User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joseph Smith, Jr.

Concerning your recent edit [1], edit summary, and the legal definition of murder. Does it fit here, or not? In the course of their duty, when applicable, soldiers and police officers are supposedly examples of those killing, rather than murdering, their adversaries. The reasoning behind it, I suppose, is the lack of premeditation or some such hair splitting. Failure to convict someone would not negate a murder being a murder or even exonerate a murderer. I'd be interested to hear your take on it. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I personally think it was probably murder, but I know calling it that has been controversial, so WP has tended to stick to "killed", "assassinated", or the like. I think the controversy arises from the fact that Smith fired shots in self-defence. One way of looking at it (though perhaps too legalistic) is to say that it probably was a culpable homicide—what type it was exactly, whether it was murder in the first degree, another type of murder, or manslaughter is probably where the real debate lies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
That's a reasonable explanation and it makes sense. So much so that I won't pursue it, i.e, "murder" vs. "killing". But often when an edit is undone with the "undo" function the baby gets thrown out with the bath water. Do you also disagree that Smith voluntarily "turned himself in" to the authorities? It might have been simpler to change "murder" back to "killed". And the Columbo in me has to ask you just one more question. Do you really think that if a burglar enters a home and "murders" their victim, it becomes a "killing" because the victim managed to get a shot off at the burglar before they died? Do you really think that if a murderer enters a home with the intention of murdering the owner, it becomes a "killing" because the victim managed to get a shot off before they died? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree my use of undo was overzealous and inappropriate in this instance. I shouldn't have reverted your other changes and do not object to you putting them back in. As for your final question, I say no—as I mentioned, I personally think it was murder. But I am aware that others have disagreed, and usually their argument involves some mention of the fact that Smith was fighting back. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy non controversial at the talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Burials_at_the_Mount_Herzl - just been doing some tagging - and came across this simple request - made me think of you :) SatuSuro 15:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I've nominated it for a speedy change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thank you - SatuSuro 01:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Burj Khalifa

I notice you recently closed the discussion to rename Category:Burj Dubai to Category:Burj Khalifa with the suggestion to renominate "... once the images are moved to commons, at which time the category would likely be deleted if only the main article remained" Unfortunately, images of Burj Khalifa are unlikely to be moved to Commons because all the previous images were deleted from Commons. See the comments here, here, and here. Astronaut (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. I was just trying to cover the concerns of those who wanted the category deleted. If the pictures are ever moved to commons, then deletion would make sense. It may be nevertheless worthwhile to create an image-specific category to hold the images, which could also justify deletion of the category, I suppose. Someone needs to follow up on this if they want it done, though—as the closer, I'm not going to push it or make sure it is done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Categorising Japanese politicians - a suggestion

Hi - I see you've been cutting a hotcat swathe through the Japanese politicians articles. I only watch a couple, but what caught my eye was Yukio Hatoyama being categorised as an LDP politician. Technically, yes, he was, but then so were large parts of the opposition if you go back a couple of decades. It's kind of unhelpful to understand the intricacies of the realignments and party formations to have such a blanket description. Should we propose a "former LDP politician" category for people like Hatoyama? It's a bit tricky what with the recent splits from the LDP such as Your Party and People's New Party which we don't know will "stick" yet (I have my doubts), but I still think it would help. What do you think?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories in general don't differentiate between "current" and "former", and political party categories for virtually every other country are treated the same way I'm applying these ones. Japan is basically one of the last countries to get "the treatment", so I'm loath to change the approach now. I also don't think there's any problem with having a small category for a small party, regardless of whether or not the party is long-lived. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't worried about small categories for small parties - but just that Japanese party politics is notable for just how many people leading other parties started off in the LDP, only a long while ago. While there's always a case for standardising as much as possible across areas, where that comes into conflict with usability because of the peculiarities of a particular area, there's a case for treating things slightly differently. In this case, I honestly think it will be confusing for the user to see someone like Yukio Hatoyama classified as an LDP politician. He hasn't been one for twenty years, and is opposed to them. The same goes for a large number of DPJ politicians.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It's no more confusing than having the party indicated in an infobox on the article page. If anyone is confused, they could always (horror!) read the fricking article. Incidentally, Japan is far from unique in having a situation where many parties have broken off from a larger party. It's the rule more than exception in many parts of the world. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, if we operated on the "read the fricking article" principle, we wouldn't bother with infoboxes. btw, I note that Morgan Tsvangirai is not listed as ZANU-PF, nor Vladimir Putin or Dmitri Medvedev as Russian Communists. This may be a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that's not so dissimilar to your own argument about "virtually every other country". Anyway, you're clearly not sold on my idea. I might take it up at Project Japan (if I have the energy). All the best, VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
For every one example you could put forward, three could be put forward on the other side. It's a fool's game. (Not that you are. But if you want to compare, trust me—I've been around these categories and I have an idea of what is the most common pattern.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
{ec} Most common pattern is the point. All I would need to show is that exceptions are acceptable in order to counter this idea being rejected out of hand on grounds of absolute standardisation. After that, the merits of the case can be considered. I've nothing against standard practice in the absence of other considerations - I think it's a good thing. How about an extra category of "former LDP politicians"? By the way, I've been struggling to think of another parliamentary democracy with quite such a realignment (LibDem from Labour via SDP in the UK doesn't come close.). Typically people were members of parties that went out of existence - their previous memberships are of a historical, not a current party.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, on reflection, I think the idea won't work. It's too POV, emphasising the LDP's loss of monopoly power. (Sorry to have taken up your talkpage time.) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It has been a more common occurrence in African and Asian post-colonial states than it has been in "Western" states. There are also some examples in Latin America. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I thought of Africa - which is why the first person I went to check was Tsvangirai. But those were post-independence break-ups (or post-dictatorship), which I feel are different - there was also systemic change (introduction of democracy) which clearly helps to frame people's understanding (of course Putin was a member of the CP; of course most African country politicians were originally members of a single independence movement etc.). Anyway, as I said above, I've abandoned the idea. I still think there's a problem with all of this. It weakens the value of the categories in question, even in the post-colonial situation. People approach information on here in all kinds of ways; it would be good if we can make the categories more helpful like this. However, I'm not sure how it should best be done.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Categories aren't a great way to communicate nuance since they are all-or-none and don't apply with explanations, disclaimers, or caveats. Luckily they just sit at the bottom of an article and the text of the article, infoboxes and templates can take care of the messiness. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Manual migration of speedy CfDs

Thanks I had noticed in my watchlist something that appeared to be moved categories with edit summaries like "Created Category:XXX with contributers User1, User2" and that seemed new to me. For what it's worth, I always move the category talk page, which will keep it on a user's watchlist. In that case, is it six of one, half dozen the other? Please respond on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Example I have done this with Category:Poe Family/Category:Poe family, Category:New Zealand people of Norweigan descent/Category:New Zealand people of Norwegian descent, Category:Documentaries about Royalty/Category:Documentaries about royalty, and Category:Supreme Court Associate Justices of the Philippines/Category:Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the Philippines. Let me know if this makes sense to you or if you think this is acceptable. I'll hold off on any other changes until you get back with me on this topic. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Watchlists Nothing is being removed from any watchlists. By watching the category, you automatically watch its talk page. When the talk page is moved, you watch the new new of the talk page (as well as the old one) and its new category as well. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but surely you've seen moved articles/talk pages in your watchlist before... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Resume I have resumed doing this, as there are requests that expired almost a week ago without being migrated. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
If I could butt-in for a minute... I have two reasons why I think these manual moves should not be done. First, these add to the admins' work. Some of us are quite lazy and would rather have Cydebot take care of deleting these categories. Second, when these categorized as you empty them, you tag them with {{db-c1}}. When I come across such categories, I manually delete them under C2—since, you know, that's what went on—but I'm not sure other admins do the same, especially if they don't work with CFD. If other admins are deleting them under C1, that's both misleading and incorrect, and users who didn't have the category on their watchlist will wonder where the category went without being lead to its new target. As such, I simply think it's best left for Cydebot to work through. — ξxplicit 19:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

4 ... 3 ... 2 ...

That doesn't sound good. Does it end with "Happy New Year", or "Fire in the hole"? --Kbdank71 11:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably more something like—"no, I wasn't emptying out Namibian categories. Yes, I know what I'm doing. Yes, I'm familiar with CFD. No, I wasn't manually renaming anything." A recurring theme. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories named after architects

Regarding your reversal here, the articles in these subcategories are about architecture in general, not about architects. It is inappropriate to have articles such as Clifton Hampden Bridge and Current solar income within the architect category. Epbr123 (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The category is categories named after architects. The obvious parent is Category:Architects, just as Category:Categories named after politicians is parented by Category:Politicians, Category:Categories named after American people is parented by Category:American people, etc. If you get into categorizing the contents by the grandparent category, you're going to run into problems throughout the entire category tree. That's just not how it's usually done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
That's a bit of an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Anyone wanting to create a list of all architect articles is currently having to wade through a load of irrelevant articles. Categories that cause this problem are actually quite rare as most people avoid this happening. Epbr123 (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
No, they are not rare. Have you looked at Category:Categories named after musicians and Category:Categories named after musical groups? There are hundreds of these. How many of the articles in those subcategories are about "musicians" or "musical groups"? Most are about music, albums, songs, etc. But that doesn't mean we categorize the category in Category:Music. You can call it an OTHERSTUFF argument if you want, but drawing an analogy to illustrate the point is hardly what WP:OTHERSTUFF is referring to.
Another example: Category:Japan is in Category:East Asian countries. How many of the subcategories or articles in Category:Japan are about East Asian countries? The parent–subcategory relationships in these cases of eponymous categories are established in this way regardless of contents because they make intuitive sense to readers.
I can assure you that there are literally 1000s of these eponymous categories, and they are almost never treated in the way you are proposing.
Ultimately, the root of the problem goes back to eponymous categories themselves, and users' predilection for creating them when they are not really warranted. Users are warned against doing this in the guidelines, but their creation seems to carry on unabated. Perhaps what would be more helpful are categories of the type Category:Architectural works by JOHN SMITH rather than an eponymous category named after the architect JOHN SMITH. That way, they could logically reside in Category:Architecture rather than Category:Architects, but that's not how users have chosen to name them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The final paragraph of WP:EPON seems to give a good solution of how both readers and editors can be kept happy. Epbr123 (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Category:Categories named after politicians should not be a subcat of Category:Politicians: its only legitimate parent is Category:Categories named after people. I have made this point many times but (sadly) am unable to get many editors to see that the members of Category:Categories named after politicians are actually categories, not articles. These are a different sort of category and do not mix. (I see that I removed the illegitimate parent but someone with inferior understanding has reinstated it.) Category:Politicians is a category of articles. Category:Categories named after politicians is a category of categories. Occuli (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Ultimately, I think you are correct, Occuli. Unfortunately, you have to really think to figure out why, and most editors just impulsively will place these categories as subcategories of parents that make intuitive sense. But I think you are right that intuition is actually deceptive here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Template time?
Vegaswikian (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Beauty. It will cause confusion, but that's what is needed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
So may I remove Category:Categories named after architects from Category:Architects? Epbr123 (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd have no objection to that. It sounds like it should only be in a category designed for other eponymous categories are their holder categories. If I think too much about this it hurts. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Joseph507357

Thanks for removing the category off my sub pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph507357 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 2

Can you figure out why this page is being listed in Category:Parent categories? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Nasty things, those template-applied categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you happen to remember the name of the template to check the namespace and based on that to include or not included the category? I'm thinking that fixing the template may be the better way to go. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't—though that sounds vaguely familiar. I'll let you know if it comes to me or if I can find it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
{{Cat handler}} Vegaswikian (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Check out User:Vegaswikian/test parent category I tried it in a few cases and it seems to only add Category:Parent categories if it is used in the category namespace. If you don't find any issues, I switch it into production. If this works, my next target would be to not allow the RM template on category pages. Instead it would generate an error message that points to CfD. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Yup, it seems to work. I tested in in category name space (shows up), Wikipedia name space (doesn't), user name space (doesn't), article space (doesn't), talk space (doesn't), and category talk space (doesn't). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. That confirms my testing. Don't know how used the template is, but better to be safe. Will be in production shortly. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

People of Somalia

Hi. Category:People of Somalia and Category:Somali people are not the same thing, as you suggested here. The People of Somalia category is the parent category to the Category:Ethnic groups in Somalia, which in turn contains the Category:Somali people (that only pertains to the Somali ethnic group) as well as those of other ethnic groups in the country. It is patterned after most categories on Commons [2], and is important because it differentiates between the Somali ethnic group (i.e. Somalis proper) and people from other ethnic groups who are also citizens of Somalia. Thought I'd contact you about this before recreating the category. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have restored it. (... but, just so you know, I don't think this usage is standard in the English Wikipedia. You've placed it in Category:People by nationality which doesn't seem to include any comparable categories.) (From what I can tell, "Somali people" = "People of Somalia" as far as the category structure goes. Somali people is not limited to people of the Somali ethnicity.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your understanding. While the term "Somali" does often serve as both an ethnonym and a denonym, this is specifically because the country was named after its numerically dominant ethnic group, the Somalis, and not the other way around. The more common denonym for ethnic minorities in Somalia is, at least in the case of the Bantu, a "Somali" adjective that prefaces the ethnic group's traditional name (i.e. the "Somali Bantu" rather than "Somali"). Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I realise that. I'm just saying that as it is now, Category:Somali people seems to include people from Somalia of all ethnicities rather than just the ethnically Somali people. Category:Somali people is a nationality category right now. So I'm not sure why we need Category:People of Somalia. I may nominate it for merging. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
All of the people presently listed in the Somali people sub-categories are from the Somali ethnic group itself (that is, all the Sultans, clans, etc.), not the country's minority groups. It is by far the largest ethnic group in Somalia, so this is almost to be expected. Merging the "People of Somalia" parent category (which pertains to nationality and includes all of the nation's ethnic groups) with the "Somali people" category (which strictly pertains to ethnicity, and features only one of the nation's various ethnic groups at that) only confounds ethnicity with nationality, as they are not the same thing, especially not in a Somali context. If those sub-categories listed in the Somali people category featured people from ethnically non-Somali populations intermingled with ethnically Somali people, on the other hand, that would've been another story. Middayexpress (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
It is now and always has been a nationality category, and you should not attempt to change this fact without proposing it somewhere, since it would be a dramatic change from a long-standing situation. The subcategories are telling because we don't categorize people by ethnicity and religion, for instance, and yet we have Category:Somali people by religion. Please don't come along and try to upset 5 or 6 years of consistent treatment without actually gaining a consensus to do so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
No, it is not a nationality category (though that might have been the intention). This is especially obvious from the inclusion of the Category:Somali clans, which only pertains to Somalis. Only Somalis have this clan system, not any of the other minority groups in the country. And that's just the tip of it. I'm sorry if I have "upset" anyone's work here; that obviously was not my intention. But it seems to me that whatever work, hard or otherwise, that has been put into these categories was completely off-place and for naught. The extant categorization system is distinctly inferior to that featured on Commons, where instead of adjectives (such as "Somali people" or "Japanese people" or "Finnish people"), emphasis is put on geography (i.e. "People of Somalia", "People of Japan", "People of Finland"), which neatly avoids the unnecessary confusion that is built-in to the present system here and is quite evident today, especially with countries who were named after one specific ethnic group like the aforementioned areas. That said, I think I'll take you up on your offer and propose a complete reworking of the categorization system to remove this inherent confusion. Only once this is done can one truly say that the categorization accurately represents the pages classified therein (by the way, you cannot avail yourself of your administrative tools to delete articles in disputes that you yourself are presently involved in, as you've just done; that's a breach of WP:ADMIN). Middayexpress (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
You may not want it to be a nationality category, but it is and always has been one. It is in Category:People by nationality and always has been. You may want us to adopt the commons system, but we haven't yet. It's not a violation of administrative tools to prevent a user from renaming and repurposing categories out of process, which you are intending to do. I'm only "involved" insofar as I've been trying to prevent you from doing something out of process. That has been my intent and the effect of my actions from the start. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Uh, in case you hadn't noticed, the present dispute is between you and I; no one else is involved. That, by definition, makes you an involved editor, especially considering the fact that you used administrative tools to your own advantage and to support your own arguments (i.e. that the categories pertain to nationality and not ethnicity):
Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools.
I am troubled by the fact that you don't even appear to realize this. This dispute could've been (and still can be, at least as far as I'm concerned) resolved amicably. But instead you've chosen to not assume good faith, stalk my contributions for petty, unrelated items ostensibly to score cheap points, and worst of all, misuse the very administrative tools that have been granted to you in a dispute that you yourself are the other principal party in. I am not looking for a fight here. In fact, never would I have predicted this sort of reaction to a much better system of categorization -- one that's already in place elsewhere in the Wiki world, no less. Whatever the case, like I wrote, I think I'll take you up on your offer and perhaps present this new categorization scheme for discussion. The current system is painfully inadequate (and, in many cases, downright misleading), especially when it comes to countries whose names were derived from only one of their respective ethnic groups, as is the present case. So long, Middayexpress (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Outrage, outrage, outrage. I won't let you get around the current system without consensus. I don't give a shit how the category for people from Somalia is formatted, but I won't let you get away with changing it unilaterally. Sorry to disappoint you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. You were all along only looking to uphold the "consensus" principle (even apparently when you unilaterally reversed your own deletion of the article) rather than simply looking to administratively secure your own plainly-stated arguments. Unfortunately, I wasn't born yesterday and what I've indicated above stands. In future, swearing and general profanity are also highly unrecommended, as they too are a breach of Wiki policies (which should be obvious for a genuinely rule-respecting administrator; see WP:CIV). Middayexpress (talk) 05:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, chief. (I don't have time to continue this discussion in which it is apparently important to you that you "win", since I'm occupied cleaning up the mess you created in changing date formats without a good reason.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The "mess" I created. lol Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Middayexpress (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Q.E.D. Clean-up typically is a relatively thankless and time-consuming task, so if you don't mind .... Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I decided to give a shit about the name, so hopefully this at least will help. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
That's certainly an improvement and will do for now. At least this way, it's easier to tell the ethnic group apart from the nationality and to categorize pages accordingly. Middayexpress (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Ireland – United Kingdom border

