while I am busy is unhelpful. If you have any more issues with my edits in this regard, please discuss them with me. HelenOnline 07:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI I restored this hatnote you removed given the ambiguity of the category title. Please don't remove it again. HelenOnline 07:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I also corrected the Commons category and linked the two categories there with see also hatnotes. I see it was added by a bot here so I hope it doesn't overwrite the correct category. HelenOnline 08:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
If you want to change the meaning of categories which have been established for a long time, you need to propose such changes at WP:CFD. When someone objects, you can't just say, in effect, "don't interfere with what I am doing". Category:Swazi people has been a category for nationals of Swaziland for a long time, and all of the subcategories are similarly named. There may be a case for changing the names, but it needs to be formally proposed at CFD, not unilaterally implemented. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. This is me discussing like we are supposed to. I am not saying "don't interfere with what I am doing". I am saying "this is why I did what I did, I accept your objection and am moving on". I am talking to you so you know exactly what I am up to and there are no misunderstandings about it. I do ask that if anyone has issues with my related edits to discuss them with me as multiple people reverting me without discussion while I am busy with a very complex exercise (which has happened) is doing my head in. I have no desire to start another CFD and all that goes with that (this one has put me off for a very long time trying to fix anything else to do with categories). The category title is ambiguous, I have done my best to address that in the circumstances (hatnote, corrected Commons category) and it is no longer my concern. HelenOnline 10:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, OK. I'm not opposed to changing the category in question; I agree with you that it can be seen as ambiguous. But to fix it I think we should have a broader discussion about it rather than just trying to fix it this way. It's fine if you want to walk away from the issue, of course. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
Every time I see your username, I chuckle a little. Well played. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Category opinion[edit]

Hello, can you please give your opinion regarding a categorisation issue at The Economist and Maroc Hebdo. Both of these publications were founded as newspapers and adopted the magazine format years later. The dispute is whether to add the category Magazine founded in -year of foundation- or to have them under Publications founded in -year of foundation? --Tachfin (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello, could you be of help in getting a bot installed on the PopMatters Wikipedia page, so the Alexa ranking for their site (it is an online magazine) is automatically updated each month? I've read that such a bot exists on Wikipedia. But I've no idea how to install it on the PopMatters page. Can you help? So far I've just been updating it manually every few months. Thanks.

Cheers. Neptune's Trident (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi; sorry, I don't know anything about that. I'm not really an expert in bot functioning. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Delaware-university-stub and others[edit]

Hello. On the 2 July, you changed Template:Delaware-university-stub and other similar template to link, not to the old, deleted, schools categories, but to building and structure categories.

This has led to quite a lot of categorization errors in hidden categories, since not everything to do with a university is related to its buildings or structures: for example, sports programs, mascots and marching bands -- and even the article for Doctor of Modern Languages -- have ended up being categorized as building or structure stubs. Could you please edit all these to remove the building and structure stub references completely? I've made a start by editing Template:Delaware-university-stub. Thanks, -- The Anome (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

This was a result of this discussion and not something I did on my own initiative. But if there's a better way to set up how Template:Delaware-university-stub is applied in conjunction with Template:Delaware-struct-stub, then it can be done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ship book citation templates[edit]

Hello there. You closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 5#Ship book citation templates and deleted Category:Ship book citation templates. Since then there's been a better-attended CfD (including two of the original participants) concerning Rail transport book citation templates which had the opposite outcome. I think there's a better understanding now of what these templates are and I'd like to re-create the ship category but I wanted to discuss this with you first, as the deleting administrator. Best, Mackensen (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me. ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Kaffir Boy[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm TranquilHope. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Kaffir Boy because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! — Preceding undated comment added 08:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Autobiographies is redundant to Category:Sports autobiographies, so I removed the former. Also, don't template the regulars, it's not particularly productive or helpful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Boston Tea Party (political party) politicians[edit]

Category:Boston Tea Party (political party) 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. – S. Rich (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Church and state law[edit]

A discussion is taking place about whether to rename a category your created, Category:Church and state law. I thought you might want to add your input.-Editor2020 03:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I already did earlier today. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Category emptying[edit]

