User talk:Good Olfactory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Category questions[edit]

hello my frend! Wen u created Category:Kidnapped people, was it designed also, tell me da truth, including adults who were killed off while captured? If yes is ur answer, add Madalyn Murray O'Hair and me Jon Garth Murray to it. Answer is?!... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Garth Murray (talkcontribs) 11:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure—I would think that it's for people who were kidnapped, regardless of what happened to them afterwards. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
That was bizarre looking through this user's contributions and reading the articles they linked. (Claiming to be a dead person?) ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I also like how he made it sound like I was inclined to hide something about my answer ("tell me da truth"). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Upon going through his contribs., I made an attempt to fix a glitch in Deaths in 1995#September. Look at this... WHY arent the Murray-O'Hairs, nor the two images, showing after this impostor added the real Jon Garth to that section? (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I dunno, they're showing for me, but I reverted the edit anyway since he had removed two other names without explanation. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation in templates[edit]

Consensus I did not see that you had changed these templates to include disambiguations in them--I just made two passes with AWB. Categories such as Heavenly (British band) albums don't need disambiguations in the text of the template: it's already present in the title of the category itself a few pixels above and it implies that the actual name of a group is "Heavenly (British band)" rather than simply "Heavenly". This is compounded by the fact that there actually are groups with deliberately obscure names like Sun O))) and Was (Not Was) which include parts that might appear to be editorial notes in the name of the group themselves. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore There is a hatnote right above the text of the template: that's honestly overkill. There is no prospect that someone will get confused by this. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Suit yourself, but honestly—the way you're setting them out is more confusing than clear for a reader unfamiliar with the band's name. I don't really see why we need to pipe everything in a category header. It's not article text. As for confusion—I am literally removing dozens of articles from band categories that don't belong and have been included simply because of a similar name. This is not a hypothetical issue—I've probably done 30 or 40 over the past week. (Not to mention the hundreds of categories that have been using {{albums category}} that have been linking to disambiguation pages or the wrong page through an unamended application of the template.) All in all, it's a real mess. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Categories Don't get me wrong--you're doing a lot of good work. As you know, I have also proposed hundreds of such categories at WP:CFDS. I'm glad that I'm not maintaining 17,000 of them by myself. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
And I didn't mean to sound like you are responsible for the messiness of it all. That's not what I meant; I have just been a little bit overwhelmed by the state of that tree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Category:Armenian people of American descent for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Category:Armenian people of American descent is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Category:Armenian people of American descent until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hovhannes Karapetyan 23:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This needs to be nominated using WP:CFD, not WP:AFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Album/song category templates[edit]

Missing syntax Categories such as Category:Natalie Merchant songs should link to Category:Natalie Merchant albums and Category:10,000 Maniacs songs. These templates don't have that functionality yet. If you add it, they can be replaced. Until then, you can't replace them. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The change auto adds the Category:Natalie Merchant albums one. The other one just has to be added manually, just as it is now. I don't see what the problem is. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
See also {{Catseealso}} allows for multiple listings. Now you're going to have two separate lines that say, "See also..."? Why would it be better to employ two templates to say the same thing across two lines? —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
That may be true, but it's the vast minority of cases that need to link to more than one. I'm sure there's a workaround (or the template can be excluded on those if it's that big of a deal), but I don't see why that means the link shouldn't be produced in the majority of cases. 80 per cent of the time I'm adding it it's linking to a category that wasn't previously linked to, so I don't see why it should not be implemented with these. I'm not a coding expert, but I'm willing to get some assistance to resolve your concern, but while I'm attempting to apply the system across many categories it's very difficult when the lines of coding keep getting deleted and the template reset to the queue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Truce Well, we can work on the songs template (and add "Songs written by [X]" as well). Please leave the albums template and categories for the time being. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
But it's much easier for me to delete the {{Catseealso}} from the corresponding albums categories as I go through the songs categories one-by-one, and I can't delete that part if the albums template stays the same, otherwise the link will disappear. I'm going through and making sure there are no duplications, so the only issue when (they are done) is going to be the multiple line issue. I can leave them, but I've already done W–Z where I've deleted some of the {{Catseealso}} uses, so it's not going to be good for those. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
This is really the key to the issue. If it can be set up so that the manual adding of the see also songs category overrides the template's auto application of this, then there would be no issue at all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2014
Alright, so per your request, and since it appears you're not in the mood to let this go, I'm going to leave alone the albums template and categories. I don't really see what the big deal is, especially when the change I made has added hundreds of links to songs categories that weren't previously there. I doubt I will be adding these manually, and the W–Z ones are a bit buggered now. It's stuff like this that makes users lose their vim for trying to make stepwise improvements over a period of time longer than a week. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Categorization Sorry--I didn't see you'd responded here. I'm not trying to put you down for what you're doing: you're definitely adding a lot of value to this scheme. Creating reciprocal {{catseealso}} links between album and song categories is something I can do (and will do as soon as I'm done with one more task). I'm glad that you're doing what you're doing and it's good work, even if we sometimes have different preferences. Re this edit, these ethnic categories are sorted with a space in many other places, so using a "+" for some of them breaks the scheme that was already established at (e.g.) Category:Albums by Hong Kong artists and Category:Rock albums by Puerto Rican artists. The "x by genre" categories still come first by using two spaces as a sortkey. "+" is used to sort by album types. See (e.g.) Category:Punk rock albums where "*" is for sub-genres, "+" is for album types, and " " is by ethnicity. Does that make sense? I actually started using those characters because someone else requested something other than " " for album types, sub-genres, and by ethnicity subcats. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore You're right: petty fighting is exactly what discourages contributions. Especially the valuable ones you've made when you have a lot of other stuff you can do with your time. All the things you've done add value to the encyclopedia, even if they are not what I would prefer or if they unintentionally differ from some preexisting arbitrary scheme. I'd like to work together on making this album category scheme stronger: as you can see, I've made probably 300,000 edits and created about 10,000 categories in this. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your words. Why wouldn't it be a good idea for categories like the Gibraltarian, Puerto Rican, Hong Kong, etc. to sort them under a header that is separate from the corresponding "x by genre" subcategory? If "x by genre" uses a space to sort, could we use something else for to sort the subnationality ones under, like a "!" or something similar? It just seems weird to lump them with the "x by genre" ones. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I'm not blowing you off--I just don't watch your talk page. I'd be fine with some kind of operator that is different than a space for these (in fact, upon reflection, it's probably a good idea!) but I would prefer to not use "+" or "*" as they are used for different purposes under the Category:Albums scheme. I'll apply "!" to them and I think that might be the best way to sort them. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
No problem; I'm never in a hurry. I'm fine using anything that works. "!" or "-" are possibilities. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion[edit]

I would like Your opinion on a Redirect for Deletion discussion I open. I think that the recently created Moron Church and Moron church redirects to the Mormon Church, created a few days ago, as some kind of POV attack on the LDS Church (i.e. a chance to call it the Moron Church). However, I can see that it is possible to view them as misspelling redirects. I was wondering if you thought that was the case or not. Redirect don't necessarily have to be NPOV, but I just find it highly suspect. If you think I'm wrong, I would be more then willing to withdraw my discussion.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion[edit]

August 24th[1] and August 25th[2] at least are in need of closing and they may be more....William 12:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Flim-Flam![edit]

Should we keep the Prometheus Books cat since the Crowell printing was so small and the later edition is essentially how the book is known? I leave the edit to your discretion, just posing a question. An answer that increases my knowledge of policy would be helpful but if your busy you can just ignore this message. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to have both. Usually we only include the first publication, but in cases where it is very small in comparison to the subsequent one, there's no harm in including both. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:German Baptists[edit]

Category:German Baptists, 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. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

" this is a level of detail best covered in Genetics and the Book of Mormon"[edit]

I'm discussing this there. The sources for this do not discuss Mormon ideas, and thus don't belong in the article, right? So far as I can see all the sources in [Genetics and the Book of Mormon]] discuss the subject of the article. Would you like to comment at Talk:Genetics and the Book of Mormon? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding {{LDS70pres}}[edit]

You made some excellent changed to {{LDS70pres}} and taught me some things about how the {{Navbox with collapsible groups}} works. However, I am trying to understand one of your decisions regarding your changes. You choose to make the default look like this, using plain as the only choice:

I thought the standard for all Navboxs was to use "autocollapse" making it look like this, when in the presences of other Navboxs

Did you do this on purpose? I'm just trying to follow your logic.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 13:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't do that on purpose. I think the default should be to use autocollapse. That was one thing I couldn't quite figure out, so thanks for figuring it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi, you've been adding the genus category to articles where a higher rank category is also present, i.e. you've been adding a child category when a parent category is also present.

In general, so that too many small categories don't get created, for plants we look for a minimum of 10 possible articles, i.e. for a genus there should be at least 9 species which could have articles. Otherwise we categorize at a higher rank. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Categorization. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't really make much sense to me. For instance, Uvularia should be of course the main article of Category:Uvularia, and that is the normal way to categorize. Every other categorization scheme that I have seen on WP does it like this, not the way you are suggesting. As far as I can see, you are the sole editor of the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Categorization, so I'm not convinced that this is a consensus-based approach at this stage. I'd like to see some formal proposals to delete categories with fewer than 9 species in it; I would be surprised if consensus would be in favour of deletion when a category has 7 or 8 articles. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I just want to see that it has some support. The only way we can find out is for someone to propose it, rather than doing it unilaterally. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually I only wrote up this stuff. I don't remotely claim ownership. Indeed I was originally quite strongly in favour of the cleaner approach of making the category hierarchy match the taxonomic hierarchy, regardless of category size. It was only after being corrected by various more experienced members of WP:PLANTS that I thought the consensus there should be documented to help other plant editors. If you think this approach is wrong, then I suggest you discuss it at WT:PLANTS. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I just want to see some evidence that there is some sort of a consensus-based system operating here. I haven't seen any so far. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

On a slightly different topic, I have manually emptied dozens of plant categories that were too small and then nominated them for speedy deletion, which has always been done by an admin until now. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It's kinda—well not kinda, exactly—"out of process" to empty existing categories and then nominate them for speedy deletion. You should be nominating them for deletion using the full WP:CFD process. This is my formal request that you do so, as I'd like to see that there is a consensus for not keeping these categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not that interested in categorization, and I'm certainly not going to get involved in CFD processes. I was simply pointing out that other admins have always been quite happy to delete categories in this way in the past. I won't bother in future. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, manually emptying categories and nominating them for speedy deletion involves you in the process whether you want to be involved or not ... I'm not terribly surprised that there are admins who will delete an empty category without checking whether the user who nominated it manually emptied it. But that doesn't mean it's a good practice or one that is encouraged. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
See here. I realize you've said you're not interested, but I just wanted to post this here for full transparency. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, I've drawn attention to the discussion here. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Child and parent categories[edit]

I made the responses above before noticing your reverts to some of my edits. I don't understand why WP:SUBCAT doesn't apply to Balthasaria, for example. You've now put it into both a parent and a child category. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I simply repopulated the category Category:Balthasaria, which you manually emptied and then nominated for speedy deletion as "empty". I've never seen any other editor, ever, argue that an article shouldn't be placed in a category of the same name, if that category exists. It's definitely not what one would call an "orthodox" (meaning commonly accepted) interpretation of WP:SUBCAT. Removing the parent when a child is present might be, but not removing and manually emptying the child. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:SUBCAT simply says that the parent and child category should not, in most cases, both be present. I fixed this by removing the child because it resulted in a very small category, contrary to the general understanding within WP:PLANTS of WP:SMALLCAT. I can only repeat that this is what has regularly been the practice with plant taxonomic categories; I wasn't doing anything that isn't done regularly, particularly for categories that were bot-created. (See e.g. User talk:Stemonitis#Other categories for deletion for a long list of categories that were deleted for the reason you seem to reject.)
If you think that WP:PLANT's understanding of WP:SMALLCAT is wrong and it's not inappropriate to have small categories in such cases (and I don't want to get into a dispute about this), then remove the parent, don't just restore the child. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm only restoring the categories that were manually emptied out of process. I've nothing to do with WP:PLANTS or implementing its preferred ways. I'll leave that to other editors. (Just as you're able not not involve yourself in certain WP projects and processes that are relevant to the issue at hand, so too can other editors. I think that's OK.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


