User talk:Good Olfactory

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

Contents

Category:Politicians convicted of crimes[edit]

In Category:Politicians convicted of crimes you added a scope. Why did you define it so narrowly? Why has none of its children followed the same definition? A crime is a crime - why should Wiki introduce a statute of limitations? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: I can't see from the edit history that I added a scope or definition to this category. I'm guessing that you are mistaken? If not, can you provide a diff? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Albanian Logos[edit]

Why did you mess up my configuration in the Albanian Logos category? Logos of Albania should stay as a standalone category as it referring to the mother country. Kosovo and the albanian communities of Macedonia and Montenegro are all part of the inclusive category I created for that very reason. My configuration was perfect and I spend a lot of time arranging it only to be undone by you without reason??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kj1595 (talkcontribs)

@Kj1595: There are two reasons, basically: (1) the format for Category:Logos by country is "FOOian logos", thus it should be Category:Albanian logos. I've nominated Category:Albanian Logos to rename to that format. (2) There is no category tree for logos by ethnicity. I don't think we need to group all ethnically Albanian logos together. A by-country division is what we have now, and that's probably sufficient. I'd be happy to submit the issue to a community discussion, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the renaming part. However I separated the÷ categories because Kosovo, Macedonia and Montenegro are separate countries with separate systems. Them being grouped separately into a unified category makes sense and doesn't cause confusion to the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kj1595 (talkcontribs)
Couldn't they just be placed in a Category:Kosovan logos, Category:Macedonian logos, and Category:Montenegrin logos for those countries? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
They were but including them in one unified template is logical. Enthusiasts of albanian football have access to all teams logos in one place but separated in categories as I had done. I have spent many months producing those logos and now am putting them together in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kj1595 (talkcontribs)

Court cases by court[edit]

Hi. I'm trying to better understand edits such as this and this so that I can decide whether to categorize these articles and similar articles in Category:United States Supreme Court cases. As far as I can tell, these cases were not heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, so they should be removed from Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Vinson Court and Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Fuller Court, respectively. Am I missing anything? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. They look like careless errors by me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Cool, no worries. If you're curious/interested, Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases/Reports/A is what I've been trudging through. Thank you for all your work on these wiki pages! I feel like every time I look at a page history I spot your username. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I was thinking about this, and how I could have made these mistakes. I must have been going through a ton of articles about U.S. cases by topic, and there happened to be the odd non-scotus case that popped up, and for some reason I didn't catch it. I was probably too focused on the dates. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Children of Henry VIII of England[edit]

Hi, I was confused by this listing at CFDW, so reverted it.[1] It does not seem to be a re-creation of a category deleted per the old page that you linked to. – Fayenatic London 13:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: It's a re-creation of Category:Henry VIII's children, but the correct date is 2011 July 6, rather than June. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. – Fayenatic London 21:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Counterjihad[edit]

Hello. Regarding your revert at Counterjihad. Note that a discussion is not required for uncontroversial moves. I checked the academic literature, and "Counter-Jihad" with the dash is more commonly used. Hence my move. Al-Andalusi (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Al-Andalusi: I realize that uncontroversial moves don't require a discussion, but to me, it seems controversial. Even if we were to adopt the hyphenated version, I'm not convinced that "Jihad" should be capitalized. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Out-of-process category renames[edit]

Ready for a headache? Take a look at the July 3 contributions here. What's the process for undoing an out-of-process rename? Just smack it on WP:CFD/W to move all the pages back and delete the "new" categories? Probably also procedurally open a CfD, I imagine. ~ Rob13Talk 18:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear; no, I'm never ready for these situations. There is no set process for these, it's pretty ad hoc and depends on the admin who takes it on. What I generally do is what you said—you just put them in the speedy section of WP:CFDW and delete the new ones, notify the user in question about why you did what you did, and go from there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:North Shore City[edit]

Information.svg

Category:North Shore City has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Just moving it since it's not a city any more. Grutness...wha? 02:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

National Bank of New Zealand[edit]

Hi, Are you aware of this? "NBNZ was founded in 1872 in London as an overseas bank and shared many directors with Lloyds Bank. The next year it established branches in Wellington, Auckland, and Christchurch, and acquired 13 branches from ailing Bank of Otago (1863–73), see William Larnach. The National Bank of New Zealand (Ltd) Act gave NBNZ the right to issue banknotes redeemable (in specie or gold). Though the bank was technically domiciled in London (which provided certain advantages), the major portion of its shareholders were New Zealand resident or associated." I understand it remained so until quite recently. No, I do not have dates. regards, Eddaido (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I was going by the fact that it was purchased by ANZ in 2003 until it was discontinued and the branches adopted the ANZ name. If you think the category I recently added is inappropriate, I'm OK for it to be removed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how one solves the problem but it is a bit like implying Jaguar has always been an India-owned business (and it hasn't!). NBNZ held a special position in NZ, our Reserve Bank (equivalent to Bank of England) grew from it. Eddaido (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
It's true that categories are blunt tools, being all-or-none propositions. The only really good way to solve the problem one way or the other is to read the article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, its just er touching on a sensitive issue. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
As I mentioned, I'm OK for the category to be removed if you think it's better not on this article. I could go either way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Wish there was a simple solution. Best leave it there. Eddaido (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this canvassing?[edit]

Would you call the latter a case of canvassing:

"== Octaviano Tenorio ==

There is a discussion a Article for deletion on the inclusion of the article on Octaviano Tenorio.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)"

I am trying to figure out how to respond to PBP's aggressive attacks in this case. Especially his line "your perverted interpretation of GNG." I have some thoughts, especially since he was previously told to stay off my talk page, so I really see no defense for his attacking me for 1 post to a clearly relevant Wikiproject. I also do not think just saying that the article is being discussed is in any way biased. I am thinking this might require clear appeals for help on my part, especially after the attack phrase I quoted, but maybe I should just ignore it.

John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I stand 100% behind referring to JPL's interpretation of GNG as "perverted". He has created dozens, perhaps hundreds, of badly-sourced articles with either no sources at all, or else sources that are passing or not indepedent. When these articles are nominated for deletion, his keep rationales stray far from the confines of policy and guidelines. He has a long history of exaggerating comments made contrary to his opinions, considering observations "attacks" and deletion nominations "bigotry". He often attempts to bludgeon people who disagree with him on AfDs or CfDs with walls of comments and/or canvasses editors to try and get action taken against editors with whom he disagrees (like he is here). This occurs despite many people (including you, as I recall) telling him he was off-base. I consider JPL's recent actions to be the latest in a very, very long line of project disruption and lack of understanding of policies and guidelines that should have resulted in an indefinite block years ago. pbp 18:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi everyone; sorry I have been away. I'm not exactly sure what I'm being asked about here. Canvassing is a difficult issue for which views differ quite a bit, which is one reason why I generally never post notifications to anyone! (Which, in an of itself, probably makes me a bad person in the eyes of many.) In my experience, JPL does have a tendency to see things or assume things about other WP users that just aren't there. I've been subject to that more than once. But as for his interpretation of GNG, I'm not sure I'm familiar enough with it at this stage (or at least can't remember well enough) to judge it's level of perversion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
    • What I'm seeing here is that I've personally found JPL to generally lean very strongly deletionist (like 90% according to his stats), but he has also created a couple articles on people in the Mormon church that others have nominated for deletion, and in my view, I think the articles, viewed neutrally, should be kept, but others feel differently, quite vehemently so, and I cannot determine if the debate is actually on the merits, or if it reflects an unexamined bias against Mormonism, or if it's people who have personalized issues with JPL. I've certainly tangled with him and some of his AfDs on articles about women have me wanting to rip my hair out (though some he has been right about), but on the two articles he created that I've commented on at AfD, I think he did create WP:N-compliant pieces, at least marginally so, but the vitriol at the discussion seems to go beyond the issue and is being personalized. Given that I am not in agreement with JPL often, the tone of the debate concerns me. (i.e. if I'm backing him, it says something because we frequently disagree). Montanabw(talk) 07:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Vice presidents[edit]

Thanks and well done for catching the incorrect nominations (which I had processed). I'm glad there is still someone here for me to learn from! I trust that my refactoring of your re-nomination as a discussion is acceptable to you. – Fayenatic London 10:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope, that's fine. And thanks for doing those right away. I only noticed them once they had gone through, which is par for the course. I think there are more in Category:Vice presidents which need to be changed to the hyphenated form; I'll have a look. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Right, I see that you have tackled that issue with your customary thoroughness – thanks again. – Fayenatic London 09:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there my name is Nelson and I would like to be one of your members. Nelson Ramothokoane (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Was not meant to stir you[edit]

But in the end seeing the lack of the 'n' at the end of the state names re society just didnt ring true - the suggest from a current heavy tasmania edit to turn it around to do society in xxx, was something I thought might be worth considering as well, cheers JarrahTree 13:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: I understand, I've no problem with nominations to categories I've created. And I think it's better to tackle them all at once than piecemeal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that JarrahTree 23:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Tasmania society has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Tasmania society, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. JarrahTree 13:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Western Australia society has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Western Australia society, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. JarrahTree 13:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:South Australia society has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:South Australia society, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. JarrahTree 13:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Victoria (Australia) society has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Victoria (Australia) society, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. JarrahTree 13:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Question about closing procedure[edit]

While I'd be happy to close a few of about a dozen stub category nominations on July 5, I'd like to check one thing first just to be sure. When the nominator says "merge template" they actually mean "merge content and delete template page", just like with merger of categories, is that correct? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much, though with "merge template" I usually take that to mean that the template page itself is redirected to the template that populates the category that is being merged to, rather than outright deletion of it. That way, you don't have to change the template text on every article page it is on. Alternatively, you could have the template itself deleted, but then you'd have to edit every article page that that template appeared on. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, so now what's the solution?[edit]

