User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 22
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Good Olfactory. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles
Hey there. Just to let you know, I've restored last year's edit to this article, this time with a 2008 LDS reference mentioning "Firstborn" in the context we discussed, as that seemed your issue with it. Cheers! Playerpage (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- The reference doesn't say anything about The Living Christ document or about its meaning. Its inclusion a type of original research known as "synthesis": you're taking an abstract explanation of the concept of "Firstborn" in Mormonism and then adding it to an article to rebut a cited statement that the document doesn't mention that Jesus is the elder brother of God's other spirit children. Your analysis is a good one, but it's the type of thing that should be produced in original writings or a blog post or something, not in an encyclopedia which relies on what others have already published. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
But isn't that all the referenced criticisms are doing? They merely comment (to themselves) that "wow, it certainly is noteworthy that the 'elder brother' concept isn't so emphatically mentioned" when in reality the concept is so self-evident among the Mormon faithful (as the Volluz research makes clear) that all the Brethren need do is capitalize the word "Firstborn" for the members to know what they are talking about. (Incidentally, as I'm pretty sure you know capitalizing "Brethren" is another shorthand among Mormons. They know right away anyone who does that is talking about the Salt Lake City leaders.) For you to ask me to do more than make a comment on the concept, with references, when all the "critical" commentaries consist of is OR in and of themselves, seems a little extreme. I mean, all I'd really have to do in order to make it acceptable by that standard is post the same thing on my own blog, then come back here and reference it in a new edit, wouldn't I? Playerpage (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what the referenced criticisms are doing. The difference is that they are published in reliable, third-party sources. So when we cite them on Wikipedia, it's not original research for Wikipedia, because we're citing to outside sources. On the other hand, I don't know of any reliable, third-party sources that make the points you are making, so to include them is original research as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Unfortunately, a regular blog post is usually not considered a reliable source, so it would have to be something in a book, or a journal, etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, all I can do is throw up my hands, then. Because not only have you agreed that all of these criticisms are original research in and of themselves, you've said that blogs containing the same kind of original research don't qualify as references, when (because of the sheer amount) I can't count the number of blog-sites I have seen used as references on Wikipedia, PARTICULARLY in relation to Latter-Day Saint and other religious articles. I mean, I can give third-party references to 'Firstborn' as I did that generally mention what it means to Latter-day Saints, but if you want something signed by all twelve LDS Apostles that says "and that's what we meant in this document, too" you're probably not going to find it, because it would be as unnecessary as the executives of Apple releasing a PR statement about the iPad, and then releasing a signed affidavit in relation to that PR statement that says "By the way--all those terms we used, praising the iPad?--they mean the same as they did when we praised the iPhone."Playerpage (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but that's the way Wikipedia works. It's not intended to be "the truth" about every topic with all editors' collective insights and synthesis of researched topics included: it is intended to be a reflection of what has been said about the topic directly by reliable, third-party sources. There are other wikis out there that take a different approach: MormonWiki comes to mind. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Ismailism
Excellent job! Recategorizing the way you did by substituting "Shia" with "Ismaili" so that the reader now knows he is specifically reading about Ismaili Imams in particular and not about the Imams of other Shia communities also. This seemingly small change is actually a HUGE help toward removing reader confusion. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I thought something was a little off in the categorization there. I'm glad you agree it was the right thing to do. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
You forgot to add [[:Category:Shi'a Islam by country]] to [[:Category:Shia Islam by country]] to WP:CFDW. Cheers, Armbrust The Homunculus 02:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well done for finding a way through that. I hadn't wanted to waste anyone's work. – Fayenatic London 13:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- It should be OK, as there hasn't been any blowback on any of the changes, yet, so I'm thinking it's pretty non-controversial at this stage. Thx. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well done for finding a way through that. I hadn't wanted to waste anyone's work. – Fayenatic London 13:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Re: Soccer/Association football in NZ
Hi GO - there are a few other "soccer" categories I've mentioned under your nom on the CFD-speedy page... they might be worth looking at as well. Grutness...wha? 07:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Will do, thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I wish you had let me know. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I had assumed that users who create categories have them on their watch list. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I got a few thousand things on my watchlist, Olfactory--I don't understand why you'd want to be snide about this. I'm going to recreate this category, and I suppose I'll do some explaining on the talk page. Deletion as G4, "it's essentially the same as the previous version", is probably correct in a technical sense, since categories aren't like articles, but it's also an all-too easy way of avoiding a discussion. And of course all rape victims are "historical": I was looking for a way to avoid BLP drama, and there is, as you know, a different sense of "historical". There can be no BLP drama about Lucretia and Artemisia Gentileschi. It is high time that 2007 deletion discussion is revisited. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not being snide, nor was I trying to avoid a discussion—I assumed editors watch the pages they create. I have several thousand on my watch page as well, and I watch them. That's what a watch page is for. I guess not everyone uses them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- No, I don't keep up with my watchlist, no. Well, how about this: the template asks you kindly to notify the creator; I don't think I missed this. The very first edit summary points (albeit incorrectly) to a creation discussion (if such a thing exists); it's archived at User_talk:LadyofShalott/Archive_25#Q. I hope you see I put some thought into this: deleting without notification, let alone discussion, strikes me as hasty. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- (Shock.) Are you being snide? On my talk page? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe. That's in the eye of the beholder, perhaps. My apologies for any snideness. I had hoped you'd focus more on the argument; I think I have one. And this puts me in a bind. I could simply recreate it, which might make me look obnoxious. Deletion review is my best option, where I will argue that the wording I used explaining the template makes it different from previous versions. The risk there is that I will be forced to argue that your deletion was incorrect, and I don't very much like to do that either--I wish you would look at the argument again, leaving personal issues aside. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm OK for you to re-create it. Because you have objected with reasonable arguments I won't delete it again. Someone may nominate it for deletion, in which case a discussion could take place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted category
Hello, Good Ol'factory. In 2010 you chose to have Category:Pataphysicians renamed and deleted after this discussion. It is possible that the reason for renaming that category to Category:'Pataphysicians was in error. Please note the guide given in the 'Pataphysics article that states: "The words pataphysician or pataphysicist and the adjective pataphysical should not include the apostrophe. Only when consciously referring to Jarry's science itself should the word pataphysics carry the apostrophe."
You can see that this rename discussion ended correctly. However the answer to Lenticel's question was "no", i.e., Category:Pataphysicians should not have been renamed.
I had begun to rename Category:'Pataphysicians to the correct name when I came upon the notice that the correct name had been deleted, so I thought it best to check with you first before I correct this. I will be glad to rename the category, correct the 23 inhabitants' pages, create the soft redirect, and so on. Do you know of any reason why this category should not be renamed back to its correctly formatted, "no apostrophe" name? No rush, and thank you for your consideration in this matter! – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 15:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- What you propose sounds fine to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much! – Good Ol'factory – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 23:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Completed – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 02:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Ambassador and expatriates categories
Hi. I'm a little worried that you're too quick to equate "ambassador to country X" with "expatriate in country X". Ambassadors to smaller countries are typically non-resident and simply have concurrent accreditation. For instance, as far as I can tell, Icelandic ambassadors have not been resident in Austria, the Netherlands or any of the Baltic countries so the corresponding categories should not suggest otherwise. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- What is the purpose of categories? To facilitate navigation. If we try to assess every single case to try to determine how much time the ambassador has spent in the mission country, we will quickly have a headache on our hands. When a user goes to an expatriate category, he is probably looking for info on people from country A who have lived in/had significant dealings with country B. Ambassadors fit that, so I wouldn't worry too much about where they actually live. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Non resident ambassadors will typically travel to the target country (and even that isn't guaranteed) but they'll stay at some posh hotel. By definition they don't live there so (also by definition) they're not expatriates in that country. I'm all for facilitating navigation but we have to respect the facts. Of course they're inconvenient facts because it can be a bit of a headache to figure out where the ambassadors were resident but in the above cases, there are clear sources that show that the two Icelandic ambassadors were not residents of these countries and therefore were not expatriates. Pichpich (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- I just think you're asking for problems—countries change their ambassadors' residence statuses frequently—what if some have been resident and some have not? It's hair splitting business, and it makes sense to me to just have a standard category structure to facilitate navigation. If you expect categories to be a 100% representation of "facts", then you're going to be repeatedly disappointed. I favour convenience over the hair splitting. Many would argue that ambassadors are not even "expatriates" at all, but debates like that (and like this one) are rather pointless because they completely miss the point of what categories are for. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- If a reader is looking for Icelandic expatriates in Estonia, you're not facilitating his navigation by pointing him to a category whose sole member is a man who never was an expatriate in Estonia. The only thing we're facilitating in this case is our job of constructing a category tree. Of course, I see the point of not thinking too hard about categories that contain both resident and non-resident ambassadors. But in cases where we have documented evidence that every current member of the category wasn't a resident ambassador, it seems odd to willfully mislead. It's also common sense to assume that there will never be a resident Colombian ambassador in Vanuatu and I would fight the inclusion of Category:Ambassadors of Colombia to Vanuatu in Category:Colombian expatriates in Vanuatu. You've seen me around long enough to know I'm not a purist but when we have clear info available that suggests that nobody in the category ever was a resident, it's not hair splitting to omit the expatriate category. Pichpich (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree, especially given the debates over what constitutes an "expatriate". As I said, I think the debate itself overall misses the boat entirely. (Incidentally, I don't really keep track of who is a purist and who is not or other editor predilections or -ists. That would be way too much work. So I'll take your word for it concerning your own.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- If a reader is looking for Icelandic expatriates in Estonia, you're not facilitating his navigation by pointing him to a category whose sole member is a man who never was an expatriate in Estonia. The only thing we're facilitating in this case is our job of constructing a category tree. Of course, I see the point of not thinking too hard about categories that contain both resident and non-resident ambassadors. But in cases where we have documented evidence that every current member of the category wasn't a resident ambassador, it seems odd to willfully mislead. It's also common sense to assume that there will never be a resident Colombian ambassador in Vanuatu and I would fight the inclusion of Category:Ambassadors of Colombia to Vanuatu in Category:Colombian expatriates in Vanuatu. You've seen me around long enough to know I'm not a purist but when we have clear info available that suggests that nobody in the category ever was a resident, it's not hair splitting to omit the expatriate category. Pichpich (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- I just think you're asking for problems—countries change their ambassadors' residence statuses frequently—what if some have been resident and some have not? It's hair splitting business, and it makes sense to me to just have a standard category structure to facilitate navigation. If you expect categories to be a 100% representation of "facts", then you're going to be repeatedly disappointed. I favour convenience over the hair splitting. Many would argue that ambassadors are not even "expatriates" at all, but debates like that (and like this one) are rather pointless because they completely miss the point of what categories are for. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Non resident ambassadors will typically travel to the target country (and even that isn't guaranteed) but they'll stay at some posh hotel. By definition they don't live there so (also by definition) they're not expatriates in that country. I'm all for facilitating navigation but we have to respect the facts. Of course they're inconvenient facts because it can be a bit of a headache to figure out where the ambassadors were resident but in the above cases, there are clear sources that show that the two Icelandic ambassadors were not residents of these countries and therefore were not expatriates. Pichpich (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 06:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The Bushranger One ping only 06:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Article Feedback deployment
Hey Good Olfactory; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Category:Yugoslav Nazi collaborators
Category:Yugoslav Nazi collaborators, 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. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The move of this to Category:Burials in Kraków was agreed here but it seems to have been overlooked, and nothing has happened. Would you be able to implement it? Thanks, Jsmith1000 (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry - I see it's happened now - I should have been more patient.Jsmith1000 (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Category:Lakas Kampi – Christian Muslim Democrats politicians
Category:Lakas Kampi – Christian Muslim Democrats politicians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –HTD 13:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
For your work on Category:People from Republic, Missouri
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
- Humbly accepted. :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Quebecor
Hello. In my experience with the repair of cut and paste moves, my edit of tagging the article for such repair, and subsequent edits, don't get deleted. 117Avenue (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- You're probably right. I didn't do it, mainly because I found out about the cut-and-paste job through another source, not through the tagging. I'll check for it next time I do one. Thx. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Category:Recipients of a New Zealand Knighthood
I've undone your edit of Template:post-nominals/NZL-cats to remove Category:Recipients of a New Zealand Knighthood from KNZM. The new category designates recipients of a knighthood in the (post-1996) New Zealand Royal honours system which is separate from the (pre-1996) British honours system. Category:Knights Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit is attached to the page for New Zealand Order of Merit and is a sub-category of Category:New Zealand knights which in turn is a sub-category of Category:New Zealand recipients of British titles however The New Zealand Order of Merit isn't a British Honour. The intention is to use categories in Template:post-nominals/NZL-cats to identify recipients of a New Zealand knighthood (using Category:Recipients of a New Zealand Knighthood) separately from New Zealand citizens with a British knighthood (using Category:New Zealand Recipients of a UK Knighthood). Wikipedia pages tagged with both categories would denote someone with at least two knighthoods, one under each system.