Perhaps you can help clear up my confusion at Template talk:Latter Day Saint movement.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the Community of Christ, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Schaal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Name Change[edit]

I've alwasy been a little confused as to what point we switch from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Most of the time it is pretty clear which name to use. However, on occasion a leader will serve until that small window between the 1844 death of Smith and the 1851 incorporation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints under Young. MOS:LDS isn't 100% clear what to do in that case. When I run into this, I usually go with the idea that, if the person followed Young after Smith's death, even if it' only until 1850, then The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is correct. However, I'm not 100% sure that is right. What do you do?--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much what I do too. If it falls within the 1844–1850 time frame, I usually look at where the person ended up. If they ultimately followed Young and ended up in the west, then I think it's usually safe to use LDS Church. If they didn't follow Young or remained in the midwest, then I default back to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. There are some pretty ambiguous points, as when the church excommunicated Sidney Rigdon in 1844. But I think it's fair to take the point at which Young and the Twelve assumed control of the church to be more or less the start of the LDS Church, even if the name wasn't formally "changed" until after they arrived in Utah. Another possibility would be to take December 1847 as the transition point, when Young reorganized the First Presidency and became President of the Church. But there is quite a bit of Mormon pioneer stuff that happened before that that would fall squarely within LDS Church-related history, and not so much the rest of the movement. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

I would be nice to have your comments at Talk:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Kingdom of God as someone who understand the "The" issue when it come to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I see you are very knowledgeable with LDS articles[edit]

I commend you on your LDS knowledge and willingness to contribute there. My specialty has been bringing back important articles that were pushed aside sometimes many years ago. I have been editing as an IP since 2006 under whatever IP I have at the time. The Dru Sjodin story is one of the most well known kidnapping, rape and murders in the U.S. The U.S. Department of Justice even maintains a web page of her and the is a law known as Dru's law to honor her memory. It is not appropriate to dedicate to much of her article to her murderer and outside the scope of the article. Many years ago someone suggested combining the two articles and an IP did that in 2008. There it sat untouched for over 6 years. I have a great deal of knowledge about the case from a Criminal Sociology class some years ago. I decided to revisit the subject and improve both articles as time permits (which is quite limited). I understand the standard format of articles but there is no cookie cutter format that fits all. There was no early life or even half the article before I got started. Most people could really care less about the early life of a multiple rapist/kidnapper and murderer. Some even find it offensive. Most are there to read about his crimes not his childhood. In the interest of reasonable sensibilities I put it at the end. It could possibly fit somewhere higher in the future if the article flowed that way. I have not progressed far enough improving on the article to decide where. My edits clearly state it is an ongoing project. I do understand your first edit but the revert without any discussion and consensus on the talk page is counter productive. I do not have the time or inclination to edit war so if you want to take the responsibility for improving the article please do so, I will move on. If not could you please let me improve it in peace and see how it turns out before reverting. I actually see this more often than I care. It usually starts with the usual prejudice and stereotypes about IP editors and they must not know what they are doing. So some editor (sometimes quite inexperienced based on edit history) decides to jump in and "help out" with some "good ideas". What usually results is some arguing back and forth and the editor that was actually doing all the real work researching and improving the article quits as they have had enough with someone who has not spent much time (many times none at all) researching the article in question. I ask that you not cause that scenario unless you really want to take on something that was ignored for over 6 years. Please let me know on the articles talk page Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr. asap because my time is limited so I will move on if that is your intent. Thanks (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC) p.s. My IP changes to frequently so posting on my talk page may never get a response.

It's not a huge deal, but in a biographical article it makes sense to include the section on early life first after the lead, and then to proceed chronologically through the person's life. I stated as much in the edit summary, and I don't really have anything to add to that. It would be unusual to have a bio article with the "early life" section at the end, even though it does include what might be seen as the least significant or notable information in it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe a section title change would work better because early implies it goes first. I will think of something better. (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


About this CfD. The conclusion (delete) surprised me. Maybe it was my own change of !vote that confused the matter.

I first proposed to have the articles categorised in it, not the categories (so: not Category:Temperature categorised in here, but Temperature). This suggestion gained articlulated support from three other editors (as "DePieps first argument"). Then I changed my !vote into "no changes" and these three clearly pointed to my first option. Another editor mentioned to delete because of an onthrstuffexist, IMO. So I had expected that the closing would honor those three editors (and my opinion that I could live with that recategorising, but not with deletion).

With this, could you reconsider? I propose to recreate the category, and add the articles. -DePiep (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

OK—yes, upon re-reading, I see much clearer now. It's OK for you to re-create and categorize the articles. I've amended the close to allow for re-creation. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. -DePiep (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Dyslexia, and Developmental Dyslexia[edit]

There are problems with the recent category changes, which are mainly to due to a lack of understanding of Dyslexia. Dyslexia is the general term describing problems with decoding and recoding the visual notation of speech, or the graphic symbols society chooses to represent the sounds of speech. There are two types of dyslexia Alexia or acquired dyslexia which is caused by brain injury, stroke, atrophy etc, and Develelopmental Dyslexia whic has a genetic origin. And the related Wikipedia articles and categoroes need to reflect the intenrational research regarding these issues. So you need to have a general Dyslexia article and category together with articles and sub categories relating to both Alexia (acquired dyslexia) and developmental dyslexia dolfrog (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

At this stage, there's no lack of understanding on my part. The article about developmental dyslexia is dyslexia, so the category name should match. I think we've been through this before. Note that there is a category for the genetic variety: it is at Category:Alexia (condition) to match the article name Alexia (condition). Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
the problem is that dyslexia is the overall term, and there should be an article that briefly outlines dyslexia, and then two further articles, one concerning Developmental Dyslexia, which is currently most of the content of the current dyslexia article, and the Alexia article which need to be renamed as dyslexia is not a condition in any form it is a shared symptom of various underlying issues, which have the subject of international research over the last decade or so. The problem has been the influence of the dyslexia industry and its marketing needs, which should be ignored by wikipedia. Wikipedia should reflect international research, and not the maketing needs for program providers and their marketing organisations. dolfrog (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
That sounds like an article issue, not so much a category issue. I suggest you raise it at Talk:Dyslexia. Categories generally follow the lead of what is written in article space. The real content in Wikipedia is in its articles; categories are just one way of organizing the pre-existing articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi, were you going to look at the contents of Category:Postmodern terminology for selective re-categorising before deletion? If not, you may have overlooked listing it for deletion, as I just found I had for several others that I had closed. – Fayenatic London 00:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I had left this message to the nominator. If I don't hear anything soon, we can probably just delete it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, good work. I think it's worth leaving it a little longer – I moved a few pages myself, and have left a note at WT:PHIL. – Fayenatic London 06:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't planning on moving on it right away. The user seems at least semi-regular, so I think he won't be away for long. I would do it, but I'm totally incompetent in that area. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you take a look at these categories?[edit]

User:Ruminant recently created these categories:

I thought they seemed like overcategorisation, but I'm not familiar with the way such category intersections are used and accepted. Could you take a look and see if they should be CfDed? --Paul_012 (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

They do seem link overcategorization to me. The general trend has been against having categories like these. I'm not sure if they should all be nominated together, though. Maybe the Thai ones could be. Users might want to consider Category:Women by ethnic or national origin separately, I'm not sure. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Succession lists[edit]

You've been cleaning up succession lists, such as Amy B. Lyman's. You have been removing |} and </center>, but not {| and <center>. An example. Bgwhite (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to make any difference one way or the other on my browsers, but I won't remove the |} and </center> any more in case it is affecting it for others. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Iranian Azerbaijanis people by occupation[edit]

Hey there, Good Olfactory - I was wondering if you might have the time to take care of Speedy Renaming Category:Iranian Azerbaijanis people by occupation and all of its numerous subcats to correct the mistaken pluralization of "Azerbaijani" (all created by the same editor, AFAICS). I'm afraid I simply haven't got the time, or I'd be more than happy to do it myself. I stumbled upon the problem purely by accident after spotting Category:Iranian Azerbaijanis Opera singers‎, which I've already taken to CFR-SPEEDY. In any event, these categories all need to be fixed, whether by you or somebody else. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, should be able to do that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Listed here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

CFD close on Category:Video games featuring female antagonists[edit]

Hello. First of all, thank you for actually closing old CFD debates that had been stale forever, and apologies on the slow reaction (since it's been literally months since the debate happened). Anyway, I was wondering if you could expand on your decision at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_2#Category:Video_games_featuring_female_antagonists, and if there's a productive direction to move forward - DRV? Relist? Yes, it was 6-6 on raw votecount, so I can see the "no consensus" close, but it should probably be noted that the "deletes" included long-time members of WikiProject Video Games. I'll spare you rehashing the arguments made on the page, but none of the keeps really addressed how this category could possibly be sanely maintained, or any "category by antagonist" - Books with English Antagonists? Movies with Teenage Antagonists? (Of course, being the nominator, I suppose I'm biased, and I'm certainly sympathetic to the idea that there comes a time to just let a matter drop and move on, but this case is weird, partially due to the extremely long delay between nomination & closing.)

Basically, could you reconsider your decision? And if not (which would be entirely reasonable), would you recommend a new CFD, an RFC, or something else? SnowFire (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Although it was 6-6, as you say, on balance I personally was more swayed by those in favour of deletion, and the arguments seemed more solid. I was not able to close it as "delete", though—it just didn't seem to quite make it, but I'd have to say you were close in that discussion. (Much closer than the other side was to achieving a "keep", in any case.) In this instance, I doubt that you would get much out of a DRV—it is a rather hard argument to make that this should have been closed as anything but "no consensus". The benefit of a "no conensus" result is that it doesn't preclude another CFD—in fact, in my opinion it kind of suggests that another one should be held, since the issue remains unresolved. So that would be my initial sense—that another CFD should be held at some point.
I think that part of the problem in attracting other editors to the conversation was the length/detail of the arguments and the back and forth. As you know, a lot of users see stuff like that and just respond with TLDR, and therefore they don't participate. If the nominating statement itself were shorter and crisper, it could help in this regard. But it is difficult when those who participate give long reasons, and often those long reasons need to be directly addressed, and it all expands from there ...
As for when a renomination occurs, that's up to you. Sometimes users complain when a renomination happens immediately after closing. There was over a month between the last comment and the closing, though, so if you nominated it now it wouldn't exactly be an immediate renomination. If you would like to re-nominate it soon, I could amend the close to include a suggestion that it be re-nominated, which might help in preventing some of the protests that might erupt with a re-nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
No need to amend the close, but I'll definitely mention if I renominate at CFD that I checked with the closer and got their OK. Thanks. SnowFire (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Burials and subcats - why??[edit]