So, if the horsewhips were upmerged into a diffusing category, and you won't permit me to spin them off into a category, then how do I get them out of the diffused cat? Seriously, we now have five whip articles in there and maybe 6-8 other random articles that simply cannot be diffused. And isn't there SOME way to do noncontroversial category moves? We also could have agreed to move to the new name and blank the other category so it would eventually be deleted. I am pretty frustrated at the problem you have created here. Also, "consensus" is certainly a ridiculous way to operate when "consensus" is basically mob rule. Montanabw(talk) 02:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the solution is that it doesn't need to be a fully diffused category. It's not huge as it is; I don't see a problem with a handful of "loose" articles in this category. I pretty much set out my view on this in the discussion when it was evident that an upmerge was gaining more support than a rename. Your desire to "get them out of the diffused category" seems to just be a desire to somehow get around the basic result of the discussion. (Consensus/mob rule : Terrorist/freedom fighter : Antichoice/prolife. Such debates are not resolvable, at least not by me.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
The point is that fully diffused categories should be that. Fully diffused, a category of categories. These disputes are resolvable, the problem is how to get knowledgeable people involved. Montanabw(talk) 22:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I guess I'm just not clear why this particular category needs to be fully diffused. It wasn't even marked as a diffused category prior to the discussion, and it's not the type of category that I would look at and think to myself, "man, that category really needs to be a fully diffused category that contains only subcategories..." Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Ottoman people of Austro-Hungarian descent has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Ottoman people of Austro-Hungarian descent, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Rathfelder (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:State of Palestine[edit]

Hi, Just wondering why you removed it from the Islamic Org cat? The article lists Palestine as a full member. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Because the article State of Palestine is already in the category and no other country categories are in Category:Member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. It's the kind of category that typically is applied to an article about a country, not a category about a country. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Cool Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:American high school dropouts[edit]

"American high school dropouts" has never been deleted in any sort of discussion, it was "Category:High school dropouts"--Prisencolin (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and American high school dropouts are a subtype of high school dropouts. You can't get around a previous deletion result by creating a category that is simply a smaller subtype of the broader group. If you really want to push the issue though, I can restore it and nominate it for a full discussion at CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I feel that your speedy deletion was unwarranted and it would be nice if you would've CfD'd it instead. I won't contest it for the time being though.--Prisencolin (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe you could explain to me more clearly by you don't think it would come under G4. I'm happy to restore it if you demonstrate that it's not substantially the same as material that has been deleted as a result of a formal discussion. Or even if you just want to see a discussion of it, I can restore it and nominate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) For the life of me, I don't understand why people fight the categorization of people as "dropouts". We have categories for almost every other type of education, and being a high school dropout is easily sourced for hundreds, even thousands of individuals. pbp 19:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It has historically been a fairly strong and consistent consensus: 1, 2, 3. Many would argue that all the of "alumni" categories for academic institutions are also non-defining. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

What is going on with articles about the LDS Church and its leaders?[edit]

Hello, Good Olfactory! I was just noticing a deletion discussion for the Octaviano Tenorio article that apparently failed. I'm a bit fuzzy about what happened, but based on what I have gathered, it appears that the Deseret News, Church News, and Church Almanac content have been determined to make an individual mentioned therein in full compliance with notability guidelines. Am I understanding that correctly? If so, since it appears you are an admin, could we make the necessary requests to restore the articles about Second Quorum GA Seventies that have previously been nominated for deletion? Or is that option not on the table? If you could help me to better understand what happened and what it means going forward, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I'd rather you didn't do that just yet, Good Olfactory. I think that the Octaviano Tenorio closure should be taken as one AfD (one closed by a rogue supervote IMO). I don't believe that that closure should be interpreted as establishing an SNG, particularly as there is a discussion about establishing an SNG here, and it's not going to pass. And also a discussion about whether or not those count as independent sources here, which isn't going to pass either. pbp 04:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • As far as I can see, not a lot was established in that discussion as far as consensus goes. It ended in "no consensus". There was an extended dispute as to whether the Deseret News is an source that is sufficiently independent of the LDS Church to be used to establish notability in articles of this type, but the issue was not resolved in the AFD. I considered participating in the discussion, but it appeared too toxic to me and I didn't have a strong opinion about it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The close said that it was between keep and no consensus, and that it was made a no consensus only as a concession to the vigor of the debate, not the strength of argument in which the arguments against independence of the sourcing were all taken down.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Please don't let this devolve into an argument. This would not be the place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Indeed, all the drama is currently over at WP:DRV. Best it stays there. Montanabw(talk) 05:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Nigerian case law has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Nigerian case law, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. ~ Rob13Talk 08:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement - revert comment[edit]

Good Olfactory,

You recently reverted a change I made on the article "List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement". The change was to take the emphasis off sects referring especially to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Your rationale for keeping this claim was ... "Mormonism" usually refers to LDS Church stuff OR Mormon fundamentalist groups"

Could you please elaborate and provide evidence to support this statement on the article's talk page?

I have already provided my rationale for changing it on the talk page. I think you will have a very difficult time finding any reliable and unbiased source that would support your reason for including this statement.

Dig Deeper (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dig deeper: I think we have a misunderstanding. I understood your change to be changing what "Mormonism" usually refers to. You seem to be suggesting here and on the talk page that your concern is with the use of the word "sect". However, in the sentence that you changed, where you wrote, "Although most sects oppose the use of this term", "this term" must grammatically refer to "Mormonism", not to "sects". Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Book of Abraham[edit]

Hi! I recently got Robert Ritner's book The Joseph Smith Papyri, and I'm planning on working on/retooling/cleaning up the Book of Abraham page. If I make any sort of slip (like the name of the Gods thing), feel free to let me know.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It's fine! And an understandable thing, because I think most Mormons now interpret the wording of "the gods" in the BoA to mean those three individuals which are named in the endowment. It's possible Ritner even makes the connection implicitly and fails to mention that the actual identity of the gods was supplied by the later endowment ceremony. I haven't read that book but it sounds like a good one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
He does mention it, I just forgot to mention that it was the temple endowment who explicitly made the connection. Thanks for the help!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to pop in again, but I have a question. On the Book of Abraham page, I seem to have incurred the ire of an editor who insists that everything I added needed to have been met with "consensus" before I added it into the article. I guess I get their underlying concern—that I'd enter info that's disruptive or bad—but they have been wholesale reverting my efforts. I was wondering if you could just glance over what I've added and tell me if I'm being grossly out of line, or if said editor is just going a little overboard.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Most of it looks great to me. There a few minor points that I would change, but nothing like a wholesale reversion. I'll chime in over there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I have read there and it mostly looks like the issue has been resolved. I'll avoid commenting as a pile-on. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! It seems that it quickly resolved itself, which is nice. And if you see anything that needs tweaking, let me know!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Larry Y. Wilson article[edit]

Hey, hope you are doing well. I just wanted to ask a quick question. Do you think we could look at the possibility of restoring the article about Larry Y. Wilson? That one was deleted for many reasons, but those reasons seem to be invalid now that the Deseret News has been deemed a reliable source. Also, Wilson now serves as Executive Director of the Church's temple department, which makes him significant in terms of position in the LDS Church. I will understand if we can't restore the article, but just wanted to ask. And I know that in so requesting, I will likely have someone comment in opposition to this request. It seems that such requests are being monitored, and that some editors will do anything to ensure that good articles relevant to the LDS Church are not restored. But I thought that Wilson's new assignment, significant to the LDS Church, makes him significant. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I admit that I have not really been following things very well in this area. I know there were some heated discussions going on about whether the Deseret News was a reliable and/or sufficient source for LDS Church general authority articles. But did that come to any sort of resolution/consensus, or was there still divided opinion on the issue? If there were significant coverage for him in a non-church-owned publication, it would be easier to justify satisfy the notability requirements. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe the determination was made that the Deseret News was a reliable source, but I could have misread things. I think that Wilson's position, on its own merits, warrants a restoration of his article. His new position was mentioned in a publication about as far distant as you can get from the Deseret News. It was a Philly paper. I felt that you would be in a better position than I would to know whether or not this mention makes him significant enough to warrant a restoration of the article. Thanks for taking time to read/respond to this. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Having been involved in editing LDS-related articles in the past, I don't feel like I would be the right admin to even consider restoring an LDS-related article that was deleted by consensus. I think it should be an admin who is completely uninvolved. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Are there any such admins you know that I could ask? I don't even know who I would approach about that. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the proper way to go about this would be to use WP:DRV. One of the purposes of this deletion review is when there is "significant new information [that] has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". I think if an argument is presented, it should clearly demonstrate what has changed since the deletion discussion, and what references are currently available from reliable sources, including non-church-owned sources. Things can change and living people who did not previously meet the notability standards can come to meet them, so it's not a hopeless argument. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I have made a request for the undeletion of articles about Second Quorum members in general and Larry Y. Wilson in particular. Thanks.--Jgstokes (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

probably age related confusion[edit]

I dont know about you, but I am seeing what I consider serious overlap issues in some cat trees these days, or it could be that I have been around too long and should be put out to pasture... Or maybe its being at lunch with retired legal academics and rail enthusiasts (sic) brings on too much steam (sic) and a certain state of mind.