If New Zealand still used the British honours system you would be right and the new category would be redundant however the honours systems have been separate since 1996.
Karl Stephens (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Recipients of a New Zealand Knighthood has got some problems. It's essentially redundant to Category:Knights Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit and its subcategories, since none were given prior to 1996. And you've included women in the category; women never receive knighthoods. They are in Category:Dames Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Aber/Abergwyngregyn
Hi. You may want to take a look at my reply concerning Category:Aber, Gwynedd at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 17:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The Bushranger One ping only 17:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Christian Bible College alumni
Please do not think it was rude of me to revert, but Category talk:Christian Bible College alumni explains that it is unclear what country and state this alleged school is in. It has not been established that Christian Bible College is North Carolina. I've asked for kindly asked for WP:RS, but have not been given any. If you can demonstrate this category refers to the institution in North Carolina and not in Louisiana or Nigera, then let me know. SalHamton (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think you should wait until the CFD ends before removing the parent categories again. There's no hurry and it will help to defuse and calm the situation. The category creator defined the category as alumni of the CBC in North Carolina, so that's what is being assumed as far as the CFD goes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I replied on the talk page. SalHamton (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Fantr (talk · contribs) has begun a CFD here. I invite you to add any comments. — Cirt (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Category:Force of the Filipino Masses politicians
Category:Force of the Filipino Masses politicians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –HTD 18:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Category:New Society Movement politicians
Category:New Society Movement politicians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –HTD 18:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Category:Partner of the Free Filipino politicians
Category:Partner of the Free Filipino politicians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –HTD 18:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Category:People's Power (Philippines) politicians
Category:People's Power (Philippines) politicians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –HTD 18:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Category:Philippine Democratic Party – People's Power politicians
Category:Philippine Democratic Party – People's Power politicians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –HTD 18:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Category:Rise Up Philippines politicians
Category:Rise Up Philippines politicians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –HTD 18:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Category:Struggle/Fight of Democratic Filipinos politicians
Category:Struggle/Fight of Democratic Filipinos politicians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –HTD 18:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
CFD talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
. A followup nom would be needed to implement your proposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Saltpeter
Please stop adding new options to discuss. You can't continue to propose names until the other editors get tired to oppose your will. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 21:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't add any new options to discuss, another user did. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Category:Democratic Action (Philippines) politicians
Category:Democratic Action (Philippines) politicians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –HTD 03:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Punjab India MLA category
Hi.. I apologise in advance, if I have made is mistake. But I fail to spot any difference in the name you purposed and the already existing name for Category:Punjab, India MLAs 2012-2017 --Vigyani (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- Your creation was fine—you matched it to the style of the other categories that grouped them by year. I'm just suggesting that they all be changed from using a hyphen in between the years to an endash between the years. On some computer systems it's difficult to see any difference, but they are different characters. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- hmm.. are there any such guidelines on WP? --Vigyani (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- A styleguide: WP:DASH. See also speedy rename C2A. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- hmm.. are there any such guidelines on WP? --Vigyani (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Hallo! I am writing concerning the changes of names of the subcategories inside this category. At the beginning the Category:Families of fishes was proposed for the name changing (to Category:Fish families). I made the new category, also changed the name in all analogy cases (see the Category:Animal taxonomy). But but English is poor, and after your changes concerning the Category:Fish orders, I am not sure what form is better. So, is it really correct? If not, it should be better to correct all the categories inside the Category:Animal taxonomy using same standard of name. Thank You! --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think either form could be OK. My only concern was that they had been emptied and renamed out-of-process, but I think the names you have used for the new categories are probably better. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank You for your answer! So, could you, as administrator, change the names of all subcategories in Category:Animal taxonomy using same form? Or to organise this changing. --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 06:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Created on a SPA userpage this morning, where there's also an outing of me; there's been a campaign by people trying to POVize Adrian Dix to get me banned from Wikipedia, citing my activities in forumspace as a reason I should not be here.....I have to do an important trip today, don't have time for an ANI re the outing on that page and also on User:Sunciviclee's userpage, which is being treated as a talkpage. Obviously the WikiWars cat needs a speedy deletion, I'm wondering if you'd help with the procedures here; including any WP:Outing and WP:Harassment ANIs and such that I'm pretty sure are appropriate.Skookum1 (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'll do what I can. I have already deleted the category and removed the outing comment from the edit history of User:Sunciviclee. I can start an ANI if you like. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- I just reported this as a followup on the 3RR section about this; please keep an eye on that account and/or my talkpage. I have a two-day trip starting in a few hours and won't be around.Skookum1 (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- The new SPA is probably a meatpuppet.Skookum1 (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- I blocked User:Srob88. I think the User:Downtownvanman account is pretty close to blockable at this stage. I'll keep an eye on the reports. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hell, I'm blocking them all. They are clearly run by the same person, and he's harassing you fairly big time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- to say the least....I'm impervious to insults as you may realize, and I'm up front on my userpage about who I am; a while back another user's talkpage had a vulgar comment made after one of my posts that I'm sure was related to someone from forumspace (where I'm open about my Wikipedia activities) to try and shut me down, as is also the case with this lot. Not the first time this has happened with BC political articles from that particular political persuasion......what's that line, is it Eleanor Roosevelt's, about 'if you have acquired enemies, it's because you stood up for what you believe' or some such?Skookum1 (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I wouldn't worry too much about it: he sounds like a dick. I've blocked User:Sunciviclee and the two other accounts. I'll keep an eye on your page and on Adrian Dix over the next few days. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure at all that User:Sunciviclee is part of the puppet pack; their post towards me and MastCell wasn't hostile, or didn't sound like it, but wanting private contact is kinda odd. My email is findable not only here but also on my webpages that are linked on my userpage.........Skookum1 (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- OK; well, if I have done a bad towards Sunciviclee, I'm sure he will let me know and I can rectify it. It does seem awfully coincidental, though. We'll see what the response is. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is downright odd - posting a query as a category.Skookum1 (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- OK; well, if I have done a bad towards Sunciviclee, I'm sure he will let me know and I can rectify it. It does seem awfully coincidental, though. We'll see what the response is. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure at all that User:Sunciviclee is part of the puppet pack; their post towards me and MastCell wasn't hostile, or didn't sound like it, but wanting private contact is kinda odd. My email is findable not only here but also on my webpages that are linked on my userpage.........Skookum1 (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I wouldn't worry too much about it: he sounds like a dick. I've blocked User:Sunciviclee and the two other accounts. I'll keep an eye on your page and on Adrian Dix over the next few days. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- to say the least....I'm impervious to insults as you may realize, and I'm up front on my userpage about who I am; a while back another user's talkpage had a vulgar comment made after one of my posts that I'm sure was related to someone from forumspace (where I'm open about my Wikipedia activities) to try and shut me down, as is also the case with this lot. Not the first time this has happened with BC political articles from that particular political persuasion......what's that line, is it Eleanor Roosevelt's, about 'if you have acquired enemies, it's because you stood up for what you believe' or some such?Skookum1 (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hell, I'm blocking them all. They are clearly run by the same person, and he's harassing you fairly big time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- I blocked User:Srob88. I think the User:Downtownvanman account is pretty close to blockable at this stage. I'll keep an eye on the reports. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The puppet master is, I think, User:Downtownvanman. That name is vaguely familiar from forumspace somewhere.....CHECKUSER would confirm, I think, that Sunciviclee isn't the same nor from the same group.Skookum1 (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- OK. Very unusual. I've asked him to confirm there is no connection; if he confirms it, I will unblock and see where things go. I think you're right that there's definitely a connection between Downtownvanman and the SPA. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- He says he's a journalist writing a story on the "editing wars", which might explain why he wants to contact your real life persona. I have unblocked him and apologized. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
He did, I mailed him; the article's in print, or part one anyway, and I've commented there, he asked me no questions when he contacted me, just told me he was working on the column.....there's another SPA now too, wanting to change full protect to semi-protect but also doing some hostile additions on the Gregor Robertson article; "Wikipedia is not a newspaper".....nor should it be a soapbox, no? Note that this same SPA tried to create an article which was refused, to do with NGO donations, which is also what his Robertson agenda/edits are about........I"m sure there's a p.r. office out there with multiple IPs, they know about IP blocks......."someone" (as that user calls me) is getting tired of this LOLSkookum1 (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Talk about "Plant ABC transporters" page that was deleted
Hi Good Olfactory,
I realize the reason this was deleted was because it was under a "category." My intention was to put my paragraph on the "ABC transporter" page. I would like to put it under the category or heading "Eukaryotic ABC transporters." I believe my contribution is well sourced, and the reason it was deleted was because it was not in the proper place. Can you take a look at my contribution you deleted, and see if this would go well in that page? Because I beleive my contribution is well sourced and accurate and has proper format for wiki. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duar9035 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sure. I have placed the text at User:Duar9035/Plant ABC transporters. You can then cut the text and add it where it belongs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you thank you!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duar9035 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
O. Vincent Haleck
Hello there! I don't disagree with restoration of the sentence in the article about Haleck, but even though skewed, here at least were two of my thoughts when I removed it.....First, I didn't consider it that notable that a newly called general authority moved to Salt Lake City and second, as the source does mention, he's likely to be assigned in an area presidency someplace, so wouldn't be residing there anyway. I think part of it was trying to make it more "timeless" as you've suggested before - notwithstanding the fact that in a few years when he'd presumably be released from the Second Quorum, that they'd return to Samoa. Thanks for all you do!! ChristensenMJ (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that a typical reader would know that general authorities move to SLC; it was notable enough a fact to appear in the A. Samoan newspaper. Anyway, I guess I'm OK if you want to remove it; it is a fact that is ultimately available in the source. In the future, if he ends up living in SLC rather than being assigned to an outlying area or if he does not return to A. Samoa after being released, I think it might be worth including. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! No, I am fine leaving it in, as you said, it's notable enough in any local areas to indicate the move - particularly when any of these "firsts" take place. Thanks for your good efforts!! ChristensenMJ (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
England was/is a country, but...