I came across Category:Burials in British Columbia, which has only two articles in it, and followed up the hierarchy and have to wonder what the point of the categories is meant to be. In BC's case, virtually would cover anyone who died in the province and its predecessor territories/colonies, ranging from Klatassine to James Douglas (governor) and Gassy Jack to most premiers and deceased MPs/MLAs and .... well, nearly anybody who wasn't cremated or, as in the case of many retired politicians and others, who moved to California for their later years. Seeing only two entries in the BC cat, my instinct was to file a CfD or CfM, rather than to populate it with.....probably hundreds of bios. What use is this category? Not quite the opposite of the "people from" categories, which often aren't "born in"; there is no Category:Births in British Columbia, for example.Skookum1 (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Good question. I've long wondered what the point of these is. I could see such a category as perhaps having some utility in holding subcategories for people buried in particular places (such as in a church like Westminster Abbey) that carry with it some honor or specific notability, but such burial places seem to be comparatively rare, and there are no categories for burials in specific places in B.C. right now, which suggests that this particular category is relatively useless. That's what I think, anyway. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
burials of note - as with being buried in Westminster Abbey, as you note - are maybe best addressed in cemetery-type categories e.g. the cemetery in Sapperton, New Westminster is where the graves and occasional tomb of many notable individuals can be found today; same with the Ross Bay Cemetery in Victoria. "people buried in FOO cemetery" or something of that kind makes sense; the act of burial is not notable in and of itself, nor the place of burial, whereas funerals can be though whether it's Lord Mountbatten, Princess Diana, Nathan Cirillo or Joe Fortes and my own grandfather Endre Johannes Cleven (all of those major civic/national funerals) there is no separate article or cat for their burials or place of burial (I actually don't know where Granddad is buried, I should ask my cousins I guess; somewhere in Winnipeg). When the place of entombment or burial (or shrine for cremated remains of course) is notable, as with Westminster Abbey or the Wat Po in Bangkok (where three or four of the Chakri Dynasty kings' ashes are in stupas there - chedi I think is the Thai term) it's a bit different.Skookum1 (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Edgar Hunt[edit]

Hi! Why did you remove Edgar Hunt from Category:British recorder players? He most definitely was both of those things. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

He was the only one subdivided by nationality. I put it in Category:Recorder players because the other articles in it are not divided by nationality. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Postmodern terminology[edit]

Category:Postmodern terminology had a discussion which you closed as delete is still hanging around. Were you waiting for some cleanup? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, see here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Unenrolled politicians in Maine[edit]

I was not made aware of a discussion in July that moved a category I started and populated was up for renaming. To answer the question you posed 5 months ago, yes, there is a reason. In Maine, you cannot register to vote as an "independent", only as unenrolled. For how long this has been the case, I am not certain but there is a clear distinction. In the future, please notify the creator of content if you are seeking to rename it. It's not fun to only find out 5 months after the fact.--TM 23:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like registering as independent and being unenrolled in Maine are pretty much the same. The national and international media always calls politicians from Maine who are "unrolled" as "independent", so it's probably the common name for them in any case. (I'm not sure if the local Maine media bothers with the distinction.) But if you're interested in what categories you create get nominated, you could place them on your watchlist. The entire purpose of tagging the category is to provide notification for interested users. I'm not keen to create a new notification requirement. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The article unenrolled voter explains. Either way, I am going to work to change it back to accurately reflect what exists.--TM 23:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The category is about unenrolled politicians, though, not voters, so we have to look at what such politicians are commonly called. Given the common usage, I doubt users will be wanting to change it back. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Postmodern terminology[edit]

Please let me know if I should be posting this somewhere else, or not bothering at all, but I see you closed Category:Postmodern terminology as delete 17 days ago, and it is still there. There seems to be a greater lag in these things, these days, perhaps due to a shortage of admins? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

See here. I was waiting for the nominator to perform a selective merge. I would do it but I think the topic is a bit beyond me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I may start by removing the subcategories which were discussed and should not be present going forward. Most of these also have their main article present. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, feel free to participate in the process of the selective merge. It's been awhile now since I notified the nominator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Move SV[edit]

Please move sub-categories of Category:Swami Vivekananda too. Regards. --TitoDutta 13:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


Could you have a look at this one with a view to closing it? The nom didn't tag anything so I tagged the ones which I thought were supported. So the first and second groups (untagged) are moot anyway, and consensus for the 4th (mainland country) group seems clear, indeed unanimous. Oculi (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure—it looks reasonably clear once they are considered as groups. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks - I thought it looked clear (in parts). Oculi (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Bishops of Csanád[edit]

FYI. I restore the above category. There are more than one dioceses which were established on the territory of the one-time Diocese of Csanád: the Roman Catholic Diocese of Szeged-Csanád (in Hungary) and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Timişoara (in Romania). Borsoka (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The rename was the result of this discussion. You might want to bring up the issue with the user who was the nominator in that discussion. You can nominate it for renaming back if you wish. But in the meantime, please don't re-create it because the renaming was the result of a formal process. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

My recent absence from Wikipedia.[edit]

Hello. You may have noticed that I have not been active on Wikipedia for about a month. Long story short, I got a job. I still intend to edit Wikipedia regularly, but getting into the groove of the job has left me unable to edit during the last month. So I wanted to drop a line and ask if there were any major changes on Wikipedia pages of interest that I needed to be aware of. You know my interests well enough by now to know what I mean by that. So if you could bring me up to speed, that would be great! Please leave any reply on my talk page as per my usual request. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Armenian people of Iranian descent[edit]

Category:Armenian people of Iranian descent, 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. Hovhannes Karapetyan 01:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

2 perfumes[edit]

Hi, did you mean to nominate Minaj's perfumes for upmerging? I just implemented that without realising until afterwards. (permalink) There are only 2, but the same goes for Lavigne's. (Cydebot contribs) – Fayenatic London 14:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to do that. I must have been tired. I can fix the Minaj one. They maybe could be upmerged, but of course it would take a full cfd. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Bishops and Archbishops of Vienna[edit]

Hey Good Olfactory, just now I executed the split as discussed in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_29#Category:Archbishops_and_bishops_of_Vienna. I vaguely remember there is a kind of worklist for the execution of CfD decisions but don't remember where this worklist is. The original Category:Archbishops and bishops of Vienna - which is empty now - is yet to be deleted, that's something I can't do, but apart from that it can be removed from the worklist. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's at WP:CFDWM. I'll take care of deleting that category now that you've done the split. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I've removed it from the manual work queue now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll copy WP:CFDWM to my sandbox so that I won't forget for a second time. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Your new categories[edit]


Please see Category talk:American law by year#Why not create Category:United States law by year instead. Thanks, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Ghana cedi[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing, Ghana cedi, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Figure skaters categories[edit]

I see you closed the discussion to upmerge 'figure skaters from city' categories. You closed for all of them to be upmerge to both 'sportspeople from city' and to 'figure skater from country'. However this has caused a doubling since all the figure skater articles were already in a subcategory (e.g. Category:Ukrainian female ice dancers, Category:Ukrainian male ice dancers‎, Category:Ukrainian female pair skaters‎, Category:Ukrainian male pair skaters, Category:Ukrainian female single skaters, Category:Ukrainian male single skaters) of their country figure skater category (e.g. Category:Ukrainian figure skaters). Thus can the bot remove the Category:Ukrainian figure skaters, Category:Russian figure skaters, and Category:Chinese figure skaters that it added? Regards, Kirin13 (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Since it was a merge with more than one target, it had to have been done manually, by an editor. So the editor should have been using judgment and not merging it to those categories if it was already in a subcategory, as you describe. I assume that you're saying that the user didn't therefore do this properly? There's no bot that I know of that can fix this, we may just have to contact the user who did it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The 'upmerge' was done by ArmbrustBot. The bot removed the 'figure skaters from city' and added 'sportspeople from city' & 'country figure skaters' (e.g. Chinese, Ukrainian, Russian). The problem is since all Chinese, Ukrainian, and Russian figure skater are already in subcategory of 'country figure skaters', none of them should have been added to that category. I've already manually removed the category from all the skaters on my watchlist, but looking at Category:Ukrainian figure skaters, Category:Russian figure skaters, and Category:Chinese figure skaters there is still quite a few more (these top-level categories shouldn't have any skaters since each skater is in a 'country gender discipline skater' sub-category). Regards, Kirin13 (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, I should be able to reverse these fairly quickly later today and then get a bot to just move them again to the single category. Thanks for letting me know. I'll also mention it to the user who runs the bot that in these double merges we need to be smarter than just doing them blindly like this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
It should be all sorted now. Let me know if there are still any issues with it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks for taking care of this! Regards, Kirin13 (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints[edit]

That's for catching that. Obviously my mind went seriously wrong there. Editor2020, Talk 01:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It's OK—it happens to everybody occasionally. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Launching and Category:Current spaceflights[edit]

Hi; since you commented at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 23#Category:Current spaceflights, you may be interested in the discussion at Template talk:Launching#Recent edits and Category:Current spaceflights concerning the categories emitted by {{Launching}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Programming categories[edit]

Happy New Year!

Following this edit on Opposed nominations, you may have overlooked bringing these forward to a full CfD nomination, or listing them at WP:CFDWR. I nearly re-listed them on the speedy page, as they are still tagged.

Hope this helps. – Fayenatic London 21:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The opposing user wanted them nominated at full individually, so that's what I'm planning on doing, depending on how they go. The first discussion is still open here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, you tagged Category:Jangseong but didn't list it. I see you tagged and then un-tagged some others. I don't know whether you meant to un-tag that one or list it. (I was looking at what was left in Category:Categories for discussion from November 2014.) – Fayenatic London 21:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The ones I withdrew were already in the format I had proposed, but this one was not, so I will list it now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Category:Categories for discussion from November 2014 now just has 8 programming categories with a Speedy tag. Over to you. – Fayenatic London 11:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me about these again. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: Category Deletion of Category:User Talk:Melody Concerto Archive[edit]

Hi, I noticed you used a bot to knockout massive backlog at CfD pages and I thank you for your work; but I also feel like my discussion did not get the appropriate attention that was needed. I feel as if I pretty well disputed the deletion and would like you to review the discussion for undeletion; I don't believe the nominator's rationale was sound; and none of the reasons people voted for deletion were really all that solid per wikipedia policy. Please do review Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_29 and get back to me please. Melody Concertotalk 09:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, apart from you, the four users who participated in the discussion were in favour of deletion, and in reading the discussion I felt that there was a fairly strong consensus for having it deleted. I also think that the discussion was relatively focused on Wikipedia guidelines rather than personal opinion or preferences—specifically, WP:USERNOCAT. As one participant noted, although this guideline does not explicitly mention user talk pages, it seems to be within the spirit of the guideline not to have categories for user talk pages. If you disagree with how I closed the discussion, it can be reviewed by starting a discussion on the close at WP:DRV. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Part of my reason for messaging you was that I felt that deleting the category per the "Spirit" of the rules is problematic. The "spirit" of a rule is rather subjective and I'd rather feel much more fairly treated if there were some precedent linked or some policy found that unambiguously ruled against the deletion. Please do reconsider. Melody Concertotalk 09:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Ultimately, it is consensus that determines things on Wikipedia. I feel that the consensus was strongly in favour of deletion. As I reconsider the discussion, I don't see how I could possibly be fair in interpreting the consensus in this discussion as dictating anything but the deletion of the category. (No one cited any previous discussions, and I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if a user talk category of this type had been deleted in the past. If you want me to, I could search the archives for such an example; although it wouldn't be terribly relevant to the discussion since it wasn't brought up, but it might make you feel better that you're at least not being singled out for unfair treatment. I don't remember a user category of any type having ever survived CFD, so it's not an uncommon thing.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, please do research that, I think evidence of precedent will quell my fears quite nicely. Particularly if it's relevant to my kind of case where the category was used for archival of user pages. If sufficient precedent exists, there may well be no grounds for a WP:DRV. Melody Concertotalk 09:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I can have a look and see if there's anything on point. It's getting late where I am right now, but I should be able to have a look tomorrow when I'm on next. Certainly within the next 24 hours or so I should be able to let you know if I found anything. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I've had a look, and I must say that I can't find anything that is explicitly exactly on point. That is, I can't find a discussion of a category in which it's clear that the category has been used exclusively for talk page archives of a user. In most cases, though, it's not clear exactly what was being contained in the category, as usually the specific contents are not mentioned or discussed in the discussions. Typically, the point that it made is that it is a category being used to group content from a particular user's userspace, and that has generally been regarded as enough to justify deletion. This is kind of what I meant (and probably the other user) in saying that deletion was certainly within the "spirit" of the guideline and previous practice. There's an old archive (2007–10) of some of these discussions here that you can look at, and there have been a comparable number in the years since 2010. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Abbreviations in case names[edit]