  • Category:British books
  • Category:British fiction. Novels
  • Category:British literature. Novels
  • Category:English-language novels
  • Category:European novels
  • Category:Novels by country
  • Category:Works by British people.Novels

That is what lies beneath the category English Novels. I think it smells (as the late Frank Zappa's comments about Jazz answered a question as to its state). There are similar confusions in other subject domains, of which there is rampant overlap and dual trees, with unrelenting tides of naivete. However on the above, are you willing to comment as to the veracity? I would be most interested. Or is it all legit, nothing to be questioned, and all correctly in place and in reasonable form? In which case South Island here I come with a bottle or two, in the next few years... ? JarrahTree 08:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I think that there are major overlaps here, and with many other trees we could identify. As is usual, they are not perfect overlaps to the point of being able to say that we have perfect duplications, but often they are quite large. I don't think any users are doing any of the duplication deliberately, but I think it's probably common for users to create schemes – often extremely intricate and splayed out ones—without first examining what already exists. I've generally avoided any work in this particular area – we can all only do so much, after all – but I would agree that it has issues. This is what we get through when there is no central controlling mind of the system. How do we categorize books? By country of publication? By nationality of the author or editor? By language? The answer seems to be, all of the above, and sometimes it's not clear where one ends and the others begin. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer, it is appreciated. The complexity of confusion of overlaps in some areas is something which is I think avoided by many who know how good trees work, why and how - on the basis of the recognised intricacies and the acknowledged time needed to unravel some of the more glorious messes that have evolved, because of the lack of the central thingo... The question is there are both - the accidental and the intentional - and where is the possibility of current machinery to unravel what the community might actually decide as to has to be fixed, or this needs to stop. In many cases the inclusion of sister and parent categories seems to be a naive enthusiasm to promote, while some complex twine/helix category structures are literally unfixable in any easy or simple manner. It is a pity that some have gone so far, and there hasnt been some mode of STOP GO BACK mechanism ever considered perhaps? JarrahTree 08:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Lol, I've often thought similar things. You're right – it can (and often does) get to the point of "unfixability". The only thing I have ever seen happen is with respect to individual editors. There have been a few editors who were very prolific in creating categories, and there were such problems with such a high percentage of them that finally there was a consensus at ANI that they just had to stop, and these editors were banned from category editing (or from WP altogether, in one instance). User:Stefanomione is the most recent example of this. But these are extreme examples, and it hardly ever happens. When it does, it can literally take years for everything the editors did to be fully "cleaned up". I fear that we have dozens of "little" Stefanomiones – they create big problems, but the problems are so circumscribed to certain areas that they take months to identify, let alone be dealt with. And often when they are identified, no one knows what to do to deal with them. Maybe we need some sort of process for "big" category issues. How about WP:PCRfD? "Proposed Category Restructing for Discussion". I suppose we could do such things through CfD now, but it's such work and so complicated. It's hard enough to get consensus on seemingly simple, commonsense changes pushed through. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
What is of some concern is the matter of a vast range of gb/uk categories are incorporated into parent europe categories, with the legal technicalities of the brexit process, surely the whole range of those cats need to be re-thought of as well? JarrahTree 14:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
My understanding is that "Europe" in categories almost always means the geographical continent as opposed to the EU. I think it's standard for the UK to be considered part of Europe, at least geographically. What I am unclear about is why so many topics are organized by geographical continent. Books or literature by country or nationality makes some sense to me. Books or literature by continent? Not as much. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

An other CfR discussion for US city categories[edit]

There's a new Categories for Renaming discussion going on about categories of US cities listed in the AP Stylebook. As you have participated in at least one of the more recent discussions in the subject, you may want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 17#Seattle. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Carol F. McConkie for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carol F. McConkie 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/Carol F. McConkie (2nd nomination) 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. pbp 04:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Admin Noticeboard[edit]

I was extremely bored and read this. I don't know whether to cry from sadness or to laugh. Please tell me how you keep on dealing with incidents like these and just keep on volunteering? Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 08:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that one was just Alansohn being Alansohn. He's long found me to be offensive and occasionally has gone on fishing expeditions like this, trying to find anything that he can stick me with. If it was par for the course with respect to all editors, it would be intolerable, but most editors aren't that prickly. I have found that he's largely dropped the stick that he used to beat me with regularly, so users can change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
He dropped his stick?  :O Maybe I should start editing again...  :) Kbdank71 17:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@Good Ol’factory Hmm, I guess so. I had the fun experience of getting shouted at today on my talk page (although it all ended in a very British / Canadian way - i.e. with both sides apologising). I hope all conflict resolution will be similar for the rest of my career. Godspeed with your editing. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 00:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I also see what you and Kbdank71 are talking about from here. Fantastic. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 00:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
@Kbdank71: yeah, amazingly, he pretty much has! and yes you should ;) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Hugo E. Martinez for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hugo E. Martinez 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/Hugo E. Martinez (2nd nomination) 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. pbp 16:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Jewish economists[edit]

I created and you deleted this category. The relevant rule seems to be Overcategorization: Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference [2]. I based my creation of this category on the existence of numerous other such pages seen at Jews_by_occupation . If, in fact, "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right" then shouldn't many of the categories at Jews_by_occupation , e.g. sportspeople and scientists, also be deleted? Kimock (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Possibly, but we can only delete a category once there is a consensus to delete it via a formal discussion. Category:Jewish economists was so discussed, and the consensus was to delete. There may not have been any discussions on the other categories you reference. Or, they may have been discussed and there may not have been a consensus to delete them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Can this discussions from about 10 years ago be reopened? As a Jew I have been researching various cultural contributions. Wikipedia seems quite inconsistent in its categorization. For example, Category:Jewish explorers Category:Jewish actors Category:Jewish scientists Category:Jewish sportspeople all remain. The degree of encyclopedic connection with these, and with economists, appears to be roughly equal. Kimock (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Probably the best place to raise these issues would be to nominate it under WP:DRV. You could argue that given the current state of categorization on Wikipedia, we should allow re-creation of the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

what do you think?[edit]

perhaps I have developed a particular idiosyncratic complaint only served by taking a break from this monstrosity of weird and wonderful items, but when I see something like this [3] to me it smells like the monstrosity of the name of a few projects where somebody should have put such weird names away many decades ago, but is what I see legit? is it me ? why this? I wait for your considered response, either to put me procedurally out of order, or whatever... JarrahTree 05:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, for whatever reason you didnt answer that, check my recents, and tell me that default sort and words after a category are of no use... JarrahTree 09:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Former British Colonies[edit]

I am not convinced by your argument's regarding the stripping of Category:Former British colonies, restricting it to pages on period-specific entities. Surely the whole point of a category including the word "Former" is to place it on current territories to indicate their history? Articles covering entities that were British colonies do not, to me, fit the description of "former". Best, CMD (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, do what you want. To me, the "former" indicates that the entities no longer exist as such. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

CfD backlog[edit]

Would you be willing to close a number of CfD discussions again? There has been very little admin activity here during the last few weeks so the backlog has grown quite a bit. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

A discussion you may be interested in[edit]

I have just made a new nomination for renaming categories for those U.S cities where the article doesn't include the state name. Since you participated in a recent discussion about this, you may want to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 6#Major US cities. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Thongsuk Samdaengpan[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing—Thongsuk Samdaengpan—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. S Khemadhammo (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

--S Khemadhammo (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I am alerting editors[edit]

that I think (or is it a feeling?) might be interested in the discussion going on here based on their past insolvent with this category. Category talk:Sculptures by artist. Stop by and see what you . . . . well . . .... think or feel. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Sortkey[edit]

See here I feel like an outline article should be sorted like a main article. Do you disagree? —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, because it's not the main article. Maybe it should be placed somewhere closer to the top, under * or + or something, but I don't think it should be given "top billing", as it were. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorting What about " !" or some other character after a space which will make it just below the proper main article? —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I guess it comes down to the perceived importance of these types of articles. I personally don't find much in them of use, but I'm sure others disagree. If I had my way, I think they should just be sorted per the usual practice, under "O" for "Outline", but I can understand if you disagree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by country[edit]

Oops, my mistake. Thank you for reverting! Editor2020 (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Good Olfactory. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
You delete a lot of pages. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
... That's one way of putting it :) ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

An acronym question[edit]

Thank you for your edit at bitcoin talk. Hope you don't mind me asking what the "per cfd" acronym means. Thanks in advance. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, yes: the change was made per the "categories for discussion" result here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_7#Category:Article_Incubator_articles_by_quality. Basically, the article incubator project is defunct, so the categories were deleted simply by removing the templates from the talk pages of the articles it had been applied to. I apologise for my sloppy summary: it was done only because based on the lack of discussion that resulted from the nomination, I thought the number of users who cared about this issue was close to zero. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Films about hebephilia[edit]

At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 6#Category:Hebephilia, you stated, "Category was not tagged with Template:Cfd, so I have tagged it and relisted it." At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 6#Category:Films about hebephilia, you stated, "Category was not tagged with Template:Cfd; nominators, please remember to do so, otherwise no changes can be made as a result of the discussion when a consensus is reached." But you did not relist it. Category:Films about hebephilia should be relisted as well, given what was noted in that discussion. None of the films in that category are about hebephilia, except for one, and there was agreement that the category title is incorrect as a result of the films included in it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

In the latter one that I did not relist, the result of the discussion was "no consensus". With a no consensus result, you're free to re-nominate it. The only reason I relisted the other one was because I thought that based on the discussion that had occurred, there was probably a rough consensus to make a change (ie, delete the category). I felt that it was not worthwhile relisting the other discussion because it was already apparent that there was no consensus to make any change. I would not object if you wanted to renominate, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I understand how you came to a "no consensus" judgment, but I don't see how letting the category remain is correct. As I stated, only one film in the category is about hebephilia. And I'm not aware of any Wikipedia film categories that house one film. I would remove the films right now, but I think that keeping them there serves my point about the category being misused.
Would you nominate the category for me, pointing to the previous discussion? I ask that you do this since it appears I'm not good at following the full protocol. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd be happy to do that for you, but can you provide here some text that I can use from you for the "nominating statement"? Since I closed the discussion, it would probably not be a good idea for me to nominate it in a way that it looks like I am supporting its deletion. But I'm happy to post a nomination from you on your behalf. If you like, I can just repeat what you wrote for the previous nomination, or you can provide a new one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. A repeat of what I wrote would be fine. And I think it's best to point to the previous discussion so that others can see what was previously stated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Nomination is here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Mannerheimo[edit]