It's already under the United Kingdoms category. I'd like further thoughts, though. --Nlu (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see the harm in having it in both. A reader looking for someone executed by the Kingdom of England might become stumped as he searched for England in the list. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Colony of BC subcat
Thanks for creating that (people executed), I was uncomfortable seeing "British North America" because that normally doesn't refer to British possessions in North America, but particularly to "the Canadas" (ON and QC) and the Maritimes ; not sure if as a usage it ever included Newfoundland; and Rupert's Land I'm not sure about its inclusion....as being British parts of North America, the term is applicable; but not according to its usual meaning cf. the British North America Act (1867). Not sure how many were hung in the colonial period.....not just him and his compatriots, that's for sure, but not many....I came across mention on a Lillooet history group the names of some of the people executed by hanging there, 12 in all by tradition, but pretty sure that was post-1871 so wouldn't belong in this category anyway.Skookum1 (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Christianity
Please give me a response for this: What is the category Christianity for? Ashbeckjonathan 23:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Have a look at Category:Christianity and its subcategories. I think you will get a feel for what it is for. In short, it and its subcategories are for grouping articles that are about Christianity. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
|
G'day! Thanks for your many contributions! Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC) |
- Thanks again! I feel like I have a guardian (cataloging) angel looking after me! :-) Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Rugby league cats
Hey, just wanted to drop by and say I appreciate all your recategorisation of the rugby league articles, even if I've ended up opposing a few of them! :) Also, good work on the expatriates/nationality sorting, thats always an ongoing battle to clean up on biography artciles. Mattlore (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ha! I just posted on your talk page about something related .... Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Incidentally, could you look at this. It's a weirdly formatted category. I thought the best might be just to use the current name, but you might have a different (ie, more informed) view. I'd welcome any input. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, great minds and all that I guess! Yeah - that category is a bit odd and doesn't match the conventions. I saw it at speedy and my gut was to object but after I thought about it I couldn't really justify keeping it the way it was (apart from "thats how its always been"). So I think your proposal is the most simple solution. Mattlore (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Incidentally, could you look at this. It's a weirdly formatted category. I thought the best might be just to use the current name, but you might have a different (ie, more informed) view. I'd welcome any input. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
County government
Greetings G.O.,
We haven't always agreed 100%, but I certainly respect you 100%. Unfortunately I am dealing with an editor for whom I have lost respect. Orlady is stalking my work in the area of state and county government in the U.S. I have been working most recently on a category tree for county government, which had not existed before (I am sure you know how that is - tedious and thankless).
I currently have a made proposal to make the category for persons (i.e officeholders, elected and appointed) consistent. Wouldn't you know it? Orlady is opposing it. I am really at the point with this person where my time is best spent just asking people to ignore him or her. However, I will be glad to answer any of your questions on the matter. Any help appreciated. Greg Bard (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- It is kind of annoying as an editor when you're faced with an issue like this. Sometimes it seems like there are editors that just follow you around so that they can oppose anything you are trying to do. I guess we should give the user the benefit of the doubt, and accept that he or she must have real concerns with what is being proposed. Some editors at times do feed off the confrontation and blow-back, so if you are feeling frustrated maybe what you say is right, that the best thing for you to do would be to just try to ignore the user and not try to respond to him or her. I will have a look at substance of the proposal itself and see what I think. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC) PS: I'm glad that there are no hard feelings between us. I know I can be overly brusque at times, and I am trying to work on that with my online WP interactions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thank you for adding
a category to my new category, "Students of Robert Henri". I forgot (if I even knew) that categories need categories too. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Chilcotin again
I'd thought because I'd been the instigator of the last change, which was a correction on another mis-fired speedy, I'd be OK to nominate the subcats that were affected, as "in Chilcotin (region)" is not correct usage; should be "in the Chilcotin (region)".....and if the main article for the parent Category:Chilcotin (region) were changed to the Chilcotin dab page from the Chilcotin (region) region page, it might simplify any future problems......Category:Populated places in the Cariboo and Category:Populated places in the South Okanagan are other examples of the use of "the" before region names in BC. Please see User_talk:Skookum1#CFD_re_the_Chilcotin.Skookum1 (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deletion of Category:Boqol hore
Hi, re these two deletes - nothing wrong with doing that, but you might like also to take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Baastow1. I think there's a pattern. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note on this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
New key for Category?
Hi. I recently created a couple of new categories, among others Fibula. I can see that you added new key for Category using HotCat which translated to adding a "|" ([[Category:Fibula]] -> [[Category:Fibula| ]])
Could you tell me what this means and why it is done? I am asking, so that I might start doing this my self and thus reduce the workload for others such as yourself... Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi; yes, what this does is it puts that particular article at the top of the list on the category page. If you look at Category:Fibula, you will see that the article Fibula is at the top rather than being found under the "F". This is typically done for the "key article" of a relevant category. See WP:SORTKEY for more information. (There it says: "Use a space as the sort key for a key article for the category.") Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. I will try to remember doing this in the future. Thanks for the fast reply. JakobSteenberg (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's a small housekeeping-type thing. It's not crucial, but it's a nice touch to allow editors to quickly find the key article in the listing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Indians
Thanks for emptying Category:Native American Latter Day Saints, very clever and extremely helpful in regard to my future article on this subject. I also like the way that you submitted it to the LDS wikiproject.-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC) p.s. Did you ever think the reason people keep on creating the page is that it is useful?
- It was deleted via a discussion here. DRV could be an option if you are interested in having it exist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Did you list it on any of the relevant Wikiprojects? --MacRùsgail (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't the nominator. But I believe the nominator is a member of the Latter Day Saint Wikiproject. I used to be a member of it, but since I rarely checked in at the Wikiproject page, I "resigned" from it. I probably am one of the more active editors on Latter Day Saint topics. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Peer review for text in a category that you created
Bente Lyon is a Norwegian convicted of narcotics trafficking and pimping.[1] In 2007 an appelate court verdict (of five years in prison) was upheld.
An article in Dagbladet in 2006 called her "Norway's uncontested brothel keeper" (Norges ubestridte bordellmamma).Kampklar --Normash (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Norwegian sex worker
The redirect of Audun Carlsen to Boy George needs a peer review since my Norwegian account has been profiled as a sockpuppet. --Normash (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
cats for treaty-countries
He Good Olfactory; I see your putting the category serie "Treaties of xxx" to good use by systematically including all countries. I am not sure, but assume it has something to do with the wikidata project, that can convert this info in the end to useful statements to be used in other projects as well... In over 90% of the cases this leads to a clear assignment, but in those countries that
- i) changed names (incl Serbia/Russia),
- ii) split/split off (Montenegro, Kosovo, Czech, Kiribati),
- iii) were different entities (Spain),
- iv) ratify for different individual units (UK, Netherlands, sometimes Canada)
Could you expand on what you chose and if you are still planning to do other things? I would be interested in a consistent set of categories displaying also the applicability, e.g. Category:Kingdom of the Netherlands (Aruba) (or similar named); Category:Treaties in force in Montenegro (as with the cat ii countries, a declaration of succession needs to deposited, so not all "parent"-treaties apply... Thanks! (btw: if there has been some centralized discussion, please direct me there, so I don't duplicate what might have been already done...)L.tak (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Right—you've hit directly on the main problems that I've tried to approach consistently with these categories. There hasn't been any central discussion about it. I think I attempted to start one ages ago—must have been in 2009 or so—but there wasn't much interest/no one seemed to know what I was going on about. So here is what I have done so far, essentially of my own initiative: basically, I categorize the treaty in an applicable country category by the country that concluded the treaty and/or ratified it. So if the treaty was ratified by the Soviet Union, it gets Category:Treaties of the Soviet Union. To deal with the problem of direct state succession, as with the Soviet Union and Russia, I have placed the old state as a subcategory of the succeeding state. So Category:Treaties of the Soviet Union becomes a subcategory of Category:Treaties of Russia. In some cases, I have added headnotes to the categories which explains that, for example, many treaties that are in force for Russia are located in Category:Treaties of the Soviet Union. For countries like Montenegro that have filed declarations accepting particular treaties of the former state (Serbia and Montenegro) but have not themselves been accepted as the successor state for all purposes, I have included the category in the treaty they have explicitly accepted. I know that these are not perfect solutions, and it can lead to some anomalies (such as Category:Treaties of Montenegro and Category:Treaties of Serbia and Montenegro appearing on United Nations Charter, but not Category:Treaties of Serbia) but they seem better to me than the alternatives. I have shied away from a category of the likes of Category:Treaties in force for Russia, etc., but that doesn't necessarily have to be determinative as to whether such a scheme does exist.