Category:Ireland – United Kingdom border, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Renaming categories

When categories are renamed (such as Category: Tool to Category:Tool (band)), shouldn't someone go through the "What links here" and update the relevant pages with the newly named category? I ask because I've just seen in my recent changes that these updates have taken place now, nearly a year later. Lara 22:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose it is something that the closer should be doing. Unfortunately, with categories, it's probably often overlooked, since relatively few pages link to category pages. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

José Montilla

Hi Good Olfactory,

I noticed you've changed the categorization of this article, and I don't understand why you've removed him from Spanish Politicians. He certainly still is one, although he's only a former government minister.AdeMiami (talk)

Just because it's kind of a redundant category, since he's already in a number of categories that are more specific subcategories of Category:Spanish politicians: Category:Socialists' Party of Catalonia politicians, Category:Presidents of Generalitat de Catalunya, Category:Spanish Regional Presidents, Category:Members of the eighth Congress of Deputies (Spain), and Category:Government ministers of Spain. If every article about a Spanish politicians was included directly in Category:Spanish politicians, it would be huge, so it's OK to subsort them into more specific ones and then remove them from the general one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Now I understand categories better than I did. AdeMiami (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Grammar in category titles

I noticed Category:Former populated places via one of its subcategories and find it irksome because it's ungrammatical and more pidgin than proper English; I had a look at the renaming discussion and see that "formerly populated places" was passed over, but not for what I see as a good reason (former municipality and formerly populated place being different concepts and blurring of the category's intent IMO). I'd propose it for a change to the proper grammatical form but there are so man subcategories affected I'm wondering if there's a bot to facilitate the placement of the necessary {{subst}} template(s). Another one that I find really "icky" is Category:Riverside places (hm that's a redlink- it's been renamed again?). "Riverside" is not normally an adjective in English - and while "riparian" includes the river itself it at least is "normal". But why Category:Places on rivers isn't acceptable beats me, as it's "normal English".....Skookum1 (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, this is a controversial one. The whole "populated places" usage was kind of a camel—designed by a committee by consensus—nothing else could be agreed upon, so it was chosen. Then you add the "former" instead of "formerly" on top of that and it's just bad, bad, bad. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow!

Just saw this. Impressive! Hekerui (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Notification

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Koavf. This request was initiated by Koavf, but as far as his contributions show, he didn't notify any user...so I'm notifying you because you participated in the discussion that led to the community sanction. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The master

There is only one editor capable of creating Category:Eparchs of Newton of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. Occuli (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That is so awesome—the dead giveaway, unfortunately. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
You were rolling back all edits of PW socks (when I was alerting you to new ones rather than using checkuser). An advantage of checkuser is that it turns up sleeping socks and others whose edits might not have shown up. I thought it was a good idea just to roll back all 'PW' edits whether of merit or not (to discourage him) ... if others think a category was essential they can always recreate it. Occuli (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Please would you revert PW's edits to discourage him. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me. I'll start rolling them back again from here on out. I won't back-track and do all the historical ones, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
There are 2 more: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pastorwayne. Occuli (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies by the United States

Good Olfactory, I was trying to create a category that meets the requirements of the deletion discussion. How can I go about doing that, please? --Bsherr (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought the discussion resulted in the view that we do not want to have a category that categorizes things that have been the subject of an apology. It might make sense to have a category that groups articles about apologies themselves, but not things that have been the topic of an apology. That was my reading of it, though I suppose you could check with what the closing administrator thought. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
My reading was that the category was overbroad. I was trying to make it narrower. What's importnat to note is that these topics are not tangentially about such apologies. Rather, the apology is often a particularly important part of the topic, and therefore the article. I just don't see why it's necessary that the sections concerning the apology be split from the main articles before a category can be created. Could you explain? What I'm looking to do is what was done with, for example, Enron. Enron is an article about the company, but it's categorized in accounting scandals. Obviously, Enron is not a type of accounting scandal, but it's a significant topic related to Enron, so it's in the category. Can we do the same thing here? --Bsherr (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I realise you might want to do this, but my reading of the discussion was that that was the precise thing that was wrong with the way the previous category was being applied. I may be wrong and after all I participated in the discussion so I have my own views, so I'd encourage you to seek input from the closer on how she read the discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do that. Another good example: Category:Politicians convicted of alcohol-related driving offenses. None of the articles it contains are about the offenses themselves. There are many such categories. --Bsherr (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
A category entitled "politicians who...." should contain articles about politicians, not articles about the incidents themselves. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course. That's the concern I was addressing. The new category is called "Subjects of apology...". Isn't that the same?
I suppose from a purely grammatical standpoint, but the difference is that those categories weren't subjected to a CFD discussion under a different name and merely renamed to meet a specific grammatical format. The one we're talking about was deleted for what I see as a reason, and that reason doesn't necessarily cease to exist merely by tweaking the way the category is worded. Some categories are not wanted not because of how they are phrased, but because of the way they attempt to shoehorn articles into them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely, but isn't there a way to remake this category in such a way that articles aren't shoehorned into it? I agree it wasn't done right the first time by the first creator, but I'm trying to rescue the concept. If the articles put into it all state that the U.S. government apologized for them, that can't be considered shoehorning, can it? In your opinion, is there truly no way at all to do it correctly? --Bsherr (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
In my view, the foundational problem was having a category that categorized articles because the subject of the article has been the subject of an apology. It's a little bit too derivative as far as categories go and not really amenable to categorization in that way, in my opinion. Many people said things to the effect of, "I can see having a category that would group articles about apologies, but not one for things that have been the subject of apologies". That's was my opinion and the general impression I was left from the discussion. If that's the case, then no—there is no way to reword it to make the TSE article go in it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
But, per WP:OCAT, what if it's a truly notable part of the subject? Consider for example, that a substantial public government investigation and accounting was part of TSE. For a recent example from another country, consider the "Australian Apology". --Bsherr (talk) 04:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, lots of things are notable but not necessarily categorized by that aspect of notability. Categories can't and don't do it all. It's up to the community to decide how to balance the different forms of communicating information—there's not necessarily an inherently correct way that it has to be done. Consensus makes those decisions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not so sure that was the reason for the deletion. But without a CfD on a reformed cateogry (or a DR on the speedy deletion of it), there's no way to determine that. I take it you advise giving up? --Bsherr (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I would check the closer's impression if you are unsure about that. I could be wrong, of course. If she confirms what I say, then it might not be worth pursuing. If she takes an opposite interpretation, then it might be worthwhile re-nominating a new one to see what the deal is. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Already left a post, so we'll see what the reply is. In any event, I can add incorrigible POV pusher to my resume, now. :-) --Bsherr (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Hi ya'll! I guess I'll reply here to keep everything in one place - hope that's OK. Unfortunately Bsherr, I'm going to have to agree with Good Olfactory. There seemed to be consensus against a "subjects of apologies" category. Shawn in Montreal said "...it would have to be for articles on the apologies themselves, not things that are being apologized for." (my emphasis), while Bearcat thought it would be overcategorization. Good Olfactory said "doesn't make sense to me to have a category for things that have been the subject of some sort of apology from a government." and Owenblacker agreed with Bearcat and GO, although whether his agreement was with the category being deleted or a "subjects..." one not being necessary or both we can't be sure. I would read these comments together as a consensus that the "subjects..." category not be created. If you still disagree with both Good Ol'factory and I, I suppose you could always take the next step in the discussion. However, I'm not really sure what venue a new discussion should be held in - GO, you have more experience in category issues than me: what would be the next step in the process here? Dana boomer (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It's flexible—I suppose there could be a couple of options. One would be to take it to WP:DRV, but I would suggest that that is probably not ideal in this situation since typically that just looks at the discussion and whether it was closed per consensus, and I don't think that's really the issue here. If Bsherr wants to pursue things further, probably a better solution would be for him to re-create Category:Subjects of apology by the United States government, with me and Dana boomer agreeing not to speedily delete it as "re-created material". Then the category could be nominated for a CFD discussion with a brief background of what needs to be determined in the new discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
That would be fine by me. Perhaps you could restore the deleted category upon my note in a month's time? I think the delay would mitigate the WP:AGF issues. --Bsherr (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
This would be fine. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Yup, I'm good with all of that. Nice solution! Dana boomer (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Tuskegee syphilis experiment

This article, Tuskegee syphilis experiment was added to the category Category:Subjects of apology by the United States government after a similarly named category, Category:Official Apologies by United States of America, was approved for speedy deletion. This editor was an active participant in the discussion for deletion. The text of the discussion is here. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_9#Category:Official_Apologies_by_United_States_of_America. It appears that this is an attempt to circumvent this decision.

Two other articles were also added to the category, the ones about Guatemala experiments and Japanese American Detainees. Kind regards, Veriss (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

German district categories

Hi. I'm sure it's being done with the best of intent, but why are German district categories being renamed from "FOO district" to "FOO (district)"? Where was the discussion? The German names always include "district" as part of the name to avoid confusion in most cases with a town of the same name. If we're going to change them, "FOO District" would be more logical. --Bermicourt (talk) 05:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

They weren't being renamed—it was just merger of two duplicate categories at WP:CFDS. There were instances of two categories existing for the same district, one "FOO distict" and one "FOO (district)". There was no discussion about which name was preferable—they were just merged to the one that matched the main article name. Anyone can nominate them for a rename to anything else at any time. IIFRC, three were renamed, but only one of the three merged from FOO district to FOO (district): Category:Goslar district merged to Category:Goslar (district) (which has existed since January 2007), but the direction of the merge was merely because the main article is at Goslar (district). And I suppose since the target has long existed whereas the deleted one was only recently created (by you). Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I was going to clean those up as I have with others previously, but there is now a bot undoing everything. I will flag this up at the WikiProject Germany discussion page. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

The Indiana Barnstar
Thank you for your effort categorizing Indiana politicians. Its a tedious task and I am glad someone has done it! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Odd

What do you make of Category:Religious leaders work group? Surely it should not contain its present subcats. Occuli (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Very odd. I've never seen such a set-up before. These categories should be linked to on Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Religious leaders work group, not set up as subcategories of a work group category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I have 'cleaned up' Category:Religious leaders work group by putting various WP templates on talk pages. It now looks more conventional. (No doubt someone will revert me.) Occuli (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

In the interests of full disclosure and in the hopes that you can help

Please see here Basically, I need an admin--some admin--to intervene at some point and I've had interactions with you in the past. I just posted to User talk:Explicit--an admin with whom I have a good relationship--and I figured I should post here as well, since we have had a little more friction and I don't want to be accused of some kind of vote-stacking or somesuch silliness. If you think that you have something to add to that discussion on AN, or if you think that it's reached a point of consensus where it would be appropriate to close, I would appreciate your input. If you're not interested, thanks for reading this post. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh I now see User:Ncmvocalist's post from above. I guess you didn't feel like you had anything to add. If you've changed your mind, I'd appreciate the input, otherwise, please ignore my spamming. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
In case you're really interested See here. Now it might be totally irrelevant and out of your hands, but it seems like the right thing to do to let you know how this progressed. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Has this been dealt with now? I probably shouldn't be the one to do it since I've been "involved" in the past. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
No It's still unresolved and the last step I took was e-mailing the arbcom list. We'll see... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Burials

Category:Burials at St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin (+ others) has been removed from Category:Burials in Dublin, which has now been deleted as empty. This is rather bizarre. Occuli (talk) 10:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Laurel Lodged is making a PW-style mess of categories in Ireland. See eg Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland, which now contains various Anglicans. Occuli (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Is this still a problem? Has any of it been "fixed"? Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
LL has agreed on my talk page that some edits were incorrect. Not sure what has been done. Occuli (talk) 10:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Swedish people of Democratic Republic of the Congo descent

What is the point of this page? O_O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.174.71 (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

To categorize Swedish people who are of DRC descent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Religion in Dublin City.