Yeah, I noticed as well that he was the creator of all of those overdone subcat-by-ethnicity schemes. I haven't extensively researched his edit history to the same degree as you have, but the thought had crossed my mind that I should (I'm just not particularly looking forward to it.) I don't have any brilliant ideas off the top of my head about what we can do about it, apart from initiating the first warning-second warning-third warning-block cycle — I'll have to take a look and probably think about it for a while. But for the moment I at least wanted to let you know that I've noticed the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thx. One thing I guess I can do is have some interaction with the user about it. I haven't actually approached him before about it, I don't think. It's always a little awkward how you suggest to them that their work is counterproductive. I don't want to hurt feelings or anything like that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

AIV help?[edit]

Hey Good Olfactory. I saw your name fly by on Recent Changes. Would you mind terribly giving us a hand at WP:AIV? There are a few obvious vandals on there that are creating a mess. agtx 03:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I have never worked off that page before. If a user is blocked as a result of a posting there, do I delete the posting listing the user? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Nope, the bot takes care of it. agtx 03:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I will have a look. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Really appreciate it. When a user named "Master of Socks" lasts for more than an hour, I figure I'd better sound an alarm of some kind. agtx 03:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm quite disappointed at the lack of subtlety. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Proto-prog albums[edit]

Category:Proto-prog albums was nominated on the merit that Proto-prog had no article of its own. I don't think it matters - but the discussion was closed immediately after a page was created and before anybody offered a reasonable argument for deletion. Can the nomination be relisted?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Someone has re-created the category, and I won't re-delete it given the change in circumstances. I suppose if someone wants to re-nominate it now that there has been a change in circumstance, that would also be appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Jewish footballers[edit]

I just closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 29#Category:Jewish sportspeople as no consensus. I noticed Category:Jewish sportspeople is a diffuse category with over 800 members in it. Most of the members that haven't been subcatted seem to be footballers, which led me to a 2014 May 31 CFD you closed as delete. I think it would make sense to recreate Category:Jewish footballers in order to diffuse the category, especially when considered with the recent CFD. That being said, would you allow recreation of the aforementioned category? Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I would not object. The discussion I closed had limited participation, so it's not particularly "controlling" at this stage, I don't think. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Category tree[edit]

Greetings! The categorization on Eritrea appears to be quite convoluted. Category:Horn African countries is juxtaposed by Category:East African countries, although the former is subcategorized under the latter. Category:Eritrea is likewise a subcategory of the HOA one. WP:SUBCAT indicates that "apart from certain exceptions (i.e. non-diffusing subcategories, see below), an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it." Since the categories in question are not non-diffusing, it seems therefore that the categorization should be in the standard parent-child format and that Eritrea is the correct category since it is the most specific/downstream. I've asked Koavf whether this is indeed the appropriate policy; he agreed and indicated that he would not object to me fixing the categorization accordingly. However, he also noted that an exception could perhaps be made vis-a-vis territories that straddle several different regions [4]. Please advise. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It does need to be fixed one way or the other. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes sense. Unfortunately, a user has just messed up the category chaining here. Could you please help fix this? Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Good Ol'factory, I realize that you're probably busy but have you had a chance yet to look at the subcats in the link above? Could you please correct the messy treeing? Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm unclear on why this is something that I need to do. It would not require administrator intervention. Any editor can edit the categories that are applied to articles and categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. I tried to do fix the treeing myself, and left a WP:SUBCAT explanation on the talk page for good measure. However, a user there automatically undid the formatting corrections with no valid justification. This is why, if you have the time, it would be most appreciated if you could fix the treeing. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 03:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm just a bit confused as to the goal here. From what I can see, you removed Eritrea from Category:Horn African countries and Category:East African countries, and another user put the categories back. But I thought the goal was to get the article into one of these categories, but not both. Or are you saying that because Category:Eritrea is in the categories, the article should not be? If the latter, I think the general consensus has been that it's better to categorize articles in this fashion rather than categories, so maybe recategorizing the category is a better move. Also, whatever is done to work out the Eritrea situation, I think it would make sense to also do to Somalia, Djibouti, and Ethiopia. Otherwise we'll get inconsistency in the way the Horn of Africa countries are treated in categorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I think what I might do, upon reflection, is nominate Category:Horn African countries for deletion. It's not really doing much for the overall categorization system. The contents could easily be merged to Category:East African countries and Category:Horn of Africa. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The goal was to sort the subcats on the Eritrea page itself according to WP:SUBCAT. That policy indicates that the lowest possible category should be used, which would be Category:Eritrea. Like you indicated, this lowest-subcat format seems to be the norm in actual articlespace. Merging Category:Horn African countries into the Category:Horn of Africa indeed makes sense, and the same should probably be done with the other regional cats since they are also redundant (i.e. Category:East African countries into Category:East Africa, Category:Southern African countries into Category:Southern Africa, etc.). I also agree that this should be done for the other HOA territories. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 04:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The nomination is here. If that is successful, then we can go from there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Could you please adjust the wording to just "Category:Horn African countries to Category:Horn of Africa" so that the East African countries category can also be merged into the East Africa category, the Southern African countries category into the Southern Africa category, etc.? Soupforone (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not nominating the East African category in this nomination. I think that it will be easy to get consensus for the nomination as stated; I'm not sure if users would support the broader nomination. They might, but I think it would be better to have a separate discussion focused on that. So maybe it makes sense to get this one done and then to consider doing a broader one for the East African categories and all the other similar ones. Sometimes at CFD if you try to bite off a big chunk all at once, the proposal is more controversial and gets bogged down. In the past, I've seen discussions I've started remain open for over 6 months due to this problem, and I wanted to avoid that here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
You're probably right; might be too chunky. Category:Northeast Asian countries into Category:Northeast Asia and Category:Southeastern European countries into Category:Southeastern Europe would also make sense on similar grounds. Anyway, could you perhaps in the interim sort the subcats on the Eritrea articlespace? Category:Eritrea would be the lowest-tiered subcat per WP:SUBCAT, so the other two parent cats would be redundant. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Good Olfactory. Please let me know if you need help with anything. Cheers-- Soupforone (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I guess we'll see if it sticks. At a minimum, users that disagree should take it to the talk page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
The user undid your subcat fix, and blanked one of the de facto national languages. This both contravenes WP:SUBCAT and messes up the Horn of Africa countries -> Horn of Africa category sorting. Given this, what do you think would work best? Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, the category issue is probably not worth starting an edit war over, since we've started the process of deleting some of the categories. But it will be worth revisiting after the categories get cleaned up. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, and the subcat policy would still apply. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 04:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Ambassadors of Iceland[edit]

This edit removed all of the categories from Ambassadors of Iceland. The edit comment only lists two categories, but all three categories were removed. Could you re-add the category/ies that need to be there. Thanks. --Bamyers99 (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a list, so I assume it should be in Category:Lists of ambassadors of Iceland. If you see a mistake that needs to be fixed, it's OK to fix it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Roman forts closed as no consensus.[edit]

Should I re-list it myself or is there a system of some sort for No-consensus re-listing? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi; there is no auto relisting after a no consensus result. Generally, users are free to renominate after a no consensus result, but often times users will be critical if a re-nomination happens immediately after the previous discussion was closed. Many users like to see a gap of time between the closing and a re-nomination, but this is not something that is written into Wikipedia guidelines, as far as I know – I've just seen it as the general attitude of many editors. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Ill wait a bit. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

ENGVAR[edit]

Just as a gentle suggestion - you might want to be careful using phrases like "you're mad" in sensitive situations like with User:Mannerheimo‎, on this side of the pond it doesn't mean "you are angry"..... <g> Le Deluge (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Lol, good point, thanks. Of course I meant "upset", but I can see the problem. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

About an old discussion[edit]

Hi Good Olfactory, I reopened this discussion, if you please you could give your opinion here, hopefully we will come to a closure. Rupert Loup (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I suggest anyone looking at this should first look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SednaXV Meters (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Abidjan Autonomous District[edit]