- When the number of treaties is quite large for a given country, I have created subcategories for the different incarnations of the state: see, eg, the subcategories of Category:Treaties of France. I have also shied away from having the current incarnation of the state have a separate category. For instance, Category:Treaties of the French Fifth Republic is just a redirect to Category:Treaties of France. (Some of these redirects need to be emptied; for some reason the contents don't seem to be transferring.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just kibbitzing as a drive-by, but shouldn't Category:Treaties of Serbia and Montenegro be "between" rather than "of"??Skookum1 (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think its overall an improvement the way you did it consistently (I will add some text to controversial categories names as "treaties of the Netherlands" (which can mean 2 things) for "Treaties of the Kingdom of the Netherlands"), but am still looking for a way to see which conventions are in force on certain territories in the categories ii, iii and iv. I think a few extra cats would help accomplishing that. (Treaties in Force in Aruba). I am still a thinking what to do with Montenegro: shall I add the conventions that it is party to by deliberate succession? Or make a separate for that occasion? L.tak (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- One thing to keep in mind with a category for "treaties currently in force" is that in the past there has been fairly consistent consensus at CFD that we should not have categories that categorize "current" status versus "former" status, and the like. Information like that is almost always put into article lists as opposed to categories. For that reason, I think a category for treaties currently in force is not generally a good idea. Maybe something of the nature of "treaties applied to Aruba" or something that makes it sound less like a "current" application category.
- Regarding Montenegro—I don't think it's an issue, since in 2006 Montenegro "ratified" a bunch of the treaties that Serbia and Montenegro was party to, and now Montenegro shows up on ratification lists for those treaties. The real problematic situation is Serbia's succession of Serbia and Montenegro, since they are party to a bunch of treaties by virtue of Serbia and Montenegro's ratification. On the lists, S&M's ratification is listed as the Serbian ratification. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think its overall an improvement the way you did it consistently (I will add some text to controversial categories names as "treaties of the Netherlands" (which can mean 2 things) for "Treaties of the Kingdom of the Netherlands"), but am still looking for a way to see which conventions are in force on certain territories in the categories ii, iii and iv. I think a few extra cats would help accomplishing that. (Treaties in Force in Aruba). I am still a thinking what to do with Montenegro: shall I add the conventions that it is party to by deliberate succession? Or make a separate for that occasion? L.tak (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just kibbitzing as a drive-by, but shouldn't Category:Treaties of Serbia and Montenegro be "between" rather than "of"??Skookum1 (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Category:Populated places on the Okanagan Lake needs to have "the" removed
I've advised the category's creator User:TBrandley about his error and about Speedy Criteria changes possible for him; he's a newbie and been creating more unneeded categories than actually improving any articles; is there a way to expedite this rather than a CfD if he doesn't get it together to do a CfS? He's not in my timezone, so hasn't had a chance to reply, this is an instance of a wrong idiom being used, sorta the opposite of the Chilcotin problem.Skookum1 (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Since he's requested it himself and he is the creator and only editor of the category: yes, we can do it immediately without any problem. I can activate the bot to do it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Category:Presidents of the Aristotelian Society
Thanks... I was working on a connected stub, and saw the cat should exist, but I was unsure about categorization of categories. I was hoping someone would notice the new page and take care of it. Revent (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Should it be in something more specific? Are they all British? If so, we could change it to Category:British philosophers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nope.. Quassim_Cassam is from Kenya, for instance. There should also prob be succession boxes, but I'm unsure quite how those work other than adding an existing missing one to a page. Revent (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not great with working those either. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for helping me with King Philip the Fair!--Mychele
- Nope.. Quassim_Cassam is from Kenya, for instance. There should also prob be succession boxes, but I'm unsure quite how those work other than adding an existing missing one to a page. Revent (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Sticky ghost category
Hello there, O category guru. I noticed that Federal Bureau of Investigation and Special Intelligence Service are both in a red category Category:Federal law enforcement agencies of United States of America, which should be Category:Federal law enforcement agencies of the United States. Problem is, that red category isn't present with regular categories at the bottom of the text of the articles, and consequently can't be modified or removed with HotCat. I figure it must be hardwired in some template used only on those two articles, but I can't find any such template. Any ideas? --BDD (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- That was a tricky one! But this seems to have done the job. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wow. I never would've thought of that. And I still don't see why it would affect those two pages but not others where that template is present. Regardless, you've fixed it. Thanks! --BDD (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't checked out the details of how it's used on the other pages, but there is probably some code that is used to suppress the category application—or maybe a code to turn it on for the two articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wow. I never would've thought of that. And I still don't see why it would affect those two pages but not others where that template is present. Regardless, you've fixed it. Thanks! --BDD (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Your new category.
I was deprecating your new category for a reason. It has absolutely no reason to exist. We have many, many existing categories (too many, in fact) for the same exact group of people. Furthermore, very few Sudeten Germans, who you linked as a subcategory of your created category, would identify as "Czechoslovak people". Those that reject the term "Sudeten Germans" and prefer "German Bohemians" would still never be referred to as "Czechoslovak people", which is an ethic term for Czechs and Slovaks. Please justify your reasons for creating the category. RGloucester (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- So nominate it for deletion using WP:CFD. You can't just say—"I'm going to deprecate this category because I don't like it and we have too many categories already." It's part of an overall scheme of Category:Czechoslovak people by ethnic or national origin and Category:People of German descent, so I personally don't see a problem with it. Whether or not Category:Sudeten-German people belongs as a subcategory is a separate issue, and is not sufficient to justify deletion of the category outright. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I will do so if I must, but I hoped to avoid that. Deprecation is a common technique, however harsh. Can you explain, though, why you think it is necessary? The problem is, you the "German situation" in the Czechoslovak Republic was very different than any other ethnicity. Lumping them as "Czechoslovak people" would be considered offensive by the people themselves, more than likely, and factually incorrect. I can go further into detail, but that's not my concern. Why do you think it is necessary? RGloucester (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not terribly interested in debating this here. I don't think the category is "necessary". Very little in Wikipedia is necessary. It's merely a convenience for browsing. I see it as part of the overall schemes of Category:Czechoslovak people by ethnic or national origin and Category:People of German descent. It holds a subcategory, Category:German expatriates in Czechoslovakia; such expatriates categories are routinely placed in the ethnic or national descent categories for convenience of navigation. If someone was a national of Czechoslovakia, they were Czechoslovak, and there are usually citations that describe them as such. The fact that individuals don't like their national status is fairly common. And as I said, whether or not Category:Sudeten-German people belongs as a subcategory is a separate issue. What you call "deprecation" of categories sounds like simply out-of-process emptying and deletion, which is typically considered disruptive behaviour and can therefore lead to blocks, so I suggest you don't do it anymore. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to be discourteous, but if you create a category you must be able to defend its existence, mustn't you? German expatriates in Czechslovakia, fine. But expats are not really Czechoslovaks, are they? This is only a problem here because of the fact that there was a very large native German population in the Republic, until right after the Second World War. The Sudeten Germans were not Czechoslovaks, and were never considered Czechoslovaks. They were native German inhabitants of the Czechoslovak Republic, most of them against their own will. Furthermore, you category name leads to many problems from a historical perspective. Which Czechoslovakia do you refer to? Pre-war, or post-war? Second Republic, or Socialist Republic? These were not the same entities. Prior to the war, there was a large native German population. After it, that population was expelled. Then, there was some remaining people of "German descent", and no longer really a separate Sudeten German "nation" as they were prior to the expulsion. All these things need defining, and history has to play a part. One can't simply create arbitrary categories through rigid dogma schemes, ignoring the vernacular situation for each group you make the category for. RGloucester (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not terribly interested in debating this here. I don't think the category is "necessary". Very little in Wikipedia is necessary. It's merely a convenience for browsing. I see it as part of the overall schemes of Category:Czechoslovak people by ethnic or national origin and Category:People of German descent. It holds a subcategory, Category:German expatriates in Czechoslovakia; such expatriates categories are routinely placed in the ethnic or national descent categories for convenience of navigation. If someone was a national of Czechoslovakia, they were Czechoslovak, and there are usually citations that describe them as such. The fact that individuals don't like their national status is fairly common. And as I said, whether or not Category:Sudeten-German people belongs as a subcategory is a separate issue. What you call "deprecation" of categories sounds like simply out-of-process emptying and deletion, which is typically considered disruptive behaviour and can therefore lead to blocks, so I suggest you don't do it anymore. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - The category would be acceptable if it was limited in scope to the post war, as in Category:Czechoslovak people of German descent (1948-1992). RGloucester (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not particularly interested in defending it, no. Not here. That's kind of what WP:CFD is for. Neither you nor I are "the community". Unlike some users you may find, I'm not totally in love with all of my WP creations. I don't defend them to the death. I can change my opinions and perspectives. I don't always see everything in black and white terms. Anyway, you keep addressing the Sudeten German issue—as I've said (3rd time now)—whether or not Category:Sudeten-German people belongs as a subcategory to the category in question is a separate issue from whether the category should exist. Regarding the other issue you raise—expatriate categories are included in the parent ethnic or national descent categories for navigational convenience, not as a matter of abstract "truth". Regarding which Czechoslovakia—my understanding is that all categories for Category:Czechoslovak people refer to Czechoslovaks for the entire existence of the state by that name. Finally, I don't think the category is "arbitrary", as you suggest. Please, if you have concerns about it—nominate it for deletion or renaming or whatever it is you want. Just don't manually empty is and "deprecate" it unilaterally. Let the community decide. I know you were not trying to be discourteous—not a problem. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I shall, I shall. But I simply wondered if the creator of and sole contributor to said category had a good reason to be creating such a category. I never meant to be discourteous, &c. &c. I was merely trying to understand, because there might have been justification that I had missed. If CfD can be avoided, then that is usually preferable. I apologize for any malcontent or malevolence my rather sharp words and actions may have furnished upon you. I shall forward my thoughts to CfD, as swift as I can. RGloucester (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I know—it's always good to ask the person who created it before a nomination, and I don't take offence at that. I have given my good reasons. I suppose I am crusty because of the attempted deprecation. That sort of thing bugs me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- One request, though. I've seen that you have been adding various people to the category today. Those you've added, however, are already in the Sudeten Germans category. I see no reason to add them to the parent category, as they are already part of the sub-category. Even though it is going through CfD, which I've just posted, if the category is going to be around for a while in current form, I'd make that suggestion. RGloucester (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm adding them to the category with the thought that it might be preferable to remove the Sudeten-German category as a subcategory and just include the individual articles that I view as indisputably Czechoslovak people of German descent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- I will do so if I must, but I hoped to avoid that. Deprecation is a common technique, however harsh. Can you explain, though, why you think it is necessary? The problem is, you the "German situation" in the Czechoslovak Republic was very different than any other ethnicity. Lumping them as "Czechoslovak people" would be considered offensive by the people themselves, more than likely, and factually incorrect. I can go further into detail, but that's not my concern. Why do you think it is necessary? RGloucester (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Sto:lo CfR error
Don't know what I did wrong, see today's nominations......filled out a template wrong, and didn't understand how to make the subcategory's template point to the right section.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed those. That's a common struggle to get those links right. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
another multiple CfR, unsure how to do this right
per my problems with doing more than one cat at a time, another group in need of moving at the main cat and subcats of Category:Chilliwack_(city), which should simply be Category:Chilliwack. The "city" disambiguator is only used elsewhere in BC to distinguish district municipalities from cities at the core e.g. North Vancouver (district municipality) and North Vancouver (city). Don't know why it was included here. There used to be a District of Chilliwhack [sic] but the city and district were amalgamated a long time ago; and would have been a different title even if it had existed still, barring a few complicated hatnotes that is. Hate to be lazy on my part, but I get screwed up with the templates; you mind either just putting these up or walking me through it so all the five items wind up in the same sectionSkookum1 (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's probably used on the category because the article is at Chilliwack (city). The article would have to be changed first. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hm, that Chilliwack dab page was my fault, I think, back when making dabs for BC e.g. Chilcotin (region) and Lillooet. The comma-province-but-not-if-unique article-name convention for primary uses wasn't really around at that point...or I didn't understand it; that page should be Chilliwack (disambiguation) and Chilliwack should be the city article. There's some Canadian admins can expedite this I'm sure, I'll be back.Skookum1 (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Why are "guidelines" treated as ironclad rules? Re native ethnonym CfRs....
