User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Category:1824 in Colombia

Category:1824 in Colombia, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

3po

If you have a moment, may I ask for a third party opinion?

Ok, to try to give some chronological order, please see:

• User_talk:Fayenatic_london#Ireland_categories (and the links there to the original cfd discussion)
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#RFC:_Categorising_Northern_Ireland_under_Ireland
• User_talk:Jc37#Category:People_by_city_or_town_in_Northern_Ireland

Thanks in advance. - jc37 16:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

After reading through this all, I'm not sure where I should comment, so I'll just do it here for now. First off, the fact that BHG is involved just made me think, "ugh". That user disagreed with a close I did a few months ago, and they were unrelenting in pestering me about it and using it as a cudgel against me by mentioning my action in passing in many discussions where it had limited relevance. So I'm quite sympathetic to any admin who does something to cross that user's personal preferences.
Anyway, like you, I'm pretty much in the "I don't care" camp as far as to whether we categorize Northern Ireland things as subcategories of Ireland things. From my experience—just what I have seen out there—doing so is fairly common, but it always does seem to be implemented by users with some strong connection to the Republic of Ireland, who may not be entirely neutral on the issue. We kind of see this in the RFC, where there is unanimity so far, but I note that nearly all of those who have commented have a strong connection to ROI, with some advertising their membership of "WikiProject Irish Republicanism". I'm not alleging bias here, but ... well—yes, actually, I am. They are all coming at it from a certain point of view. There's nothing really wrong with that kind of bias—they are as entitled to their opinion and to comment as are any other users, and their opinions can be determinative as long as there are not objections from other users.
I see no harm in letting the RFC stay open for as long as they usually stay open. (I'm not familiar enough with the process to know how long that is. A week? Two?) I also see no harm in all users just laying off and not doing anything one way or the other until the RFC is closed.
In other words, I'm pretty much OK with your approach, and it's one I would endorse. The users with opinions seem impatient to put things back to how they were before, which is somewhat understandable, given that that's the approach they prefer, but I don't really understand the inability to simply wait until the RFC is closed, either. Given the tenor of the RFC so far, if I were in your shoes I would perhaps consider just putting things back to as they were before and then just confirm at the end of the RFC that that remains the consensus position—but that's mainly because since my last incident with BHG, I would not be keen to do anything administratively that runs the risk pissing that user off. It's not worth the headache for me—unfortunately, that (in a way) rewards bad behaviour on the user's part, so I generally just try to completely steer clear of any administrative encounters with that particular user. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the 3po. I sincerely appreciate your insight. - jc37 09:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Good Olfactory, you might want to re-think some of your prejudices. First of all, and most importantly, membership of WikiProject Irish Republicanism is not the same thing as membership of the Republican Movement. It is a project for those who are interested in the subject of Irish republicanism, it includes editors of a unionist persuasion, and in fact it has been dormant for some years since Troubles-related articles have gone out of vogue. Second, "unionist" editors would have been very quick to come in and !vote for a change in the system if they thought the system was broke. They haven't. Nobody is oppressing or trying to oppress anybody here. All it is is one editor who made a misguided decision trying to blame the resultant fallout on "editors who have a clear bias regarding uk and ireland topics". I know you've been brought into something you don't have experience of, but if you look, and try to see whose interests Jc37 is upholding here, you won't find anybody. He's making a stand for a community that does not exist! Everybody agrees with everybody else on this issue except Jc37. If I'm wrong, let him point to one user who is aggrieved at BHG's actions or mine. Scolaire (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

From what I can see, the only position jc37 is trying to uphold is encouraging everyone to wait for the RFC to close before doing anything. That's an approach I endorse. And yeah—it's my biases that are relevant here. Way to turn the tables. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to see such a mature response. Scolaire (talk) 07:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much what I've been thinking about this entire thing ... I'm seeing users with very much a confrontational "we are right and you are wrong" attitude towards the entire situation, when all that really needed to be done by everyone was nothing—and after exercising a bit of patience everything would have resolved itself. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if you caught my irony there. "And yeah—it's my biases that are relevant here. Way to turn the tables" is not my idea of a mature response. Scolaire (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess if you don't want people criticising your comments, you shouldn't suggest other users are biased. I have accepted your comments for what they are worth; I just thought it was interesting how you tried to make the issue my biases as opposed to your own, even though I had nothing to do with the question to which the bias discussion relates to in the first place. For someone preaching to others about maturity, the situation does indeed seem like it has a fair dose of irony about it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Gayasan (North Gyeongsang/South Gyeongsang)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Gayasan (North Gyeongsang/South Gyeongsang), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Rystheguy (talk) 05:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion nomination Perfection (Latter Day Saints)

Hey there Good Olfactory - getting a little bit more active lately trying to clean up these Mormon articles - and could use your thoughts on a recent nomination for deletion: Perfection (Latter Day Saints). Thanks! --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Non-existent categories?

Just noticed your last few edits are adding non-existent cats. Just a heads up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. In the process of creating them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Convention on Nuclear Safety, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nuclear energy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Article move

Hello GOF,

please, remember to add the wikilinks to other languages in the target article every time you move an article. Wikilinks are now administered by wikidata. Thanks in advance. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 08:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't say I know how to do that. I haven't kept up with the change in this regard. Is there an explanatory page I could look at? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

simple one, I think

Not in the mood to place templates and such today; would Category:First Nations Tribal Councils be simple enough that someone (like you) could do it without a CfS? Needs to be Category:First Nations tribal councils.Skookum1 (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

And see this, and note the second sandbox linked in it Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Draft guidelines for indigenous content.Skookum1 (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_22#Category:Chicago.2C_Illinois

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_22#Category:Chicago.2C_Illinois. Since you were involved in the previous discussion about Los Angeles categories, you may want to weigh in on this similar discussion about Chicago categories. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Template usage