Hi, I noticed you renamed a number of articles such as "Ong Ah Chuan v. Public Prosecutor" and "Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Public Prosecutor" to "Ong Ah Chuan v PP" and "Chan Hiang Leng Colin v PP", giving the reason that this was in line with the Singapore Academy of Law Style Guide. I don't think there's anything wrong with removing the full stop after v (though I don't think it's necessary either), but where in the style guide does it say that terms like "Public Prosecutor" should be abbreviated, particularly in the title of the article? Even in the official Singapore Law Reports such terms are spelled in full. Can we please move the article titles back to forms like "Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor? — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind so much on this issue, but the guide does say Public Prosecutor is to be abbreviated as "PP" for Singaporean cases. See p 18 of this reference guide: [3]. (The previous full edition of the guide suggested that it should only be abbreviated after the first use, so there is some historical ambivalence about the issue.) It's fine with me if you want to move them to the form that spells it out. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe that refers to mentions of case names in texts (e.g., in journal articles and books), not in titles. Anyway, thanks for renaming the articles. Oh, you missed two: Eng Foong Ho v AGEng Foong Ho v Attorney-General, and Shadrake v AGShadrake v Attorney-General. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know we were also talking about the AG ones. Yes, that's what the guide is talking about, but that is also the standard the Wikipedia Manual of Style suggests for article names about cases. Of course no legal citation guide has suggests for what to call Wikipedia articles—what they are concerned with is how they are named in books and articles, but WP adopts those suggestions and applies them to article names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
These changes are not MOS nor Bluebook compliant. GregJackP Boomer! 03:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
10.2.2 rules apply to citations. Different rules apply otherwise to case names, where generally only the magic 8 words are abbreviated. The guideline does not specify which are to be used, so I assumed the ones more in line with general WP style guidelines would prevail, which are the non-citation rules, in my opinion. If this is an unresolved issue, I have no objection to them being moved back. From what I can see, the non-citation rules are overwhelmingly applied in most of the article names, but users may not have given this distinction much thought at this stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Request assistance with talk page archive page move[edit]

Would you be willing to move Talk:1843 polygamy revelation to Talk:Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy/Archive 5? /Archive 5 currently just links back to that original location anyways, and doesn't have anything of value on the page history. Making this change cuts out the middleman, and helps the archives for this talk page to be more consistent. I've got a error message that I can't do the move myself, and that I need an Admin to do it. Asterisk*Splat 22:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Also Talk:1831 polygamy revelation to Talk:Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy/Archive 4, please, for the same reason. Asterisk*Splat 23:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Done—makes sense as a clean-up measure. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


Good evening,
I read you revert and I think that your interpretation is very subjective. Because the category country can have an infinite number of attached articles !
Nezdek (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

An infinite number? I don't think so. It's not at all subjective, as I use the definition in country: "a region identified as a distinct entity in political geography". One could just as well use one of the OED definitions: "a region constituting an independent state, or a region, province, etc., which was once independent and is still distinct in institutions, language, etc." Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Case name cleanup[edit]

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For all your recent and tireless work renaming law-related articles to conform to Bluebook or other applicative standards, I award you this Working Wikipedian's Barnstar. TJRC (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, and I appreciate the forbearance for the occasional screw-up or controversial change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

CfD on far-left political parties[edit]

FYI,Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_10, thanks, --Soman (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


I have an odd ball question. I have never really found WP rule page regarding refusal to accept a consensus.

Every once in a while I will run across someone who repeatedly makes a chance, over and over again, over a long period of time that goes against the consensus of multiple editors (not just one editor against another). Often they even refuse to use the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle or, after not getting what they want, they simply ignore what was said on the talk page and do what they want anyway.

However, they aren't violating 3RR and they are making edits that they feel are appropriate (so I don't see it a WP:vandalism, but they simply refuse to accept that 4 or 5 different editors all agree that the changes they want to make are clearly incorrect, not backed up by sources, or only an opinion that they have.

Anyway, my question is, what is supposed to be done with those types of editor. I can be really frustrating to have to "keep and eye" on pages just because some editor simply refuses to accept a consensus and won't leave a page alone over a long period of time. Is this considered a from of WP:Vandalism or WP:Edit warring? Can these people be reported somewhere?--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I know what you mean and I agree that that can be really frustrating. I think it tends to happen more on pages about religion than elsewhere, simply because people's views are so entrenched (probably happens a lot on politics pages too). Sometimes I try to engage with them on their user talk page, but it rarely helps. But I think doing so would at least be a pre-requisite before anything else can be done. If you've approached them on their user page and they continue to be defiant (or just don't respond) and the edits continue, then I think it is worth bringing it to an uninvolved administrator's attention. If you can't find anyone specific to help, then I suppose the best place to report it would be at WP:ANI, which usually takes care of general problems that can't be categorized anywhere else. Reporting there can require a lot of legwork, though, as you generally will have to provide evidence (diffs) of a long-standing problem and your previous efforts to resolve things. So you sometimes have to track down a bunch of old edits, etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


actually re this my use of "cuisines" was intentional because, although there are common foods across native peoples, there are different "cuisines", not one cuisine.Skookum1 (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I will change it since it wasn't a mistake. Although—I'm pretty sure it's OK to use "cuisine" even when there are different cuisines that are being referred to. For instance, you could say "European cuisine" in referring to French, Italian, Spanish etc. cuisines. But "cuisines" works too.
In cleaning up, I was a little bit confused at why some of the changes had been made, though. For instance, the discussion created Category:Culture of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, but then I ran across Category:Indigenous culture of the Americas‎. Are you sure that this didn't create duplications? Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Politicians from Vancouver range/scope[edit]

Please see Category_talk:Politicians_from_Vancouver#Vancouver....or_Greater_Vancouver.3F. I'm unsure whether to go start creating "Politicians from West Vancouver", "Politicians from North Vancouver", "Politicians from Burnaby", "politicians from Surrey, British Columbia" etc. or to seek a rename of this category; the wording of the title also means people born there, not just serving there; a parent category has "in British Columbia" so maybe "from" should be "in"? Also the three "meaningful divisions" and usual regionalizations for politics in BC are the Interior, teh Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island (VI and the Lower Mainland are both subsets of the "Coast" part of the BC category systems/reality; but a parent category for all those alluded to above and in that linked cat talkpage comment is "cities" and the Lower Mainland is a region, not a city; likewise "Greater Vancouver" is a region-within-that-region and overlaps heavily with the Fraser Valley region. The use of "Vancouver" as a catch-all term in this way is too vague for encyclopedic use and is very often incorrectly used (even Squamish and Whistler are spoken of as if part of "Vancouver" though they're not even in the Greater Vancouver region; and Abbotsford is not part of Greater Vancouver though on its doorstep (i.e. in teh Lower Mainland).Skookum1 (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I've never been a big proponent of categorizing people by occupation and city (or by occupation and metro area). It gets us into issues like this that I just find insufferable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

one other cat that seems....well....[edit]

Came across Category:Anti-Chinese activities in Canada and find that title more than a little POV/SOAP. The hierarchy grandparents seems to Anti-Chinese activities in North America and Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment in Canada; lately those are being populated by book titles and not actual events/sentiments and it's again only a certain kind of book/POV that is being created/obsessed upon. Anti-Canadian activities in China etc SFAIK does not existt, though anti-Western activities in China are rather mainstream for centuries. Found this wile looking into the activities or a certain editor about his POVism and WP:V claims re Chinese Canadians in British Columbia; you may have noticed the ANI and the OR board things about this; I've said my piece and am staying away, while continuing to research sources and issues while others are spending their days walls-of-texting and advancing AGF about me while conducting OR and makingr AGF/NPA attacks/board-wars to block me from contributing in the area of my own long-time experience and expertise....such is Wikipedia, more's the pity. but finding stuff like this, as with th "terrorism hierarchy" being used in more-than-somewhat propagandistic ways is beyond technical guideline and sources claims/'s POVism IMO.Skookum1 (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

To me, Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment in Canada is more than enough. It could easily contain everything that is in category:Anti-Chinese activities in Canada. I don't see a need to break it down any further. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 30[edit]

First off I'm not trying to blame anybody for this and I'm not interested in starting a argument over it. Both the nomination and the closure were fine.

The closure of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 30#Category:Native American archeology has caused some additional problems. It extends through all the categories deleted I think, but for now I'll confine it to the art category. We have the newly created Category:Art of the indigenous peoples of the Americas but that is a duplicate of Category:Indigenous art of the Americas. Given the titles of those they should both include all art from North, Central and South America and should include such articles as Prehistoric art which has sections on early art throughout the Americas. There is also Category:Aboriginal art in Canada which if Category:Native American art is deleted should go as well because the title is very country specific. There is also Category:Inuit art and Category:Northwest Coast art and should they stay or go. As we don't have categories for Category:First Nations art, Category:Métis art or Category:Native American art the Inuit one should probably be deleted. I think that if a specific article, such as Northwest Coast art, covers both the US and Canada then rather than some overreaching category it should be in a First Nations/Aboriginal Canadians and a Native Americans one.

Like I said this, as far as I know, applies across all the new categories. What I'm asking for is for you to revert yourself for now. I can work with User:Skookum1 to sort these out and come back with a joint proposal. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

After closing it, I had a sense that something was not quite right with the results. See above. The more I look at this all, the more that I agree that there are some problems here that have resulted. Some of the nominated categories were clearly meant to be limited to Native American topics. I'm happy to revert the changes. I will leave the discussion on 30 Dec closed, and annotate it appropriately. Thanks for your assistance. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

indigenous cats redux[edit]