I took this up with Kwami, who changed the main articles recently, with middling results; now those results are being used to propose unworkable catnames (by people familiar with neither the place nor the people in question). Please see User_talk:Kwamikagami#CfRs_on_Nuxalk.2C_Sto:lo_and_St.27at.27imc_categories and I know you've already noted the CfRs from today and yesterday. NorthAmNative and WPCAN are both kinda quiet right now, but it seems to me if a guideline isn't working, or if there is reason for a series of exceptions, such as in this case, the solution is to change the guideline. As I said to Presidentman, across-the-board application of the guideline re main articles as a RULE will have very unsatisfactory results, and complications like Category:People from the Squamish people can be avoided (ditto Category:Squamish people people of course).Skookum1 (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
About Immigration to Uruguay categories
Hi Good Olfactory. I have been busy with several articles related to immigration in Uruguay and I tried out some new categories, for instance: Category:Spanish immigration to Uruguay, Category:Lebanese immigration to Uruguay, etc. Recently I realized that you "emptied" several of these categories. I do not really understand the reason, as these categories were meant for "articles on the history of XX-Uruguayan people, culture, traditions and institutions. XX-Uruguayans are citizens of Uruguay who were born in XX, or who are of XX descent."
Maybe the name itself of the categories is not the best one, and I should have named them, say: "Lebanese diaspora in Uruguay", or "Lebanese-Uruguayan history", etc. You are an Administrator, you are able to rename categories - please, would you be so kind and help with this issue? I would be very grateful for your consideration. Best regards, --Fadesga (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
controversial speedies should be reverted....lack of due process
I'm getting really frustrated by my attempts to fix the categories (and now a template) that have been affected the the speedy move of the main Skwxwu7mesh article to Squamish people, which was used as the premise for the category and template move, and has other bad article-name consequences such as Squamish history and Squamish culture. Shouldn't speedies which were made in error, and without consulting the creator of the cat/template in question, be reverted automatically? There was no notification template on any of the cats or articles in question, the changes were made by fiat and now the usual bogged-down-in-inanities rule-invoking/conficting is being used to thwart restitution of the problems created by these allegedy non-controversial changes; they were controversial and should have been disallowed in the first place. And what do I get for trying to remedy the problem? Accusations, insults, patronizing comments etc.....yes I'm getting testy, my time is valuable and unlike those kibbitzing in the CfD I do know about the subject. And closely. A reversion mechanism for speedies is needed, frankly, the rigamarole of CfDs is a huge time-waster and a bit hypocritical as a procedure when the mistakes were made by those who used speedy to bypass discussion. Can't believe some of the bunk I've heard in the various CfDs these last few days.......Skookum1 (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Subcategorizing Category:People executed under the Stuarts
I am considering effectively splitting-by-subcategorizing Category:People executed under the Stuarts by England/Scotland/Ireland, because at it stands, the categorization effectively suggests that someone executed under the Stuarts was executed by England and Scotland and Ireland, which is not quite true. I wonder if you would have any objections to it. (Effectively, there would be Category:People executed by Stuart England, Category:People executed by Stuart Scotland, and Category:People executed by Stuart Ireland — with the latter not happening if there aren't enough people executed under the Stuarts in their roles as monarchs of Ireland.) --Nlu (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Squamish - > Skwxwu7mesh nomination
Not asking for your input on the CfR, just noting that I must have mistakenly included the accent-u by copy-pasting when I did the nomination; or did I? Could someone else have changed that? I haven't noticed any edits about that; as in one of my comments, towards the bottom of the CfR, I'd meant to have the non-accented version nominated......God knows where this is gonna go, though.....all the solutions seem more convoluted to me than simply using the endonym...in its anglicized, non-diacritical form, that is. This case if it goes the "wrong way" is going to set precedents for other currently-endonym-named categories IMO. Some policy/guideline needs to created in naming conventions and category names and CANSTYLE to address this properly.....cultural sensitivities may be POV to some, but they're the facts-on-the-ground in Canada. As noted in the CfR, Tsilhqot'in/Chilcotin people, Secwepemc/Shuswap people, Syilx/Okanagan people, Nlaka'pamux/Thompson people and more are going to be impacted as categories because of the RMs that changed this, unwisely, and without regard to those cultural sensitivities and "emerging realities" in BC....others in the US that might be impacted, if this is to be global, would be Category:Dineh becoming Category:Navajo people (I think there's a Category:Dineh people already, for people who are Dineh).Skookum1 (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, Dineh seems to have been RM'd to Navajo, pretty sure it was Dineh a few years ago....I noted on one of the CfRs that Yakama spell themselves that way to distinguish from Yakima, Washington and Yakima County, Washington.Skookum1 (talk) 05:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Brazil (film) talk page
Take a look at this, rather than copying and pasting the talk page contents into a new archive page, George Ho moved the talk page, thus leaving this truncated page history. That needs to be fixed, yes? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it certainly does. I'll see what I can do. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think that's got it—let me know if you notice that I messed anything up. Thx, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Thanks! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 03:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think that's got it—let me know if you notice that I messed anything up. Thx, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Apostille convention
I don't think your reasoning for moving this page is correct. It's full title is Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement for Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents, but it's known colloquially as the Hague convention - I don't think a colloquial or common name qualifies for initial caps as a proper noun.--ukexpat (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Few sources seem to agree with you there, nor would I, either in general or this particular case. Lots of common "short names" are capitalized - as a Brit you'll be familiar with the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty, always "National Trust". Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- If it's referring to a specific convention, then it qualifies as a proper noun, which are capitalized in title case in WP. If you want me to reverse it and propose it through WP:RM, I can do that, but I figured it was relatively uncontroversial. I agree with the points Johnbod makes above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
MUNPO cat
Hi, just saw this on [[Tsimshian people] and another re Dene. Those are people articles, not government or organization ones; can't remember the name of the Coast Tsimshian tribal council right now; Dene right now is limited to NWT groups but really should be for all Athapaskans, but again it's a people category, not an organizational one. That cat as I understand what that group is, should be for organizations i.e. governments and tribal councils, not on "peoples" categories.Skookum1 (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
A bowl of strawberries for you!
|
Hi Good Olfactory, Keep on keepin' on! Kind regards DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC) |
broken talk page
You moved Berne Convention, but not its talk page (Talk:Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's odd. Thanks for the notice. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Category:Chilliwack subcats
Hi, I didn't think to nominate the subcats for speedy when this went through recently; do I have to renominate them or can they be done directly because their parent has changed: See Category:Chilliwack. I'm uncertain about Category:Sport in Chilliwack (city).....shouldn't that be "sports"?Skookum1 (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, we can do the subcategories now since the immediate parent has changed. As for the "Sport"/"Sports" issue—for some reason, all of the Canadian categories use "Sport in XXX"—see Category:Sport in Canada. I think that probably the use of "Sports" is just as if not more common in Canada than the use of "Sport", likely due to the heavy American influence, so I'm not sure of the rationale for this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Chilliwack talk page title error
Greetings, Factory, I have a problem on the talk page title error. A talk page is titled Talk:Chilliwack (city). I was going to move to it's new title Talk:Chilliwack to follow the Chilliwack main article but there is an error message says it "cannot be moved". So could you do me a favour, could you Chilliwack talk page that is titled Talk:Chilliwack (city) and move to it's new title to form Talk:Chilliwack. The new talk page is to follow the Chilliwack main article. If you read the message let me know if this talk page title error is fixed. Thanks. Steam5 (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Taken care of—page is now at Talk:Chilliwack. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Anosy
Anosy
Please let me ask you, WHY you put the following categories to be renamed at: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working ???
- Category:Anosy to Category:Anosy Region
- Category:People from Anosy to Category:People from Anosy Region
There is strictly no sense in this renaming. There are no 2 Anosy in this world, there is no need for more precision. I do most articles/revision on Madagascar - and so also on Anosy related articles.
I am not ready to type each time that I make or reclassify an article such complicated cat.names, that I can't even keep it mind, if they are not necessary.
I have never seen you editing an article on Madagascar too. Why did you do this so, if you don't know that place, and will probably never now??
By the way, I could maybe also suggest renaming all US states, as Category:Nevada would be more precisely. designated Category:Nevada (State of the United States of America)
Please revert those Anosy related renamings again - and please don't touch other Madagascar related categories in the future (except, you are willing to work on the related pages too).