I have always had an issue trying to figure out where templates are used. I'm sure there is a way, but I have been unable to figure it out. Can you tell me how to get this information for Template:LDSInfobox/JS and other Templates in the future?--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It should just be the "what links here" link on the template page: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:LDSInfobox/JS. The template is used as a template on the page if the link includes the word "(transclusion)" after it on the links page. If it appears without that word after it, the page just includes a reference to the template. So in the example above of Template:LDSInfobox/JS, it is referred to on 4 pages but is transcluded (used as a template) on none. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Book of Jared

Hi,

The book that was cited is an updated revision of Elder Steven's Book of Jared which was compiled around 1833 in Kirtland by Elder Samuel Stevens (1765-1844) who was an assistant of elder Warren Parrish. I have read elsewhere that Dr. Augustus Le Plongeon based the name "Cock Mool" on kakmula. It us a shame that there is not enough written on Elder Stevens to warrant his own page or even a mention where appropriate. The Book of Jared was republished by the Jaredite Publication Society which republishes out of copyright books on Mormon topics. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the topic of Kakmula is very notable within Mormon folklore. I'm fairly conversant in the area, and it's the first I had ever heard of it. Are there any secondary sources that address the issue? If not, I don't see why we would include it based only on an obscure primary source. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I have just begun to do research on Elder Stevens. According to the Introduction, Stevens had shown the work to Elders John Boynton and Luke S. Johnson as well as Elder Parrish. All three of these men were later involved in a confrontation at the Kirtland Temple. Earlier, Parrish had sent Stevens to Veracruz where he stayed for a while where he may have established a church. Parrish latter broke away to form his own church. I wonder, and this is just my own speculation, that a major schism was avoided by sending Stevens with his new scriptures to Mexico. If you ever come across a reference to Elder Stevens, please let me know. Thanks. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Neighborhoods in Honolulu, Hawaii

Why did you close Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_14#Category:Neighborhoods_in_Honolulu.2C_Hawaii as no consensus? As for a headcount, it was three supporting to one opposing, but consensus isn't decided by a simply headcount. The arguments for keeping the current title, especially the common name one, were mostly WP:LOCALCONCENSUS arguments. Consensus is that the name for the city is Honolulu and for the county is Honolulu County per the parent pages; LOCALCONCENSUS at the CFD can not override the wider consensus at the article's themselves.

More impotently, the category, which is about the county, should not be named Honolulu, Hawaii when the Honolulu article is about the city and not the county, it's extremely misleading. Either the category needs to be renamed, or the Honolulu and Honolulu County, Hawaii articles need to be renamed. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, as for headcount, it was actually 3:2 by my counting. I understand the issues that were set out, but I didn't see any broad agreement on which approach to adopt. Both sides had some valid points and arguments. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right about the headcount, I meant to say 3:2. There's no reason for the category and the articles to use the opposite approach. One of them needs to change, and the long-standing consensus at the articles takes prescience over the CFD. If someone wants to change the approach used, an RM can be made at one of the articles. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want me to do here. I understand your position, but I am not comfortable finding any consensus in the discussion as it stands. You can challenge my close at WP:DRV. Given that the result was "no consensus", it can also be nominated in the future. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Scythian77

This user is edit warring on a number of pages as we speak, often engaging in vandalism, and generally refusing to discuss or respect consensus. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Scythian77&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2013&month=-1

Evildoer187 (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• This should be interesting... The Scythian 21:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:UEFA football clubs 2012–13 season

Did I miss this one in a work list? It is the only thing in the April category. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I just notified the nominator and assumed he would do it. I forgot to add it to WP:CFDWM, I think. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Page move query

Hi GOf. A few days ago you moved a couple of pages that I work on regularly. They are Roman–Etruscan Wars and Roman–Volscian wars. The only change was I think to make the hyphen longer in the title of each. I don't have any issues with the move, if that is more appropriate than a short hyphen. The only problem I have is that there are a load of pages which link to sections of those articles. Is there some way of automatically updating all those linking pages so they link to the corresponding sections of the moved page? Otherwise, can the moves be undone? Thanks in advance. --Urg writer (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

With the redirect in place, I suppose a link to a particular section does not work? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It still works, but it simply goes to the top of the redirected page, and does not go to the specified section. Other than manually fixing each link, is there a way we can get around this, or should I revert the changes??--Urg writer (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's no way around this issue. The only way to resolve it would be to change the redirects, which—as you note—is a big job when there are a lot of them. There is probably a bot that can change a bunch of these at once, but in the meantime we can reverse the changes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks mate, much appreciated. If you find a way to do the redirects in bulk, let me know.--Urg writer (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Year ranges

You have moved a number of articles recently to abbreviated year ranges (e.g. 1919–20 instead of 1919–1920). This does not appear to be mandated anywhere. MOS:YEAR, which you cite, certainly does not mandate it. An example is given in that section which uses the short form, but it certainly does not say "use this form instead of the long form", since other examples in the MOS do use the long form. In my opinion the long form is far more encyclopaedic. This series of moves should have been discussed first. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No where did I suggest that anything "mandates" any change. It is rare that anything on WP is "mandated". There are recommended styles; this is just one of them: it simply says this is how things are "normally" done. If users want to depart from that, then that's a matter of consensus, like anything else. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