You have recently changed the categories of a number of articles connected with churches in Dublin City. You have done so without first discussing your reasons on their talk pages. The talk pages of all the changed articles contain a discussion about the merits of cat Religion in XXX vs cat Churches in XXX. There were no objections to my my proposals so they went ahead. Silence implies consent. I would have been happy to discuss these with any editor. Please stop these changes and revert your current changes pending an agreed outcome on the discussion pages of the articles concerned. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

See the above section for an expression of concern about your edits, which I suppose you could say "nullifies" the assumed "consensus by silence". The talk page of an article won't always exhaustively canvass those who may be interested in a category. Notably, you manually emptied more than one category and then mistakenly proposed the category for speedy deletion based on the category being empty for 4 days. The proper course would have been to nominate the categories for deletion using the process at WP:CFD. To me personally, some of your edits do look strange and somewhat suspect, and I doubt some of them would gain a consensus if proposed in the CFD forum as opposed to just on article talk pages. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Silence implies consent. There may have been an instance of a change happening in less than 4 days. In most case, this did not happen: the discussion was on the talk pages for many days. See here Talk:Chapel_Royal_(Dublin_Castle). I think that it very disingenuous of other editors to refuse to enter into a debate in the article's discussion page and to instead press the nuclear button. You will note that in other articles I have pleaded with certain editors to engage, to no avail. In the case of other editors, i have pleaded for supporting rationale for their objections rather than a simple "I object": again to no avail. I think that I have been very accommodating and that you have acted unfairly. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no longer silence about this, there have been multiple protests and expressions of concern. Note the comment here, for instance, above on my talkpage, on your talkpage, an email to me (which you can't "see" I suppose), and elsewhere. Please use WP:CFD to rename categories and don't do it unilaterally. You may be surprised that participants there may have opinions about it. If you want to encourage input about a topic of categories, that would be the place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Your response does not really address the complaints above. You link to a comment in John's_Lane_Church for example. Far from supporting your position, it actually supports my position. It shows me entering into discussions and leaving notices over many days. It also shows the example of the editor who simply says "I object" without supplying supporting rationale. That's just not good enough. Not every carping quibble deserves to be listened to. That particular editor may also have been motivated by other personal issues that we've had in the past. In any event, an unsupported "expressions of concern" is hardly proof of rampant indiscriminate change. I repeat, your reversions are unjust. You have given undue weight to the carping of a biased few. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not interesting in debating the merits of others' opinions, or of yours. If you believe your category changes are justified, it's quite easy to nominate the old categories for a rename using WP:CFD. If you're unwilling to do this, I can't help you—you've been acting "out of process", users have complained, and I've reverted the "out-of-process" category changes. Your next step is to propose your desired changes using the formal procedures that seek consensus in matters of category names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Category for deletion- Category:Washington Senators (1961-1971) spring training venues

I've participated in discussions but never eventually nominated a category. So I was hoping you can help.

This category has no potential for growth. The baseball team existed for eleven years, and used just one spring training venue for each of those eleven years. It is rationalization I would use for its deletion.-William 15:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help, your nomination is here. If you want to try doing one sometime, the instructions are here, though admittedly they are not always super clear. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Cat:rough wooings

Great, change it the main; The Rough Wooing, thanks, Unoquha (talk) 11:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Somalian people

What do you think about moving Somalian people to Somalia people in the same manner as we have Category:Botswana people?--TM 18:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we would need to do that. "Somalian" is a real word; some users have argued that "Botswanan" is not, which is why "Botswana" was proposed. "Botswanan" does appear in OED so I'm not exactly convinced by the argument. Is there a problem with using "Somalian" that I'm not aware of? Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Admin vote

Didn't want to take up room at the admin vote page explaining, so thought I would here. I think its great that you are avoiding the appearance of COI, as wp:admin encourages. The joke was about what I perceived as your keeping your head down and moving forward steadfastly despite other views in discussions on wiki, which is my perception. And I would think that of others, though of course I could be wrong. I would expect that when we (the community) voted you in, it was with the understanding of that aspect of your editing. That comment was separate from discussion of the history of blocks, which (from other sysops) is now nearly two years old. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh. By referring to keeping one's head down, I meant just editing without much interaction with other users on discussion pages, etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Ahah. I took it as keeping one's head down and moving forward steadfastly, in the face of an opposing view.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I think BrownHairGirl says it well in her Neutral: I am impressed by the efforts which Alansohn has latterly made to avoid conflict, and he should be commended for that. However, this appears to have been done primarily by disengaging from discussion, rather than by developing a sustained pattern of more collaborative engagement --Kbdank71 01:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that was much better than I put it. I need to avoid the metaphors that can have variable interpretations throughout the world. (I guess I should also stop therefore stop telling other editors, "hey, thanks for twisting my crank!" when thanking them for a notification.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes ... good thoughts; we might all beware that if we say we saw a move star on the tube, depending on what brand of English the listener uses their understanding may very much differ.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

activists/politicians

Hey, just wondering the rationale behind moving people from Category:Generic NZ Political party activists to Category:Generic NZ Political party politicians was. Was there a discussion I missed? Seems the best way to do it would have been putting the activists categories up for deletion? Also good work on adding the women in poltics and other categories to these pages. Mattlore (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

In the recent past there have been several discussions that have eliminated the "activists" categories for political parties and merged them with the regular "politicians" categories. I figured the consensus was consistent enough that I could do this with the NZ ones, which are really the only ones set up this way now. If you'd rather I do a formal nomination to complete this, I can, but I thought I'd just change them and wait and see if anyone objected to the idea. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
No, it seems to be a good change, was just wondering if I'd missed out on a discussion somewhere. Can the activist categories be speedy deleted once they are empty then or does CfD still apply? Mattlore (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
If they remain empty for 4 days then they can be speedily deleted. I was going to move the articles and then wait 4 days to see if there were any objections, then delete them then. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks. Mattlore (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories named after countries

Why are you removing items from this category? __meco (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be a non-functioning category. It had five or six items in it, when there should be over 200. It's been around awhile now, and no one seems keen to properly populate it. Why then should it exist? Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not been around very long. I created it it three weeks ago, and you placed the popcat banner on the same day. Besides, what were you planning on doing? Depopulate it and then speedy it? Hmmm.. __meco (talk) 08:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I was planning to see if anyone would populate it, and removing the few categories in it is a good way to get attention about the matter, as demonstrated. If it's not going to be populated, it's a useless category. It sounds like we have a different general WP philosophy about categories. You seem to think that if something is done half-assed, it's OK to leave it lying around in the hope that someone will eventually get to it. Personally, I think that damages WP's credibility. If users aren't going to populate a category semi-properly, you may as well not do it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
That's a bad faith nonsense slur. I try to finish what I start, and a few weeks of no activity doesn't mean it's abandoned. I have simply been very busy doing much other category-related work in this period. The next time you want to teach me a lesson, try a note on my talk page or something else of a more agreeable and constructive nature. __meco (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
A "bad faith nonsense slur"? Impressive. I was not trying to "teach" you or anyone else "a lesson"—I was just cleaning up what I viewed as a category that brought the project into disrepute. I still don't understand the rationale for creating a category before you have time to populate it, but since I'm no doubt in danger of uttering another "slur" in expressing my puzzlement, I'll leave it at that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, what you did was one thing. Your comment above something altogether different: " It sounds like we have a different general WP philosophy about categories. You seem to think that if something is done half-assed, it's OK to leave it lying around in the hope that someone will eventually get to it." If you for your inability to make allowance for differences in editing practices find it appropriate to characterize my way as "half-assed" and then acting whimsically puzzled when confronted with your impropriety in jumping to half-baked conclusions then I can only express disapproval of your social ineptitude and also "leave it at that". __meco (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Isn't "half-baked conclusions" also a "slur" under your standard? I stand by my suggestion that we probably just have different philosophies about categories and how/when they should be created. Perhaps you would prefer it if I actually started arguing that you did something "bad" or "inappropriate" as opposed to "half-assed"? Or perhaps you'd just prefer your version—"half-baked"? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Indeed it's a slur, an intended one. As opposed to your insidious guise of innocence. But as you obviously are completely incapable of seeing yourself in any light that would call for any inkling of self-insight, or indeed self-criticism, to arise, I end my discussion of this subject here. __meco (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I have had 4 different reactions to this and can't decide which one I feel the most. Pick whichever you want:
  1. Maybe I just don't take myself and everything as seriously as some editors.
  2. As for what you did, how about "crapulous"? That's one John Adams liked to use. "Pisspot" (used as an adjective, not as a noun)? That's a Ben Franklin special. But now I know that it's OK to be an ass as long as one admits to it, I will be at greater liberty. (Get it? liberty? har har.) In other words, why don't you lighten up?
  3. I spent some time today and fully populated the category you created (it has over 400 subcategories now), so at the bottom line what exactly is your beef about this situation? You're upset that I called populating a category with 6 subcategories "half-assed" when it should really have 400+ subcategories in it? (Perhaps I should have said "6/427-assed" instead of "1/2-assed"?) You didn't fully populate it. Big deal—move on. It's not all about you—sometimes it's an issue of content. That is, you are not half-assed, the population of the category was half-assed. Or are you one of those editors that just likes to beef, regardless of what's really going on? I find that things are usually only as big as one chooses to make them.
  4. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings and/or sensitivities, or if I touched a nerve or something. — Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Somali cats

Hi. Thought I'd contact you to let you know that I have added the Category:Kenyan people of Somalian descent-type cats back to Cfd for renaming to Category:Kenyan people of Somali descent-type cats. Those categories should refer to Somali descent, as they pertain to the ethnic group only. Many of the people listed in those cats have nothing to do with Somalia the country or have even set foot there, but they have nevertheless been included since they are of Somali ethnic descent (such as the Somali-Canadian musician Mocky). It's also not in conflict with the parent cat, as the parent cat gives the option to categorize people by ethnic or national descent (viz. Category:People by ethnic or national descent). For non-ethnically Somali citizens of Somalia that have emigrated abroad, there are the country-specific Category:Somalian expatriates fields already earmarked for them to indicate that they originally arrived from the nation of Somalia (e.g. Category:Somalian expatriates in Canada). For reference to their own respective ethnic group(s) if they have acquired additional citizenship elsewhere, new cats such as Category:Canadian people of Bajuni descent can be created for (or extant ones such as Category:Canadian people of Italian descent can be added to) the relevant bios to cover this whenever the need arises. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevance compounded by uselessness

I've been of the opinion for a long while that the Category:Regional districts of British Columbia hierarchy was and is the wrong way to cut up the province by regions for categorization purposes, as regional districts are not "major" divisions of the province and are politically arbitrary and not relevant for classifying anythying like schools, hospitals, lakes, rivers etc with....I've avoided pulling a bulk CfD on them but I'm getting close, because I keep on finding ways they're mis-used, and they're establishing pardigms in other languages i.e. other countries which aren't pertinent to a proper discussion/description of BC's geography or society. But tonight I discovered various categories where the hyphenated form of some of their names has been supplanting by a "wiki-dash", apparently for "aesthetic" MOS-obsession reasons....but the RDs themselves don't use them, they use the hyphen....but more to the point as a "working editor", it means that instead of being able to TYPE these names, one has to copy-paste the version with the "funny hyphen" as I call it. The date of change on Category:Squamish–Lillooet Regional District was June 7, during my "boycott" I suppose, but I don't recall being notified, even so, of any CfD to do with this....I suppose someone might have ratinoalized making the change away from the normal hyphen "housekeeping"....but to me it's bloody pointless, time-wasting, and more-time-wasting nonsense of a change....as noted, IMO these categories have to be deleted sooner or later anyway as largely irrelevant to anything, but as long as they exist they shouldn't be cumbersome to use; the others are Columbia-Shuswap, Okanagan-Similkameen, Thompson-Nicola, Kitimat-Stikine, Bulkley-Nechako, Fraser-Fort George....I mean, whose bright idea is this kind of change anyway? To what purpose? To make things easier? For WHO?? Don't mean to take this out on you, but I'd like to see the CfD that mandated this and who said what and why it was done, and who proposed it....NB the fancy wiki-hyphen isn't used by these governments themselves; it's akin to adding a diacritical to a character that doesn't have one, because someone thinks it would look more aesthetic....Skookum1 (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

All I know is it wasn't me! :) I can't find any full CFD about it, so chances are it was just done speedily. If it is incorrect, they could be changed back. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
It's incorrect, and also difficult to use. Do I have to make a CfD about that? I see nothing in the edit history about who commissioned the move, only a bot saying it had been done.Skookum1 (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
You'd have to get an admin to check the "deleted edits" log. Did you want me to do that? I'm not sure what benefit it will be knowing who it was; I'm sure they don't want to be berated for it. It might just be better to quietly nominate them for speedy naming back. CFD should be used, but you can use Template:Cfr-speedy for changes like that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
As I look at this more carefully, I think the issue goes deeper than categories. The articles have been renamed to use the en-dash as opposed to the hyphen, so the categories were probably nominated to match the categories, since category names tend to follow article names. The article names would have to be changed first before the categories were changed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Edits to external links on Polygamy

Good afternoon G + 13 hrs Good Olfactory, your user-name is unique. I would like to talk to you about the book review that I posted a day or two ago that you and someone else removed. I understand that the court case in 1885 Cannon vs. US was about polygamy that was basically against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and that after that the practice was abandon. However, I would like you to consider the scope of the issue of polygamy as applies to so called "Mormon Fundamentalists" and is still a large part of the discussion involving the word "Mormon" and "Mormonism" because of the propaganda wherever I go. I would like to hear your objections to my posting it back. Thanks (Talk) Entropy's 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Entropy's 1 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems ok to me. I would like to link something about the 1885 Supreme Court decision on Polygamy there, but perhaps I should keep looking.

The book review wasn't my first choice, it was the book that I was after. I'm not sure how to recommend a book on wiki. What you you think? Entropy's 1 (talk)

It's a good book—I have read it, and it would be appropriate to use it as a citation in an article about polygamy and the LDS Church or the LDS Church's relationship with the U.S. government, etc. All about citations is at WP:REFERENCES. It takes some practice to get the hang of how to do it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Olfactory

Your username means 'good sense of smell'. Did someone tell you that you had it or is it something you've always felt you possessed or was there some other reason for the choice of the term? It suggests a detective type of personality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creatiff (talk • contribs) 08:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No one has ever told me I have a good sense of smell nor have I ever thought I had a good sense of smell. In fact, I happen to have no nose. So it's kind of a penis-envy type thing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Wait, what? I always thought it was a shortening of "good old factory", as in you worked in one at some point and have fond memories of it. Sense of smell, eh? I guess it could work, if you had a nose. I suppose it should be "No ol'factory", then, no? --Kbdank71 15:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Er, yeah—that too. See, it's what we like to call a "pun". It means both and is therefore hilariously ambiguous, see? Unfortunately only the chosen few have recognized it—mostly those who learned English in Svalbard where "olfactory" is for some reason one of the first 1000 vocabulary words you just have to learn to be fluent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Museum of stuffed insults

I just realized you actually keep a Museum of stuffed insults. Up until our recent quarrel I had the clear impression that you were an earnest and congenial co-editor. With my recent experience of your obvious childlike pleasure in getting personal or pushing people's buttons, the ultimate testimony to which is the gaudy trophy gallery on your user page, I am saddened to realize my first impression of you was quite wrong. No, I'm not upset, nor do I feel insulted or angered. I'm glad whenever I am able to realize I've made a mistake, one way or the other. And should you wish to ornament this section also with a staple smirk, feel free to do to so to your capricious little self's smug delight. __meco (talk)

I think a self-reference to my original reactions #1, #2, and #4 are in order. But wow, it doesn't take much to change your mind about something! I'm glad you are not upset, insulted, or angry, though—that shows you have a good sense of humour. I apologise if you did feel that way (but you didn't, right, so no need to apologise?) Since that's the case, it is a bit seem strange that your latest comment would read as being dripped with hostility. Thanks for the extra material, though. The museum does its best to preserve the attempted and successful smack downs of my inimitable self. Or, as you put it, my "capricious little self". Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Eldorado Valley Watershed

Can you look at Category:Eldorado Valley Watershed and the nomination there. The characters involved have an ongoing battle over many articles. Not sure what to do since I have gotten trapped in several of their articles. Pulling out my hair is causing me appearance problems. I don't know if they should get blocked for edit waring across multiple articles or vandalism or for possibly being socks of User:US40AL-01. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, they are walking a pretty thin wedge right now, I would say. I've given them both warnings on their talk pages about edit warring with each other. Could you let me know if it keeps up in a serious way?. I myself have run into a bit of it, but I didn't realize it was so bad right now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Take a read at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Searchlight Triple Divide Point‎ and that article. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
And I've left a follow-up comment for Mmcanis. If either of them reverts again or calls the other a vandal again, I think the editor should definitely be blocked. I wouldn't have a problem blocking them immediately, but I see they haven't formally been warned yet on their talk pages, so now that that is done, I think they can be said to be well and truly on their last chance. I suppose you could file a CU on Mmcanis for being a sock of User:US40AL-01. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, a CU may not be necessary now that I look at things more carefully. I think Mmcanis or Hike and US40AL-01 are the same. What do you think? Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, we may not need to do the CU if we open this as a sock puppet report. I don't know if I'll have the time in the next few days to get the diffs for the sock puppet report since that does take some digging and quiet time which I don't have at the moment. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Could I get an Explanation of this User:US40AL-01, is my computer hacked or what?.. My edit History clearly shows what I work on..Mmcannis (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Your edit behavior seems to be matching that of a blocked user. Yes you have been active for a while so you should know about edit wars and notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know this User:Vegaswikian comment was here, sorry....(head down in shame)..
I was in an "edit war", thanks for ending it. (I never have looked up the definition, it seems self-obvious.. As for notability
Notability-Well, that also seems a little obvious.. I just made Jean Pass (north), then added the Old Spanish National Historic Trail link.. I'm still trying to pin down actual, Great Basin Divide "landforms", and where the Divide crosses; also just made Jean Lake (It is the small endorheic sub-basin at Jean, Nevada. (two passes—a North, and a South because of the small Basin. (so that's kind of my answere about "Notability" (a landform, (sub-basin), that may be part of the Great Basin Divide in Nevada....(and they are in either 1. Las V. Wash Watershed, or 2. Ivanpah-Pahrump Watershed....(reply, didn't know this message was here)Mmcannis (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Searchlight Triple Divide

I understand... here are some changes since this started:

First I agree with most, or some of his (User:Hike796) edits, and recently edited his Central Nevada Desert Basins, which is what these articles are all associated with.. I have been on CNDB page, and finally discovered it was brand new.
Second so I support some of what he is doing.