@CambridgeBayWeather: and I were discussing this last night off-wiki; note my last post about unentangling a tangled-up hierarchy; some things are grandparents of themselves etc; and now yes there is some cat-duplication/redundancies; the whole "tree" should be laid out so we can see what's where and know what to merge/fix or whatever. Where to do that, maybe a sandbox off WP:IPNA? There's also iffy titles like Category:Haida gods within them, about which more could be said. Getting the abuse of "Native American" as a term where it doesn't belong was a necessary step...but cleaning up what has become a tangled mess over time will take some discussion and examination of what's where and why. It would have helped, of course, if Canada and the US used the same terminology, but as with geography and history, there are two different "languages" in the North American anglosphere (e.g. the Rocky Mountains in the US include the Salish Mountains and Cabinet Mountains in the US Northwest, which are not part of the same system known as the Rockies in Canada but rather the southward extension of the Columbia Mountains; ecoregion names vary, Inuit/Eskimo etc). The true p.c./modern usage nowadays is emerging as referring to people by their actual "ethnicity" rather than by the race-classification taht both Native American and "First Nations person" really are.Skookum1 (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I have a few comments on this, and am posting here as there does not seem to be an on-wiki debate anywhere else since the CFD has been closed. I don't think this should be decided by an off-wiki conversation between two editors.
  • "Archaeology of the indigenous peoples of North America" is a real mangling of language. Surely we can have a more concise category name than that?
  • In my opinion, the names in any category tree should be consistent. This is more important than matching them to any one particular country's usage.
  • Before changing cat names yet again and making numerous articles pop up on people's watchlists again, this should be debated at a more visisble venue to ensure it actually has consensus. Relevant wikiprojects should be involved for instance.
  • Duplicate and related categories might be an issue, but they don't need to be discussed as part of this issue. Let's keep it focused. If there were duplicate categories after the renaming, then surely there must have been duplicate categories before renaming. They can be dealt with as a separate issue regardless of what renaming decisions are made. SpinningSpark 09:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Spinningspark, I'm not sure that this is the place for it but I think that User:Skookum1's comment may have given the wrong impression. It wasn't a discussion about what should be done to sort things out but a more general discussion. Skookum1 mentioned to me that the discussion was closed. Seven hours later I replied noting that I still wasn't sure that it was a good thing. I also pointed out the problems that the deletion caused with the removal of First Nation but leaving the Canadian category. Skookum1 said that the hierarchy needed sorting, similar to above. I pointed out that there were redundancies in the categories. Skookum1 agreed and said that he hoped it could get fixed without another CfD. The rest of the conversation had nothing to do with the categories and we never made any comments about deciding anythig.
As for the archaeology we already have Category:Archaeological cultures of North America, Category:Archaeology of the Americas and Category:Archaeological sites in the Americas. Ignoring the possible duplications is not really an option. Anyway I'm sure Good Olfactory has better things to do than read through our ramblings. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
My apologies to Good Olfactory for cluttering their talk page, but I did not start this thread here, and, as I said, the participants seem not to be discussing this anywhere else online. CambridgeBayWeather, I think that after having got a decision at CFD, and then persuaded the closer to amend it to your liking, there absolutely must, at the very least, be a further CFD before making another change. Broadening it out to an even more extensive set of categories needs a broader discussion still, not a backroom discussion between two editors that no one else is party to. SpinningSpark 11:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Spinningspark there is no backroom discussion. The discussion was at the CfD linked in the above section. That discussion was just closed and there has been no time to start another. Nobody said anything about not having a CfD of any sort, just that it was to be hoped that there wasn't a need for one. Perhaps categories don't need renaming/deleting who knows at this point. Seeing as we haven't taken a full look at how all the categories are laid out the idea of a CfD right now is not really useful. If you look at the original discussion at the CfD you can see that Skookum1 and I disagree on this subject. I just realised that the last sentence in the section above was badly phrased and I apologise for that. I didn't mean that Skookum1 and I would go off Wikipedia somewhere and come up with something but just that we could work together. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Which we do a lot of - work together, even when disagreeing; unlike so many others ready to hurl dung when not even knowing t he material at question. We've become friends in the real world and share many common interests.....and a shared concern for Canadian history and geography and indigenous content. Wikipedia doesn't own us, nor are we required to hold all our discussions in public view when discussing goings-on and issues here. The whole point of the sandbox-space suggested to Good Ol'Factory, which would spin off a wikiproject talkpage, nto a personal talkpage, is to lay out the tangles of the interconnected indigenous hierarchies and see where the gaps and redundancies are...and the remaining mis-uses of "Native American", fixing which was the point of the CfD; that redundacies have resulted was inevitable...partly because some categories have themselves as grandparents; per Zaphod Beeblebrox in the Hitchhiker'rs Guide, discussing being his own grandfather...."It's complicated...had to do with a time-machine and a contraceptive".

And noting re the above that the RM at Talk:Plains Indians#Requested move to move it to Indigenous peoples of the Great Plains has failed...for the third time. that name-formulation applies in other indigenous region-groupings in North America...almost, as Inuit and Metis do not require the "indigenous peoples" tag as with the Pacific Northwest Coast, Northwest Plateau, etc (with the ride that "indigenous people of the Great Plains" does have both US and Canadian Metis articles/cats as subsets, so that cat-name does have a reason to exist, even though teh article title doesn't (other than as a small dab page to the Plains Indians articles with the two Metis articles...).Skookum1 (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

(I've no problem with my talk page being used for this topic for the time being. However, the idea of eventually getting a dedicated talk spot for this subject is probably a good idea.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


Re [4] - my bad. I should have read it more carefully :-) Optimist on the run (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

However, I think some of those pages should perhaps be combined. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Chart formatting templates[edit]

(... the moved-to category name is unusual: should probably propose this at WP:CFD)

What would you suggest..? (The rename was prompted by there being chart-related formatting/function templates other than {{Chart}}.)

Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The main issue I had was that the new name was Category:Template:Chart templates. It wasn't clear why "template" was in the name twice. Category:Chart templates would make more sense to me. I'm not sure if you intended that or not. In any case, really you can propose that it be moved to any name you prefer, I just think it should go through WP:CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your reply. I've just seen Category:Coord template, so how about Category:Chart template..? (Singular, as, like {{Coord}}'s category, it's a category for a single template.) If you think that's okay, does it really need other people's time/attention at CfD (even speedy CfD)..? Yours, Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I would think it would need to be pluralized, if only because Template:Brick chart is also in it, which is a separate template. It's really only the most obvious or uncontroversial renames that most users are OK avoiding CFD for. If I were you I would just make the proposal there that you think is best, since you have experience with the template and similar categories. (You could try speedy; users are pretty good at picking off ones that don't meet the criteria. I'm not sure if you can shoehorn it into any of the criteria there, but it's possible.) It's up to you, though—alternatively, you could just go ahead and rename it yourself; I won't revert the name again. But there's no guarantee that another user won't want to rename it later, and you won't have a CFD result to fall back on to preserve the name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your thoughts. I think the only pages categorized there now are all part of or directly related to {{Chart}}, so I'll "try a speedy" at CfD. If it's ejected from speedy, I'd be surprised if it didn't qualify for renaming in the standard queue. Best wishes, Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok, sounds good to me. I'm sorry for the hassle I've created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi Good Olfactory, the talk page of Tortuga (Haiti) is currently held at Tortug (Haiti), it didn't transition with the article page in the move. Savvyjack23 (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. I will fix it. Do you want to have a discussion on the name? Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Mark Paredes[edit]

As an uninvolved admin with an interest in Latter Day Saint movement topics, could you review the current status of Mark Paredes, the edit history since at least the beginning of January, and the attempts at dialog on the talk page? (talk · contribs) is doing SPA editing on that article, and appears to have some conection with the subject of the article: in this dif the IP claimed to be Paredes, but this is completely unconfirmed. I have tried to accommodate concerns expressed by the person editing at the IP where I felt it reasonably do so, but the IP persists with less than useful editing on the article. I'd like your advice on how to proceed. Has my editing caused any legitimate BLP concerns on the article, in it's current state? Have I been been unreasonable, or unrealistic in my interactions with that IP? Given the claim made by that IP, should that IP be not allowed to edit the article, based on the pattern of editing, and wp:COI restrictions? Is it appropriate to semi-protect the article (so IPs cannot edit it), given the circumstances? Asterisk*Splat 16:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

There's definitely a problem there—you're trying to discuss the issue on the talk page, but the IPs are making no effort to participate. Some of the IP's previous edits I think have fairly removed some material that didn't belong, so not all of the edits have been a problem (though they certainly have been self-serving, if it is Paredes). The more recent edits are more questionable, I think, and are the type of thing to be discussed on the article talk page, as you've attempted. Before any action to semi-protect the page is taken, I think you should make an effort to engage with the person on the IP user talk page(s). I suggest that you bring the Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines to their attention but also invite them to participate in resolving the outstanding issues on the article talk page rather than just editing back and forth. I would try that, and if nothing changes afterwards, then I think it would be appropriate to do something else, perhaps a page protection or a further message to the IP from an admin regarding the situation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The IP editor has made their initial comment on Talk:Mark Paredes, to which I have replied, Unfortunately I became a bit too wordy in my reply, so it's a coin-toss as to whether it gets read and responded to. Looks like we are on the right track, at least for now. Thanks for your suggestions! Your thoughts are also naturally welcome on that talk page. Asterisk*Splat 19:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Keep me updated on this. If there is a breakdown or if things get hairy, I could try to mediate or intervene somehow. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk Back[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Good Olfactory. You have new messages at ARTEST4ECHO's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Help creating Article in English[edit]

Hello Good Olfactory, Step over here for help. Well, I wonder if you can help me with the creation of this article in English. I honestly do not think I can work on this project, because my English is not very good. If you can not help me, I would like to apply will contact someone in the community who handles both languages. Can you leave me your comments on my talk page here. Well, of course thank you very much. A greeting, Deucaleon 16:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deucaleon (talkcontribs)

Outside opinion at LDS related article[edit]

It looks like I might be involved in a slow-burning edit war over on Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You've edited the article in the past but I don't believe are part of the current disagreement - would you mind taking a look and providing an outside opinion? The disagreement centers around including a Boyd Packer quote in a certain place. User:InfiLaw keeps pushing it while another editor and I have repeatedly removed it, and another editor has expressed disagreement with the edit on the talk page. I'm sure we could all use some outside eyes to help avert a full-blown edit war. Thanks. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the current edits of mine that are being deleted state exactly what Boyd Packer said from the pulpit during general conference (which talk was later published by the church in a pamphlet for decades). That is, Packer thanked a missionary for hitting his homosexual companion, and although he didn't "recommend" that course of action, he didn't "omit" it either - he concluded by saying "You must protect yourself." This is "condoning" and "gay-bashing" in my opinion, but I suppose not all see it that way. Accordingly, I've removed all language that suggests that the church condoned gay-bashing and simply state exactly what Packer said in his talk. Several users are now claiming that this was just Boyd's personal opinion and not an official church stance; however, many of the citations in the Wiki page refer to past talks given by general authorities during general conference, and such remarks are treated as the church's official position when it doesn't conflict with the church's current stance on an issue. Anyway, it is misleading to state only the current stance of the church on an issue and pretend that there have never been controversial statements about the issue in the past. All I am asking is that both sides be mentioned.

InfiLaw (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page there. I definitely think that prior to making the changes, a consensus should be established. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
This is to recognize all the work you've done to ensure that article names are McGill Guide-compliant! wia (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

IP Editor and Sock puppetry[edit]

I was wondering if you couldn't tell me how Wikipedia works with regards to IP editor and Sock puppetry. I have noticed a IP editor who used to log in and edit as a registered user. However, and I would assume it was so he couldn't be held accountable for bad editing, this editor is not using some kind of floating IP address. For example, one edit he was 2607:FB90:2903:2EEB:E7E3:ECAD:B8EF:48F8 the next he was 2607:FB90:2903:559D:2F78:15E8:5153:1B40. As you can see they always start with 2607:FB90: but it changes often. I've seen this editor on several Latter Day Saint pages, and I would bet you have also. 90% of the time his edits are reverted almost immediately.

Anyway, my question is two fold.

  1. 1 is this considered Sock puppetry? As the IP address changes constantly, it seems to me that, at least under the spirit of the policy, this is Sock puppetry.
  2. 2 Can anything be done if it's reported? I'm not sure how Wikipedia handles blocking of IP address, but since the IP address changes constantly (except for 2607:FB90), it seems to me that nothing can really be done. Unless Wikipedia has some why to stop this, reporting the editor to Sock puppetry seems pointless.