Hello, again. A quick question. In the five-level heirarchy of administrativion division in the Ivory Coast I realize that Abidjan is first a district, then it skips the region level, and then there is the third-level department and that the district and department levels share the same boundaries. My question is whether the 10 fifth-level communes of the district-department are also fourth-level prefectures? I ask, because the page Sub-prefectures of Ivory Coast states both that Abidjan has no prefectures, but then states the more rural parts of the district-department do. The only way I can understand this is if "city" in that sense means the urban area, though, this would still be an unusual arrangement, I assume, since every other urban area in the country also belongs to sub-prefectures. More than that, the so-called rural sub-prefectures also have pages here and they make it a point to say that they are both communes and sub-prefectures. So, let's get this straight, Abidjan is entirely covered with communes, but only the rural areas are covered sub-prefectures. The rural sub-prefectures include a commune apiece, but these communes don't cover the entirety of each of these rural sub-prefectures. Does that sound correct? --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a really confusing bit, but I think you're understanding is correct (at least last I checked). My understanding is that the district/department of Abidjan is unofficially divided into an urban zone and a rural zone. The urban zone (or city proper) is divided into the 10 communes, and in this zone there are no sub-prefectures. The rural zone is divided into four sub-prefectures, and those sub-prefectures are also communes. (What I am not sure of is which level of government in the urban zone assumes the responsibilities of the sub-prefecture—I assume it is the communes.) So yes, what you wrote is correct, as far as my understanding goes. From what I have been able to gather, this seeming randomness in Abidjan is not by design—it's a result of a hodge-podge of reforms built on previous reforms and just setting up what seems to work. I have noticed that in some of these Ivory Coast government articles there is inaccurate information—usually it's just outdated and has been superseded by more recent reforms. Bad information may have even been added by me based on outdated sources. For instance, I notice that in Sub-prefectures of Ivory Coast it says that the autonomous districts are not divided into regions or departments, but this is not accurate now since both of them do have at least one department. I think that and the sentence you identify should be clarified/corrected. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Tried to clarify some of it here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this clarification. I'd probably add that the rural sub-prefectures are also communes, concurrently, though, to bring it in agreement with the pages for these sub-prefectures-communes. You know, sort like how the district and department share the same boundaries/limits. I'd say that "Administration" sub-section on the Abidjan page probably needs to be rewritten to make everything more clear. Maybe something like "Abidjan consists of 14 communes, 10 or which cover the urban area/city proper. Four of these communes outside the urban area are also sub-prefectures." But that can be when you or someone else has more time if you can't do it soon. BTW, just out of interest, I'd imagine a mayor in commune that covers the entire territory of a sub-prefecture would be more powerful than your typical mayor in a commune which doesn't take up all of the area of the sub-prefecture. Would this be correct? actually, where a commune takes up the entire territory of a sub-prefecture does this territory still even have an appointed sub-prefect? --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I'm not sure that a mayor of a commune covering an entire sub-prefecture would be more powerful in the sense of having any more formal powers, but clearly they would be more powerful in the sense that the commune mayor would have more of a say of how things in the sub-prefecture as a whole are going to run, because no consensus has to be gained between multiple mayors in the sub-prefecture—he can just decide and that's it. But yes, I'm pretty sure that even when a commune and sub-prefecture have the same boundaries there is still both a sub-prefect and a mayor. (At least in theory. Last I heard, the non-autonomous districts didn't even have governors appointed yet, so sometimes the practice lags behind the theory.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
One last question. I've been going to a lot of subprefecture and city pages for the Ivory Coast, and on quite a few it mentions that "(insert name of city or prefecture) is also a commune." Do most of the communes in existence cover the entire territory of a sub-precture, or is it that a commune often shares its name with the subprefecture in which it resides? Because that seems to rarely be made clear and it gives the impression that these communtes fill the entire territory of their sub-prefecture, and I'm just wondering how common it is for their to be "unincorporated" settlements within the boundaries of a sub-prefecture that contain at least one commune? --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The settlements that are the seat of the sub-prefecture are almost always the seat of the commune, when there is a commune. But I do not think that the communes and the sub-prefectures share the same territory in most cases. The commonality is just (1) the name, and (2) the seat ("capital") of the two entities is the same settlement. I have struggled with how to phrase it in the articles. The problem being that there is no reason for us to have three separate articles – one for the settlement, one for the sub-prefecture, and one for the commune. It's all one article, but the boundaries of each of the three is different in most cases. Both sub-prefectures and communes contain other settlements in them that are not the seat. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, this is tough. I'm trying to think of how to better phrase this so it doesn't sound like there is only one settlement inside a sub-prefecture. Because, actually, on quite a few other pages while a city/commune might share a name with a higher level division, it is, in fact, given its own page. Anyway, perhaps it could be phrase something like "(insert name of seat) is also the name of a commune within the sub-prefecture." or something to that extent. Otherwise, to phrase it simply as "(insert name of seat) is also a commune." makes it sound as if the entirety of the sub-prefecture is a commune. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Categories you deleted recently[edit]

Hi Good Olfactory, I noticed you have recently deleted Category:Nova Scotia emigrants to the United States and Category:International economics theory and wondered if you would tell me who was the creator of these categories. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Sure, Category:Nova Scotia emigrants to the United States was created by User:Johnpacklambert. Category:International economics theory was created by User:Marcocapelle, who also requested deletion. Incidentally, I did not delete the latter of these two, it was deleted by User:Edgar181. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:United States government personnel by presidential administration[edit]

I noticed that you previously initiated a "Categories for Renaming" proposal relating to subcategories of Category:United States government personnel by presidential administration and I wanted to let you know that I have recently initiated a similar question on the Category's Talk page.--TommyBoy (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Priests trained at King's College London[edit]

Hi. I've just noticed you deleted Category:Priests trained at King's College London after a short discussion. I would have liked to have been able to defend my creation of that category. I wonder whether you might be able to offer a clue as to why I wasn't given that opportunity? And also how I might go about offering that counter-argument after the fact? Thank you. DBD 21:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:DBD. I think you have a point here. The action which is required when a category is nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming is that the category be tagged with a template: Template:Cfd, Template:Cfr, or Template:Cfm. This tagging of the category has multiple purposes, but one of the purposes is so that users who have the category on their watchlists will be notified that it is under discussion. I have checked the edit history of the deleted category, and I have only now noticed that the category was never tagged with any of these templates, so the notification procedure was not properly followed.
At this stage, it's up to you what happens. You can choose to let the result stand and do nothing. Or, if you wish, I can restore the category and relist the discussion for more discussion after I properly tag the category. It would then remain open for at least another seven days, after which it could be closed again.
Just let me know if you prefer the latter course, and I can get on to doing that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
The latter course, please. DBD 20:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, I have restored the category, its former contents, and relisted it here. Thanks for your patience and for bringing this up. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Harts[edit]

Hi. I want to thank you for fixing some stuff with the categories I made. Could I ask why the "No Gallery" thing is necessary? Is it because the images aren't free?*Trekker (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, yes, if the images are fair use, then they are only for use as specified, usually to illustrate an article. If they appear as images in the category space, then it goes beyond the fair use rationale. Really just a copyright technicality more than anything. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for answering. Face-smile.svg*Trekker (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Top Gear people[edit]

With regard to your close at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 6#Category:Top Gear people, I don't really think the outcome we have is the desired outcome. With only two editors supporting the status quo, four for delete/upmerge (including myself), and one keep but purge, I don't think the correct consensus has been called in this case. Following the "no consensus" close, I purged all articles that fell foul of WP:PERFCAT, but these have been added back in by one of the "keep" camp. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree – a "no consensus" result usually is a horrible outcome, because it essentially means that we are where we started with no consensus having been established in either direction. I suppose you could try a re-nomination. Sometimes a re-nomination shortly after a no consensus result just results in another no consensus decision, though. Time often sees changes in consensus develop, but that certainly doesn't help with the immediate situation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
With five !votes to delete/upmerge/purge, and only two keeps, I feel the "no consensus" close could be overturned... --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Reading the discussion as a whole, I wasn't comfortable saying that there was a consensus to do anything in particular. I do agree though that it's probably close to a consensus that something should change. This might be a good candidate for a review of the my close at WP:DRV. I would not object to that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks, I'll do that! --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Top Gear people[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Top Gear people. 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. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_13#Category:Scouting_and_Guiding_in_the_Palestinian_territories[edit]

Since I prefer your non-specific-date naming, and said so in my nom, do I need to re-nom?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it was closed to the one I suggested, so that's good! Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you support me?[edit]

Please see my closure of two Cfd discussions here and here. Being a veteran editor, albeit non-admin, and since at one time I was a regular guest at Cfd, I took the liberty to close these discussions. If you think I did a good job, I could try and help with some other discussions from the backlog. For example, I have I clear idea what to decide in this discussion, in part because I lived in both the Ukraine and Russia and understand the issue. What do you say? Debresser (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to non-admins closing CFD discussions, and these look fine to me. However, there are some editors who do object to non-admins closing CFD discussions unless the discussions are more or less unanimous in consensus, so be careful out there! Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I know, about those objections to non-admins making non-trivial closures, but since this is a backlog, they should either close those discussions themselves, or keep their objections to themselves. IMHO, of course. :) Debresser (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
... of course. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Please have a look at this. I can imagine some editors being less than perfectly happy with this outcome and my subsequent edits to articles and categories, but if so, then I'd like to head from them, because I think it was the right decision. By the way, Category:Cities of district significance needs deletion. Debresser (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
This one should be okay. Well, that's it for today. Debresser (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Today I closed this discussion, and added my opinion to another. I started writing a closure for it, but then I noticed that I disagree with the proposal, and decided that expressing my disagreement would be beneficial to the discussion and might actually lead to it not being accepted. Debresser (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you please rename a category after this discussion? Debresser (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I saw you even changed the link in the user template.
Here you have another closure, that I would definitely not call "careful", although I think it was the right decision. Debresser (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
A merge needs to be made after I closed this discussion. Debresser (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
And a deletion after this one. By the way, do you agree with my argument in this closure that listifying is a sort of compromise between deletion and keeping? Debresser (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
This closure involved a lot of renames. Debresser (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
And another upmerge here. Debresser (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
And another merge here. Debresser (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
And yet another merge here. Debresser (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
If I'm just going to be processing these, I may as well be closing them. How is this progress? For the categories you close with a "keep" or "no consensus" result, you need to remove the template from the category page and then add and complete Template:Old CfD on the category talk page. There's no bot for doing those. For a listify result (or a double merge or split or something else weird), the category should be listed in the appropriate section of WP:CFDWM and the category should be tagged with the appropriate template that that page instructs you to use. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Good, so "keep" or "no consensus" I'll do. What do I do with "delete" and "merge" (which includes a delete)? And did you process the above results, or not?
I thought the problem was the closing itself. Are you telling me now that the discussions were left open because nobody wanted to do the cleanup after closing them?
I closed this discussion as a delete. Debresser (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It's best to leave the delete closures to admins as they're the only ones who can process them. There really isn't any point to closing something and then bothering an admin to fulfill it—they might as well do it themselves. -- Tavix (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
What User:Tavix said is essentially what I was thinking. I think different users have different reasons for not closing particular discussions. For me, it's usually either a matter of lack of time or energy, or I perceive that I have a conflict in closing the discussion—either I've previously expressed an opinion about the matter in question and don't feel sufficiently neutral about it, or something like that. But usually it's the former, so having someone else close it and then having to do the processing anyway isn't generally going to work for me. But yes, I am in the process of taking care of the ones that you've already listed here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay, well it was fun anyways. If you ever need help closing, let me know... Debresser (talk) 05:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

List of territories governed by the United Nations[edit]

Please review the Talk Page entry "UNTEA in West New Guinea" and List of territories governed by the United Nations article. I can not risk editing the article myself due to history of abuse User:Wik and a few others have had when they see me editing the controversial West Papua subject. Daeron (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:People from Adamsville, Alabama[edit]