1--Eldorado Valley is NOW incorporated (by him) into the cat he created, Category:Ivanpah-Pahrump Watershed-(fine by Me)
2--He, User:Hike796, admits it is now a Triple Divide, on the Great Basin Divide and on the Colorado River-basin (there's a TrPoint divide in the NE of the same valley (2-different watershed w/ Iv-Pahrump)...
I was considering Re-Naming the article to Eldorado Valley Triple Divides, encompassing the NE, and SE Triple Divide points.-(that can be done in the future)..when

When you were messaging I was going to modify his box to this:

and add (and maybe slightly modify my (latest) original

BUT USE BOTH ON THE PAGE... one refers to the Eldorado Valley (obviously) and separate it With a Header Sub-section

The other refers to the Searchlight Triple Divide (the SE Point)

The only problem is the page was put up for deletion. by User:Vegaswikian removed the same quick-on-the-trigger move, when the article moved from the SW divide point (NOW, not an EXTRA-Watershed TP, but an intra-Valley TP. I had moved the Article.)

In summary, now it IS a Triple Divide Point, It IS in a watershed created by User:Hike796 and 2 others-(those are edits by both of US, he created the one Watershed, I created the other two VALIDATE this article), and the Great Basin with the Colorado River. I'm willing to wait, and just start another article as explained above, ... or the two NE, SE Points can be two different articles.
(I just added the two DIRECTION boxes to the Talk Page). So.. Please Advise Me, or at least Comment.Mmcannis (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I would just be careful about calling others vandals, as it is a term reserved for very specific instances of someone purposefully trying to harm WP. At this stage, my only question is this: do you have any connection to the user account User:US40AL-01? There is a suggestion that you do. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I just messaged User:Vegaswikian for an explanation of the Socketpuppet, and how Vegaswikian thinks I'm associated. I asked "Is there somebody stealing things from inside my computer?".. please advise.. ..My article History shows what types of things I'm working on.Mmcannis (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
That didn't really answer my question directly. All I want to know (from you) is if you are related in some way to the account named User:US40AL-01. I'm not suggesting anyone is stealing anything from anyone else's computer, I just want to hear from you what your relation is (if any) to this other account. Was there a time in the past where you signed in with User:US40AL-01? If your answer is "no", you can say so. I'm going to be asking Hike the same question. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I've been User:Mmcannis from the beginning 5 years ago, and have never used another name on Wikipedia. That master history list (at the page bottom), produces all the Articles & Categories, I've been creating (for 5 years, I recently printed it in Jan-March), works made back to 2005.....
Thanks, sweet; that's all I need. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

valleys??

See User_talk:Hike796#redundant_categories.Skookum1 (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Occuli is good at explaining the purpose and proper use of the subcategories of Category:Eponymous categories. I'm never too good at understanding or explaining it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Compromised account?

Thanks for the heads-up -- I saw there is a concern accounts being broken into, so I made sure my anti-virus is up-to-date and I'm in the process of a data back-up (I may switch to another antivirus program, too). I don't have a connection with another user account, so if someone's using my account, is there something I have to do (is my password compromised)? Hopefully its not like email where I have to close the account? If so, will I have to wait for an IT person to clear something before they open it back up for me (hopefully not a new account)? This is disconcerting, as another user repeatedly claimed several other people were using my account, but since that user doesn't have accurate edits, I assumed the claim was just as false regarding the other users. Now your message indicates there may be a threat/compromise, so should I stop logging on? That would be easy and no problem for me, but of course that message comes up about not being logged in (and that box too to enter the confirmation code for an edit). (If you'll just provide the link to the wikipedia page explaining what to do for a compromised account, I can get my answers there instead of you spending the time to restate them.) Hike796 (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I'm confused, as the earlier section in your talk (above) clearly indicates a concern about "hacking", doesn't it? Also, on 21:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC) you asked: "do you have any connection to the user account User:US40AL-01?" and I answered above that I don't (now in bold font). Despite that answer, on 07:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC) you falsely claimed "You didn't answer my question". And of course the answer to your subsequent statement "I was asking you if you have ever logged in as another user" is no. (Doesn't Wikipedia have/store a record of login information that can be checked?) But you didn't respond to my request for what to do if a user feels their account has been compromised -- what is the wikilink? I'm sorry for the mistake trying to add a section to your talk page, and thanks for returning the preceding section that I inadvertantly overwrote instead of the desired insert between sections--but that's not a reason to make the false accusation. Hike796 (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question—I haven't a clue. I have never suggested on this page that anyone's account has been hacked or used by someone else. Anyone who thinks I have is misinterpreting my questions. I'll I've asked if users have any connection to another account or have ever signed in as a different user. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I am suspecting a complex sock thing here - I'm pretty sure Hike796 is a sock of Mmcannis, and there is no doubt that Hike796 and US40AL-01 are the same person. And the edit war on Tonopah Desert, for example, is an attempt (albeit block-attracting) to hide the fact of socking. Shannontalk contribs 04:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
That's what I was starting to think. It looked a little bit too contrived. Perhaps it's time to do a sockpuppet report. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This is odd

See here and consider exactly who's asking you to do what.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Great Basin Divide, (in Nevada)

Hello..,, again.
(continued to Re-Edit, this so Overwordy-(Just created the Article after 3-hours)
I Need some assistance, and you'll see why as I explain:
Last night, 2 hours, made: List of valleys of Nevada-minor tweaks(this-morning)-(to Clarify-my own searching on pages)
And.....
I just finished and CAN COPY.. User:Mmcannis/sandbox/Central Nevada endorheic valleys & basins ver 2
But when I go to the NEW: User:796-Centr.Nev.Des.BASINS-2nd Vers. Article in this new form-(new title), an article page, (and every edit, I'm going to use:.. User:796 as the Producer-FIRST, when creating it), ...unless he (assuming he) will start to work on his own page-(I mean ADOPT the Article and USE it. (WHEN I make it , I'll state that in the Page Creation Statement).--(I may be lucky enuff to make the Article, and never have do an edit on it ever again.)
You'll see I have subjectively tried to separate smaller "valleys", "flats"... it is only a beginning, but the two Geoboxes, have almost 95 percent of what to work on. You'll see I did (two of the "Minor valley landforms"-(He, unknowing to Me had just started CNDB), back two weeks ago when I was making valleys.) I had no goal in dealing with "CNDB", nor do I want to do watersheds, (though I did populate some watershed categories.)
If I make an article EXACT to: Sample:Central Nevada endorheic valleys & basins-(it will be: Central Nevada endorheic valleys & basins-(Catch-all), (I'm not planning on working on it. I'm not researching Basins, or Watersheds. I have no desire to. The article is simply: "endorheic valleys & basins", (His original 16 Watershed Reference is there, I added the second part about the Triple Divide Points sitting on the Colorado River).
Problem: I Don't plan on working on the Article. I may continue to make individual valleys, but I'll just leave the article For Others, and see what happens; I don't want to work on "watersheds", or "basins"..(not informed enuff, nor want to be).

Why I'm telling you this: If I quickly MOVE the article (or if you are unable to advise me), the problem is that all of SE Nevada is a big part of: (with the Merge tag), Category:Great Basin Divide border landforms of Nevada-(maybe 20 entries?)... I am not fighting for the category, because I made it, but because there should be a separate one for neighboring Utah... Category:Great Basin Divide border landforms of Utah (Oregon, Idaho and California, remaining in the Parent (unpopulated)-(do I have to go populate it to satisfy User:Vegaswikian requirements?)-(I hadn't looked to see who voted: (But I checked 1-2 days ago and saw his reasoning: "quadruple.intersection" what?....(sorry, but that must be located somewhere on a different planet). So wondering what you think?Mmcannis (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems way too complicated, just dropping in on this. Isn't there an article on the Basin and range province, which covers the same material (but without trying to cram them in/define them by abstractly-made state boundaries)?Skookum1 (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Note:
the Ver 2 is just my page No., not a reference to Centr.Nev.Des.Basins Ver 2Mmcannis (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
What is needed is some articles that reflect common names. Using USGS nomenclature which may or may not reflect common usage is going to be confusing to most readers. Also with 3,000 named areas, they may not all be notable. As Skookum1 pints out, we already have Basin and range province which looks like a good article that could be expand if needed. My concerns are about the area covered by the category is based on the name and the apparent need by some editors to use categories as a substitute for articles. What we need is some good articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Cat work

Can you explain why you removed James Conte and Anthony Como from Category:Republican Party (United States) politicians? Thanks--SPhilbrickT 12:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

They are both already categorized as Category:New York Republicans, which is a subcategory of Category:New York politicians by party and Category:Republican Party (United States) politicians, so including them in the category that was removed was essentially redundant. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

cats

Hey, can you move these cats for me?

Its uncontroversial, just a (-)

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you suggest to SD to take these massive changes to collaboration. --Shuki (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Adding a hyphen is a "massive change"? Am I missing something here? Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
So can you do the change? Also do so bots update all articles automatically. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, they need to be nominated using template:Cfr-speedy, but I'm wondering what Shuki's comment means, and why she or he thought this was a massive change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for tagging them. I've added them to the list at WP:CFDS so barring anything unexpected they will be moved in 48 hours. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity categories discussion

Given your past participation in this discussion, I thought you should see this recent one. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Category Places of worship in Dublin - reversion

I'm at a loss to uncover your motive for reverting my parent categorisations in the Category:Places of worship in Dublin. I gave my rationale for making the parent categorisations in the Discussion page. Why did you not go there to input your own rationale? Furthermore, you yourself gave the imprimator for my making the moves in the first place in the categorisation log discussion page. Let me remind you of your own words: "* Clarification please. By the rationale above, any article in the cat of Dublin or in any sub-cat of that cat, should only relate to the city. Is that correct? So any article in the cat that was in South Dublin County, ought to be moved to the appropriate sub-cat for that county. Is that correct? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No. 1—No where did I say that I agreed with Peter's interpretation, I just said that if you accepted his interpretation, what you were saying was correct. No. 2—You're going to have to be more specific about what you are objecting to, as I'm not clear at all what specific action is being referred to and how it conflicts with Peter's interpretation. My understanding is that Dublin (the city) in in County Dublin, which explains why I made the city category a subcategory of the county category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Neither did you say that you disagreed with Peter's interpreation. You're not slow to disagree usually. It was a reasonable thing to interpret that remark as agreement. Feel free to add a clarifying remark to the original if you feel that it is now needed for the avoidance of doubt. Specifically, I'm referring to your reversion of my categorisations on the article. I believe they are your only reversions of my categorisations on the article so your confusion is itself confusing to me. Essentially, your reversion seems to say that Dublin city is not an administrative county of Ireland and that it is in some way subordinate to County Dublin. As you well know, neither County Dublin nor Dublin County Council exist in law any longer, so how can Dublin City or Dublin City Council be subject to a non existant entity? Dublin City Council has the same standing in law as any other county council. For this reason it is entitled to take its place among the local government organs and areas of division in the Republic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
You can assume anything you like, but don't put ascribe opinions to me that I haven't necessarily taken. I won't let someone do that to me. I'm still not clear what "the article" is you are referring to, but I'm assuming we're talking about the category Category:Places of worship in Dublin. I don't view it as a governmental subordination issue at all, I see it as purely a geographical one. The city of Dublin is in the geographical area defined by County Dublin, thus something geographically in Dublin is also geographically in County Dublin. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
When an opportunity is presented for you to make clear your thoughts and you decline that opportunity, it is permissible to amke reasonable inferences from that choice. That's not an assumption, that's a logical test of reasonableness. To the specifics: it is artificial to divide the geographic from the governmental. Practically speaking no such divide exists. The legislation setting up the council states that it is for a specific area. It might be more useful to speak of physical geography as oposed to political geography. In political geography, County Dublin does not exist, except in old school books. It was abolished. Who now speaks of Constantinople? In time, ther memory of County Dublin too will fade. It is not the duty of Wiki to keep alive such guttering flames. Their proper place is the History section, not the Geography or Governmental sections. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to continue a discussion with a user who can't respect my request to not assume I hold certain opinions when I have explicitly asked the presumption not to be made. If you want to reorganize the categories, please take your arguments to CFD. So far, there has been no support for your proposals. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Why press the nuclear button of CFD. The proper escalation order is the Cat discussion page first, then the Ireland project talk page and only then CFD. Which brings me to my first, and as yet unanswered question, "Why did you not go there to input your own rationale?". Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Because (1) it's already obvious there are differences of opinion—no one should need to set it out on the talk page to realise that; (2) that's the best way to get wide community input; (3) that's what it's there for; and (4) usually on category discussion pages no response will be forthcoming. I know that's convenient for you, because then you can argue "silence = consensus", but calling CFD a "nuclear option" is a bit over the top. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand politics categories

Hello Good Olfactory, thanks for your great work on NZ politics categories. Can I please invite you to provide some comment on the New Zealand politics talk page? Schwede66 22:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And something related, but not 'on topic', hence I'm asking it here. I always thought you were Canadian, but you show GMT+13.00 as your local time. Do you actually live in New Zealand? Schwede66 00:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am a Canadian, but I am resident in NZ right now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Cornish immigrants to pre-Confederation Prince Edward Island

Why did you remove "Category:Pre-Confederation Prince Edward Island people" and add "Category:English immigrants to pre-Confederation"?

Are you unaware of the difference between the Cornish and the English?

Even in Canada they are regarded as different ethnic groups.