"it simply says this is how things are "normally" done". Nope, it doesn't say that either. It says that's how it's done when that style is used. This is not a reason to move lots of articles that are at perfectly good titles already. You need to discuss mass moves before you do them unless the move is to a style that is widely accepted as a consensus by other editors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it does: "A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given (1881–1986)." We must be interpreting the language differently, but it appears to be relatively clear to me: your when that style is used is when there is a year range (beginning year–end year) used with an endash. It says that the closing year is normally written with two digits. Thanks for your advice, but I'm comfortable with what I have done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 18:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind raising it somewhere (WP:AWNB or WT:AUP maybe) before you move any more of the Australian parliamentary member lists? There are literally hundreds, possibly thousands, of these articles, and our overwhelming preference throughout all Australian political articles has been for full ranges. Frickeg (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I dunno, last I heard the Australian WikiProject had unofficially banned me from posting anything on "their" talk pages. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's not really something you can just go ahead and do without discussion. For the record, I'd support the status quo (i.e. full dates). I'm a longtime WP:AU member, but I mustn't have been involved in whatever that particular scuffle was as I don't recall anything. I'm sure everyone would appreciate it if you raised it, rather than just doing it unilaterally. Try WT:AUP if you'd prefer; it's probably the more relevant place anyway. Frickeg (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I see no problem with making a "unilateral" change when it brings an article into line with what the Manual of Style currently recognises as the regular style. If a user objects, then that activates the regular consensus-based resolution process, but I don't think the onus is on me to start such a discussion at the start of the process when the MOS supports what I have done. Such discussions are more appropriate when a user plans on moving an article to a name that departs from the MOS recommendation. Besides, the change is purely stylistic and involves zero change in meaning or implication. I don't care which is used because they mean exactly the same thing; I just follow what the MOS recommends. So frankly, I don't really care enough to take that step. Also, some time ago, some users of the Australia Wikiproject let me know that I was posting too many notifications on "their" talk page regarding Australia-related discussions, so I'm not keen to go out of my way to have much to do with users from that Wikiproject anymore. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I'll do it. Frickeg (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no need, unless you want a discussion of the issue. I'm not planning on changing any other Australian ones. I'm happy with either format, I was just changing things to conform with the MOS, but if users prefer a different format that means the same thing, I'm not worried about it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably worth having the discussion anyway. :) Frickeg (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

DRC v Zaire

Would you please refrain from attitude and explain to me why you believe it's appropriate to exclude the current country name from the list, in favour of it's former name? Because that's all you're doing, the entity which was Zaire and now is the DRC has not changed, it's just a change in the name of the country. It's like replacing the Republic of Poland with the People's Republic of Poland. It's the same country, and the treaty obligations and ratification has not been rescinded. This is inappropriate. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not a list. If it were a list contained in the article, it would be fine to include the current state. It is a category, and treaty categories are named after the state's name at the time of ratifications. To understand the difference, what you need to do is look at the categories are read their definitions. Examine the definition of Category:Treaties of Zaire. Compare it with the definition on Category:Treaties of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Note that the former has 54 other articles in it. The former is for treaties ratified during the period of time that the DRC was called "Zaire". Most are still in force for the DRC, which is why the former is a subcategory of the latter. I am glad you know that almost all treaties of Zaire are also treaties of DRC, which is why this structure exists. (As to your comparison, note that there is Category:Treaties of the People's Republic of Poland, and it's even on the same article in question.) Note that on the same article, the following categories also apply, all of which use a "former name" of a current state: Category:Treaties of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Category:Treaties of the People's Republic of Bulgaria, Category:Treaties of West Germany, Category:Treaties of the People's Republic of Hungary, Category:Treaties of the Pahlavi dynasty, Category:Treaties of Ba'athist Iraq, Category:Treaties of the Socialist Republic of Romania, Category:Treaties of Serbia and Montenegro, and Category:Treaties of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. It also contains Category:Treaties of the Soviet Union even though Russia is the successor state to the Soviet Union and the treaty is in force for Russia. This is how the category structure has been designed, partially to break the large "treaties of" categories into smaller bits. I don't see why DRC/Zaire should be treated differently than all of these. I apologise for having "attitude", but it does get frustrating when it appears that a user who is not familiar with a particular category scheme is more interested in reverting when really all they need to do to resolve the misunderstanding is read the applicable category definitions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Stripping categories from redirects.

You cite (but don't quote) Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects to claim that these redirects should not be categorized. To quote just one of the most obvious counter-examples given, "The alternative name(s) becomes a redirect and gets categorized the same way as its target." Andy Dingley (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It's apparent that you aren't terribly familiar with how the guideline is typically applied. I'm not going to waste any of my time here debating your interpretation of the guideline; I'm fairly confident that I'm familiar with the common practice. It looks like you think an article as well as two of its close synonyms should all appear in a lightly populated category with only 65 other articles ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

U.S. or US?

You recently renamed a number article that had "US" in their titles to corresponding title that had "U.S.". Please note that "U.S." is US English, but "US" is UK English and that WP:MOS supports both. In line with WP:ENGVAR, please undo any moves that involved articles that use UK English - notably this one and this one. Please also revert any other articles written in UK English where you might have made similar changes. Martinvl (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the difference. I don't really care if it is moved back. It seemed to me to have a significant enough connection to the U.S. to use a U.S. abbreviation for the country. (I never really understand the fretting about ENGVAR, but there you go.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting. I always push to retain the original variant - be it the US or UK variant. In that way we avoid too many arguments. Martinvl (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 12:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Curacao