So what do you suggest.?--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 20:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, it even worst. I found several edits where the IP address changes from 2607 to 2605. I guess it really doesn't matter. It's clearly the same person, but even if is is Sock puppetry, I doubt anything can be done.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 20:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
It's for this reason that some editors support having a rule that only registered users should be able to edit. I think that in cases where it's obvious that it is the same person using different IP addresses, it's fair to treat them as the same. So if one IP got blocked for vandalism or disruptive behaviour, it would be fair to block the other one as well. I guess it's not strictly speaking "sock puppetry", since I think that usually presupposes that more than one registered account is being used, but it's very much akin to it, and when it's obvious I don't have a problem dealing with them together. When I block IPs for problematic behaviour, usually what I do is I don't block account creation, so that kind of encourages them to create an account. The block will prevent the IP from editing without an account, but with an account they are able to. For stuff like this that doesn't really fit into any of the usual reporting places, an WP:ANI usually works. Or, if it's vandalism, use Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree, but I don't think it would work in this case. Sock puppetry dose say that logging out in order to violate WP rules, so that your account isn't blocked, is a form of Sock puppetry. The problem I see is that this editor, and it's very clear it's the same person, is using some form of system that changes the compete IP address every time he edits. The only recourse would be to have a rule that only registered users should be able to edit. I admit I don't know how blocking works from an Admin point of view, but I don't think it would be possible to do anything, as his IP address changes so dramatically every time. Anyway, thanks for the help.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 13:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for taking the time to help another editor understand how things work. --- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 13:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


Thanks! 333-blue 02:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem—sorry to be an inconvenience. I'm still not sure why that would happen. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for restore! 333-blue 02:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


I can't believe that I have to warn you for edit warring on Template:Christianity. You know WP:3RR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you do have to. 3RR wasn't violated by me or anyone else, unless I'm missing something. Koavf and I are users that are familiar with each other, we get along, and we both understand the limits of discussing through edit reversions. (Frankly, I find it difficult to get Koavf to discuss anything on talk pages, but he will engage and let me know what he's thinking via edit summaries.) I've no problem with you voicing your concern, though, and it's understandable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

treaty cats: Sudans....[edit]

He Good Olfactory, I checked Category:Treaties of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, where only 2 conventions are placed. I think the Brussels convention (1924) does not belong there. The depositary lists Sudan, with a reservation, that this ratification was part of the extension of France to French West Africa (comprising French Sudan, now Mali). As the Brussels convention already lists Category:Treaties extended to French West Africa, I suppose the Category:Treaties of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan cat can simply be deleted from the Brussels convention page? L.tak (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I've had a look—I think you are right and that was my mistake. I must not have read the reservations very well. No excuse that they are in French—my French is good, not perfect—but the reservations are not worded very difficulty. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Well the excuse may be that the Belgian depositary pages are quite ... outdated. Anyway, I didn't dare to change it myself as I am not very familiar with the African colonial heritage. L.tak (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
One kind of weird thing about it though—as you say, "French Sudan" was in present-day Mali. That's a long way from Sudan, which was Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Why would an application of the treaty to French Sudan have any relevance whatsoever to present-day Sudan? I'm wondering if there is not some sort of error there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
It probably hasn't any bearing on present day Sudan. However, I can only assume that the Belgians, when they spoke (speak) about Soudan, they silently meant French Sudan (rather than UK/Egyptian Sudan); because of their cultural and geographic proximity to France. L.tak (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
It's possible ... though in context, you would think that they would list that under "Mali". Like you say though—who knows when this was last updated, so it might be a term they continued to use for Mali for some time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Looking again, it seems they are just very afraid to do anything that goes beyond the formal depositary notifications (probably because they don't want to take a stand regarding state succession issues, so crossing a decolonization line will be very problematic). Note they also have listed still Upper Volta etc... L.tak (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you're right. (I can imagine that most Belgians find Belgium's whole African colonial experience to be reasonably regrettable in retrospect (maybe even moreso than the British or French experiences), so I can understand the reticence in making any post-deposit changes that aren't officially communicated to the government as depositary.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Desdemona Wadsworth Fullmer Smith[edit]

I could use the opinion of an uninvolved admin familiar with the Latter Day Saints movement regarding Desdemona Wadsworth Fullmer Smith, Talk:Desdemona Wadsworth Fullmer Smith, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ARTEST4ECHO, and User talk:AsteriskStarSplat#Desdemona Wadsworth Fullmer Smith. I'm done for the evening so there will be no more edits from me tonight. Asterisk*Splat 03:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:LDS sects/Mormon fundamentalist[edit]

I've been thinking of doing a modification of Template talk:LDS sects/Mormon fundamentalist. However it being such a big change, I though I would seek some input before making the change. If your interested in commenting, I would love to here from you at Template_talk:LDS_sects/Mormon_fundamentalist#Unweildy--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 21:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Medical Research categorisation[edit]

I think there is a mess here. There are two separate lots of categories: Category:Medical researchers by nationality and Category:Medical research by country. Almost all of the subcategories seem to be identical and overlapping. I think one of them should be eliminated. Probably the nationality, because I suspect there will be better information about the country in which the research was conducted than about the subject's nationality. What do you think?Rathfelder (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

They're basically identical, aren't they? Categorizing people by nationality and occupation is the standard way to categorize people, so I think that at this stage, the "by country" one is redundant. It's not that it couldn't exist, it's just that it's not a useful category right now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I cleaned up Category:Medical research by country, so it is as it should be now. Doesn't have much, but it can definitely grow. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2015 (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 this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Gordon B. Hinckley. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

McGill Guide: Style of Cause Provided By Reporter Error[edit]

You've made many changes to articles, based on what I assume is your interpretation of McGill 3.3.9 (8th edition). You're ignoring the second (bolded) point of Rule 3.3 which holds that "when the style of cause is provided by the reporter, keep it as is. If the decision does not indicate the style of cause, follow the supplementary rules indicated in sections 3.3.1 to 3.3.18."

This affects many Supreme Court decisions, such as Canada (Attorney General) v Bedford. The style of causes for Supreme Court cases are provided by the SCRs (i.e., "indexed as"). You should not be abbreviating these decisions to Canada (AG). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thompsoni2 (talkcontribs) 06:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

They can be moved. I've no attachment to any of the current names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Florida v. Zimmerman Move Question[edit]

When you moved Florida v. Zimmerman, why didn't you move the talk page to match the new article title? -- Veggies (talk) 08:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably an oversight on my part as a result of the talk page move being blocked on first attempt. There was no intent for them to be different, and I see now that it has been moved. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Plan of salvation (Latter-day Saints) → Talk:Plan of salvation (Latter Day Saints)[edit]

Would you be willing to move the article named Talk:Plan of salvation (Latter-day Saints) over the existing redirect at Talk:Plan of salvation (Latter Day Saints)? I cannot do this as it requires admin rights. The current article name is Plan of salvation (Latter Day Saints), and not having the talk page the same is causing some issues related to automated evaluation tools (e.g. the "book report" at Book talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints didn't recognise the class assigned to that article). Asterisk*Splat

Done. (I made a classic freudian blunder and initially moved it to Talk:Plan of salvation (Latte Day Saints), but cleaned that up immediately ...) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Be careful with that Mormon coffee; it may be decaf, but it still really packs a punch...  ;-) Asterisk*Splat 00:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Album categories[edit]

Who has been deleting the album categories without a proper discussion? - Bossanoven (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Those aren't umbrella nominations. - Bossanoven (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

And you didn't properly attribute the discussion, making it difficult to find and know if an actual discussion had taken place. - Bossanoven (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you'll need to specifically cite what category deletions you are referring to for me to be able to answer. (I'm not trying to be difficult here: I deal with a lot of different category issues/deletions in the course of a typical week, and it's impossible for me to always know which users are closely involved in or care about particular discussions.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

2013 CfD Close[edit]

Hi, Good Ol’factory,
I've been working a bit on the GamerGate controversy article and talk page which caused me to look at other articles on gender and video games and I came across this CfD case that you closed, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 2#Category:Video games featuring female protagonists. It was clearly a contentious and divided discussion and all of the "regular" editors at CfD were arguing for deletion but you weighed the articles to keep to be more significant. In light of what's been occurring over the past six months, it now looks like a sign of what was to come. Looking at the arguments with hindsight, I think you made the right call! Liz Read! Talk! 18:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Central Hockey League[edit]

I notice you moved the 1992-2014 CHL to be the primary page for it...but I also notice you did it while gathering NO consensus on it whatsoever? Just because you're an admin doesn't mean that the guidelines of civility and reaching consensus don't apply...I think you should have discussed it on the talk page before you made the move. Tom Danson (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Tom Danson: There's a bit of pot calling the kettle black here. What I did was move the article back to where it was before it was moved without consensus (by you) to Central Hockey League (1992–2014). You made no efforts to gather a consensus for the new name. If you think it should be moved to the disambiguated name, that is the proposal that needs a consensus or a formal proposal to implement. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Magic categories to be merged back to block structure discussion[edit]

A nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 16#Category:Magic: The Gathering blocks to merge Magic categories back to blocks from sets. Feel free to join in on the discussion. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Article move[edit]

Hi, Thanks for moving about K3 Challengers League, Can you move one more article? Sriwijaya Official website is displaying Sriwijaya FC not F.C. Please move this article

Sriwijaya F.C. => Sriwijaya FC

ThanksFootwiks (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, done! Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for the category help. Looks like New Jersey is winning the corruption race so far. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought that would be the best way to set it up. Knowing what I know of the place, NJ may be winning forever! Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Radio owners[edit]

Regarding your CFD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_17#Radio_owners, I just wanted to let you know that we actually do already have a category for companies which own radio stations — it's just named Category:Radio broadcasting companies of the United States rather than "radio station owners". Bearcat (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Backlogged categories[edit]

Good Olfactory, I've been working with red linked categories and orphaned categories and I came across the page Wikipedia:Database reports/Polluted categories. There was no explanation and I hope you can tell me what "polluted" means and how I can address any problems. It's recently been compiled so it's not a database page that is outdated. Thanks for any assistance you can provide. Liz Read! Talk! 19:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, for most regular categories, it means that there is a page in it that is in userspace; ie, the page name begins with "User:". Those pages should not appear in regular categories. Alternatively, it could be the opposite problem: it could be a category intended to be solely for user pages, but someone has added a non-userspace page to the category. In other words, "polluted categories" are those that contain a mixture of userspace pages and non-userspace pages. Categories should always contain one type or the other type, but never a mix of both. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I never would've guessed that, I appreciate the explanation. It might be worth trying to resolve some of these categories. I'll put it on my to do list! Liz Read! Talk! 00:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Puerto Rican athletes[edit]

My bad on the category move, got a bit overzealous. spiderjerky (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Church and state law[edit]

Category:Church and state law, 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. Editor2020, Talk 23:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Had to laugh[edit]

Since you commented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ARTEST4ECHO/Archive#03_February_2015, I just had to share a laugh I got when I read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kbabej/Archive. Apparently Kbabej was a sockpuppet account. Talk about irony, accusing AsteriskStarSplat and myself of being sockpuppets to "win" a content dispute, all the while being a sockpuppet account. Talk about irony. LOL--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 20:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Coincidences are often interesting. Apparently a...echo is less uncommon than I might have thought. - jc37 20:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I suppose it does make some sense in a weird way—they might be sensitized to sockpuppetry possibilities because they assume that everyone is like them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

PBP is clearly out of line[edit]