Hi, Am I OK to recreate this category as I have six members to populate it with ? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It should be OK, given that the rationale for merging was that there were only two articles in it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Done, Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:People from Heflin, Alabama[edit]

Hi, are you OK for me to recreate this category also, with 5 members ? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, I have been away. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
All done, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamHardy (talkcontribs)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi Good Olfactory.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Category: Sikhs[edit]

Curiosity: Why have you removed Category:Sikhs from several biographies of people who were imo obviously Sikhs?
The edit summary removed Category:Sikhs using HotCat doesn't explain why. Apuldram (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Because they are all in subcategories of Category:Sikhs, such as Category:Indian Sikhs, Category:Sikh martyrs, Category:Sikh generals, etc. If the article is in a subcategory, it does not also need to be in Category:Sikhs. That is mainly a container category that holds subcategories, not individual articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Apuldram (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Speculative fiction writers, after which named in honor asteroids - Missing discussion?[edit]

Saw that you nominated this category for deletion (I'm inclined to agree), but am unable to find the actual discussion. The link in the notice doesn't appear to be working correctly...or I'm an idiot. :) Could you please look into this and let me know? Watching your Talk page, so you can just reply here and I'll see it. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, the issue appears to be that the link in the tag you added is pointing to November 20, but the actual discussion is on the November 19 page. I was going to fix this myself, but because the link was inserted automagically by the Template:Cfd full I'm not sure how to do so. DonIago (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I've fixed the link to link directly to the discussion now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Good Olfactory. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

romo zoet[edit]

Not sure why burials in java was moved from zoetmulder, have I missed something? In his later years he was notoriously cranky and short with visitors, but no one ever said it publicly, so I never had the courage to venture to see him when I was in Yogya. cheers JarrahTree 03:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I seem to remember that those "burials in..." categories were supposed to be container categories only. But whatever, I can't recall the details about it all so if loose articles are wanted in them, that's fine with me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
nah I can see where that is coming from.. I can handle that, thinking sideways on this, the necropolis in muntilan is almost notable in itself, if only I could find enough reliable sources and a couple more notable internees... cheers and thanks JarrahTree 04:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion Review of Category:Novelists from Shanghai[edit]

The category was deleted eight months ago (along with other "Novelists from..." categories based on first-order divisions of China). However, I would like to request that the matter be reopened, if it is all right with you for me to do it as a deletion review. Category:Writers from Shanghai is a sufficiently large category that it really should be diffused by genre, I think, and many other Chinese provinces/special municipalities will also face that situation eventually. I think novelists are a sufficiently distinctive category that it would be a good way to diffuse to start with. (Further geographical diffusions are going to be difficult and not particularly useful, so I think genre diffusion has to be the way to go, unless we want to go for era diffusions, which I also think will be unhelpful given that Shanghai is a modern city and therefore the vast majority of writers from Shanghai will be of PRC origin.) I'd like to hear your thoughts and hopefully have your agreement before submitting a DRV, as this wasn't really disputing your decision as such but asking for a further rethinking. --Nlu (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for contacting me. I would have no objection to you opening a DRV on this issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I will probably do so in a day or two. --Nlu (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Businesswomen categories[edit]

I'm coming to you not because you have any involvement in these particular categories as far as I know, but you have a great deal more knowledge of how the category trees work than I do.

We have both Category:Businesswomen and Category:Women in business. It seems to me that these are essentially the same subject. Both contain mostly articles on individual women. The latter category has numerous subsubcategories for women in business in individual countries, eg Category:New Zealand women in business, but the former has only the one, Category:New Zealand businesswomen. It was these two NZ-related categories which drew my attention, and I was thinking of proposing a merger of them before realising that this might be part of a greater problem. I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter.-gadfium 01:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi gadfium, sorry for my delayed response. I have been away. Yes, I think you're certainly on solid ground suggesting that Category:Businesswomen and Category:Women in business are essentially duplicates. I note that Category:Businesswomen and Category:New Zealand businesswomen were both created by User:Ottawahitech, a user who has a history of – how can I put this? – looking before he leaps in the creation of categories. The user often creates categories that duplicate other categories that already exist. I don't know if this is because he doesn't do his due diligence in trying to find out if a category he has an idea for is pre-existing under a different name, or if there is some other explanation as to why he does this repeatedly. In any case, it's not surprising that the duplication has been created given that this user is involved.
Anyway, I would suggest a merge proposal of Category:Businesswomen to the older Category:Women in business and Category:New Zealand businesswomen to the older Category:New Zealand women in business simply on the grounds of their being duplicate categories with no need for both. Unless there's some reason for preferring the "businesswomen" phrasing, in which case they would be merged the other way. Personally, though, I find "businesswomen" a little bit off-putting and could be interpreted as being a sexist or outmoded term. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Novelists from Shanghai[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Novelists from Shanghai. 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. Nlu (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

List of Mormon missionary diarists[edit]

The article List of Mormon missionary diarists is not really a list at all. I suggest its name be changed to "Mormon missionary diarists". Would you object to this change? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The lead also needs to be changed (if not only for the fact that we don't start lists with "This is a list..." just as we don't start articles with "This is an article...") The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I was not involved in naming List of Mormon missionary diarists, apart from changing the capitalization in the name. I would not object to a renaming of it. Section 2 of the article does contain a list of lists. I'm not sure that we need all of those separate lists. I think they could most likely be collapsed into one article, with a separate section for each currently existing self-standing list. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree, then it would truly be a list, rather than a list of lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I have moved the article to the new title and rewritten the lead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

hahaha[edit]

The late Ronnie Laing or a Jungian shrink would have a field day on many talk pages of wikipedia: Scenario

Angry editor "You're angry with me
Huh? Isn't it the other way around, you're angry with me?

Projection imho is a serious issue here on wp many eds play with it - black kettle is one thing, but... JarrahTree 00:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

For context of your quandary, if you are able to cogitate on the demise of User:Wwikix and what led to it, the conversations and the larger context of the edit history, it is salient as to the precarious nature of the architecture and logic of key sorting, not made any simpler by the recent changes in the wiki software - I think to be honest, category fiddling on wp en is well beyond human help, there is a serious need for (oh how I hate this word) reform, but, ethel stokes of lower bermondsley has to have her say as well, when hell gets frosty I suppose... JarrahTree 01:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the tremendous sympathy being extended to me, as indicated in the title you chose for this section. ;) (Just putting that there in case you think I'm upset. I'm paranoid about being misunderstood lately.) I agree with you about the tinkering issues. There's one editor in particular who I can think of who is a master tinkerer in that regard. I've been meaning to ask him about why he does some of the things he does, because many of them seem solely taken to maximise his own personal viewing experience on whatever computer monitor he must be using. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Coats of arms in Glossary[edit]

Is it time to turn this tedious one-sided discussion into a formal RFC to get it over and done with, do you think - as you suggested in your edit summary. PamD 21:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. The only reason I didn't was because I became exhausted by the issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks.There's a tiny typo in yr last comment pre-afd where you've said "RfD"! PamD 06:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Oops, yes, thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
"Tedious" seems to be a good word choice. I've rarely seen an editor so devoted to an idea of such minuscule importance. Unfortunately, it seems to require an equal amount of counter devotion to get such users to budge, which makes me and him both kind of look like asses. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

One missed Alberta highway category renaming[edit]

Hi Good Olfactory, thanks for closing and implementing the November 12 CfD for Alberta highways. As a result of going for Category:Alberta provincial highways, 1–216 series instead of Category:Alberta provincial highways, 1 - 216 series (which I support), the equivalent Category:Alberta provincial highways, 500 - 986 series now has an inconsistent naming format. Are you able to do a quick renaming of that so that there is alignment, or do I have to pull a new CfD? Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I can quickly rename that one to match. I think it's fine to have redirects on the space-hyphen-space versions of the category names; I will create those as well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Great and thank you! My OCD anxiety attack has dissolved. Hwy43 (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding red links[edit]

I'd suggest that adding red-linked categories without creating the relevant category, as you did here is not particularly helpful, it's just making work for other editors. And on that particular case, I'm not a great fan of categorising by continent unless it's a defining characteristic (as with eg (association) football that is organised by continent and has continental competitions). Partly because like gender it tends not to be particularly WP:DEFINING, and it implies a parent "XXX by continent" category that is necessarily a WP:SMALLCAT. Might as well just have a global category. JMO.Le Deluge (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but it's even less helpful to place a category like Category:South American communists in a category like Category:Anti-fascists when the head category Category:Communists is more appropriately placed in that category. One benefit I see to adding red categories is that most users are woefully horrible about adding appropriate subcategories when they create categories. Pre-adding the category can help them out. But I realise that red categories annoy some users. I don't tend to worry about them that much. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Personally I think it's the lesser of two evils to have the continent category in the same category as the top one pending a purge of all continent categories, compared to two categories missing from the hierarchy, one of which is a guaranteed WP:SMALLCAT and one is a not-very-big-cat that is non-WP:DEFINING. It's not like that top category is massive. I think red links are different for articles and for categories, I'm fairly relaxed about red-link articles but categories are more for the benefit of all sorts of automated processes and so it matters more when the hierarchy is damaged. I'm all too aware of people's lack of attention for the category hierarchy and at least you edit with some empathy and respect for it, but IME certain prolific editors of categories throw red-links around without understanding the implications higher up the tree. If they actually created their red links then they might appreciate the error of their ways. Also it's rather dispiriting when one spends days slogging through the backlog of eg WP:Database reports/Categories categorized in red-linked categories, where the only measure of progress is seeing the numbers go down, and then suddenly hundreds of red links get dumped into the report and one is back where one started. There's no such thing as a category creation fairy... Le Deluge (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
You're right that it is a "two evils" situation – both approaches have their downsides. And I hear you about the real problems lying elsewhere. I didn't take your comment as a personal attack on my edits. Typically, when I include a red-link parent category, is because I have the intention of creating that category within a reasonable amount of time. If I create a category, I like to do it properly, and actually populate it appropriately, so sometimes there is a lag time. But in this specific case, I can't say that that was my intent and I essentially agree with removing it as it's an unlikely creation, at least for the near future. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

"Thoroughly confused"[edit]

Regarding your "thoroughly confused" comment. I think you confused me, brianhe, the category's creator, with brianga, the nominator for its deletion. - Brianhe (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Lol—yes; yes I did indeed. I'll adjust that! As I read everything more carefully, assigning user names to opinions in as I go, I see that you opposed it's deletion, so it should have clicked with me earlier. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

CfD Track gauge categories[edit]

I am disappointedd by the outcome of CfD#Category:Articles_that_mention_a_specific_track_gauge.