He Good Olfactory, thanks for filling in all those "extended to" categories… A small comment regarding addition of the Geneva Protocol to the "extended to Curaçao-category. I think that should be the Territory of Curacao, or Curacao and Dependencies, both comprising the 6 islands of the former Netherlands Antilles; see: Curaçao_and_Dependencies. Can you for consistency make a cat for that? (btw: I guess such conventions were also extended to Suriname (colony) and the Dutch Indies…., but have no time to check right now…). L.tak (talk) 07:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I suppose we should have one for CandD for completeness. I made a mistake on the Geneva Protocol one and added it to the NA category. I have hesitated making one for the Suriname colony (or for any British possessions that are now independent), since generally once the country is independent they declare their succession to the treaty that was previously extended to them. I'm not sure if we would want a "treaties of Suriname" and a "treaties extended to Surinam" on the same articles—it may lead to a lot of clutter. Same deal with the Dutch East Indies and Indonesia. I'm unsure at this stage what to do. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 16:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, what's the deal with the Caribbean Netherlands now? Are treaties that are ratified by the Netherlands for the "Kingdom in Europe" automatically applicable also to the Caribbean Netherlands? Or does there still have to be an explicit extension or application? I'm a little confused by the declarations I have seen on this in various treaty sources. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 16:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope, the're not. The treaties applicable to Netherlands Antilles remained in force for Caribbean Netherlands, Sint Maarten etc as the Kingdom views the dissolution of the Netherlands as just an internal rearrangement, which does not affect its external responsibilities. In terms of applying the treaty to different parts of the Kingdom, there is still always a possibility to apply it to either of the 5 jurisdictions of the Kingdom (it's formally not an extension of a ratification of the European Netherlands, but the designation of different parts where the treaty is applicable). There are some transitionary rules (that prevent changing to many laws for Caribbean Netherlands until 2015 to avoid administrative overload), but also fundamental principles (climate, insular status, size, distance from the mainland) that formally allow for variation between the two parts of the Netherlands proper… The best way to check what has happened (if the depository is unclear) is the dutch treaty database, which always explicitly mentions where treaties apply (here). Often treaty-laws are approved for a larger territory (e.g. the full kingdom), but instruments of ratification are only registered for those territories that have already finished their implementation laws (Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten are notoriously slow….) L.tak (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Great, that's what I thought and that's how I've been approaching it. I will start using that Dutch database—it looks very good. BTW, I have been adding Category:Treaties extended to Aruba to treaties that were extended to the Netherlands Antilles prior to 1986 since otherwise it will be impossible to tell from the categorization which of the treaties in Category:Treaties extended to the Netherlands Antilles were succeeded to by Aruba after the 1986 split. Is this a good thing to do, do you think? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 17:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

That database is quite good indeed. The only equivalent I know is the Swiss treaty info, but that is much harder to search… I can imagine adding the NA-treaties to Aruba as well; which is clearer (but a bit inconstant compared with Sint Maarten etc). As long as it's indicated clearly I'd keep it that way… L.tak (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I figured we can get around it with Sint Maarent, Curaçao, and the CN by including Category:Treaties extended to the Netherlands Antilles as subcategories of each of those three, since pretty much all treaties extended to the Antilles now apply to these three. We can't say the same for Aruba, though, so I implemented the double-categorization for pre-1986 NA treaties. It's a bit gimpy, but it seems to work. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 18:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Input requested

You're considered a sort of "zen master" of Mormon studies and the like. Would you like to comment here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture--if possible? Thanks.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Latter Day Saint musicians

Would you be willing to create Category:Latter Day Saint musicians ? That would be quite easy to populate, and music has been an important part of the Latter Day Saint movement since Joseph Smith's time. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Would it be for musicians who are Latter Day Saints or for musicians who specifically perform/compose Latter Day Saint music? I would guess the latter, as we don't have a "musicians by religion" scheme. If that's the case, I wonder if there might be a better name—something like Category:Performers of Christian music is preferred over the ambiguous "Christian musicians". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:People indicted by the Cambodia Tribunal

Whoops. I was looking at my "Contributions" page, and noticed that I had edited the wrong page ("indicted" instead of "convicted"). Went back to revert my edit, but it looks like you got there ahead of me. :) Cgingold (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I would also note that the one guy who was convicted by the Cambodia Tribunal was not convicted of genocide--"just" crimes against humanity. I guess he could be said to be a "genocide perpetrator" in the more general sense of the term--in that he perpetrated acts that constituted part of the Cambodian Genocide. Just a legal vs. common use of the term, but not one to worry about too much I don't think. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly -- that was my take on things, too. Cgingold (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Smith - FAC

Hello Good Olfactory,

I have put the article on Joseph Smith up as a nominee for Featured Article Status! I think the article has come a long way, and has a very good chance of being featured this time around. I would personally appreciate it if you took a moment to review the article and vote for it (or against it, I suppose) at it's FAC.

Thanks! --Trevdna (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Circular redirect

This looks like it was a mistake, but I'm not certain what you were actually trying to do. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks—yes, supposed to be to Category:Treaties extended to British Cyprus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 16:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Teachings of Presidents of the Church

Thanks for responding to the user that was trying to call me out on the Teachings of Presidents of the Church page. I wouldn't have known how to respond to him without getting into an argument. Your comment quashed what could have become an unpleasant situation. You handled it beautifully. Thanks for coming to my defense. Your response was perfect. I hope I can return the favor someday. Please let me know if there is ever anything I can do in return for you. You have only to ask. Thanks again. Please leave any response on my talk page, as I do not typically check other users' talk pages for responses. Thanks again. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:LDSpresidingbishop

Template:LDSpresidingbishop has been nominated for merging with Template:LDSpresidingbishopric. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 19:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Question I am unfamiliar with the "Templates for discussion" process, as I have only ever merged articles. When Merging pages, you just tag the page, list your reasons on the talk page and if everyone agrees then they merge is just done, How long do I keep this discussion open? Who decided to close it? How closes it? Who dose the merge? I could do the merge itself right now, as I have the template made, but I didn't want to go against the rules merging templates. I'm only waiting to see what user:Snocrates says as he created the template, but you did most of the editing. The whole process seems complicated compared to articles. There are a few more, like these two, that would be good to merge, but I don't really want to deal with the whole process on more then one, until I understand it.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 20:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not all that familiar with it myself. I think you've taken the correct steps so far. I think the discussions are supposed to remain open for 7 days, but taking a look at WP:TFD, it looks like some are staying open for a lot longer than that, though those appear to be ones where there is no clear consensus. They are generally closed by admins, like any other deletion/merge discussion, though if the consensus is closed they could be closed by any uninvolved editor. I think the technical aspects of the merging is generally left to the person who proposes it—all the admin really will do is redirect one template to the other and say you can go ahead with the merging of the details. I know Snocrates in the "real world"—in fact, I have been accused of being a sockpuppet/reincarnation of Snocrates, which is an interesting story—and he has retired from Wikipedia, so I doubt he will be commenting. If I were you, I would go ahead and create a draft of the final template in your user space. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I have done the coding. I have one other question. Is there an easier way to go about doing this for a couple of other templates in the same Category:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement templates? There are at least two more that seem to be in the same need of merging for the exact same reasons. I noticed that very few people, mainly you, me, Trödel, and Eustress really do any significant editing to these templates. So the whole WP:TFD seems to be a really complicated and somewhat unnecessary, if the editors who do this work all agree it should be done. However, I don't want to be accused of doing an end run around the process. Any suggestions?--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I hear you. You could always just be bold and do it, but then you're right that you open yourself up to accusations of doing an end run. The real question, I suppose, is would anyone care enough to so accuse you. I suppose one thing you could do is ask Trödel and Eustress if they have any objections to such a change, and if they don't, then it is probably safe to go ahead and do it. The whole purpose of TFD is to ensure that there is a consensus for proposed changes, but I don't see anything wrong with ensuring that such a consensus exists in other ways. We're not supposed to be a bureaucracy. If you asked the other two users and went ahead, I for one would defend you against any suggestions of doing an end run around process. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 16:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Well after I go thew the two TFM's that I have done, I will see how well just asking you all would work.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 17:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ATP (treaty), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Insulation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:LDSfirstpresidency