Regards Tonton Tonton Bernardo (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- They were nominated at WP:CFDS. I just took the administrative task of processed the nomination, which was unopposed. I had nothing to do with the nomination itself. They were nominated to match the name of the article, which at the time was Anosy Region. You renamed the article to Anosy, but note that Anosy, Tsiroanomandidy exists, so your rename may be inappropriate and your statement that "there are no 2 Anosy in this world" is technically incorrect. So I have moved the article back. If you believe the article should be renamed to "Anosy" (there is an argument to be made that it is the primary topic), please use WP:RM to propose a change of name. (Incidentally, your comments display what I would regard as more than a touch of WP:OWNERSHIP. It's not a good idea to tell other editors what content and under what conditions they can and cannot edit. I also regard your comment here as inappropriate and expressing the same tendencies of ownership over certain WP content.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's a problem here .... to many people (without knowing anything about the matter) make lousy proposals, and some roboters (with the same degree of knowlege) even follow them, and execute blindly.
I will make the proposal for all US States, British Territories, and whatever to be renamed also (as I proposed before: Category:Nevada to Category: Nevada (State of the United states of America)
I Hope I will find somebody also - maybe not at the first proposal, but on the second or third. Thanks for your reply and best regards Tonton aka Tonton Bernardo (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Honestly, I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at. I don't see any problem whatsoever with the category name matching the article name—in fact, it is recommended. If you think Anosy Region should be renamed Anosy, by all means recommend that using WP:RM. But you can stop the drive by smearing of me and other users. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
this close
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_18#Category:Homophobia I've just noticed this issue is cropping up again. Feel free to follow my recent contribs and then chime in anywhere appropriate. Best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice. It may be time to have to revisit this issue again. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- discussion currently at Category_talk:Antisemitism_in_the_United_States. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikiprojects International relations and International law
Since you have been so active in topics related to these projects, have you considered joining Wikiproject international relations or WikiProject International law? Just thought I'd bring these two WPs to your attention. IMHO (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the invite. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hague conventions category
FYI, I created a subcategory, Category:People assciated with the Hague Peace Conferences (subsequent correction Category:People associated with the Hague Peace Conferences to correct spelling IMHO (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)). The category explains who I envision being included, though only two people are listed right now. IMHO (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- I deleted the old one with the typo. Thanks! Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
MAI
Hi. May I ask why you believe the long-dead MAI ranks as a commercial treaty? Does your edit correctly inform readers, or is it likely to mislead them? Do you propose to add any more failed and defunct treaties to this category? How can an unsigned, abandoned proposal qualify to be called a treaty? Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- (1) Because—as the article states—it was a treaty that proposed "multilateral rules that would ensure international investment was governed in a more systematic and uniform way between states". In other words, it proposed rules relating to commerce, hence it is a commerce treaty. (2) Yes, I believe it does inform readers about the nature of the proposed treaty. As users read the article and examine the accompanying categories, they will realize that it was never concluded and never came into force. (3) Yes, if there are articles about them. (4) If it is written down, a proposed treaty is a treaty nonetheless. It may be one that was never concluded and never came into force, but that does not change it's nature at international law. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- But, according to Wikipedia, a "commercial treaty is a formal agreement between states for the purpose of establishing mutual rights and regulating conditions of trade. That does not apply to the MAI. Also, the MAI is already in the category of proposed treaty—"treaties that were proposed but never concluded", that is, contradictory to the category you have added. Unless you revert your well-meaning erroneous edit, I propose to do so without further notice and initiate discussion on the MAI talk page to establish a valid consensus for your notion. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if you're going to interpret it that way—the Wikipedia article is wrong that a treaty must be concluded and ratified to be called "a treaty". I see no reason why proposed treaties on a particular topic should not be placed in the appropriate Category:Treaties by topic category. I think you're interpreting category application as having scalpel-like precision, when actually they are more of an all-or-none sledgehammer. The purpose of categories is to facilitate navigation, and I suspect users would want to navigate between all treaties on commerce, whenever and whether those treaties came into force or were concluded. It is helpful for one to read about "failed" commercial treaties in the context of all commercial treaties, which can help one understand why some failed and some did not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I see it's not such a big deal, so I'll back off. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if you're going to interpret it that way—the Wikipedia article is wrong that a treaty must be concluded and ratified to be called "a treaty". I see no reason why proposed treaties on a particular topic should not be placed in the appropriate Category:Treaties by topic category. I think you're interpreting category application as having scalpel-like precision, when actually they are more of an all-or-none sledgehammer. The purpose of categories is to facilitate navigation, and I suspect users would want to navigate between all treaties on commerce, whenever and whether those treaties came into force or were concluded. It is helpful for one to read about "failed" commercial treaties in the context of all commercial treaties, which can help one understand why some failed and some did not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- But, according to Wikipedia, a "commercial treaty is a formal agreement between states for the purpose of establishing mutual rights and regulating conditions of trade. That does not apply to the MAI. Also, the MAI is already in the category of proposed treaty—"treaties that were proposed but never concluded", that is, contradictory to the category you have added. Unless you revert your well-meaning erroneous edit, I propose to do so without further notice and initiate discussion on the MAI talk page to establish a valid consensus for your notion. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Category:Reichstag (legislative body)
Category:Reichstag (legislative body), 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. Green Giant (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
speedying Chilcotin.....
Now that the subcat has been processed by Mike Selinker, the parent cat can be speedied....I was just about to do it from Category:Chilcotin (region) to Category:Chilcotin region because of the main article....but would t he main article Chilcotin region suffice to warrant a speedy to Category:Chilcotin? NB other region articles like Category:Okanagan and Category:Cariboo don't have "region" (nor do their main articles), which I've only added for places really needing dabbing, e.g. Category:Quatsino Sound region since Quatsino Sound is a body of water. Could be that the "main article" could simply be made Chilcotin, which is a dab page, however, though everything on it relates to the region. This would also head off at the pass the tendency evinced by the change to Squamish people that resulted in Category:Squamish i.e. if the RM at Talk:Chilcotin people does fail, which I hope it won't of course, and someone tries to make Category:Chilcotin replace Category:Tshilqot'in. Is the easier course to make the dab page the main article, you think? Category:Chilcotin region would be anomalous among BC's larger region categories, though as noted "FOO region" is needed in some local-region cases....the usual BC English terminology is "country" for many of the regions, but that's problematic for obvious reasons, especially if native names are all "anglicized" as some people are insisting should be the case....Skookum1 (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- LOL User:Fayenatic london just renamed the main article to Chilcotin Country which is indeed what the original catname was; see User talk:Fayenatic london#BC Tourism region re Chilcotin page.Skookum1 (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Let's continue this at one place, Talk:Chilcotin Country. – Fayenatic London 11:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
ack
Cydebot is having fun tonite, but he's being a bit dramatic: [2] - this removed two CFD notices, even though only one CFD was closed. Does this always happen? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hm, yeah, I think it probably does since it just goes for the lowest down "CFD end" tag. Luckily for that one, I have now closed both discussions. But hmm ... it's not super common to have two CFDs open on one category at the same time, but I wonder if there are others that this is going to affect? Good Ol’factory (talk)
Category closed
Just a friendly note: you closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_1#Category:California_Law_Review_people as delete a while ago, but Category:California Law Review people is not yet deleted. --GrapedApe (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I noticed that there was a bit of a delay due to the workings of the bot, but it seems to have finished now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Any idea why not?
I know RMs aren't your bailiwick, but in re the St'at'imc CfR it's pretty much pending the related RM......all of the Ktunaxa, Secwepemc, Tsilhqot'in and Nlaka'pamux RMs were closed; all the same arguments apply re St'at'imc but it was not closed for some reason; I'd asked the closing admin about it and Ktunaxa, which wasn't closed at the time though the other three were, and then it got closed. But not St'at'imc. Should I maybe post a summary of all the points and counterpoints or just be patient...I'd be choked if another admin refused it, despite the success of the other RMs, by making me the issue...which is of course what my opponent was more than a little bit trying to accomplish with his baiting and non sequiturs and irrelevant issues....like Squamish, any category using the main article title is going to be a disaster and would be anomalous relative to other modern usages; in fact, St'at'imc is probably the most common of all these terms in modern use.Skookum1 (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like it was closed as "move" after you posted here? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, two days ago. David Jonathan demurred on it (see his talkpage) but Cuchulainn did the move.....Obi Wan's advice was, somewhere, to formalize something on each category re not changing them again.....I've posted at CANTALK and NorthAmNative about coming up with proper indigenous-content/title guidelines but so far no bites. I'm a bit exhausted from the whole matter; so much time spent restoring bad mistakes I haven't had much time for anything but maintenance edits, and various "easy categories"....the "FOO people" namespace collision needs to be addressed; it's the result of people moving "FOO [endonym]" to "FOO people", if the categories follow suit it's going to cause even more problems....I really wish people would think/research before knee-jerking stuff like that.Skookum1 (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Obi Wan had suggested some kind of template for them...same on the talkpages of the main articles.....will have to quiz him what he had in mind. Today revising my own websites and grasping at straws trying to come up with ways for web income...so I don't have to leave Koh Samui and go back to the cold countries ;-)Skookum1 (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- And re St'at'imc, even though the main article has now been moved, and without "people" attached, there's been no motion on closing the CfR.....Skookum1 (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Obi Wan had suggested some kind of template for them...same on the talkpages of the main articles.....will have to quiz him what he had in mind. Today revising my own websites and grasping at straws trying to come up with ways for web income...so I don't have to leave Koh Samui and go back to the cold countries ;-)Skookum1 (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, two days ago. David Jonathan demurred on it (see his talkpage) but Cuchulainn did the move.....Obi Wan's advice was, somewhere, to formalize something on each category re not changing them again.....I've posted at CANTALK and NorthAmNative about coming up with proper indigenous-content/title guidelines but so far no bites. I'm a bit exhausted from the whole matter; so much time spent restoring bad mistakes I haven't had much time for anything but maintenance edits, and various "easy categories"....the "FOO people" namespace collision needs to be addressed; it's the result of people moving "FOO [endonym]" to "FOO people", if the categories follow suit it's going to cause even more problems....I really wish people would think/research before knee-jerking stuff like that.Skookum1 (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Moving St. Louis articles
Hi there, I noticed you moved List of hospitals in St. Louis to List of hospitals in St. Louis, Missouri. Based on the outcome of a requested move discussion at Talk:St._Louis#Requested_move, consensus was that St. Louis articles do not require the Missouri. I just wanted to let you know before you went full speed into moving the St. Louis articles back to their Missouri status. Thanks, poroubalous (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, did not know. Thanks. I can move it back. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. It was a recent move. Thanks! poroubalous (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
host cities of the commonwealth games
Hello Good Olfactory, I just noticed (as I was watching the cardiff article) that the above category got deleted - I notice in the discussion someone said 'I presume there is a list already' I don't think there is/was such a list, I don't know if there is an archive out of which it is possible to retrieve the category content to form such a list ? EdwardLane (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Commonwealth Games#Editions has both a table and a map showing host cities. I wouldn't think there is a need for a new article duplicating this.-gadfium 21:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- There is also a template which has a list of them: Template:Commonwealth Games Host Cities. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- ah thanks - agreed no need for duplication EdwardLane (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- There is also a template which has a list of them: Template:Commonwealth Games Host Cities. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
trafficking v smuggling
Not gonna comment on the speedy list, just an aside, that "trafficking" is not necessarily illegal nor contraband; it really is just "arms dealing"....same as with drugs....there's a difference between trafficking and smuggling (illegal importation) in law, also. I know this from, um, personal experience. "Arms trafficking" is the arms trade, legal or illegal, period. "trafficking" can mean just transporting, as well as buying and selling, even domestically. Importation/illegal export is a different notion, but "smuggling" sums it up.Skookum1 (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's an issue of where the article name lies. It is at Arms trafficking. There is no separate article on Arms smuggling. And anyway, in today's world, "arms trafficking" almost always now carries the implication of illegality, despite the dictionary definition of the word "trafficking". Similarly, no one calls a pharmacist a "drug trafficker". Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
overcategorization re the Okanagan/Okanogan
Please see User_talk:TBrandley#Okanagan_Country_subcats. TBrandley is a new editor, very avid expander of WP:WikiProject Okanagan. To me the category he's created is superfluous and the usage "FOO country" is citable on both sides of the border, though not common in Canada as it once was....and with a different spelling...I think I'd long ago created Category:Okanagan Country like other BC categories of that kind, but like Category:Kootenay Country it's been shortened to Category:Okanagan. Your thoughts?Skookum1 (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Re the recent speedy back to the original Category:Chilcotin Country which as you know has gone through renamings lately, that usage is citable though commonly, very commonly, only in lower case, as with Cariboo Country and others; [[Category:Lillooet Country is citable in the upper case form, as is Category:Bridge River Country and Category:Peace River Country.Skookum1 (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- I just looked at that category to see if he's included the various populated places as subcats, he hasn't, and he's got the category at the redlinked Category:Okanagan Country. There's Category:Okanagan for Canada, and Category:Okanogan County, Washington but he's interpreted some references in the US to include Chelan County and another.....he lives in the Canadian Okanagan, I wish he'd start improving articles instead of playing category and WP games....Skookum1 (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
this isn't a category but notifying you because of your presence on the talkpage.