  1. Remarkably, the nom spoke about "clutter up" only, and did not return later to substantiate. Hard to read that as an argument, and rightly that argument that made it into your conclusion. This about the complete noms' argument.
  2. "it was quite evident to everyone that participated that these categories are hidden tracking/administrative categories". I don't think so. !voters Mangoe, Carlossuarez46, RevelationDirect (3/5) all open with a statement that shows their misunderstanding (they wrote as if it is about content categories). After pointing the the difference (and their usage, by way of my Keep-post), only two actually did digest that difference and clarification (if replied at all).
  3. You wrote: "the consensus I see is that there is no administrative benefit to them that is not otherwise achieved through regular categories". First of all, the nom did not say so. The nom only said argued "clutter up", and did not respond to any subsequent post. Also, the 'no benefit' argument was only made by two editors: RevelationDirect (who clearly had still not digested my description of actual usage) and Marcocapelle (at last with an argument, albeit it one of not completely clear to me). So only one argumented remark is left: I cannot call that 'consensus'.
  4. "One user dissented" (me that is). But IMO, that's not the description of the discussion. The nom did not opiniate at all in this. And no weight was given to the point that I actually use these maintenance categories. How come that editors who are not familiar with the issue get to have a weight, while mostly saying 'I don't understand how this works'? And also, how come you did not weigh that in? Result now is that non-involved editors got to say how to maintain a specific topic should be done — without that how being tested (or even considered).
  5. I expected/propose a closure like: "being maintenance categories, there is no harm in their existance. Claims for their usefulness and actual usage are reasonable. Remaining actual issues wrt maintenance-vs-content should be fleshed out on dedicated venues like WT:TRAINS or Template talk:Track gauge".
  6. (As a practical matter: deletion of the categories may cause huge difficulties would they have to be restored. You might consider freezing that deletion pending my request). -DePiep (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I could debate you pretty extensively on most of the points you make above – in a general sense, I don't think all your interpretations above are fair to other users. Some take a spider's eye view rather than consider the discussion as a whole. But it might just be better to cut to the chase and ask what is your request here referred to in point 6? You're disappointed by the result: that's to be expected and not surprising, since it goes against what you wanted. You expected something different, but that's not what happened. So in light of my close, what are you expecting to happen? Are you proposing that my close be reviewed at WP:DRV? Or is this just a general complaint to vent? Should I acknowledge that I am a bad administrator and/or person? Reopen and relist the discussion for another week? Substitute your proposed closure for mine? What is it you are seeking? Some of the above possibilities are realistic; others are not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
(ec) Well, before going DRV I am supposed to ask clarification/considerations here. Is what I did. Yes I do want overturning. I don't see any wrong in that. Point 6 is, as it says, a practical point: if it would be reverted, then undeletion might be a horror. That's all for 6. About your "Should I acknowledge ..": I think I argued about the closing reasoning here. I do not see why that should be construed into a personal judgement. Sure you sense a disappointment. Tools being taken away by uninvolved outsiders. -DePiep (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Sure, I just wasn't clear what the point was – as written, some of your points could be written as narrow as a personal lament over a result or as broadly as a suggestion of moral failure on the part of me and/or the users who participated. If DRV is being considered, it's best for the letters to be written. I'm fine for it to go to DRV and happy for them not to be deleted, pending the DRV if it's going to be super complicated to accomplish and/or reverse. (I suppose my agreement to this point should be specified in the DRV, otherwise some users might question what's going on.) In that I'm meant to interpret a discussion made by others rather than substitute my own opinion or inject a supervote, I don't see how I could have closed this discussion any differently. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I understand that parts could be read as a personal lament. And of course I could have been more condensed (but: first flush).
I addressed you, because I think the closing reasoning has arguable points. That's not incompetence (and not implied), but you did gave, by the closer's job, weights to arguments. Here I am pointing out possible other routes & weights to a closing result. I'm not just disappointed, but disappointed with reasons. The tool is taken away without alternative.
I have made no moral judgement over participating editors, but I did check their understanding by their writing (and absence of writing). As for the practical hold-the-deletion point: moot, deletion happening already.
With your answer, I am considering DRV (not sure it qualifies). Or maybe start an RfC at the right venue. Weird that a functioning WP:TRAINS maintenance process (article quality improvement) was decided over at a CfD. -DePiep (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
If it comes to that, restoration of the categories does not look like it will be that big a deal. If it was that easy to empty the categories (I assume that this is all that was required), then restoring them would be a snap – we would just need to reverse that edit, and then I could restore the existence of the individual categories.
It sounds to me like you should use DRV. If you're dissatisfied with the close or feel that the reasoning was inadequate, then I think that that can qualify under WP:DRVPURPOSE #1. From what I've seen, at least as it applies to category deletion, that's a fairly loose guideline, and you don't necessarily have to struggle too hard to shoehorn it in to be allowed to use it. The worst that might happen is that some users might dispute whether #1 applies, but in general from what I have seen there the substantive issue is addressed rather than any major focus on whether one of the purposes has been met.
You might be right that other users will take a look and decide that the other users who commented are way off base. I didn't read it that way – I just saw some legitimate disagreements over utility and replaceability of function. But of course I could be an outlier in this regard. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I think in a few days I'll read into this and find that route to go. I'll keep you informed, but for now don't worry. It's not up to you any more. -DePiep (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks. And just to be clear, I would not be offended or personally affronted if it were taken to DRV. I kind of like it when closes I make go there, as it provides me some third-party opinion as to a close I made. Because most of the time, I have no idea what third parties think about the quality of the closes I do. In general, you only hear from those who disagree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Really?[edit]

It seems that the close at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 4#Category:Articles in the Article Incubator didn't realize that the primary reasons given for closing either carry no weight ("only one editor that") or were already refuted (the reference to another CFD discussion).  Further, this close does not assess this discussion. 

The specific statement asserting "rough consensus for deletion" begins, "The fact that there was only one editor that objected..."  Vote counting is a discredited form of assessing consensus.  As for only "one editor", from the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions, with one sentence bolded:

===Wikipedia policies and guidelines===
  • Keep: Per ThisPolicy, which states in these exact words that an article like this is perfectly acceptable. PolicyFavorsKeeping (talk)
  • Delete: Per ThisPolicy, which states in these exact words that this type of article does not belong. PolicyFavorsDeleting (talk)

An AfD discussion is not a vote. It is a discussion of whether policies (and broadly accepted guidelines, such as many of the topic-specific notability guidelines) allow or disallow the type of article. Referencing policies, and where appropriate, guidelines is what will make or break it. Even if ten editors state an article should be deleted, and one editor states the article should be kept, but the one who wants it kept gives a good argument citing policy, while the other ten give none, this is sufficient grounds for keeping an article. In the case of guidelines, which carry less weight, it may be less clear cut, but basically the more support an argument has from well-accepted guidelines that reflect Wikipedia community consensus, the more likely it is to prevail.

When you make your comment on an AfD board, familiarize yourself with as many Wikipedia policies and guidelines as possible. There are so many, it may take time to know them all. Keep in mind that what you are saying is not a vote, and without citing one or more policies and/or guidelines, agreeing with someone else's citation of a policy, or rebutting someone else's citation of a policy, your comments will have little if any weight against the consensus formed by others and the decision make by the closing admin.

The second clause of your statement of rough consensus was, "...combined with the result here..."  This exact discussion was mentioned by editor Mangoe, "delete per precedent", and the statement was refuted.  The person who created that CFD for another Incubator category, was the person who marked Category:Articles in the Article Incubator historical!  It even says this in the cited discussion, "Looking at Category:Articles in the Article Incubator shows that the nominator has already marked the parent category historical."  To repeat to you an exact statement I made, "Since you consider this person to be an authority, I have found it illogical that you would cite him for doing the opposite of what he believes."  The close states, "I have never seen a consensus anywhere that has resulted in empty categories no longer in use being retained for historical purposes.", which is proof that the closer did not read the very CFD he cites.  And it is not just the proponent, as another contributor in that CfD supports the keeping of a category with "instructional text".

The close fails to distinguish between three fundamentally different categories.  Implicitly arguing that a redirected category must be populated is nonsensical.  As per the discussion, "A deleted redirected category confounds the reader because there is no immediate way to identify the target of the redirect, or that the category was not populated."

I came to the CFD page today to review the argument that we can ignore the policy to preserve the value that others have added to the project, when those contributions are outside of article space.  The alternate hypothesis is that we don't need to preserve the value that others have added to the project outside of article space.  I used Merriam to look up the antonym of "preserve".  I found, "Near Antonyms: disregard, ignore, neglect; break, damage, destroy, harm, hurt, impair, injure, ruin, wreck".  Which of these apply? 

  • "disregard the value that others add",
  • "ignore the value that others add",
  • "neglect the value that others add",
  • "break the value that others add",
  • "damage the value that others add" (already noted in the discussion),
  • "destroy the value that others add",
  • "harm the value that others add",
  • "impair the value that others add",
  • "injure the value that others add",
  • "ruin the value that others add",
  • "wreck the value that others add"?