Template:LDSfirstpresidency has been nominated for merging with Template:Main Page. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 17:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Democides

Could you remove Category:Democides from this fully protected page: Mass killings under Communist regimes? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure; the bot should be doing these all, but it seems to be slightly stalled. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 18:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually Cydebot (talk · contribs) is down since three days, and another bot (ArmbrustBot (talk · contribs) makes the regategorizing. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I will ping Cyde; I have his email. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It came back, created a category and than the CFD task died again. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that too--I think Cyde has been working on it, but it must be a tricky issue. Oh well, your bot has been doing the job well. It just requires manual deletion, which is not too big of a deal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

And manual category creation. (Which is tiresome if you want to create similar edit summaries than the bot.) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot about that because you have been doing them all! Thanks for the assistance. No hurry though if you want to do other stuff and just wait for Cyde. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Bot down

Clyde is down I have turned on AvicBot for whatever it can handle. Letting you know since you are processing the backlog. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I just emailed him, so hopefully we can get it back shortly. He's usually pretty prompt when notified. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

	The Hard Worker's Barnstar
	Pretty busy day at the CSD corral. I noticed you helping a lot.SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I failed to thank you promptly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I thereby award you with this Admin's Barnstar for all of your work at the Categories for discussion process. Keep up the good work. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I failed to thank you promptly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 30#Category:Men sociologists

Your closure on this discussion was incorrect. There was no consensus to delete. On a vote count,

• For delete were Obiwankenobi (talk · contribs), Newjerseyliz (talk · contribs) and Maunus (talk · contribs)
• For keep was Cgingold (talk · contribs)
• For "same as Category:Women sociologists" were Aymatth2 (talk · contribs) and Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 29#Category:Women sociologists seems likely to close as either "keep" or "no consensus", in which case the votes on category:men sociologists will be evenly balanced. Three for and three against. The relevant policy, WP:Cat/gender, is clear:

• If it is very unusual for a sociologist to be a woman, it is reasonable to have a category for women sociologists but not for men. This is obviously not the case. There are many women sociologists. One would not say "she is a sociologist? How interesting: it is so rare for sociologists to be women."
• Otherwise, if women sociologists are generally seen as different in nature from men sociologists (the guideline gives the example of male and female golfers), it is reasonable to have categories for both men and women, but not for just one or the other. Gender has a specific relation to the topic.

There was disagreement in both discussions over whether women and men sociologists are generally seen as different, in which case both categories should be kept, or whether they are not, in which case both should be deleted. But clearly the two discussions are linked, as pointed out in the discussions, and should be closed together. If, as I expect, the discussion on Category:Women sociologists is closed as "keep" or "no consensus", I will protest your closure on Category:Men sociologists. What is the right way to register a protest? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:DRV, I suppose. It's creation seemed somewhat WP:POINTy to me. In any case, it had one article in it when it was deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion on Category:Women sociologists triggered me to create Category:Men sociologists, but I hesitated to swing across a whole lot of articles to this category while the subject was under discussion. The question of whether the gender of a sociologist is often seen as relevant is borderline in my view. Certainly there are gender-related aspects to almost all sociological topics and women may well have different perspectives from men. I would prefer "keep both" but would accept "delete both". I cannot accept keeping the women category but not the men category, which not the consensus, against policy and makes WP editors look totally ignorant. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Keeping one but not the other is relatively common, so it wouldn't be an anomaly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• The outcome of this category should be tied to the fate of women sociologists. If we can have those, we should have this category as well. It was pretty clear that people feel it would be wrong to not have both, it would be Wikipedia saying that Marie Cornwall should be viewed through her gender but Tim B. Heaton should not be, when Heaton's work is clearly more linked to his gender. Calling it "pointy" ignores the real issues, which is that people see it as wrong to normalize men and exceptionalize women. This was brought up substantially in the discussion. The arguments actually presented show that what Good Olfactory calls "relatively common" would in this case be an outrage that continues patterns of normalization and marginalization in the system, it makes Wikipedia part of an unequal system. Wikipedia may not be the place to right grave wrongs, but when multiple authors have pointed out the normalizing effects of some patterns in sociology classification and called them into question, Wikipedia should not continue to do so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• If you thought the creation was pointy, you should have expressed this view in the discussion of the category, not run around everyone else by closing the discussion while ignoring the actual will of those participating that was that it should be linked to the women sociologists category. No one suggested deleting it as pointy, so I do not think that has any place in justifying the deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I just created ==Deletion review for Category:Men sociologist== An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Men sociologist. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I just hope I did it right.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• I find it funny that if everything you write above is true, then it nicely demonstrates that it was a WP:POINTy creation. Anyway, I don't "get" why users are so hasty on this. If you both agree that they should both exist or both be deleted, why aren't you both waiting until the discussion for Category:Women sociologists is closed? If it results in "delete", all your complaints here are seemingly moot. If it's kept, then that would be the appropriate time to use WP:DRV. But hey--it's your time you're using, not mine (as long as you stop posting about it here). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I am upset because you are being heavy handed and trying to force your will on the project by virtue of being an administrator, just like you did when you deleted Category:American actresses last in a blatant imposing of your will by closing as resolved an issue that was clearly not resolved. This is a repeat of the same behavior that I feel is totally out of line. When people say things should be linked, they should be linked, not one closed before the other. I am tired of statements made in CfDs, where people bring up good points about sources, being summarily ignored.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • It's about consensus, not about what individual editors want. Just because you don't get your own way doesn't mean you have to assume you are being ignored. You also seem to be assuming a fair bit of bad faith (again)--assuming that I care one way or the other about the existence of the categories, when in reality I couldn't give a rat's ass one way or another about the substantive issue. Don't post on this page again if you cannot assume good faith. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Revert