Bodrugan (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but Cornwall is in England, and English is a nationality as well as an ethnicity. Quebeckers are also seen as a distinct ethnic groups, but since Quebec is in Canada, they are also Canadians (a national group). Same principle. Cornish people (an ethnic group) are be definition English nationals. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Metro Vancouver vs. Category:Greater Vancouver Regional District

This should never have gotten a speedy rename. Metro Vancouver is the name of the governing body, the legal and still in-use name of the regional district is the Greater Vancouver Regional District. There's a bit of a bandwagon campaign, which the mainstream medis is part of, to "trendify" Greater Vancouver by referring to it as "Metro", as if it were Toronto; I've heard the same codswallop on the radio and seen it in the papers about Halifax/the HRM and other places. "Metro Vancouver" to someone not familiar with the area might well be seen to include areas outside the RD, such as Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Mission, even Squamish. "Greater Vancouver Regional District" remains the most common usage, and the legal name. Iv'e been undoing instances of "Metro Vancouver" all over the place in contexts where the meaning is geographic (and note there's a distinction between Greater Vancouver and the Greater Vancouver Regional District, though it's subtle - more distinct is the difference between Greater Victoria and the Capital Regional District. As I've explained before, I don't like the RD category hierarchy to start with, but at least it could have the correct names....consider the difference between "Populated places in the Greater Vancouver Regional District" vs. "Member municipalities of Metro Vancouver". Both are correct usages; but one is a geographic sense, the other refers to the political body. And no, I don't feel like filing a CfD to fix it, it shouldn't have happened in the first place - who asked for it anyway? Whomever; the RD subcategories are problematic, I'm doing what I can to work around them....I'd like to see Category:Regional district electoral areas in British Columbia speedily deleted though, being utterly useless as there is no reason to have articles on electoral areas....Skookum1 (talk) 04:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it wasn't done speedily: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_4#Category:Greater_Vancouver_Regional_District. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Huh, the bot that changed it cited speedy....Skookum1 (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm gonna have to relist it, then...both maclean (who I know and respect) and Black Falcon have miconstrued the name=change, which applied to the governing body only, NOT the name of the regional district.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
A few months ago I think the bot was a little messed up in its citation of discussions. I'm not sure what the problem was, but it seems to be fixed now. I usually just click on "what links here" on the category page to find any CFD that might have considered it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

CfDs

Of course Thanks for the reminder. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

I was wondering if (as an admin) you wouldn't be willing to edit the {{S-rel}} template to include this in the #switch: statement

|cc=[[Community of Christ|Community of Christ titles]]

The Sel box is used alot on the Community of Christ leadership pages and it has 250,000 members, which is comparable to the other smaller groups in this template. Sorry to bother you about this. I have left a message on the Templates talk page and with other admin editors, but the template seems to be inactive.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk|contribs) 21:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Done—it should work now—let me know if it doesn't. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Works great. Thanks.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 21:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Maritime boundaries and borders

Good Olfactory -- As background, please see Senkaku Islands#Maritime borders. Consensus of editors at this time support Qwyrxian's decision to remove this section entirely.

A. In preparing to create Maritime boundary and Maritime border, I discovered that there were many articles which incorporate this term, but no links explained that this is an evolving term of art in the Law of the Sea. A lessons learned the hard way informs my decision not to create an article first, and then develop relevant links. In the past, when I searched for articles which would be improved by converting a word or a phrase into a link, it proved to be a difficult task. IMO, although it is somewhat counter-intuitive, it is arguably better to create the links first, then the article.

At this point, I've edited perhaps one-fifth of the list or articles which mention this term here ... which continues through List of international trips made by the President of the United States.

I anticipate that this tedious process will continue slowly for several more days. Then I will create a stub article.

B. FYI, I plan to repeat the same process searching for the unlinked phrase "maritime border" ... and in due course, I will create another stub.
C. When both Maritime boundary and Maritime border are established as stubs, I will post a merge headnote; and then others can resolve what, if anything, to do about it.

With this labours completed, I plan to revert Qwyrxian's edit here. My work will provide a useful context for the discussion which then ensues. --Tenmei (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Arguably better? I would say definitely worse. Why create a bunch of redlinks before an article even exists? It frustrates readers. Also, I doubt that maritime boundary or maritime border should be a self-standing article—they should probably just redirect to a section in border that mentions maritime boundaries. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a context here will help in reconsidering my edits and plan? In simplistic terms, you may be familiar with a Canada-Denmark dispute which is not solely about an island. --Tenmei (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm still not convinced any of this is a good idea. For starters, there is no difference between a maritime border and a maritime boundary. They are two terms for the same thing. Why you would even consider making two articles for the same thing, I don't understand. Secondly, a maritime border is merely a border that happens to be located in the ocean. Thus, it should just be a part of the main article border. Thirdly, it is always a bad idea to create links to non-existent articles. Links should be added after the articles exist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
My interest is in solving a problem, not creating any new ones.

Responding to your concerns, I copied the index list to a sandbox; and then I created Maritime boundaries as an article stub. Perhaps some of your views may change when you have the opportunity to scan the related hyperlinks and categories? --Tenmei (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't change my mind. And why is the article pluralized to Maritime boundaries? Article names are supposed to be singular. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Odd Fellows

Regarding your edit and your statement: Biographical articles should not be added to this category merely because the person was a member of the Odd Fellows.
Which category should they be added to? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

We generally do not categorize biographical articles according to clubs or organizations the person may have been a part of unless the organization is central to the person's notability. The fact that Winston Churchill was an Odd Fellow is interesting and can be mentioned in his article, but it's not the sort of thing that we categorize by. Only founders of the Odd Fellows or other people who are notable because they were Odd Fellows leaders should go in the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I see your point.
In that case, I'd like to add them to the lists at places like IOOF#Notable members of the IOOF and Oddfellows#Notable members of the Oddfellows. However, since you have removed them from the category, I'm not sure how to locate them.
I guess they're all in your "My contributions" list? Over what period of time have you been doing this?
Or can you think of an easier way to identify them?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
It was all done on around the 0100–0200 hour on 17 November 2010 UTC. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Different question: The IOOF may not be central to Schuyler Colfax's notability, but he is central to the IOOF (c.f. Schuyler Colfax#Founder of Rebekah Degree). I would therefore place him in the category. What do you think? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Observation: Without any effort at all, I can quickly find you a hundred examples of categories which are simply a list of members of clubs or organizations the person may have been a part of, and the organization is not only NOT central to the person's notability, it has NO bearing at all on the person's notability.
On what are you basing your statement: We generally do not categorize biographical articles according to clubs or organizations the person may have been a part of unless the organization is central to the person's notability.? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I base it mostly on years of CFD results in which categories of those types are routinely deleted when nominated. The fact that you can find many doesn't mean doing so is appropriate. I doubt you can find "hundreds", though, unless you are counting alumni categories. Those are a whole other story. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
You're not just a pretty face, are you! Yes, I was indeed counting alumni categories. What's the "whole other story"? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The other story is just that the alumni categories are the one exception that I can think of of categories of this type that have been repeatedly been discussed and the consensus has either been to keep or there has been no consensus, so they have been kept by default. There have been some relatively bruising battles over these, especially for the ones for secondary schools (high schools as opposed to universities). You are right, there are hundreds of those. The ones that are usually deleted (or more correctly, are not used for categorizing general membership people) are the ones for clubs or fraternities, etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. (As somebody wise once said: "You learn something new every day. Sometimes, some of it is useful.") Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Party-position categories?

Don't you think the party-position categories are a bit much? Politicians generally hold many political positions prior to becoming Senator and I don't see how a Democratic congressman category is any more useful than democratic party and congressman categories. It might be a bit much.--TM 15:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It might be, but I doubt it. Coupling senator and party is not much different than Category:British MPs by political party and several others from other countries. If you think they are too much, you can nominate them for deletion, but I suspect this is the logical next step in the scheme. (Incidentally, I haven't created any categories for congressmen, just for U.S. senators. "Congressmen" usually means members of the House of Representatives.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I will probably nominate them for deletion. Btw, per Member of Congress, Congressmen can refer to members of either the Senate or House.--TM 00:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Go ahead, but they are not yet fully populated yet, obviously, as I've gone through less than 20% of the states and senators so far. You may fight a losing battle, though. A senator in a party has considerably more pull than Joe-activist or failed House candidate X in the party has."Congressman" usually means member of the House in almost all sources (as member of Congress points out), regardless of what is technically accurate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
One of the underlying problems which makes this scheme helpful goes back to my old bugaboo that users have seen it fit to categorize anyone as a Democrat or a Republican if there happens to be a reliable source out there that says they belong to either major political party. If the scheme was limited to only politicians of these parties, then I might tend to agree with you that that is enough. But how do we, for example, separate the George Clement Perkinses of the world from the James Stewarts of the world when both are in Category:California Republicans? If we focused on categorizing defining features of someone rather than verifiable factoids, we wouldn't be in this mess. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we should only sort by defining characteristics, which is why I disagree with position-party categories in general. Are we going to have Category:Republican mayors of cities in Orange County, California? If someone is a California Republican and a US Senator, I just don't see the value added in combining the two categories. Category:United States Senators from California seems to be about as far as we should go. Senators are elected from by a state, so obviously that is notable. I guess you can argue they are chosen by their party in a primary or previously by the State Legislature, but in reality it just seems unneeded to me.--TM 01:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, your example goes a bit too far (perhaps derived from my off-topic musing), since these are not combining state with party with position as with Republican U.S. Senators from California. It's only combining party and position. What is your opinion about Category:British MPs by political party and similar schemes for other countries? Would you suggest there is a difference with those because of the way party discipline works in parliamentary systems? If so, this is a very subtle difference and probably too subjective to apply widely. Or should those categories go too? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, the entire reason I thought of doing this is that I recently nominated a category for deletion that was called something like "U.S. Senators from third parties". Several of the comments said things like "senators by party would be good, but not one that segregates all non-D/R senators into one category". So there is some sort of thinking that it would be the way to go. In a way I was doing it to make up for the "data loss" promoted by that nomination. Ah well, I guess when one tries to do a good deed, one will not please everyone. (I do think the superior value of the scheme is found in the categories for the defunct parties, though.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
In my mind, all party-position categories are going too far. Politicians tend to hold many political positions before reaching the US Senate and I don't see the usefulness in fully devolving the idea, thus the Republican mayors example above. Given that the positions of political parties have changed so rapidly over the multiple centuries of US and UK politics, I don't see the usefulness of including all members of one body from one party in a category together. What, in your mind, is the value added? What do we gain from including Strom Thurmond, Jefferson Davis and Barack Obama in the same category?--TM 01:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Wow, all party–position categories go too far ... I would disagree with that, as I mentioned above, because if we are going to categorize by people party it makes sense to carve out those who held particularly influential positions while a member of that party, since, for example, a senator of the party has considerably more influence on the party and its direction than a Hollywood moviestar who is a registered member of the party. It's easy to pull out three of the least-alike people from any one very large category, but as I said the scheme makes especial sense for the smaller categories which address defunct parties. And if the scheme exists for all the smaller parties, then that is usually a reason to have the scheme for all parties, even if it ends up putting Thurmond and Obama in the same category. That you say all party–position combinations go too far, though—wow, I don't know what I can say about that besides "wow". I think most users, and not just the Alansohns of the world, would find the party–position combo to be one of the most defining combinations for a politician in many democracies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Taking the step a bit further: would it be acceptable in your mind to start sorting all categories by party and position? So, for example, would it be acceptable to have a Category:Republican Party Mayors of New York City and the like? How about for members of the House of Representatives? Governors? Attorney Generals? Presidents? State Houses of Represenatives? State Senates? City Councils? What of Bernie Sanders and the hundreds of other elected independent candidates? If we say being an elected member of a party and an elected member of a body are defining, no logical reason exists not to go down and sort every politician everywhere in this way, which to me, is a very, very bad idea. We should be consistent with categorization. It is defining that a person is a US Senator and it is defining that they are a member of a party, but the intersection is not defining.--TM 01:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Wow, again. I'm not particularly interested in playing the slippery slope game, since I created none of the theoretical categories you suggest. They would have to be considered on their own merits. Certainly, most of the positions you mention have historically been less visible and influential on a party than a U.S. senator. But to say that the U.S. Senator–party combo is not defining for many, many politicians—wow. But if the existence of one category scheme means that you can see "no logical reason exists not to go down and sort every politician everywhere in this way", I think you need to broaden the considerations you are processing to take you beyond mere slavish consistency. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Politicians, even elected ones, regularly change political parties. Eliot Cutler was a member of a Democratic administration, then enrolled as a Republican and then ran an independent. Can we really say that any political party is defining of someone who changes it? Strom Thurmond and Arlen Specter ran for the US Senate at different points as Democrats and Republicans. Is it really defining to include both categories for them? I would appreciate it if you wouldn't keep saying "wow". If you won't address the points I make and the questions I ask, then lets end this conversation.--TM 02:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
"Wow" is an expression of surprise, because your statements are very surprising to me and I suspect that they are well outside the view of the majority of WP users. I don't know a better way to convey my surprise. I think if you review my comment, you'll find that I've answered the questions you have posed, though perhaps not in a fashion you wanted them answered. I won't play the slippery slope game, but I'm happy to address issues regarding the categories that I actually have created. To your question re Thurmond and Specter: it's easy to find individual cases that poke holes in the "logic" of the categories, but "... the scheme makes especial sense for the smaller categories which address defunct parties. And if the scheme exists for all the smaller parties, then that is usually a reason to have the scheme for all parties ..." If one wanted to adjust the application in individual cases, one could, but I'm not gonna be the one to make that subjective judgment call. For Saunders, if one wanted one could have a category for independent U.S. Senators in the same way there is Category:Independent MPs of New Zealand, for instance. I'm not necessarily advocating that, but I say it to answer your question in that regard. Or, you could just exclude independents from the scheme. Can we really say that any political party is defining of someone who changes it? It obviously depends on the influence they had on the party and others in the party, and so forth. Yes, features of a person that are easily changeable can be defining: defining doesn't mean "immutable". For instance, it's quite easy for anyone to change their career, but it is often defining for a person. On broad per capita averages, I would think that most American people change careers more often than a U.S. Senator changes parties. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, did your last sentence mean the conversation was over? ... How embarrassing!—or to put it another way, "wow, how embarrassing". Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't mind me, I'm just talking to myself now ... I did a quick check, and there are a minimum of about 7600 articles in the subcategories of Category:Republican Party (United States) politicians. Proportionally more in the one for Democrats, no doubt, since it has been around longer. Those would be full undifferentiated categories! Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Zealandia.jpg

Hi. You uploaded that file to Commons as being in the public domain. But at Ticket:2010111910006357 the author of the image tells us that the image is not in the public domain and that they request its deletion. The source page, [3], states: "MY PHOTOS ARE NOT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. Usage in other places must NOT and will NOT indicate otherwise." Could you please comment about that? Thanks,  Sandstein  10:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel I should point out that the source didn't use to say that, however it still doesn't appear to have been a clear release into the public domain. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
If the author has changed his mind about use of his photos, I don't care that it is deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Since they have apparently changed their mind I've tagged it for deletion now. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Yup, thanks. I've deleted it. But I'd be interested to know why you believed the file was PD in the first place? Was there some sort of PD release on the page that is now removed? Regards,  Sandstein  07:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I interpreted the statement under "anything of interest here?" as a releasing the material on the website into the public domain on condition that an acknowledgement of the source be made. I guess that's not what he meant with respect to the photos, because he's added the emphatic statement that photos are not in the public domain. In retrospect, the statement is ambiguous enough that I think I should have emailed and asked before using, so I regret that. I don't upload much to commons so it's not surprising if I screwed up. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:International Borders.