As far as strength of argument, this was a one-sided discussion.  Arguments are directly refuted.  Your attempt to rehabilitate the broken arguments in this discussion might have had better results had you focused on the one of the three categories that is like the "assessment" category.  But this idea still misses the new points discussed here showing the damage that the previous deletion caused.  The argument is strong enough that a closer is empowered to reverse previous deletions, thus restoring the historical integrity of the structure.  Please do so.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Really. WP:DRV sounds like a good option here as I'm not convinced that I should change what I wrote. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I did, however, make this amendment to cure the (understandable) misapprehension that all I did was count !votes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Pseudonymous musicians[edit]

I don't understand the deletion of Category:Pseudonymous musicians while leaving in place the exactly analogous Category:Pseudonymous artists, Category:Pseudonymous writers, and even Category:Pseudonymous mathematicians‎. Every argument for the deletion of "musicians" would apply equally to each of these cats: either pseudonymity is a defining characteristic (I think so) or it is not... not just for musicians. And with that one category gone, musicians have since added to the "artists" category (due to semantic vagueness), an outcome inconsistent with the intent of all of those arguments for deletion. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Things only get deleted if they get nominated and there is a consensus to do so. The musicians category was deleted here as a result of the discussion. The fact the others now exist could simply mean that the others have not been similarly nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not trying to get rid of them, just pointing out how illogical it is that this one was deleted when it's as valid as they are. So, how do I get it recreated? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
The CFD system is not designed to organically apply the logic of its results to all corners of the category system . To apply a "precedent" decision to other similar categories, it requires users to start nominations. You would need to propose its re-creation using WP:DRV, citing a change in circumstances, I suppose. Given the strength of the consensus in the original discussion and the fact that current guidelines on categorization would favor deletion over re-creation, I think a more likely result of such a discussion would be (1) a consensus that it should not be re-created and (2) a spur to propose deletion of the other similar categories you have identified. But of course it might be worth a try. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
"Strength"? Only in the context of a quorum of a handful. My point was that if the "logic" of the arguments presented for deletion of that category were applied more broadly, it would be seen as obviously faulty. The fact that no one has objected to the other categories is evidence that the concept is sound: they are useful and meaningful. Anyway, thank you for explaining where I need to go to fix this. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
OK – do what you want, I'm just not interested in debating the issue: I was the one who closed the discussion, not a participant in it who expressed an opinion. If you want to argue the merits, those who participated in the discussion would be better bets. By "strength" I meant the discussion was not exactly a close call when I decided how to close it, given what the participants said and the guidelines which support deletion quite ... well, "strongly". If you wanted to get it restored, bringing it to DRV would be the standard way of doing so. (But I also thought it would be helpful to let you know that it will be an uphill climb and could even backfire and result in the others being nominated at least, if not deleted.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
@JasonAQuest: excuse me as I'm passing by but you have to understand that Wikipedia can be a bit haphazard about these things which is why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason in itself to create a category. Sometimes the hive mind just hasn't got round to looking at other categories that are equally deserving of deletion. Have a read of that essay to see where we're coming from. On the specifics of this case, it looks like it was prompted by a Pseudonymous rappers category - which is a poor category because the majority of rappers have pseudonyms, so a pseudonym is not a WP:DEFINING attribute, and then the parent category was nuked by extension. Pseudonyms would be more unusual among orchestral musicians for instance, but frankly I think the idea of pseudonyms for performers is a can of worms, as pseudonyms morph into Category:Alter egos, band names and union-mandated stage names. So David Jones becomes David Bowie becomes Ziggy Stardust becomes part of Tin Machine. In contrast a nom de plume is a recognised "thing", the dynamic is somewhat different for writers. Not completely different, but different enough from performers for it to "work" as a category. Ultimately that's what it's all about, categories are there to make life easier and not to get hung up on being too precise.Le Deluge (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
And sometimes that hivemind makes poorly considered decisions with unintended consequences, such as dozens of musicians instead being added to the pseudonymous-artists category, because the more appropriate category for them has been deleted. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
One moment it's a "quorum of a handful" and the next it's the "hivemind". It looks like it's easy to characterize those making the decision in any way that will best suit one's argument of the moment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

And also, as a quick update, this week I'll be on mobile-only so I won't close any CfD discussions during this period. I may still participate in discussions though. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Fate of CFDS. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Yellowstone[edit]

Moving Category:Yellowstone to Category:Yellowstone Caldera didn't work out so well, unless people like Hiram Chittenden and Robert Reamer are geological features (or geologists). Yellowstone County, Montana has nothing to do with the caldera either, nor for that matter, "Yellowstone" except for the name. I've restored the category for now until something more appropriate can be worked out - I agree that "Yellowstone" is a little vague - perhaps "Yellowstone region"? I altered some to Category:Yellowstone National Park, but that's not always best. I wasn't as awake as I should have been to think it through, I'll make a more organized attempt at recategorization later today. Acroterion (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

And of course the bot doesn't know any better, so it keeps moving categories back to the inappropriate places. I'm creating Yellowstone region as an alternative category for topics having to do with Yellowstone but having nothing in particular to do with the volcanic crater as a stopgap. If you can halt the bot process or change it "Yellowstone region" it will stop articles on future explorers, architects or interstate ecological organizations created by editors who just classify them as "Yellowstone" from being bot-classified as volcanic features. Acroterion (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Good Olfactory![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

RfC opened at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for comment on our proposed policy for users remaining in redlinked categories[edit]

As the nominator of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 22#Category:People paid by Big Pharma to schill, you may be interested in participating in the RfC that addresses one of the main issues brought up in that discussion. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

List of borders listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of borders. Since you had some involvement with the List of borders redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of borders by length. Since you had some involvement with the List of borders by length redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. . Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreement relating to the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Agreement relating to the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization. Since you had some involvement with the Agreement relating to the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Iadmctalk  19:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

interested[edit]

If you could make comment at [5] my deep personal dislike at seeing masses of red linked talk pages led in part, to the creation of the WP:DEATH project, and now the last frontier... any commentary, advice, or otherwise would be appreciated JarrahTree 11:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

Nuvola apps knewsticker.png Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Behavioral and social facets of systemic risk[edit]

Request a copy. Valuable info lost. Editors who delete should have deep, direct subject mater expertise. Here, the topic is "Systemic Risk". Contagion is 100% caused by the behavioral and social facets (fear and social connectedness). Large amounts of R&D expenditure in this direct area by US and UK. Much more is known since 2008 and research continues. Rick (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Missionaries by location has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Missionaries by location, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Indian Jain monks has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Indian Jain monks, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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 02:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

In some benign wp:CANVASSING[edit]

Community input is politely requested for Jimbo's tkpg with regard ur expertise in gen. notability per wp:GNG & applicabilities of eg wp:PROF, wp:AUTH, etc. w/in AfD's
... here: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Suggested fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I.e.: Is Matthew Grow, editor of The Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846 (The Church Historian's Press, which is an imprint of Deseret Book; 2016), notable? Is Benjamin E. Park, who reviews him here: "The Mormon Council of Fifty: What Joseph Smith’s Secret Records Reveal" (Religion & Politics, September 9, 2016)? Please chime in on a way to determine such questions in a much more consistent manner than at present...here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Suggested_fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Figure skaters from Harbin[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Figure skaters from Harbin. 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. Nlu (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

WP needs scholar Julie M. Smith blp stub[edit]

Owing2 2116 AML scholarship book honors for best non-fiction LINK. Find sources: "Julie M. Smith" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:First Peoples National Party of Canada politicians has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:First Peoples National Party of Canada politicians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Bearcat (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Norwegian erotic photographers has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Norwegian erotic photographers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Mormon Tabernacle Choir songs has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Mormon Tabernacle Choir songs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:States and territories established in 1448[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:States and territories established in 1448 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 seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 "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. —swpbT 16:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Districts of Belarus - naming inconsistency[edit]

Re Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Belarus#Districts_of_Belarus_-_naming_inconsistency - can you help to convert the remaining X Raion to X District, in Category:Districts of Mogilev Region and Category:Districts of Vitebsk Region? 85.180.35.198 (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Christadelphians by nationality has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Christadelphians by nationality, which you created, has been nominated for possible renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:British Eurosceptics has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:British Eurosceptics, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. AusLondonder (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Burial at [cemetery][edit]

I support your "burial at [cemetery]" proposal if you are going to propose it again. I would rather see consistency and have the other "burial in [cemetery]" as a category redirect. Are you going to propose it again? --RAN (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

you are missed[edit]

trust you return sometime. have a safe christmas if you remain silent yet longer JarrahTree 04:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Edward Stuart McDougall[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Edward Stuart McDougall has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No references. Please add WP:Reliable sources references as per WP:REFB

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thomas B. Marsh[edit]

Hey, it looks like you haven't been active in a couple of months or much at all in the last year, but in the off chance you get bored with real life there's some excitement over at Thomas B. Marsh. There's a new editor who is suggesting several changes, many based on primary sources. I've challenged a number of them based on WP:OR, WP:POV, and just plain writing/organizational style. I have a feeling that the editor is here to "right great wrongs" which is leading to some friction. Anyways, if you got some free time then another opinion could be useful over there, especially if it's to tell me I'm wrong. Thanks! --FyzixFighter (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Good Olfactory. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like NationStates[edit]

Hey! Based on your edits to NationStates, I thought maybe you would be interested that I started a series of userboxes for the game. Feel free to add any or add your own!-🐦Do☭torWho42 () 06:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for POP Air Pollution Protocol[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing—POP Air Pollution Protocol—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Leyo 22:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Chilean governors has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Chilean governors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see my proposal to speeedily rename the category[edit]

Category:Scottish Baptist clergy to Category:Scottish Baptist ministers Hugo999 (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:High Commissioners to the Dominion of Newfoundland has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:High Commissioners to the Dominion of Newfoundland, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Rathfelder (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)