Hi, you reverted an edit of mine (Hispanic pornographic actors?) on an archived conversation that I don't recall ever making. I looked over my list of edits and it doesn't appear. I'm not sure what happened as I'd never go and edit someone else's comments, especially not on an archived conversation. Today I've been editing categories on actors' profile articles, not going into Wikipedia policy pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hm—not sure what happened then. Oh well, I sorted it. The category was applying itself to the archived discussion page instead of appearing as part of the user's comments, so I just fixed that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 17:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess it's just a mystery! I don't think I've ever written about Hispanic pornographic actors, must less edit another person's comment. It looks like you are very active over on CfD so I'm sure we'll cross paths in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Your reverts

The outcome of the CFD has no relevance on whether these guys belong to ANY beekeeper categories. You should well know better. Read WP:COP#N carefully. "Categorize by those characteristics that make the person notable" These guys are not notable for being beekeepers. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Really, you should know better—especially in light of the comments in that discussion from User:Cgingold and User:Postdlf. You don't remove articles from a category while discussion is ongoing. That's basic. Category clean-up happens after the CFD is closed, not while it is ongoing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 18:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Cgingold's comments are just plain wrong. I expect that you add significant material to each bio you add beekeepers cats to showing the person's notability AS A BEEKEEPER. Failure to do shows that your edits are just wrong. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Lol—I love those all-or-none statements. To paraphrase Disraeli, I wish I was as sure of anything as you seem to be of everything. But I do think you are wrong about Hillary. (I'm not sure how much you know about his notability in NZ.) In any case, that's not really the issue I was concerned with. I was more concerned with users having the courtesy to not remove articles from categories under discussion when other users specifically request it. I understand being bold, but when more than one user specifically asks you to slow down and wait for a discussion to end, it seems to me to be sensible to accommodate the request. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

CfD closures

Hello, Good Ol’factory,
I was looking over some CfD pages, an area I occasionally participate in, and I noticed that you closed most of the discussions, at least the ones that I happened to see. Can this only be done by an Admin? Are there other Admins actively working in CfD, ruling on discussions?
Finally, what are your criteria in your decisions? I know it's not strictly a vote count so it must, to some degree, reflect your own view of categorizations and your history participating in CfD area.
I ask you these questions not to challenge you but to better understand the CfD process. I mean, at some point, the conversation needs to be assessed and a decision made by someone! It's just that I've proposed a few CfD that haven't passed/upheld and some of the category work I've done has been questioned at CfD. To improve my own work and so that I propose CfD that might have the support of the Editors working in CfD, I'd just like to understand the closure procedures better.
Thanks for any answers you can provide! It's greatly appreciated! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I have gone through various bursts over the months—often I go for a long time without closing any CFDs, and then other times I try to help out with the backlog, which grows large from time to time, and I end up closing a bunch of discussions. Of course, no one can close discussions that they have participated in, so I don't close the ones where I have done so. I used to focus far more heavily on participating in discussions; now I focus more on closing them. I feel that my views on categories have changed quite a bit over time—it's much easier for me now to see both sides of arguments in controversial cases and I guess you would say my personal views on appropriate categorization are no longer particularly strong. I would generally encourage compromise in the controversial matters rather than be hard-line in any particular direction.

Yes, there are other admins who close discussions. They too seem to go through bursts of closure activity. If you stick around CFD long enough (or examine the archives), I'm sure you'll see other closers.

As a general statement—yes, only administrators close CFDs. However, there is the issue of non-admin closures, which is a controversial subject for some users. In a nutshell, non-admins can close discussions, but they need to be careful about which ones they close, and their closes are reviewable by an admin, who can reverse them or change them if they are problematic.

As for my own closures, I try to follow the guidelines in these matters. For deletions, Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators is one of the key guidelines. As discussed there, we try to look for a "rough consensus". It doesn't have to be perfect consensus to reach a result. The same principle follows for rename or merge discussions.

In CFD, often the overcategorization (for deletion) or the category names (for renames) guidelines are cited as well, and these also are taken into account. Users with guidelines on their side obviously have a stronger argument than those who seek something that contradicts the guidelines.

I try to do my best; sometimes I screw up in the eyes of other editors, but usually those situations have been resolved amicably and through the further discussion processes which can be pursued at WP:DRV. There have occasionally been editors who I have felt have gone overboard in their criticism of one or more of my closes. These types of people kind of need to chill.

Hopefully this helps, I don't know what else to say! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 17:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This is more than I expected, Good Ol’factory, I really appreciate the time and thought you put into this response. From the outside, it can seem arbitrary but looking at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators (which I had never come across) really is insightful about the process.

I fear that my arguments rely an awful lot on precedence...if there are 100+ similar categories, then why is category X being proposed for deletion while the other 99 are not? I'm sure that being able to cite specific guidelines would be more effective but, honestly, I find them rather vague. I contacted Bearcat with the nudge to revisit the WP:EGRS guidelines that were written in 2006 but I haven't heard back.