PBPs campaign against articles on Latter-day Saints has been carried out with clear signs of malice. He has advocated for exclusion of all LDS sources in ways that if applied to any other group would be unquestionably considered bigotted. He has on multiple occasions been told to stop hounding me but continues to do so. He maliciously seeks to disqualify any comment I make on these discussions. He has tried to get me banned from wikipedia on multiple occasions. His whole behavior on this issue has been anything other than neutral. I have tried to be patient, but all I get is more attacks and more insults.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You've tried this before - User_talk:NeilN/Archive_20#Please_reconsider_General_Authority_issue. If it's a question of neutrality, yours is definitely suspect ("works to restrict the groups ability to be presented as it sees itself in Wikipedia"). --NeilN talk to me 05:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Johnpacklambert, can you show me some evidence for your claims? I.e., can you provide some edits where PBP has showed "clear signs of malice" or bigoted attitudes? That's different than not being "neutral". He doesn't have to be neutral—he's allowed to have an opinion. But having an opinion does not automatically equal bigotry without some strong evidence. (I have read his comments relating to use of Church News, Ensign, and Deseret News as sources in bios of general authorities, and I find his approach to be not an unreasonable one, even if other users can disagree with it.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@Johnpacklambert:, When you make 3-4 comments in a row defaming people who disagree with you, something you've done over and over in CfD and AfD discussions, can you really blame me for not liking you? (And that's hardly the only bad example of your misbehavior). Yes, I don't like articles that are solely sourced from LDS-related publications (articles written by anybody, not just you). I don't believe them to be reliable because a great many of them are sourced from primary sources I can never have access to because I am a non-Mormon. I think it's a particular problem with articles about people who are members or officials of the LDS church, because the sources are not independent of the topic. And it's even MORE of a problem when we're looking at people like Richards who are BLPs. But, instead of actually sourcing articles, you've gone around claiming the people are notable no matter how poorly sourced their articles are, and claiming that I'm a bigot, which is not really accurate and certainly a personal attack. And you've taken what I'm advocating way out of proportion. All I've ever said is I don't think LDS sources should be used to determine notability of LDS officials. They can still be used to cite facts in the articles, and they can still be used to determine the notability of non-Mormons. pbp 07:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The whole "Yes I don't like articles that are solely sourced to LDS-related publications. I don't believe them to be reliable." This is a statement that LDS-related is "unreliable". This is categorizing sources as unreliable based on the religion of the person writing them. If that is not bigoted

than nothing is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

    • And, as usual, you are mischaracterizing Purplebackpack89's views. Please provide diffs or stop as constant claims of bigotry are harassment. --NeilN talk to me 18:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Here is a quote of the type of rude comment he incessantly makes. "You do realize that merely saying "Person X is notable" ain't an actual argument, right? And that there's no policy or guideline saying that members of the 1st Quorum are automatically notable? This may very well be kept, but it shouldn't be kept on the basis of votes like yours," He consistently responds to comments by me with this level of rudeness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
    • It's not rude, it's correct. An argument saying, "Person X is notable because I say he's notable" should be discounted. --NeilN talk to me 18:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
      • The tone is rude. If you cannot see that, than there is little point in this discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
        • So now you're reducing malice and bigotry to having a blunt tone? --NeilN talk to me 19:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The claim that LDS-sources are based on "primary documents that some cannot have access to as a non-Mormon" is false. It is part of a false picture of the Church withholding access to non-members of certain reccords. At best it shows general ignorance of the topics under discussion. It is not a true presentation of the matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Prove it. Prove that all of the LDS archives are accessible to anyone who wants to view them. Because there are reliable sources that indicate otherwise. My experience has been the latter. I can't even get a map of the ward in my town without having the LDS password. pbp 19:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I can't get a map of the ward in your town either, since I don't live there. The maps are limited to local people because of privacy considerations. The archives on the other hand are not limited to members in any sense. They are open to researchers of all faiths. Claims otherwise are part of the consistent rhetoric of anti-Mormons. Here we see PBP engaging in more anti-Mormon rhetoric. The type of rhetoric that resonates in the circles of those who work to actively attack the Church. He is finally showing his true colors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
        • @Johnpacklambert: As I and two other users have told you in this thread, being skeptical of Mormon sourcing in selected instances is not bigotry. You are FAR too cavalier in tossing around bigotry and other loaded words, words that are so loaded that using them for any reason is an automatic personal attack. Still waiting on the proof; instead of providing some you just claimed that I and the reliable sources are bigoted. pbp 07:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Johnpacklambert: I will grant you that some of PBP's comments have been rude to you. He could be more civil to you. I think that he has acknowledged that and has said that it largely stems from past bad interactions with you. But from what I have seen you say, JPL, is far, far worse in terms of rudeness and incivility. PBP is not saying (I don't think) that all LDS-related sources are unreliable in every context. He is saying that if an article about an LDS leader only has citations to LDS-related sources, then there is a problem using those sources to establish notability outside of the LDS Church. To me, this seems self-evident, and I am reasonably sympathetic to the existence of most LDS articles on Wikipedia. (Not all LDS Church documents are open to the public. Handbook 1 is not—I have a copy because someone provided me with one, but it's hard to get hold of. Even the Church Historian recently acknowledged that the church has not always been completely open with historical documents: he is quoted here as saying "I think in the past there was a tendency to keep a lot of the records closed or at least not give access to information. But the world has changed in the last generation—with the access to information on the Internet, we can’t continue that pattern; I think we need to continue to be more open.") Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

none diffusion of religion categories[edit]

The guidelines of diffusion and non diffusion say that religion categories are non-diffusing. Thus all people in category Category:American Latter Day Saint hymnwriters should also be in Category:American hymnwriters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: Could you link to the guidelines for this diffusion principle? I never know what people are talking about when they refer to it. Anyway, doing this would apply the guideline it to a musical category (hymnwriters). Applying it to the religious aspect would simply mean that they need to be in Category:American Latter Day Saints, no? I suppose "hymnwriter" carries with it a religious aspect. But if we apply it strictly, that would also mean anyone in Category:American Latter Day Saint hymnwriters would have to also be in Category:American hymnwriters, Category:Christian hymnwriters, and Category:Latter Day Saint hymnwriters. It gets to be a bit excessive, which is why I'd be interested in reading and discussing this guideline. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:People excommunicated by the Church of Christ (Temple Lot)[edit]

Category:People excommunicated by the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), 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. pbp 16:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Gas station attendants[edit]

I see you have deleted Category:Gas station attendants with this explanation: C1: Empty category: single article in it was deleted. Since only admins can see what article was deleted, I wonder if you would elaborate. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

See this category discussion here. The discussion contains a reference to the AFD for the article discussion, which was here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank for the speedy response. Can you also tell me who created those deleted pages? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Category was created by you; article was created by User:Squigglezap. Creation of the article appears to have been Squigglezap's only edit. It was in September 2008. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I checked to see who created Ronald Read and Category:Gas station attendants and it says I was the creator of both pages, yet I did not receive a notice of deletion nomination in either case? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
For the article, User:Squigglezap had an edit before yours, but I see it was just making the page a redirect to Ronald C. Read. You then converted the page from a redirect into an article. Notifying content creators of AFD/CFD discussions is optional. Because of that, and because I don't like to rely on other users for notifications, I keep pages I might be interested in on my watchlist. Tagging the article or category is mandatory, so watching the page is the only surefire way of finding out about deletion nominations. (The category can be re-created if populated—it was only deleted because the single article in it was deleted.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The [[ link I provided above says I am the creator of Ronald Read
  • The other editor whom you say created the article was also not notified
  • I am glad watching works for you, but it does not work for me. Does this mean my method is bad and yours is good? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • No, that's not what I am saying. All I'm saying is that your method relies on other editors deciding to take actions which are optional under Wikipedia practices. My method relies on other editors taking actions which are mandatory under Wikipedia practices. It's up to you how to approach the issue. If you want to complain about not being notified regarding the article deletion, you should speak with the editor that nominated the article. But you should be aware that they can simply respond with, "I chose not to notify you,", and that that decision doesn't delegitimize the discussion that was held.
  • To clarify what I said about the Read article, since it appears that you think I'm suggesting that you were not the "creator": the other editor initially created the article space Ronald Read as a redirect to Ronald C. Read; you converted the same space into an article seven years later.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Intergovernmental Agreement on Dry Ports[edit]

Saw your edit there. This is part of a campaign. I posted this to another editor: "For several years socks from Rio de Janeiro have been trying to add various terms from this videogame to articles, often (like the last few weeks) changing "autonomous republic" to "administrative republic". See [5] - now I'm not accusing you of being one of those, obviously, but you did add the wiki for Europa Universalis III to Administrative republic, which until mid February was Autonomous republic until a brand new editor came along and changed it. Since then a number of IP socks have been editing it. I'm not happy with that. It still contains a couple of country names which use 'autonomous' and not 'administrative', and although for Yugoslavia 'administrative' is sourced, most sources call them 'autonomous'. I generally don't like undiscussed name changed, and this one was immediately jumped on by obvious socks. I'm tempted to revert, any comments?" I've found several dozen similar changes from the past 2 months. Just a heads up really, not asking you to do anything or comment on the above article.

Dougweller (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Good to be aware of what's going on; thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Category redirects to itself[edit]

Hi. I'm guessing you didn't really mean to have Category:Open air museums be a redirect to itself, but I'm not sure what you meant to do. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I didn't. :) It was renamed to include a hyphen, so I meant to redirect it to the new hyphenated Category:Open-air museums. Thanks for letting me know. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Category redirect - why?[edit]

Why did you do redirect this category when the discussion was stlll in progress. Now that the discussion has closed as no consensus please restore all your changes. Thanks, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Because it's a duplicate category with exactly the same scope as a pre-existing (ie, older) category. Absent a consensus to rename, first in time takes precedence. You could nominate it for renaming, if you like. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
As you well know your so-called pre-existing category, was created a couple of weeks before the category you redirected to it. You also know I tried to initiate a discussion with the category creator who did not respond. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, how do you explain the edit you made while the discussion was taking place? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it was only a couple of weeks earlier—earlier is earlier, and the earlier one takes precedence. There's no "so-called pre-existing" about it—Category:American law by year was in existence before you created Category:United States law by year: that's the definition of pre-existing. I explain the edit you show with the same rationale—I was putting the relevant categories in the older of the two categories which have an identical scope. I understand that you don't like the name of the older category. That's fine, but pestering me here about it won't change it—only nominating it for renaming might change it, so I suggest you do that if you are concerned about it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Informing content creators when making proposals such as for deletion[edit]

In cases such as the proposal to delete Category:Islamic extremist groups restricting education would it be possible to inform the creator of the content? Many thanks. GregKaye 10:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I added Template:Cfd to the category. If you had the category on your watchlist, that would have served as notification. That is one of the purposes of requiring categories to be tagged when they go to CFD. (I previously notified users via a message on their talk page, but I received too much negative feedback about that practice from various editors—accusations of spamming, etc. So now, and because it's not a requirement, I don't bother.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:AFL–CIO litigation[edit]

Category:AFL–CIO litigation, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Australian politicians categories[edit]

Hi, and thanks for your message. I suppose there could be a purpose for the state-based categories (only as parents, as I wouldn't think there would be anyone who would belong solely in a "Queensland politicians"-type category). I'm not sure they will have a purpose in the newly reorganised structure, but I have no particular problem with them sitting there for now. Frickeg (talk) 07:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Let me know when your clean up is largely done, and I'd be happy to have another look. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Will do. As I go, I'm more inclined to think the state-based categories might be useful after all, at least for state-based parties and maybe some of the categories-by-division. It'll probably be a few weeks until I'm done (it's a big job!) but I'll get back to you! Frickeg (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The bulk of these have now been done (certainly federally, and for the bigger parties for the states) if you want to have a look. Frickeg (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks pretty good. So what do you think--do we want the "STATE politicians by party" categories? I can see that they still might be useful in some respects. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Guidelines for categorization[edit]