Please see [3] and my comment on Marcus Qwertyus' talkpage just now.Skookum1 (talk) 08:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- As I've said before, I wish editors, especially experienced ones, would spend time/energy on improving articles and expanding content, instead of playing games with categories and titles....especially re subjects they (a) don't fully understand or are even marginally familiar with and (b) have not researched.Skookum1 (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just placed it in the requested moves section of the WPCANADA noticeboard....another undiscussed speedy that should have been RM'd and researched.....Skookum1 (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please see further comments on User talk:Ground Zero, who I've requested a reversion from, as I can't do it myself.Skookum1 (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- "thank you"....Skookum1 (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please see further comments on User talk:Ground Zero, who I've requested a reversion from, as I can't do it myself.Skookum1 (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just placed it in the requested moves section of the WPCANADA noticeboard....another undiscussed speedy that should have been RM'd and researched.....Skookum1 (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
re VI colony treaties cat
There's a few treaties under negotiation/ratification (some rejected, actually). There are only the Douglas Treaties for now....Nautsa Mawt maybe has been passed (that is a treaty group including some also on the Sunshine Coast) but I think maybe not. There's no reason for that category now or in near future; actuallly since it's the Colony of Vancouver Island that it's about, not "on Vancouver Island", it'll only ever have that ONE article, the category should be speedily deleted. Who created it? Hmmm (I'm deluged in real life today and my keyboard is malfunctioningpain in the ass to type right now aaaaarghy) Skookum1 (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- There is more than one way to consider the merits of categorization. A one-item category can be useful if it is part of an overall scheme. The alternative would be that the article would sit in Category:Treaties of Canada—which is OK, but not perfect—and Category:Treaties of British colonies—which is a little awkward. Personally, it makes more sense to me to break down the category structure by named colony. I don't believe the category is eligible for speedy deletion based on any criteria. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Uh, well as I understand things, a category with only one entry is not worthwhile nor valid; and there will be no other treaty articles to be added to it. Unless someone travels back in time to 1849-1866 and signs some, the Douglas Treaties were all that there was; unless someone goes to the bother (and difficulty) of doing one for each of the eight or so treaties......Skookum1 (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Other than aboriginal treaties, such as these were, no others could exist with any other power; Britain handled e.g. the dealings re the Oregon boundary/partition on the 49th Parallel, for example (1846); the Colony wasn't even created yet anyway, though Victoria was.Skookum1 (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- You are not correct on one point—there is no guideline that a category with one article is "not worthwhile or valid". There is certainly no criterion which says they could be speedily deleted. There are many categories that have single articles and I suspect many users find them useful. See the exception noted in WP:OC#SMALL, which is the governing guideline: small contents categories are to be avoided "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". There's a pretty extensive scheme, if you care to investigate it. I'm not sure what you mean that "no others could exist with any other power". There are plenty of treaties that were concluded by colonial powers. (But I'm just not sure whether you are referring to other colonies, other treaties, and what the other powers are you mention.) Heaven forbid that anyone could create or edit any scaffolding content on anything touching BC without disapproval being rained down upon them. It's getting to the point where it's getting perilously close to a de facto untouchable area or editing akin to Kosovo or Greek Macedonia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Other than aboriginal treaties, such as these were, no others could exist with any other power; Britain handled e.g. the dealings re the Oregon boundary/partition on the 49th Parallel, for example (1846); the Colony wasn't even created yet anyway, though Victoria was.Skookum1 (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Uh, well as I understand things, a category with only one entry is not worthwhile nor valid; and there will be no other treaty articles to be added to it. Unless someone travels back in time to 1849-1866 and signs some, the Douglas Treaties were all that there was; unless someone goes to the bother (and difficulty) of doing one for each of the eight or so treaties......Skookum1 (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
LOL especially re politics...also history, often enough, depending on what about. And no, there's no possibility at all of the Governor of Vancouver Island having any treaties with the US or Imperial China or anywhere else; his only mandate was to get treaties signed with native peoples so as to legitimize land alienation per the Royal Proclamation of 1763. International treaties were only dealt with by Great Britain, including after BC joined Canada and that was the case until 1931.Skookum1 (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I realise the background to it, and I have never argued that there are more articles to add to the category. I think we just disagree on whether one article categories are legit or not. It seems to be one of those issues for which users have strong opinions. My view on them has evolved (or at least changed somewhat) over time as I have seen how the overall category structure works. I now think that the guideline as it stands is a fair compromise. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
"other powers" uses "powers" in the diplomatic history context; France, Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, Japan, the Sultanate etc..."The Great Powers" not exclusively.....so I was referring to international-level states; there were no state-to-province treaties or anything like that; still aren't though there are things like the International Joint Commission.Skookum1 (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- There are, however, a number of multilateral treaties to which non-sovereign colonies have (and continue to) become party to, along with "regular" sovereign powers. I know CVI did not become party to any of these, but the abstract concept is not foreign to international law. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- K, I just thought it odd that there was a category and a single article....there are not treaties with the Colony of British Columbia, for example, in either of its incarnations, same with the Colony of the QCI......Skookum1 (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- There are, however, a number of multilateral treaties to which non-sovereign colonies have (and continue to) become party to, along with "regular" sovereign powers. I know CVI did not become party to any of these, but the abstract concept is not foreign to international law. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I *really* would rather write articles than pick up after others, really I would.
Please see here and on Talk:Heritage Grill and Talk:Five Stones Church. So much for time available to actually improve articles, including New Westminster, which sorely needs it, instead of having to weed-whack junk that gets added to them.....sigh. Thank god for salted pineapple and peanut-butter creme cookies (the cookie part are really more like ritz crackers....). To me these articles are WP:INANE as well as spam;undue and I feel like using them as example of such a commentary.Skookum1 (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- But the church hosted a film series at the restaurant, which was attended by Miss Canada. Come on. Salted pineapple and peanut-butter creme. There's your problem. Get down to the Heritage Grill. Someone really needs to make a working link for WP:INANE. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Stop your presentism
Natal was not part of "South Africa". If you want to put organization in the colony of Natal in some South Africa category, you should nominate them for renaming or merging, not try to impose such alighnment through unilateral re-parenting. This is especially so when the parent category is currently proposed for rneming to reflect just the South African Republic which clearly did not include Natal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- You're unilaterally changing the structure of Category:Years in South Africa. If anything, it's you who needs to start the CFD, rather than taking the actions you are. You're free to make categories to your heart's content, but I am going to preserve the overall category structure that you've disrupted until there's consensus that it should be demolished—this underlying structure is having logical subcategories for the many existing subcategories of Category:Years in South Africa. (And actually, yes, if you look at the research around these areas and time periods, Natal is indeed widely regarded as a general "South Africa" that is studied.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- As long as we're telling each other what to do: User_talk:Johnpacklambert#Query. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
CfD threads
Sooo, I see this large backlog, and thought I'd help out...
And the majority of them seem to be some form of OCC/EGRS ists/ians/ers.