I'd be grateful if you could warn the editor involved in this to desist. Their tactic is to replace categories with redirects and then empty them, unilaterally. If there is a rationale, they should take it to cfd and get consensus. If you would care to roll back the many related edits then all the better. (I was hoping that some passing admin would notice at the related cfd of 3 Aug). Oculi (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw this. Something not working with my notification. Is this still an issue? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
It's now resolved. You could close that cfd as 'resolved', if you wish. Oculi (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying things for me about the creation myth[edit]

Thanks for clarifying things on the creation myth category, I didn't understand and thought "myth" meant false is why I removed the category. But I do now. Thanks for letting me know where I was wrong. KellyLeighC (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

reverted edits[edit]

Hi, I saw you reverted my last edits. Is there a rule for putting Palestinian Territories instead of Palestine ? --Helmoony (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, my concern there was that you were emptying the pre-existing Category:Water in the Palestinian territories and moving it to Category:Water in Palestine. I guess in categories there's kind of a "convention" right now to use PT to avoid any confusion of "Palestine" referring to the entire historic region, including present-day Israel, but it's obviously a controversial issue and there is not applied universally right now. If you think it should be renamed, you can use WP:CFD to propose a change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I already have tons of things to do in Arabic Wikipedia. I don't have time to discuss in other wikis. --Helmoony (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Edmundo Alarcon[edit]

In an apparent bid to save Edmundo Alarcon, JulieAnnMoore2000 (talk · contribs) has moved the article to draft:Edmundo Alarcon. I do not feel this is appropriate while the AfD is active, and ask that you or another admin undo this move and warn the user not to repeat this, or their recent unconstructive edits. -- Asterisk*Splat 18:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, I undid the move myself. Asterisk*Splat 18:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks; I agree with you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit]

Regarding your change to Wilford Woodruff. The "The" in the title should be capitalized. See the Book Cover --- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I have request a move here, to fix the page.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Musical groups categories[edit]

A big thank you for your tireless re-categorization of the musical groups categories. - Hoops gza (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No prob—looked like it was a job that was half done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:United States Supreme Court justices by party[edit]

Not a good idea. The office itself is legally nonpartisan, and we already categorize by the nominating president, whose political orientation the justices may satisfy or frustrate in their later jurisprudence. So this scheme can only be confusing if not misleading. postdlf (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It's all very well documented by reliable sources. Even Black's Law Dictionary indicates the party of each justice in its Time Chart of the court. Presidents have appointed justices from parties different from their own, so it's not quite the same thing as categorizing by appointing president. I don't think it's any more confusing or misleading than categorizing senators of governors by party: the political stances of the parties have changed quite a bit over time, and politically, a Democrat from the 1850s is not the same as a Democrat from the 2010s. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't categorize by party, IMO. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Let me put another way, there are justices who were appointed by Republican presidents, there are justices who vote Republican, and there are justices whose decisions Republicans tend more to like. Any of those three may coincide in one justice. But there's no such thing as a "Republican Party United States Supreme Court justice". Senators are actually elected on a party's ticket and then caucus with party leadership, so the comparison is completely inapt. Another issue is that this is yet another potential scheme for ghettoizing SCOTUS justices if someone decides the parent category is "redundant" with the party one. postdlf (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I understand the nuances, but the sources do this division all of time. That doesn't mean it's a shorthand for figuring out what "kind" of justice the person was or who liked their decisions. It doesn't ghettoize because all the articles are left in the parent category, which is the normal practice of avoiding ghettoization concerns. We don't need to avoid subcategorization altogether to avoid ghettoization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I've given it some thought. I wouldn't object to a nomination for deletion so that we can get broader input on this. (Of course, it doesn't matter whether or not I would object to a nomination, as it could be done regardless—but what I'm saying is that I think it would be useful to get other views on this, and if there is consensus that it is a bad categorization, I can go along with that and would understand why users would feel that way.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Australian specific-source templates[edit]

I notice that you made this edit to an Australian specific-source template today, as a result of a recent, poorly attended CfD discussion. Category:Australian specific-source templates is a member of Category:Australia templates, so any modification to Australian specific-source templates requires that individual templates need to be added to Category:Australia templates. --AussieLegend () 07:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm clear on what you are asking me to do. Is it that you want to be sure that all of the contents of Category:Australian specific-source templates are also upmerged to Category:Australia templates? Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that would be required if the category is deleted. --AussieLegend () 12:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)