It's just mind-boggling to me when people talk as if Wikipedia category guidelines are written in stone. I've been categorizing male actors of various centuries and nationalities and when I looked back into the history of the discussion (which I missed), I see that even having male actors/actresses categories was controversial a few short months ago. Now, every time I look at an actors category, there is at least one actress category present. So, what was considered appalling to some Editors is now the norm. Consensus evolves.

That's why I think having the ability to close discussions at CfD, where typically only a handful of Editors participate, requires the ability to not only weigh arguments but also be aware of the big picture and how categories evolve according to different understandings of the guidelines and different community standards.

It makes me wonder about the role of community in determining categories. I mean, if a category is deleted because it doesn't "fit" the guidelines but, over time, different Editors keep recreating it, does that mean that what it represents is how the reading public think about people, events and places and how they look for information? This is what I wanted to discuss with Bearcat who mentioned that the EGRS, when it was created, was based on abstract ideas of how categories should function, not how people actually used categories to look for information. Usability for a project the size of WP is an enormous subject but it's probably possible to see through searches what people are looking for, and how they search. Categories are so important because they include and exclude, they create boundaries which is also why they can be so controversial...who is in and who is out? How do we organize knowledge and reality?

Well, this is a much longer comment than I expected to leave! I just spent many years working in a library and learned that book classification systems (and all taxonomies) aren't neutral...they reflect the views of their creators and what they think is important and what isn't important. Yes, sorting criteria are created but every time someone adds, deletes or renames a category, there is an element of human judgment involved.

Anyway, have a great weekend...and don't spend too much time in the mushroom patch! ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Good to hear

From the cesspit, trust all is well. Cheers and the drunken reply has been allayed by the rather cold and wet west Oz, trust your parish is neither too cold or too wet... sats 11:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

understanding the extent of your legal training and expertise, I am very impressed with your explanation to liz above about how the cesspit works.

I still think the whole category structure of the whole of wikipedia needs a very big from the top review/examination at some time, specially the dark corners of the thing, but that aside, you and the usual suspects do a good job in an otherwise thankless task, imho sats 08:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Your closure of Category:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows

I think that your closure of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 2#Category:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows as delete was against consensus per Category talk:Wikipedians#RfC: Is this category and current subcategories appropriate for Wikipedia which specifically declares the category that you deleted and has an overwhelming Keep decision. There are in fact, no Delete votes. Would you please explain to me why you deleted this category against the consensus at this RfC and the fact that there was no clear consensus (66% is too low to be considered consensus especially when a broader community has said otherwise). I would like understand why you thought it was okay to IAR and delete this against the communities decision. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I did not consider the comments in the RFC at all, since they were addressing a much broader question. I just closed the CFD based on the discussion at the CFD. The RFC seemed focused on the broader issue of whether this type of category can exist, rather than focused on the specifics of Category:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows and whether it specifically should exist. Those who commented in the CFD focused their comments solely on the category in question, not on the broader issue asked by the RFC. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• The flaw of that is that the RfC specifically names this category (and sub-categories) as one that should be kept. Would you be willing to reconsider taking the RfC into account, or should I request review at the RfC/AN? Disclaimer: I'm not trying to be threatening that I'm going to take you to AN/I or blah blah, I'm simply asking your opinion as to what my next course of action should be if you decline my request for reconsideration based on the facts you had not previously considered. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• It's a bit of a messy situation. As I read the RFC, users are focused on the general principle of this type of category. As you know, the category in question was deleted at CFD, went to DRV, was re-listed, and the second discussion ran its course. Why wouldn't users who are specifically interested in this one category be watching the category and participating in these more specific discussions? Some at the RFC are dismissive of the entire CFD process, but my impression is that most of those who commented at the RFC are taking a broader view and were not commenting on the specifics of this particular category. I'm not too sure what to do. One thing I could propose at this stage, if you agree: we could restore the category, relist it at CFD again on the 13 September page (but while keeping the already closed discussion comments intact), and post a note at the RFC that this particular category is being relisted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• That sounds like a logical and reasonable next step. Technical 13 (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I'll go ahead and do that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, per the closing comment of RfC: Is this category and current subcategories appropriate for Wikipedia, "there was broad consensus to keep user categories in general (and those listed here)" please restore this category. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Um, no. You left out the part that said that there was also "little dispute with the idea that certain categories could be nominated and discussed individually". That's what was done, and there was a consensus to delete the specific category in question in the specific CFD, as I explained in my close. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 16:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, it said that the ones not listed there should be discussed individually but the ones listed should be kept. Technical 13 (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Well, there was a CFD about that particular category, and the consensus was to delete. Just because it was closed before the RFC doesn't mean we go back and re-create the category to conform with the RFC closing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 17:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) Actually, since the CsD only represents a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which says that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Due to the fact that the RfC represents the "community consensus on a wider scale", that is exactly what it means and we need to go back and re-create the category. Technical 13 (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
          • I explicitly addressed the issue of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in my close. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 18:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
      • (talk page stalker) Come on, this is ridiculous. The category was deleted with consensus, what, twice? How many times? Good Olfactory got it spot on, now time to move on and stop littering Wikipedia with Facebook categories. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
        • It was deleted twice with both situations having near equal keep !votes as !delete and should have been kept as "no consensus". Then, an RfC overturned both of those other cases of LOCALCONSENSUS and that being the case, the category should be restored. Technical 13 (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
          • I explicitly addressed the issue of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in my close. And no, in the discussion I closed, the delete and keep votes were not "near equal": it was 10–4, if you count them up. More importantly, those in favour of "keep" were unable to present any strong argument as to how the category would "aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 18:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

CfD Notifications

Hello, Good Ol’factory,
I was double-checking categories nominated for deletion, renames and mergers and finding in only a few cases were the category creators being notified of the discussion at CfD. Is this an optional step? I found this step being skipped both by newbies and regulars. It's always done at AfD so I'm surprised not to see it a mandatory part of the process at CfD. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I had noticed it wasn't a common practice to notify category creators as well, and kicking around here someplace is a discussion to change that. The most recent proposal I had seen was to the effect that it was strongly encouraged that all significant category contributors should be notified (including creator). I'll see if i can find that again and post a link later. Technical 13 (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, Technical 13, I thought it was an automatic part of the process because I was instructed to do this with the AfDs I filed...two Editors chastised me for omitting this step when I didn't read the instructions very carefully. And there are some excellent Editors working in CfD that do an awesome job notifying category creators. But I'm guessing it happens less than 50% of the time (if my quick check today is a good guide, it's more like 20%).