What I appreciate that there is some overlap, I believe that there should be a category for the main page about a specific border. There should be a category which includes Mexico – United States border and Canada – United States border without having to up through two intermediate categories and one with these and Russia–Norway border without having to up through three (four?) intermediate categories. This category would specifically *not* include things about specific things on a border like Øvre Pasvik National Park or the Adams–Onís Treaty but only *main* pages about the borders.Naraht (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the name you used is the way to go about it, since a huge proportion of what is now in Category:Borders would be transferred to Category:International borders if interpreted in a straightforward manner. I'm not sure why we really need a category for these, though, when there is a comprehensive subcategorization scheme. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the subcategorization divides entries which, to me, make sense as a single grouping. While Mexico – United States border and Adams–Onís Treaty do belong in a category together, I believe that the *main* pages for borders (Mexico – United States border and Canada – United States border for example, make up a specific category as well. I think that there are two issues here, whether a category for the "main pages" makes sense and if so, whether there is a category name that makes sense. Is there a wikiproject that might be able to weigh in on the first and give suggestions on the second.Naraht (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
When you have such a generic name as Category:Borders or Category:International borders, of course a wide range of things can go in it. Changing from Category:Borders to Category:International borders doesn't seem to help the situation, IMO. I don't think a category for the main pages is necessary when there is an extended subcategorization scheme. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Category:International borders in North America seems what you're getting at, and would include items like the 1824 and 1825 Russian treaties on 54-40, the San Juan Dispute/Settlement, the maritime boundaries between Canada and France and Greenland, and if the Caribbean is included in North America (? - if Greenland is, then....), etc. Border crossings and towns right on the border (usually the crossing is not a separate article) are also at least a subcat, I think they may already be a subcat of Category:Canada- – United States border (as a side issue, I really don't like having to copy paste dashes to replace hyphens in order to get category names working, it's really tiresome...). So it's not just the Mexican-American, or Canadian-American, boundaries, there are also historical ones to consider (the Russo-Spanish agreement, for instance), and the Greenland-Canada and St Pierre and Miquelon-Canada boundaries, and presumably US-Cuba, Cuba-Mexico etc (even if Cuba's not classified in North America, it's still a "North American" boundary because it's that of the US).Skookum1 (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Railway incidents, etc. (Media hype)

I discovered that CSX 8888 incident was wrongly categorized as an accident, which it was not. This is further categorized up the line as a "Disaster" which is preposterous. In investigating, I discovered that Maritime "incidents" also got rolled up into "Disasters" higher up. I tried to "move/Cfd" Disasters, with predictable results. Commentators sympathized but there were just too many categories underneath to make the transition smoothly.

The ultimate problem is hype by category. A runaway train or ship is certainly frowned on by authorities and they want a report on it. But certainly no "accident" nor even close to a "disaster", not even by media standards which are pretty sloppy. I discussed this on the various Project Pages again receiving a modicum of verbal support. One editor correctly pointed out that disasters really should be categorized under "incidents" and not the other way around. But I did not try to fix this.

I decided to correctly categorize CSX 8888 and Maritime incidents. I discovered today that someone had cursorily reverted my correct categorization and erased the new categories.

Correctly categorizing for future editors took a bit of work. I am not a transport person. Just trying to fix an obvious mistake. I need the categories "incidents" back. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the category Category:Transport incidents should exist, and should be different from Category:Transport disasters. I would like to recreate it, for the simple reason that I believe not all "incidents" are "disasters", but all "disasters" are "incidents". There was a related discussion earlier this year (see CfD here) regarding Category:Aviation accidents and incidents; in this setting an "incident" is defined to be: "An occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft which affects or could affect the safety of operation". This is a useful distinction, and I think it should be reflected in the category structure; clearly not all incidents are disasters, by this definition. Mlm42 (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Sooo... you proposed this through CFD, but your proposal was rejected (the "predictable results") ... now you want me to let you make the change unilaterally because those at CFD just aren't getting it, or something, and not realising that it's all just "media hype" to call something related to transport a "disaster". I'm not convinced. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I explained this superficially. I asked the Cfd to change "disasters" to incidents at the highest level, or "incident and accidents", something of that nature. They did not really disagree, but perceived that it would affect dozens, if not hundreds of categories underneath. I hadn't appreciated how huge the problem was before. I realized that the top category could not be changed without a major effort by a lot of people changing underlying categories. Also, I realized that the category could remain as is if other changes were made, which would be less intrusive. The Cfd provided information to me that I did not have.
I therefore did the only honest and realistic thing: I created an "incident" category for CSX 8888 incident and followed it all the way up with correctly named categories, imitating the wrongly promoted categories, until it reached the top, probably a generic transport category (and other categories that weren't really affected). Since I had noticed the same problem with Maritime incidents being misclassified, I defined correctly named categories for them as well.
Try to understand that these incidents were wrongly classified (pov) to start with. I am not doing anything "wrong." Nor is this a matter of "voting." I did not try to "sort out" "incidents" from "accidents" for other articles. This was just beyond my scope.
While disasters probably does belong under "incidents" as a category, I will leave this for "later" discussion by aficionados. Student7 (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I guess we're talking about this CfD? Good Ol'factory, I think my interpretation of this discussion is quite different from yours.. I think there is agreement that there is a problem which should be fixed. Notice that categories like Category:Incidents, Category:Incidents by country, Category:Incidents by year already exist, as do the corresponding categories under Category:Disasters. I think the plan is not to rename the disaster categories, but to create new categories like Category:Transport incidents, etc, and fill them with incidents which aren't disasters. I'm not familiar with CfD's, so I don't know exactly what the procedure is.. but I didn't get the impression people were against this idea. Mlm42 (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't do any interpretation—I just repeated back what I was told in this section. I'm not going to attempt a full interpretation of the discussion until it is completed and closed, which it is not yet. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Note that the last word in the "discussion" was mine, which I am sure others visiting the site assumed was a retraction of the request. It was not explicit but I'm not sure why anyone would leave further comment. Would it help if I made it explicit? Student7 (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The discussion is now closed. I'd be interested in your interpretation of it. Mlm42 (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Major League Baseball pinch hitters

You recently nominated the above mentioned category for deletion and it was subsequently deleted after almost no discussion at all. Your stated rationale was that being a pinch hitter is not a position at all. It certainly is a position - just not a defensive one. Offensive positions such as pinch hitter, designated hitter and pinch runner are recognized as positions by MLB as well as Baseball-Reference.com, the most commonly utilized secondary source for baseball info on Wikipedia. Baseball biography pages are usually categorized by primary player position and there are a number of players who played their entire major league careers as pinch hitters and never took the field defensively. I have re-created the category and added a few members who are listed at B-R.com or MLB.com or both as having the major league position of pinch hitter. Their game logs confirm the fact that pinch hitter is the only position they ever played. When nominating a page or category for deletion, it is usually advantageous to notify the creator of the page/category as well as the relevant WikiProjects (in this case WP:Baseball). It doesn't appear from your edits around the time of the nomination that you did either of these. I believe that this is why there was almost no discussion. Kinston eagle (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Since when is it my responsibility to help you manage your watchlist? The category was appropriately tagged, which should have registered on your recent changes watchlist if you were interested in participating. I'm not really interested in going through this debate again with another user, so if you want to know my opinion on it, it's fairly reflected in this essay. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't debating anything with you, I was just pointing out that notifying the creator and appropriate WikiProject would have created more discussion and therefore a more reliable consensus. Since I was neither the creator of the category nor a member of that WikiProject (nor did I even know that the category existed up to a few days ago) that page would have not been on my watchlist at all. I never said it was your responsibility to notify people only that it is advantageous to do so. I know when I take enough of an interest in something to nominate it for deletion, I prefer as much discussion and debate as possible to make sure a solid case for consensus is established. I apologize if you misunderstood my intent. I must not have made myself clear enough. Regardless, I was just writing to you as a courtesy since you showed some interest in the subject and thought you may have had some interest in my opinion on the matter. I apologize for bothering you. Take care. Kinston eagle (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Since you were involved in the orgininal discussion. I am notifying you that it is now at DRV. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 29 -DJSasso (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Amorphous

You removed Tektite, Obsidian and Polycrase from Category:Amorphous. Rocks are a collection of minerals, minerals may cristalise or not, vitreous is a special case of amorphous. Comments ??? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"Amorphous" is an adjective. Simply having a category called "Amorphous" is nonsensical. "Amorphous" ... what? Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion (though it doesn't quite work) Category:Amorphous solids , Ideally it would be Category:Amorphous solids defined as things that aren't crystals due to lack of a defined symmetry, but I think that's a bit long. Naraht (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure, it needs to be something like that. Category:Amorphous solids does exist, so I suppose they should go in there. We need a noun, even if it's a bit imprecise. I'll redirect the category to Category:Amorphous solids for now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
U r right... It should be Category:Amorphous Minerals then, I'm not sure if in Category:Minerals by crystal system or in its parent categories: Category:Minerals n Category:Crystallography, I think Category:Amorphous solids and Category:Vitreous rocks are not right in this case. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe u r all right. I'd better leave it for now...

  • Earth Sciences
    • Rocks: contain many minerals
    • Minerals by crystal system
      • Liquids: Water, Mercury, Asphalt
      • Amorphous solids: Tektite, Obsydian, Polycrase, Amber
        • Vitreous minerals (melt by heating)
  • Some articles on Category:Vitreous rocks are not included in the List of minerals (complete). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This edit

I was wondering why you removed the two categories from File:Victor L. Brown.jpg (Category:1914 births & Category:1996 deaths). I know that you know what your doing on WP so I wanted to know if I was doing something wrong by putting the birth and death dates on the images like that one?--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally images that aren't transferred to commons go in Wikipedia image categories (eg: Category:Images of religious figures). Generally they don't go in "regular" categories unless they are for some reason especially appropriate. I usually don't worry too much about an image being in a regular category, but I don't think an image of a person should be in a by year birth or death category. That's just my intuitive sense; I don't know that there is a specific guideline about this or not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Good to know. I wont put any new image into the "regular" categories.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 21:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the other regular categories it is in are kind of borderline cases, with no clear guidelines, as far as I know. If it makes sense to you to have it in them, I think it could be OK. I'd be interested to find out if there are guidelines on this, but I don't know of any. It's usually not that important an issue now because most images are just transferred to the commons, but as you may know not all images can be transferred there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Taiga and Boreal forest

Hi User:Good Olfactory, Thank you for noticing and speedily renaming 'the the' Category:Taiga and Boreal forests in the the United States I'd mis-created recently.---Best---Look2See1 t a l k → 01:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is here if you want to register approval for it. :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Because you commented at AN/I

You wrote here So please see here. I would really like to get this resolved. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

re close on CfD on Wikipedian Service Award Level categories

Um, any reason for your decision, or anything? Herostratus (talk) 06:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, like, consensus and stuff? Did you want me to re-cap the entire discussion and summarise the various opinions? If pushed, I could tabulate a chart and calculate percentages, make an Ishikawa diagram, and so forth. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Er, no that won't be necessary. (Although some Chernoff faces would be nice.) Since it was a contentious issue, I think that a couple of sentences would have been OK. You say consensus, so by that I gather that numbers were a prime factor, which is fine, since the numbers were 9-3. As to the argument, I was just wondering what you thought the most important or cogent Delete arguments were - was it the "not useful" thing more, or the "arbitrary" thing, or what. Herostratus (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry for my sarcasm—I'm off my meds. I did actually think both sides had a point to their arguments. No one was putting forward ridiculous or unsupported arguments. Personally, I wasn't really persuaded 100% by either side, which is one reason I didn't venture my own opinion in the discussion. It's the kind of issue I felt could have gone either way and really was truly subject to a consensus decision. When I closed the decision, I felt that it was clear the consensus was in favour of keeping them deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
No problem - and anyway, that wasn't sarcasm. No, right, I basically agree with you per strength-of-argument it was reasonably close to a draw, and even though we're not supposed to count heads it's hard to go against 9-3. I'm not complaing about your close, just wanted a little expansion, which you provided, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Stefanomione

Thanks. Yes, I think most of the CfDs on his long unarchived User talk page are by me, and as you'll see, most are red. I do wonder if at some point there's going to need to be some discussion about Stefanomione's categories. While it's nowhere near as egregious as Mac/Nopetro, there is a similarity imo in that he combines a lot of useful work with a high percentage of poorly thought out category ideas, and he doesn't seem to be able to tell the difference, and doesn't communicate very well -- or at all -- with other editors, so there's no way to determine whether he's taken any of the criticisms to heart. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The Gambia

Hello. You recently participated in a discussion regarding renaming of several pages from "The Gambia" to "the Gambia". There is currently an RfC on the naming issue at Talk:The Gambia. Feel free to participate in the discussion. Jafeluv (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

block?

I'm confused again, as when you blocked me you indicated I hadn't responded, but of course I responded above, but you deleted it. Why would you delete my responses and then indicate I ignored you? Also, it's been a few weeks since I have forgotten to log in (and that request for a code to be entered for some reason didn't pop up), and I am not affiliated with the ip address that you blocked along with me. My internet address is completely different, and hopefully there is a wikpedia record for you to confirm it is so. (Do I have to identify my IP address here for your investigation?) Since you have again falsely accused me of stick puppeting (hopefully you didn't block that McMannis user, too that you also falsely claimed was me and hopefully you no longer think we're the same), please apologize immediately. I saw that nifty "Geolocat" button at the history page for the ip you blocked and saw it is for at Gettysburg (he also edited a Gettysburg page), but I am south of Baltimore at Millersville near Washington and haven't been to Gettysburg since my folks took me there as a kid. I should visit again soon, as my wife wants to move to Florida so the babies will be near her in-laws. Will I be able to use my userid from a hotel in Gettysburg, or will that be blocked because you've incorrectly associated me with a Gettysburg IP? I really won't need to do any wikipedia editing there, as we'll only be there a few days. Also do I need to change my user name when I get to Florida? If so, will it keep my edit history? Still, there's no reason to block me when I have previously responded and have only been editing with my user ID. Hike796 (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You have repeatedly ignored the inquiries of other users on your talk page. The response you refer to above is the only incident I'm aware of that you have actually responded to a user inquiry. Why is a block required to get your attention and to make you responsive? Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what?