At CfD, sometimes we have "similar" discussions in the sense that we're actually discussing the interpretation of a certain guideline. Especially the exception rule in WP:SMALLCAT and the concept of a defining characteristic are recurring themes. Is there any platform on which we can discuss to make the guidelines more explicit? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I think in the past, most discussions of that nature have been at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization. Like CFD, sometimes such discussions have a hard time attracting many editors, but if some leg-work is done in notifying those who participate regularly at CFD, sometimes some discussions can get healthy levels of participation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


suprised you hadnt weighed in at [6] I always claim it was your massive categorising in the area that inspired the Wikipedia:WikiProject Death project... sigh. satusuro 14:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to do what the consensus wants; no strong opinions about it. For the most part, I didn't start most of such categorizations, only filled the schemes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
my stringent apologies for alluding to such (sic) - the memory was of starts/fill ins goes back 5 years now, which for the state of the little grey cells is somewhat blurry and exceeding in its inexactitude or something like that... satusuro 11:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
No apology or sic necessary. :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Demographic history by country[edit]

I was trying to determine who created Category:Demographic history by country and all that shows up in the Revision history is you as the creator in 2014. I know this category existed way before this date, so why can't I see its history? Also where can I find the respective wp:CFD? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably the easiest way to find the CFD is to click on "what links here" from the category page. That shows a link to here, where it was renamed. Originally, it was created by User:Shyamsunder on 1-Jan-2010. In the CFD, it was renamed Category:Demographic history by country or region. After the bot did the rename, I re-created Category:Demographic history by country as a category redirect to the new category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there no way to preserve Revision History in such cases? Ottawahitech (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
There wasn't until recently, but now that categories are "movable", the history can be retained just as it is retained when an article page is moved. My understanding is that Cydebot (the bot that processes most category renames) has now been configured to "move" renamed categories rather than what was previously done, which is create a new category and delete the old one. So yes, in the future this shouldn't be a problem, or at least it will become less and less common of a problem as we go forward. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


When you closed CFD on Category:Christian_denominations_by_denominational_family no one removed the page tag. tahc chat 15:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Luxembourgish rather than Luxembourgian[edit]

See Talk:Luxembourgers please. Sorry for not discussing earlier. – Kaihsu (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Coat of arms of the Northwest Territories[edit]

I noticed that you added [[Category:Coats of arms with compass roses|Northwest Territories]] to Coat of arms of the Northwest Territories. The category does not exist and that article is the only one in the category. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Rape category reasoning[edit]

I don't think this March discussion was given a fair shot. Just because a category is deleted before does not mean that it can never ever be created. Particularly since you closed the first one in February, I think it should be given consideration by others.

You said in the first case that the result of the discussion was "delete", but that is simply not true. Consensus was not achieved. SFB and I were still arguing against it. These discussions are not merely votes, so simply because more people said delete than keep was no reason to delete the category.

While I do agree that choosing to rape is more defining of a character's personality than being raped, it is still a significant factor that can shape characters. This is not "characters who have tripped" or "characters who caught a cold", after all. It is about something which receives a lot of focus and drama in real life and fiction. Ranze (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any substantive difference between the two categories, and the previous discussion was very recent. I don't understand why both were created around the same time. I could understand one, but why two? (Apparently they co-existed at the same time in December 2014.) I stand by the finding of a "delete" consensus in the first discussion. You might be confusing consensus with unanimity--just because users continue to dispute something doesn't mean that a consensus based on guidelines has not emerged. If you want to take the case to WP:DRV for a review, you're welcome to. In fact, given the weirdness of the circumstances, it would probably be a good idea. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

not sure of the latin[edit]

there has to be a damned good latin phrase re christmas island. satusuro 00:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I really don't get this.[edit]

Your edit here[7] to Categories for discussion/Working which requested that Category:Houston Aeros seasons be moved to Category:Houston Aeros (1994–2013) seasons when the contents of the former category were all WHA team seasons from the 1970s. There are no season articles on the 94-2013 Aeros, since they are a minor league team. The teams are totally different and even the descriptions read so. I have recreated the original category and fixed all the links plus Nominated for speedy deletion the Houston Aeros (1994–2013) seasons category....William 01:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in making or justifying the nomination—I simply processed it by adding it to WP:CFDW. It's likely that someone misunderstood because things were miscategorized. The Category:Houston Aeros seasons category was a subcategory of Category:Houston Aeros. The former must have had articles about the 1970s seasons, but the latter was about the 1994–2013 team. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


I see you removed the kidnappers and the kidnapped people from the Category:Kidnapping by country categories which were intended to be a topic category. Specific instances of kidnappings were in Category:Kidnappings by country (note the 's'). I notice you did the same thing to murderers a few years ago [8]. This seems very pedantic and hinders navigation between related subjects. Tim! (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It represents a confusion between the location of a crime and the nationality of the victim and/or perpetrator. I don't find that pedantic at all. For an American who is kidnapped in Iraq to be in Category:Kidnapping in the United States strikes me as quite strange. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Category:American criminals is a subcategory of Category:Crime in the United States, Category:American arsonists is in Category:Arson in the United States and Category:American fraudsters is in Category:Fraud in the United States... Tim! (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that those are appropriate parent–child relationships either. If one wants to create a link between a nationality of perpetrator category and a location of crime category, it would seem to me more appropriate to use {{Category see also}}. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

State of Florida v. George Zimmerman[edit]

There was no consensus to shorten the title in previous two RMs. Your bold renaming was reverted. Please create a third RM before you rename it again. --George Ho (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Renaming seems like a no-brainer, once one considers the relevant naming convention. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

A CFD discussion you may be interested in - Churches/Church buildings[edit]

As a participent in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 2#Category:Churches by continent, you may be interested in knowing that I've just initiated a new CFR discussion to fix the whole tree - Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 1#Churches/Church buildings. Feel free to participate there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


User:Westfield2015 is undoubtedly PW. See eg here and previous sock names. Oculi (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:People executed by Lan Xang[edit]

Category:People executed by Lan Xang, 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Finding constancy in naming of "Apostle" position[edit]

I have opened a discussion at List of members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church) in order to find some constancy in naming. Before I accidentally impose my personal view, it would nice to have a real consensus of proper naming of "Apostle". Any input by you, as a frequent Latter Day Saint articles would be nice.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk)

FYI: Re-creating previously deleted category for Australians of African-American descent[edit]

Just an FYI: I'm aware that Category:Australian people of African-American descent has been previously deleted. Just wanted to let you know that since there are now several individuals who fit into that category, I'm preparing to resurrect it.

Since the definition of the parent Category:People of African-American descent includes African Americans who emigrated to other countries, plus their descendants, there are at least five former or current basketball players who fit as "Australian people of African-American descent" (I'm sure there are more:

If there's no objection, either of us can bring it back. — Dale Arnett (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted on the grounds that there were no articles that could go in the category. See the deletion discussion here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:<state name> Anti-Masonics[edit]

Hi there. Would you care to weigh in at Category talk:Anti-Masonic Party politicians regarding the subcategories you created? —Phleg1 (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Request to move a talk page[edit]

Hallo. In January 2015 you moved South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe to South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc., but you didnt move the talk too. Please move the talk page :-) (Talk:South Carolina v. Catawba Indian TribeTalk:South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc.) Christian75 (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

CfD closure involvement[edit]

Good morning! I'm just a bit concerned that you seem to have completely stopped being involved in CfD closure involvement. If it's because you're sick or anything I hope you recover soon. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Likewise. Best wishes – Fayenatic London 10:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Gibraltarian atheists[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Gibraltarian atheists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for four days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. – Fayenatic London 10:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Black Mormons[edit]

Category:Black Mormons, 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. SFB 21:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ruby v. State[edit]

Hi, Good Olfactory. Regarding this move, I am wondering if article should again be moved to Rubenstein v. State per, for example, this source? Thanks! - Location (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


Good morning, I noticed that you've been more active on Wikipedia lately. Welcome back! (if that's the right wording because you were never entirely gone). Is there any way we can seduce you to also participate in CfD closures again? The CfD backlog is pretty big and your contribution here would be greatly appreciated. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Due to a significant change in my real life circumstances, I can only edit sporadically now. I'll try to do some when I can, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Real life is of course more important but anyway thanks a lot for closing a whole bunch of categories the other day! Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I've had some time the past few days so I've been able to get through quite a few. I'm not comfortable closing many of the "YYYY in COUNTRY" nominations since in the past I was fairly opinionated on those issues, so I'm leaving most of those for someone else. I should be able to do more on and off till we get the backlog down. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
As you're not going to close these "YYYY in COUNTRY" discussions, you might instead consider joining these discussions. I don't really remember what opinions you expressed in the past about this topic, but your opinion is worthwhile to share anyhow. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
It's mighty good to have you back in action here. I've closed some of those "YYYY in country" ones now. The backlog is better than for a long time. – Fayenatic London 20:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Former British colonies[edit]

Hi there! I see you've added Category:Former British colonies back into articles and categories such as Category:New Hebrides, etc., from which I had removed it. The reason why I removed it was that the New Hebrides, Fiji, etc., are now inside another category called Category:British Western Pacific Territories - which is itself a sub-category of Cagegory:Former British colonies.

Question: Should an article or a category be contained in both a category, and in a sub-category of that category? For example, if "British Isles" was a sub-category of "Europe", we wouldn't put Ireland in both the "British Isles" and "Europe". Or would we?

I have no strong feelings either way on this issue. I thought I was following policy when I removed the "parent category" in favour of the tighter sub-category, but I could be wrong. It's not something I feel strongly enough about to press, but I thought I'd let you know why I did what I did. :-) David Cannon (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason I think it should be in both Category:British Western Pacific Territories and Category:Former British colonies is because the New Hebrides was a self-standing colony of Britain after the BWPT dissolved in 1976. It was both part of the BWPT and later a separate colony. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh I see! That explains it. Thank you!David Cannon (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Dry places in New Jersey[edit]

FYI, in light of your close rationale, I have proposed splitting it into cities and townships, which it appears most of the items in the category are. pbp 04:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Knights of the Order of the Netherlands Lion[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Knights of the Order of the Netherlands Lion. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I'm not sure if deletion reviews work for categories. In any case, I went to DRV because it has nothing to do with your closure - I simply want the category restored. I don't know whether the bots can undo theire deletions like that, however. StAnselm (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough—but yes, DRV can consider categories. If restored, we can easily get the list of articles that were in it from User:Cydebot's edit log, so just let me know if it becomes an issue and I can help getting them back. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:National Association of Schools of Music[edit]

Following up a deleted category: Given that NASM is the principal U.S. accreditor for higher education in music, would it make sense to create a descriptive category? To wit: Category:Institutions accredited by the National Association of Schools of Music. — Eurodog (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure—I guess you have to ask is the accreditation a "defining" feature of these music schools. I don't know enough about the topic to venture an opinion on that question. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Did CfD really support deletion for Category:Celtic countries and territories?[edit]

Thanks for your admin work. I am a little confused by your close of the CfD for Category:Celtic countries and territories in favor of deletion. I don't see much consensus on this. The nominator proposed Renaming. Marcocapelle voted to Split, and then changed that to Delete. Peterkingiron voted to Keep. I didn't vote, but pointed out some arguments for renaming and some inconsistency in how we name. And Johnbod seems to have voted three different ways. I really don't see much consensus there, so the decision to choose Delete, which got only one unambiguous vote, seems a little poorly supported. Thoughts? Rupert Clayton (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I read Johnbod's !vote as providing three options, the best of which (in his opinion), was delete. Marcocapelle !voted delete after your comment on the size of the category. Carlossuarez46, the original nominator, originally proposed a rename, but his longer comment in the discussion seemed to generally support Marcocapelle's comments, which settled on deletion. We had one !vote to keep. On the keep vs. delete issue, your comment appeared to me to be silent. So that left me very roughly with a delete:keep:neutral ratio of 3:1:1, which I took to be a rough consensus to delete. I think Johnbod summed it up well when he commented that using categories to categorize places by what languages the residents speak is a "[h]opeless concept, as the comments [in the discussion] indicate". Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)