I don't understand it because it only takes a minute to look at the article edit history, go to the creator's page, see if they are active (and not a bot) and post a notice on their Talk Page. Done! It's also useful to post a notice on a WikiProject Talk Page if it concerns their subject.

If it's ignorance, then it's just a simple process of reminding people that they need to do this. But if people aren't informing Editors because they don't want them visiting CfD and adding their perspective, that is a big problem, I think. It seems dishonest, as if getting ones way is more important than hearing people's opinions and coming to a consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Liz, see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_August_28#Category:Wikipedians_who_use_Microsoft_Windows, expand the section and especially see the bottom comment.  :) Technical 13 (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

That's great, Technical 13, and a very recent conversation, too. Like I said, some Editors do this consistently but it's not across the board. And I hear that if you use Twinkle, the process is automatic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• There is very strong encouragement to do so with AfD, but not nearly as strong an encouragement with CfD. It is harder to create an article than a category. Additionally, there are many categories that were moved to their current name as the result of a CfD, and it is hard to figure out anyone who would count as the creator. As it is, you can watch any category you want, and you will receive notice on your watchlist that it has been nominated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Additionally the way categories evolve over time and form has a lot less connection to any clear users. Often times the users who have contributed most to the way a category is currently used have never made any edits to the category itself. Categories are about grouping articles. It is in the best interest of all involved in the project to make nominating categories as easy as possible. As it currently stands, in many cases users are expected to nominate whole sets of categories as a group. These sets of 10 or more categories may have 10 or more creators as well. To have to notify each of these creators would just add more work to the process. As long as we allow any user, including anonymous ones to create categories, I see little reason to put up barriers to nominating them for deletion, renaming etc.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to just be seeing your remarks tonight, John. I wish I had seen these comments when they were posted last week.

I know creating categories is very different from crafting an article. But I still think notification process at CfD needs improvement. But it has to become part of the process of nominating category/ies, not an afterthought. This morning, all I did for about an hour or so was to post CfD notices on WikiProject Talk Pages. Haven't seen a very good response yet but I don't know how many people regular check these pages. I remain hopeful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Category talk:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows

Can you undelete Category talk:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows? A link on Category:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows refers to a specific section of it. Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I forgot about that, thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 16:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Reporting Violation of Non-free content

If I found two pages that violates Non-free content rules. I took two Non-Free images out of image galleries, with is a clear violation of WP:NFCCP #8 and 9, and WP:NFG. However, the people those pages most often keep reverting the removal of Non-free content, how to I report that. I'm not an administrator so I cannot enforced the rule, all I can to is undo there revert. I know that there are very very few exception to the rule that Non-free content is not allowed in image galleries, and this isn't one of those case.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 12:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Before I had even written you for a suggestion the removal of the image has was reverted again so I reported the violation to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Western_painting_and_20th-century_Western_painting. It's funny when I let Modernist know, per the Incidents requirements, he removed my post on his page and put "Stay off my page!". I guess he thinks he owns the two pages in question..--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs)

I am horrible—really bad—with image and copyright rules. It's awful, because I'm a lawyer and should know better, but I guess I have just never put in the time to learn all the ins and outs. I think posting where you posted is a good idea. I see it's getting some attention there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 18:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Category:Members of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly has also subcategories, which could pass under your "Year ranges in politician categories" mass-nomination. Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. There are probably others I have missed. I don't see your opinion in that discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

USA Today All-USA high school football team

Since you moved the USA Today All-USA high school football team pages, please make sure to also fix all the placeholder redirects. Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

A bot fixes them, and as far as I can see, that has now happened. I've also restored the precision of the links. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 16:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Brandon Flowers

Your change, regardless of religious affiliation, is unnecessary. It also portrays the religion in a light cast by persons who do not speak for Brandon Flowers' faith in the religion nor for the faith of the members of the church and is thus offensive/irrelavent in content.--Joemeservy (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It's being discussed at Talk:Brandon Flowers. Please discuss it there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 14:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

As a participant with the ongoing issues with Joemeservy (talk · contribs) on the Brandon Flowers article, I'd like to make you aware of that user's comments at User talk:208.81.184.4#Brandon Flowers. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 17:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Death#Categorization_of_deaths_in_custody - methinks you might have a handle on this question as any, your name in vain at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mitch_Ames - trust you can handle all that... satusuro 09:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deaths_in_custody created this year may be the problem? or if the various ways of reaching the same topic? hope you can follow the drift.. satusuro 13:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Treaties extended to British Hong Kong

• Propose renaming Category:Treaties extended to British Hong Kong to Category:Treaties in force in Hong Kong (1841-1997)

Nominator's rationale: Rename."British Hong Kong" is a translation from "ying sok heung gong", or "ying shu xiang gang" (英屬香港), with both being neologisms with obvious political connotations, and are seldom used in any sort of official context outside of the English and Chinese Wikipedias. I am certain that a place is not entitled to stick the adjective "British" to the front of its name simply by virtue of having been under the jurisdiction, sovereignty and protection of the British Crown (Kings and Queens of England, or of the United Kingdom) and therefore having hosted the British Union Flag upon its territory; e.g., I have heard of a "British North America", but never a "British Canada". There is just simply no international precedence for this, and either names do not appear to be ever in any sort of official use at any given time. 212.50.182.151 (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30