Ever notice that some people who treat WP:OC like a red-headed stepchild ("It's only a guideline") are the same ones who want to treat WP:CLN as if Jimbo himself carried it down off the hill carved on a stone? --Kbdank71 00:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I do have it on good authority that WP:CLN was carved out of the rock by the middle finger of Alansohn. WP:OC was just copied of the wall of a pay toilet in Des Moines. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The revision history statistics indicate that Alansohn has never edited WP:CLN, although he edited the talk page eight time. WP:CLN was created by Phil Sandifer, and has significant editing also from The Transhumanist, David Gerard, Francis Schonken, John Gohde, Omniplex and UnitedStatesian. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps Phil Sandifer copied it from the rock. Can't really argue with "good authority". --Kbdank71 21:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
That's right. Wikipedia is not made of rock. This is a fact that I constantly have to remind myself and others of. I think I need to add that to WP:NOT. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Populated places on the British Columbia Coast

I just created this as a subcat to Category:Populated coastal places in Canada and Category:Coast of British Columbia. I very pointedly didn't use Category:Populated coastal places in British Columbia because it's stilted sounding, and there's an existing idiom for the BC Coast, despite "category standard names" (Wikipedia conventions shouldnt' override common language IMO). And also because of the name of the other parent; NB in the long run there are extant North Coast, Central Coast and South Coast sub-categories/sub-regions, though the last-named gets a bit complicated because it includes Vancouver Island and the Lower Mainland; but the North Coast and Central Coast communities could certainly have their own subcategory (as should those on Haida Gwaii/the QCI within the North Coast one). The pan-Canada category could use subcats for at least Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia, but there's too many for me to do manually; maybe such a change could be "botted"? I'd think that "on the Island of Newfoundland" and "in Labrador", also, are natural subcats for a main NL subcat. Ontario and Manitoba have only a smattering of coastal settlements on Hudson Bay, Quebec and New Brunswick seem unrepresented in the category, and lots of palces linked to {{BritishColumbiaCoast-geo-stub}} are populated (or were....). I just wanted to advise you of this name selection, and why, in case anybody tries to pull a fast one and do a speedy-CfD to make it "conform" to "populated coastal places". BC has two main regions, the British Columbia Coast, and the British Columbia Interior; there's no reason at all to have to vary from that (other than wiki-conformity, which I have increasing reasons to find noxious - see next section), and also to suggest the NL and NS categories (at least, if not also NT, QC and NB...isnt' everywhere in PEI a coastal place? Pretty close, I'd say...).Skookum1 (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy-CfD damage to RD categories

I think you told me where this Speedy-CfD was, I've lost track of the post....I really, really, really, really object to the supplanting of space-dash-space to "conform to Wikipedia's appearance standards" o whatever specious ratoinalization was used. My core objection to these is their untypability, whether as article names or categories, but it's also a big, big issue because ALL non-Wikipedia sources, including the RDs themselves, but also all branches of the BC governmetn, StatsCan, teh papers, academia and very likely the man in the moon use a hyphen, and NEVER a dash - or extra spaces!! In the 43-44 years of the existence of RDs, I've NEVER seen such a stilted, design-oriented version of their names. We're talking about primary source usage here, not some Wikizombie's obsessive desire to create "standards" and "standardize appearance". It's already established that provincial electoral district articles use the hyphen, because BC Elections does, as well as the media, etc, vs. the use of dashes in federal electoral districts, which is what Elections Canada and the Parliament of Canada use. Apparently this was done by Speedy-CFD, or if regular CfD it was unopposed (I was "away" at the time, it seems), as if it were not controversial. How is changing a standard, well-established usage to a Wiki-design concoction "not controversial". If it was a Speedy, it should be reversed without me having to take this to CfD; the mistake was made in speedy, it shouldn't require the ordeal-of-irrelevance that CfDs should be about...if it was a regular CfD, then it needs reopning, with reference to the PRIMARY SOURCES. See my comments on WP:CANTALK and whatever articles is linked there, I think it's Talk:Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District....oh wait, that link might not work, because teh article, too, was changed to a "dash", for all those same wrong wreasons; and I'm meeting intransigence and the "take it to Requested Moves", when it shouldn't have been moved at all. Doesn't anybody look at primary sources anymore, or is it all about what Wiki-design people think looks spiffy?Skookum1 (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the articles were changed first, and then the categories were renamed to match the articles. So the focus should be on getting the articles right, and then the categories will naturally follow and be uncontroversial. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
OK. It galls me, though, that speedy changes/moves are one-shot wonders, but it takes a "consensus" decision (meaning common sense and reality may not be what decides things) on a Requested Move or CfD to change them back; these should never have been changed, these articles.....I'm not an admin but wish I had the "move" powers to override stuff like this made by uninformed or illogical or mis-placed priority editors. Wikipedia's appearance issues should never insist on changing known spelling or usage conventions in order to impose new Wiki-derived ones. That's not valid, and if there's a forum to take this up in - Jimbo's talkpage maybe? - I think it's crucial. There's too much effect Wikipedia has on the world, because of its pervasiveness in Google and all teh clone-sites, and sites written influenced by its language/content, to tolerate loosey-goose "new, improved" versions of things that didn't need improving. As I added on my profile page "Wikipedia has too many people re-arranging deck chairs, and not enough people making them".Skookum1 (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I see your point; as far as categories go, they will generally be changed to match whatever format the articles use. So if the articles are moved back, I would expect the categories to be able to be speedily renamed back too. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Civil Rights Movement

Hi, in my comment at Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968)#Proposed_Move I've informally suggested Civil Rights Movement (United States, 1955–1968) (etc.) as an alternative. What do you think of that? (replying there, if you choose to reply, would be preferable to me - thanks). --Born2cycle (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Hotels in County Dublin

You have added the Category:Hotels in County Dublin to this category. Following your successful petition of Nov 8th, the cat was renamed to Hotels in Dublin. As part of the debate, User Peterkingiron noted "in that case the offending iteme need to be re categorised or move to a Dublin Region category. County Dublin exists as a historical entity only and any categories for it should be merged into those for Dublin Region.". You did not disagree with his viewpoint. That does not mean that you agree with his viewpoint. Still, I would be interested in understanding your rationale for including the County Dublin category as a parent for this category, especially as that category has been empty for some time now. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The CFD you refer to did not rename Category:Hotels in County Dublin to Category:Hotels in Dublin. It renamed Category:Hotels in Dublin City to Category:Hotels in Dublin. The County Dublin categories are an entirely different matter and were not the subject of the nomination. For them to be deleted, I believe they need to be nominated for deletion or merging. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The points you mention above are not at issue and disregard the substance of my note. The core point is that "any categories for it should be merged into those for Dublin Region". Far from merging with the Dublin Region, you went the opposite direction and populated a previously unpopulated category that reports to County Dublin. How was this action consistent with the concensus that emerged on that thread? Is it that you did not consider yourself to be bound by user Peterkingiron's opinion? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
If you want the Dublin County categories to become defunct, they need to be nominated for deletion. The category was only unpopulated because you manually de-populated it. Absent a broader discussion, it doesn't make much sense to focus in on one category for the county, since there is an entire scheme at Category:County Dublin and Category:Buildings and structures in County Dublin. Manually emptying categories is generally frowned upon, and in some instances can lead to other users getting quite upset and calling for sanctions against the user. Peterironking comments often at CFD, and frequently I have difficultly understanding what he writes. It's my shortcoming and not his, so I don't make a deal out of it, but in consequence I usually don't directly respond to comments he makes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I would strongly oppose deleting the County Dublin categories, and deplore the efforts which have bee made to depopulate them. Whilst County Dublin is a historical entity in administrative terms, it still exists as a geographical term, and serves an important purpose as a container category for the four local authority areas in the former County. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Cricket grounds in the United Kingdom

Please do not remove Category:Cricket grounds in the United Kingdom as a parent category for each of Category:Cricket grounds in England, Category:Cricket grounds in Scotland, Category:Cricket grounds in Wales, and Category:Cricket grounds in Northern Ireland. The first time you did this, the issue went to WP:CFD and the consensus there was that Category:Cricket grounds in the United Kingdom should be kept and re-populated. See here. I repopulated it, but then you removed them again. There is no reason the 4 categories can't be in both Category:Cricket grounds in the United Kingdom and Category:Cricket grounds by country, if that's what the issue is about. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a real need for the four categories to be in Category:Cricket grounds by country and I would ask you and your chums at CFD not to remove them from that category again. We at WP:CRIC seek to provide the readers with useful navigational information whereas you people are interested in imposing your own formulaic "schemes", regardless of whether these are actually useful to a reader who is navigating the category structure. For your information, no one ever thinks of cricket in UK terms so Category:Cricket grounds in the United Kingdom does not reflect reality and is no use whatsoever to the reader who is trying to find articles about English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh grounds.
Incidentally, I see now that there was a CFD discussion about that category but I do not think any of the interested parties such as myself or User:Mattinbgn or anyone else at WP:CRIC was notified of it: why was that, I wonder? ----Jack | talk page 04:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
No idea, but it's a fait accompli now, so please don't empty the category again. I wasn't removing the 4 from Category:Cricket grounds by country, but if someone else was, you'll need to speak with them yourself as doing so had nothing to do with the CfD discussion. The rationale for keeping it seems to be that it is part of the Category:Sports venues in the United Kingdom scheme, which goes beyond the limited considerations of just what a cricket hawk would be looking for. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion

So..... Do you want to join the move discussion? Or are you just moving pages currently undergoing a move discussion? 117Avenue (talk) 07:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Which page did I move that is undergoing a discussion? I didn't move the one you linked to. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. It's one of these widespread issues centered on one particular talk page. I'll move the pages back. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
But no, I don't want to join the discussion. Unfortunately it's one of those issues for which there is an obvious answer but it's one for which Canadian users will never agree on. Thank you for inviting me though, even if it was done sarcastically. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
That's too bad, I'd like more users. You're probably right, we're not going to agree on anything. 117Avenue (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-party MLAs in BC

Re Category:Independent MLAs in British Columbia and Category:British Columbia MLAs by party, did you note my comments here about problems with that title re historical situations? Note also taht there have been "Independent Liberals" and "Independent Labour" and "Independent Conservative" (all capital L/C/C) and others over time in the records (Mary Ellen Smith was an Independent Liberal, for example). The Independent MLAs category currently has mostly the current "rebel" MLAs in it....anyway won't rehash what I said on that linked item on that cat's talkpage, have a read and consider the situation, please.....also note Category talk:Capitals in North America re "former capitals" or "former colonial capitals", e.g. New Westminster, know there must be others....Skookum1 (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that categorizing MLAs by independent status is pretty problematic in terms of a "by party" scheme. The scheme is best left to instances where someone was clearly a member of a party, not for these hybrid "independent Liberal" type situations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Probably that category should be moved to the general Category:British Columbia MLAs, then; and also again, note that in the 1871-1903 period when there were no parties, various candidates ran as "Independent", meaning they weren't affiliated either to the government-of-the-day or the opposition-of-the day. Maybe Category:Non-party MLAs in British Columbia or something like that could suffice for the pre-1903 MLAs in general....NB I added teh BC MLAs category Category:Premiers of British Columbia, where it was pointedly missing....and FYI see my comments about POVism from central Canadian sources on Talk:Amor De Cosmos.Skookum1 (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree. For instance, Category:New Brunswick MLAs contains a bunch of non-party MLAs from the 1800s--there has been no attempt to smush them into Category:Independent New Brunswick MLAs, which seems to be reserved for truly independent MLAs from more modern times. That's the approach I would have adopted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Cat

Hey, please move this category:"Roads in Israeli occupied territories" to "Roads in Israeli-occupied territories" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Added to speedy rename queue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Koavf created a separate cat, so I think you can delete it now: [4] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Nicholas Bjerring

I saw you declined the speedy deletion of this on the grounds that the source was GFDL licensed. You were right that the article isn't an unambiguous copyright violation but there were a couple of problems with it: First, GFDL has not been a compatible license for importing text since 1 November 2008 (Wikipedia:Licensing update has all of the gory details). In this case that's not a problem because Orthodoxwiki also uses CC-BY-SA-2.5 which we can accept. Second, in order for us to use even freely licensed content it needs to be properly attributed, such as by using {{OrthodoxWiki}} which I added to the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent to know this; thank you! Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, the wonderful and complicated world of copyright on Wikipedia. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:19th-century Somali people

Greetings, I broke this cat off from Category:19th-century African people in order to help divide up a large and growing category, and to help link in Somali cats. Did I over-reach? MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. It's just the problem that Category:Somali people is now a disambiguation category. For ethnic Somali people, they go in Category:Ethnic Somali people. For people with nationality from Somalia, they go in Category:Somalian people. Since Somalia didn't exist in the 19th century, I think this one goes in the ethnic category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I saw that I edited this just minutes after it was created. Sorry—I found this by looking at Category:Disambiguation categories and noticing that Category:Somali people had a category in it, so I moved it. I think the timing was coincidental. I didn't mean to startle you by editing so soon after you created it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Son of perdition & Mormon eschatology

Thanks so much for your prompt cleanups today. Sorry to put you to the trouble.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. I think we still need to redirect the Mormon-related articles that link to Son of perdition to Son of perdition (Mormonism). Good Ol’factory (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Jerk

[5]

Thanks a lot, I just spit water all over my keyboard. --Kbdank71 21:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I think it was on the Daily Show in 2004 that Jon Stewart sampled questions he would ask John Kerry if he agreed to come on the show. Question #1: "What animal do you most identify with—not including horse?" Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Tcg, tch, such unkindness. I see, sir that you are no stranger to humour yourself. A few points. 1) I really don't care that much and was, I confess, making a point with little hope of success. 2) I do genuinely think the usage is absurd and unnecessary, even if I don't think so strongly. 3) As I hope you may surmise from the above, I was poking gentle fun at those who I hold in esteem, rather being rude about authority figures. 4) Given (1) I have no intention of doing anything at all re this tiresome matter, but who knows, there may be an occasion in future when I do. Thus, I wonder if you can help? "Categories may be listed here if they fall under the criteria specified below. Deletion and de-listing may occur after 48 hours if there are no objections. ". In what way was I not objecting? - or rather in what way was my request for removing my objection met? Yours, with tongue in cheek as ever... A snowy Ben MacDui 09:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm as surprised as you were that it was processed instead of being moved to the "objections" section of WP:CFDS! Not sure why ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, I now have the culprit in my sights and will pursue with utmost vigour, when time allows (i.e. when the snow all melts - one has to get one's priorities straight). Ben MacDui 12:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Blast from the past

I posted a comment at your 30 November 2010 CfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

CFD

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Cfd-notify ...}} with {{subst:Cfd-notify ...}}. --Soman (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Fiksyng mi tiepoes

Thanks for this fix on my typo. Should have spotted it myself! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought that's probably what you meant to type. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

tagging for that big power CfD

Damn there's a lot of subcategories....I'm on shaky motel wifi, it's laborious; starting that other CfD and a ReqMove last night took me hours....is there any way to automate it? I haven't tagged all the "power stations in Canada" subcats yet; note the discussion on WP:CANTALK too; I may have been hasty in proposing "powerhouses"...the national standard may be best as "generating station" though also it may be appropriate for some provinces to have a divergent standard, i.e. for Saskatchewan where "power station" or the abbreviate "hydroelectric station" are to be found; not sure for gas-fired or coal-fired there, will ahve to look more. But one thing's for certain - blanket usage of "power station" is not a Canadian term, though exceptions exist. When I started it I didn't realize how many subcats there were gonna be - or I might have put it off again.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any specific bot that can be used to tag, but I think it may have been done in the past by someone volunteering their bot. I would place a request at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion and see if anyone volunteers to help. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Kosovar Politicians

HI, I don't think all Politicians in Kosovo are Kosovar. There are Serbs who are based in Belgrad who are politicians in kosovo. Also there are minorities, like egyptians who are not ethnic kosovars. The same discussion was for the Kosovan election naming. Kosovan_parliamentary_election,_2010. Kosovars are people who consider them selves to be from Kosovo I guess. see edit here : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Politicians_in_Kosovo&curid=30109575&diff=403295220&oldid=403143051 James Michael DuPont (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know Category:Kosovar politicians would be for politicians involved in the politics of Kosovo, not just politicians of Kosovar ethnicity. It is a nationality category, not an ethnicity one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy christmas

you might look at my recent edits - to see how australian new zealand relations are going :) SatuSuro 01:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC) all been and gone - enjoy your christmas anyways - SatuSuro 03:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Victimology categories CfD

Hi. You recently participated in the ongoing Partial list of victimology categories CfD. I recently posted a renaming proposal in that CfD and I would appreciate receiving your feedback at Partial list of victimology categories CfD. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Category renaming and watchlist retention

When Category:Military bases in Germany is renamed to Category:Military installations of Germany it seems to drop out of my watchlist. Is this the way things function and is there any way to avoid this other than being very vigilant and re-adding the new category to the watchlist anew? __meco (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the way it works. Category renames aren't renamed as in the article sense (moved). The category to be renamed is deleted and recreated with the new name, which is why it drops off your watchlist. --Kbdank71 15:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Is there any workaround that could be implemented to fix this? __meco (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
None that I am aware of. --Kbdank71 21:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The one way I know of is to make sure categories on your watchlist have a talk page. If they do, then the bot will move the talk page to the new name when it creates the new category. Unlike categories, Category talk pages can be moved, so when it gets moved it remains on your watch list and when it attaches to the new category the new category is thereby added to your watchlist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Funny, I had been thinking about this very question a few hours ago. Thanks, GO, for pointing out the elegant solution! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
That even sounds like an argument for forcibly creating the talk page (although empty) when a category page is created. __meco (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there may be a case for that—possibly making it automatic somehow. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Or we can just talk the devs into making categories movable with the caveat they only be moved by admins doing cfd work. --Kbdank71 01:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Holy crapola, if that breakthrough ever happens, that would be ... interesting. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
It wouldn't change things all that much. We'd still need Cydebot to move the articles. It would solve the watchlist problem without having to force-create the talk page. --Kbdank71 01:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be fun to watch the outcry if they decided that all categories would be indefinitely move protected? Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Even funnier because none of them would realize that for all intents and purposes, that's how it is right now. --Kbdank71 02:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Add a couple of LDS/Utah cats?

Would you be willing to create Category:Meetinghouses of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah and Category:Tabernacles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah, both of subcats of Category:Churches in Utah & Category:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah? Hopefully this would avoid a repeat of the recent confusion related the articles that would properly fit in these cats. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Er ... what would go in them? There's Salt Lake Tabernacle, Conference Center, and Salt Lake Assembly Hall, but none others that I know of. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Utah Tabernacles with articles:

Questionable but possible in Utah Tabernacles (existing articles):

Tabernacles outside of Utah with existing articles:

There are other LDS Tabernacles (both inside & outside of Utah) on the NRHP which are likely to (eventually) have articles created for them.
Meetinghouse in Utah with articles:

Meetinghouse outside of Utah with articles:

There are other LDS Meetinghouses (both inside & outside of Utah) on the NRHP which are likely to (eventually) have articles created for them. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow, quite a few—I didn't know about most of these. I'm not sure if it's worthwhile to separate the "tabernacles" from the "meetinghouses". Is there really anything that unifies the tabernacles apart from use of the name "tabernacle"? It looks like they just tend to be larger-style meetinghouses where things like stake or regional conferences have been held as opposed to sacrament meetings. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
There are significant (though now historical) differences between meetinghouses & tabernacles, though there were some meetinghouse that were mislabeled as tabernacles. A short, incomplete summary is here, and a longer (but still work-in-progress) description is here. Those that study pre-Great Depression Mormon community building describe 3 phases: the settlement, with 1+ meetinghouse; the development into a city, usually included a tabernacle; the development into a metropolitan area, often leading to a temple. With the Great Depression & then WWII, tabernacles were considered by LDS Church leaders to be too expensive, and this distinctive building type was dropped, replaced in part by the modern Stake Center. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I see; so I suppose we could have a category for tabernacles. I'd feel better about it if there was an article already existing, but I suppose we can move forward. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Wow, you took the ball & ran with it all the way to the end-zone. Your expanded hierarchy really works well; Thanks! -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hyphen or endash in article name?

Hiya G O

Would you perhaps be able to spare a minute to take a look at my response in User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Hyphen_vs._Endash, and maybe to shed some light on it?

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Olympic museums category

I appreciate you making the effort to correct the English and the Wikipedia standards on the name of the category. I just wanted to point out that the event is formally called "Olympic Games" and less formally "Olympics". If you look at the three museums in the category they all end with the words "Olympic Museum". Not an objection and I will go with whatever you prefer. Just think that "Olympic museums" is a more accurate description and it looks better (more standardized). Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I was just going by our category Category:Olympics, but I see that most of the subcategories there use "Olympic" as the adjective, so I'm fine with that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks and Merry Christmas. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

Never mind the "usual place" comment. My mistake. My head in the clouds. Thanks for getting this final (?) cleanup going. You didn't preempt anything; it just takes me longer to compile the info because of my cheap dial-up service so it's fine. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for your comments

You never replied to this discussion

Hi; I noticed you archived this discussion, which I don't think was finished? I believe you were still planning on replying once the CfD was finished, which it now is. Thanks, Mlm42 (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Was I planning on it? So you're the one who pinched my 2010 day planner. I've been looking all over for it, but had given up hope now that the new year is upon us. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, yes it sounded like you were going to reply once the discussion was finished (your use of the word "until" threw me off, I guess). Anyway, would you delete the category Category:Transport incidents if I created it again? If so, then I suppose I should start yet another CfD. I would put this as a subcategory of Category:Events (since Category:Incidents now redirects there). Mlm42 (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I think creating it would be OK as long as there's no attempt to make a wholesale name change and shift all the contents from the disasters category into a new incidents category, as was done before. Using it to hold non-disaster incidents could be done, but it does seem like a fairly fine distinction; I'm not sure how it will hold up, but as long as there is no out-of-process renaming of categories, you're free to create a category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay; I'm not too familiar with what's out-of-process for categories, but I'll give it a shot. Hoepfully I don't do anything too wrong. Mlm42 (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
By out-of-process I just mean completely emptying out a category and creating a new one under a new name—that would be renaming a category out-of-process. Creating a subcategory or a category that works in parallel with what already exists is fine to do.
Alright, if you could have a look at my contributions and let me know if these changes are okay or not, that would be great; thanks a lot. Mlm42 (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I guess another issue is whether Category:Accidents should be a subcategory of Category:Disasters.. I'm not sure it should be, since certainly not all accidents are disasters; but I'm not too familiar with how the category system works around here. Mlm42 (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
What you did looks fine to me. I'm also not sure how the accidents category would interact with the disasters category; perhaps disasters should be a subcategory of accidents, though I suppose one could argue that not all disasters are accidents, either? Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks; I guess both accidents and disasters are "events", but I don't think we can say much else. I noticed the Portal:Current events handles this by using a "Disasters and accidents" sub-heading.. unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an english word that captures these two concepts at once. Mlm42 (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Upon closer inspection, the categories "Disasters in [country]" contains "Transport disasters in [country]" which then contains "Railway accidents in [country]". Again we encounter the problem that not all accidents are disasters, but to fix this would require a mass renaming. This is the problem User:Student7 brought up last month, but backed away from.. unfortunately, I think it should still be fixed. Mlm42 (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Void albums

Why move from Category:Void albums to Category:Void (band) albums? Rich Farmbrough, 02:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC).

In such categories, the standard is to match the band name to the name of the article, which in this case is Void (band). "Void albums" obviously could have other connotations, so I suppose it's for the better. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Hm well, the discriminator is needed on the article but not on the cat. I am aware that the practice is generally to follow article names but including un-necessary disambiguators seems a bad move. If there were (and there probably is) a band called "Blue Grass" or "Deleted" then using the dab would make sense. Rich Farmbrough, 00:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC).
It may seem like a bad idea to you but it is commonly done for these categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

americanisms

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

Hmains (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Tuamutos

Can you let me know what you want to do with the Tuamutos categories I commented on over on Speedy rename?--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Tiramisoo Sock

User:NewWaveKid--same subject areas: Monmouth, Oregon and the Willamette Valley. And the musician Lights. Same MO, and lots of warnings for speedy deletes. Cheers! Valfontis (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I see; hard to believe this one is still going on. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Here's another one that hasn't been permanently blocked yet: User:DriveMySol. Valfontis (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of category "Personal genome sequenced"

Hi, it seems that you removed this category from 3 articles. Can you tell me why ? This category would be useful to track the evolution of the personal sequencing so should become more and more common in the very next years (e.g. http://biostar.stackexchange.com/questions/4571 ).--Plindenbaum (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this really category appropriate material? It doesn't seem like a particularly defining thing about the people. If you want to track it, shouldn't there be a list article about it first? Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I think a list of sequenced organisms wouldn't work because people will rather update the information in the article ( e.g. by adding the category Category:Sequenced genomes) rather than updating List_of_sequenced_eukaryotic_genomes . Furthermore the number of people sequencing their genome should increase in the next year, making a list quickly outdated. And last but not least, using a category adds a semantic description to the article making it useful for people using the mw:API. --Plindenbaum (talk) 10:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I flagged the category as 'Hidden' so it won't appear in the article.--Plindenbaum (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how you can suggest that it's easier to update a category than a list. It seems that neither is superior in that regard. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
For what its worth, I also find categories much easier to keep up to date than lists. User:Plindenbaum is right, thanks to new sequencing tech, the number of individuals with sequenced genomes will sky-rocket. This category will help future proof WP. Finally, re: your "defining thing" comment, one could argue that ones genome sequence is the defining thing about them. --Paul (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

False accusation against user

You left the following false assumption and biased comment when you adjudicated a category renaming from December 7:

(I think we can only assume that the anonymous comments here came from the same person, and that person was also responsible for creating some of the subcategories referred to.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

However, you are incorrect that my comment from an IP address was by the same person who made a different comment, and I have not created any "of the subcategories referred to". I had just finished grading final exams and was checking a student's claim at wikipedia and noticed the recommendation to change Category:Watershed to a more verbose name. However, when I was using my wife's computer to post an opposing comment regarding the misnaming before we left the next morning for several weeks Lake Tahoe, it appears our ISP disconnected or, for some other reason, wikipedia logged me off and my comment was not recorded under my username. (Of course I'm not going to provide a crosslink to you regarding my wife's IP address and my wikiname, so don't even ask. I'm sure you know a user check can identify a user, if any, that made a wikiedit while logged in from that IP address.) Bottom line, please take a look at the wikipedia good faith policy and be sure to recuse yourself before adjudicating any wikipedia issue in which you perceive you have a separate issue with one of the editors involved (e.g., as it appears you did with the creator of one or more categories). It looks like you've been admonished before for improper use of your admin authority, so please feel free to improperly retaliate against the IP address which I used for both my original and this comment. 71.207.116.124 (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong on a number of points above, but I don't really have time to argue with an anonymous IP address. If you create a user name and sign in when you edit you will have more credibility and then I might consider responding to your specific points. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting, you've retaliated by using the unspecific red herring "You're wrong" to cover your tracks, with the false excuse that you "don't really have time", for not substantiating even 1 thing above that is wrong -- but you instead took the time to tell me to create another user name after I've informed you above that I already have a wikiname. Perhaps the latter was just oversight, but the former is just dishonesty by not identifying what you claim is "wrong", above (i.e., a good faith user would be honest enough to include even 1 example). Regardless, I'm not going to create another username, particularly at the behest of a dishonest administrator (i.e., you're lack of credibility isn't offset by the fact that you have a username); and as before, I'm not going to publicize a correlation between the IP I've used these 3 times and my username. Again, that's what a usercheck determines. Anyway, I suspect you'll find the time to retaliate again and I look forward to your next demonstration of dishonesty. 71.207.116.124 (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Mental Health

I'm sorry, but your rationale "WP:G2: Test page" when deleting Category:Mental Health was not appropriate for the situation. I am an experienced user; I don't make test pages . A more appropriate action would have been to use WP:G6. Mono (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As you apparently created a category through Wikipedia:Articles for Creation, it sure looked like a test. Or that you just didn't know what you are doing, but I thought "test" was more charitable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely this cat is OR

Category:Divided regions I just removed from Okanagan, which is purely a Canadian region despite the continuation of the Okanogan River and associated landforms into the US; strikes me as a loosey-goosey catch-all category that's not really encyclopedic. Also largely lexical in some cases; the Lower Mainland/Fraser Valley and Whatcom County are really the same landform (the Fraser Lowland) but are not the same region, likewise the Okanagan and Okanogan County. And what about Great Plains, which in the US is a region name as well as a landform name, in CAnada it's only a landform name. Atlantic Seaboard from the Canadian viewpoint should include the Maritime Provinces, but doesn't (in wiki); Rust Belt would include southern Ontario etc. I don't think it's a workable category, and have my suspicions about the hierarchy. I have CfD fatigue, though, and am currently wrestling with having to launch a 3RR complaint against a political SPA (and I'd rather not, or would rather have omsone else do it for me, so I don't screw it up). One basic issue here, though, is "what is a region?". Not easily definable and historically Oregon Country would be included (divided since 1846); I can see Category:Divided countries because of N/S Korea, but that could also include, say, Canada vs. the United States are parts of British North America, and also the "American occupation" of large parts of what had been Mexico. And frankly, I wish people would spend more time actually writing articles than finding new and increasingly less-relevant ways to categorize/label them......Skookum1 (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that maybe you should be the one to actually write articles rather than wasting time complaining here several times every fortnight that people waste their time on categories? If anything, I believe we don't have enough users participating at CFD or caring about categories. I don't perceive a lack of article writers, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Look, I think it's a stupid category; Canada (British North America) was divided by the American War of Independence, then further reduced by the War of 1812, so should it belong in this category? And I'd be writing more articles if not for having to argue to restore their proper names all the times, as changed by style-tweakers with no knowledge of nor respect for sources, or for local usages; same with certain categories, needless to say. I feel like I'm having to move thimbles using crowbars, after other people thoughtlessly dinged the thimbles and don't care about the damage, and (not you) are often arrogant in their rationales, and no apologies, only invocations of the almighty rules of Wikipedia to justify themselves and respond with "if you don't like it, subject it to a CfD and see if consensus supports you". And as you know, that's a way more uphill battle than the casual ease with which categories are speedily-renamed, or (as below) speedily-deleted.Skookum1 (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
It is a stupid category as almost any 'region' has been 'divided' at some point in recorded history. It is even more stupid to include whole subcats such as Category:Ireland. I wonder why Europe is not there, or Africa, not to mention their entire categories. Cfd isn't very good at discussing patently stupid categories as one generally gets a no-consensus brawl. I have often thought that there should be some fairly high threshold before editors are allowed to create and edit categories, particularly inclusions. (I am thinking of Pastorwayne and several others.) Occuli (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
And Jehosephat begat Josiah begat Jojo - Category:Divided regions between Canada and the United States I just discovered, created by User:Hike396 no earlier than today, with so far only Okanagan basin in it; but every landform between the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic is going to wind up in this - Georgia Strait, the Haro Archipelago (the historical name for the Gulf Islands and the San Juans, before partitioned in 1871), the Cascade Mountains, the Columbia Mountains and its subranges, theRockies, the Great Plains, the Red River Valley, the Canadian Shield, the Great Lakes, and Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Lowland, the Appalachian Mountains, the Atlantic Seaboard, the Gulf of Maine....and who knows what else will be come up with? Oh, I forgot - the AK-BC/YT boundary has even more.... Who defines a "region"? Far too loosey-goose a category and in this case the Canada-United States border category would be pretty much a mirror of this; or "Landforms straddling the border between Canada and the United States". Hm. Then there's Pacific Northwest, Rust Belt, and North America itself (pretty well partitioned between CAnada and the US, no?). where does it end?Skookum1 (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to everybody's favourite category creator, User:Hike396 User:Hike796. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Er... maybe 796 rather than 396 - too close to the productive Hike methinks. Vsmith (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
yes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Cat too speedily-deleted

I've spent the morning/lunch making stubs for, among other things, former regional districts (three so far, more to come), and created a subcategory of Category:Regional districts of British Columbia, namely Category:Former regional districts of British Columbia, but by the time I'd finished Sumas, British Columbia and the related Sumas Prairie, I made the District of Sumas redirect for the former item, but by the time I returned to it the new subcategory had gone "poof". I have no way of looking at the category-deletion record to know who did it, but it was rash and arrogant, considering all the much-more-junk categories there are around. The Comox-Strathcona Regional District also belongs in it. They don't belong in the main category, since they are defunct.Skookum1 (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, my apologies I take that back; used to the local idiom, I originally created Category:Former regional districts in British Columbia ("in British Columbia" being how we would normally put it here) but when created the Fraser-Cheam and CFV RD articles, and adjusting DARD, I had made (unknowingly) redlinks for "of British Columbia", per Wiki convention. So my mistake, comments withdrawn; but it wouldn't be the first time I've seen useful things deleted minutes after their creation by trigger-happy deletionists....Skookum1 (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Good_Olfactory/Archive_12&oldid=1144609749"