<Insert some pithy comment here>
Anyway, hi, how's it going? : ) - jc37 03:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- It would be helpful. I did a bunch a while back—some I found to be just intractable, with nothing but a "no consensus" being remotely close to a reflection of the discussion. How am I doing—meh, OK. I've encountered a few saviours of the category system that are intent on a few branches by destroying them, but nothing too serious. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
NO BOTS
I'm afraid adding this instruction midflow almost never has any effect. From what I've seen Cydebot seems to scan the entire working page at the start and take the full list of changes then work through them one by one before looking at the page again, except for when something disrupts it and it has to start over again. I've put it on the other players category just in case that happens but otherwise the bot will just keep going without noticing. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I figured as much--but damned if it didn't make it start going again. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
My intention with this nom was for all of the subcats with "Calvinist" or "Reformed" to be merged to "Calvinist and Reformed" cats. Is that possible based on this consensus or do I need to renominate with all of them listed? --JFH (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Given the consensus, I think it would be OK if we just speedily renamed them now, using Template:Cfr-speedy and then listing them at WP:CFDS. Then they can be done in 48 hours after being tagged. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- No objection, but when deleting after merger, please would you include a link to the new category in the edit summary? e.g. the deletion log entry Category:Reformed clergy requires an editor to go to the CFD page to find out the new name. Might consider undeleting and re-deleting to do that... – Fayenatic London 14:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
What's going to happen to Category:United States proposed federal legislation of the 113th Congress?—GoldRingChip 16:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- This is a bit late (I'm still new and didn't catch this debate!), but can I get in on this discussion? It seems to be archived in the other spot. I don't think this category should be deleted or merged with United States proposed federal legislation. United States proposed federal legislation is way, way too broad of a category to really be useful. Hundreds of thousands of bills fall into that category! It may work for the moment, but that's because there aren't that many bills in it. Obviously we won't be making articles for all of them, but there is definitely some value in people being able to sort through and find things more easily. Putting them straight into the 113th United States Congress category (is that what you decided on??) might seem like a good idea now (and I guess I can see the logic of it), but it might not be so great later. If 5 new articles about bills are created each week until the end of this congress, that'll be up to an additional 400 articles! If you put all of those in a general 113th Congress category, doesn't it take away from the other items there? Frankly, I'm completely confused why anyone is trying to get rid of the original category in the first place. Is this some kind of weird wikipedia category cultural rule I've missed? Sincerely, HistoricMN44 (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, yeah, the discussion is closed now, but those who discussed decided that the category should be deleted and upmerged to Category:United States proposed federal legislation. To retain the connection to the 113th Congress, I also closed it with a simultaneous upmerge to Category:113th United States Congress. The reason this hasn't been done yet is that it has to be done manually (as opposed to by bot) because there are multiple categories that the contents are being merged to. So essentially, it's in a queue at WP:CFDWM waiting for someone to do the work. I wasn't involved in the making of the decision, I just closed the discussion to try to reflect what those who participated had decided. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Moldova
You ignore that there was a Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic in 1939 and that the museum in question was not established there. This would be like attacking someone for removing something established in Koniegsberg, Germany in 1939 from the 1939 establishments in Russia category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- JPL, I have not ignored that. If you read my comment carefully, you will see why I suggest the nominated category is useful and should be kept despite the historical situation. I certainly do understand your reasoning for proposing what you propose, but I disagree with that approach. And I have even suggested that having both types of categories would be useful and appropriate. I'm starting to wonder why you cannot acknowledge that there is at least a plausible alternative position, even if you disagree with it. Are you not "getting" (ie, understanding) the position I have put forwards, or are you just choosing not to get it? (I've essentially copied these comments to the discussion, and I suggest that you respond there as opposed to here, since it's directly on point re: the proposal.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Your accusations of disruption are extremely unfair. The category in question was speedy moved (through no effort on my part) back in January to Category:1939 establishments in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. However the one thing in the category was NOT in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, so I removed it from that incorrect category and placed it in Category:1939 establishments in Romania since that is in fact where it was established. There is no reason to have left it here. It was Fram who acted disruptively by recreating a category that was previously speedy renamed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think that if you remove the only content from a category immediately before you nominate it for deletion, you should reveal that and explain why it was done in the nomination. Or just not do it. I'm glad to see that now further explanation was provided in the discussion. I had begun to wonder, after I saw the approach being taken before the Turkey categories were nominated and the fact that you did not provide an explanation or a mea culpa or anything directly in response to my query about it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Category:1906 establishments in Cape Colony
Category:1906 establishments in Cape Colony is under discussion for renaming. Your out of process emptying of the category is not justified. The entry was never in the South Africa category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think so—you shouldn't even be creating the new category because it's a legitimate subcategory of a category under discussion (Category:1906 establishments in South Africa). Why don't you just do as others have suggested—stop and wait for consensus to develop instead of carrying on unilaterally? If you don't, we may have to get community input on whether this is "disruptive behaviour". I don't want to go down that road, but I will if it keeps up. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I will not create any new by colony sub-cats until the current nominations are closed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Bad link in deleted cats
hi,
I happened to bump into a few categories which you have deleted that have an invalid link to the wp:cfd discussion. For example: Category:German women screenwriters. Hoping this can be corrected. XOttawahitech (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sure—I think it's probably a mistake I made due to autocorrect in my browser. It's supposed to be 2013 APR 30, right? Is it mainly the women screenwriters ones, or are there others? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- I take it back—it was because the wrong date was placed (by me) at WP:CFDWM, and I just copied the wrong date off that. Thanks for noticing this—it is annoying when the deletion notice doesn't go to the correct page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy fix, and no I did not see any more bad links of yours, though I just found another one made by user:Cydebot:
Hi. The use of the word "by" in this Category title is a bit baffling. Shouldn't it be "in"? --Dweller (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- "By" indicates what legal jurisdiction did the sentencing. England and Wales has, in some relatively rare circumstances, had courts that have sat outside of England and Wales, but it's not really important where the court that did the sentencing sat. What matters is what legal jurisdiction the court represented. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's a jarring turn of phrase and looks like a typo. "England and Wales" has never sentenced anyone to anything. There must be a better alternative. --Dweller (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- "England and Wales" has never sentenced anything to anyone??! Really?? That jurisdiction sentences people nearly every day of every week. Judges do the actual sentencing, but they do it on behalf of "England and Wales". It's very common to speak this way in matters of criminal law. Anyway, this format is used consistently throughout the Category:Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment by country tree. Do you see it as a general problem with all of these or just with England and Wales? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting. I'm not sure if I have a problem with the specific or the general. Instinctively, the general seems wrong to this layman, but if that's the normal correct usage in legal terminology, we should go with that. Is it a BrEng thing?
- On the specific, and I repeat, I'm no lawyer, so I'm totally ready to be corrected here, but I believe that the judges over here do criminal sentencing on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen, not on behalf of a country. --Dweller (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right—in all UK courts the sentencing is all on behalf of HM the Queen, ultimately. (The same goes for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.) Where the jurisdiction comes in is at the court level—a judge could sentence criminally in the High Court of Justice, which is a court for England and Wales, and it has no jurisdiction outside of that. So we would say that they were sentenced by England and Wales (on behalf of the Queen) to life imprisonment. (Truth be told, it's probably far more common to hear the "by" with the specific court rather than the jurisdiction. I would hear "sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court of Justice" far more than "by England and Wales". But dividing the category system by court seems like overkill.) There are other ways to word the action, but I'm not sure they would work well for category names. News reporters, for instance, would probably say he was "sentenced to life imprisonment by a New York court", or "sentenced to life imprisonment by a New York judge", or something like that. It could be "People sentenced to life imprisonment by courts of England and Wales". It adds two words—does it add clarity? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- For me? Definitely. But then I am a pedant. But then categories needs a certain pedantry to be clear, accurate and cover a multiplicity of circumstances with as much consistency as can be gained without being daft. I think that's a good suggestion. --Dweller (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Pedantry is welcome here. If I remember correctly (and it was some time ago that this scheme was developed)—it was suggested by someone that we pattern the name of these after the Category:Executions by country categories, which were all "People executed by FOO". This pattern then moved up the tree to be used for all those in Category:Prisoners sentenced to death by country and Category:Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment by country. There was a user that definitely wanted to avoid the "in" due to courts sitting extraterritorially and issues of U.S. federal courts sitting in a particular state but not acting on that state's behalf, etc. I suppose there could also be a concern—what about the jurisdictions that sentence people to death or life imprisonment by head of state fiat rather than a regularly constituted "court"? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I find Cat work draining and try to stay away - what do you guys tend to do when there's a sizeable minority of cases that mean rigid consistency doesn't work for them? Does it depend each time on consensus, or is there policy on the matter? --Dweller (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Finding any consistency or rules of thumb with cats has been very difficult, at least in my experience—partly because of these sorts of reasons, that users can always pick holes in suggestions and find exceptions to what on its face seems like a reasonable approach. It's been very tricky to even get any sort of consistent naming conventions. So most things with cats tend to be done case-by-case, which can be frustrating for both sides of the discussion. I tend to usually side with the approach that consistency and smooth, understandable, and practically useful names are almost always preferable to pedantic or technical "correctness", since categories are such a blunt instrument and one can almost always find a reason a name doesn't work perfectly. For instance, I would agree with your opinion that the categories would be improved by adding "by the courts of ...", but I have some doubts as to whether such a proposal would succeed at CFD. Cats don't do nuance very well, which gets some users quite upset. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just returning, for one quick last time, to the generality, is it correct that the normative legal expression in USEng or in USEng/BREng "by [name of country]"? --Dweller (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Based on what I know, I would say yes, it would be the way to say it in both US and BR English. But even in legal circles, it would probably be more likely to reference the specific court or just say "by a JURISDICTION court" rather than merely "by JURISDICTION". In legal circles, I would guess that "by" would be used in preference to "in" almost universally. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- That implies that sticking with "by" and adding the word "courts" somehow would be the opmtimum outcome. --Dweller (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- That's probably what I would be in favour of doing, knowing that there has been a reader (you) who has found the current phrasing confusing and problematic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- That implies that sticking with "by" and adding the word "courts" somehow would be the opmtimum outcome. --Dweller (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Based on what I know, I would say yes, it would be the way to say it in both US and BR English. But even in legal circles, it would probably be more likely to reference the specific court or just say "by a JURISDICTION court" rather than merely "by JURISDICTION". In legal circles, I would guess that "by" would be used in preference to "in" almost universally. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just returning, for one quick last time, to the generality, is it correct that the normative legal expression in USEng or in USEng/BREng "by [name of country]"? --Dweller (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Finding any consistency or rules of thumb with cats has been very difficult, at least in my experience—partly because of these sorts of reasons, that users can always pick holes in suggestions and find exceptions to what on its face seems like a reasonable approach. It's been very tricky to even get any sort of consistent naming conventions. So most things with cats tend to be done case-by-case, which can be frustrating for both sides of the discussion. I tend to usually side with the approach that consistency and smooth, understandable, and practically useful names are almost always preferable to pedantic or technical "correctness", since categories are such a blunt instrument and one can almost always find a reason a name doesn't work perfectly. For instance, I would agree with your opinion that the categories would be improved by adding "by the courts of ...", but I have some doubts as to whether such a proposal would succeed at CFD. Cats don't do nuance very well, which gets some users quite upset. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I find Cat work draining and try to stay away - what do you guys tend to do when there's a sizeable minority of cases that mean rigid consistency doesn't work for them? Does it depend each time on consensus, or is there policy on the matter? --Dweller (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Pedantry is welcome here. If I remember correctly (and it was some time ago that this scheme was developed)—it was suggested by someone that we pattern the name of these after the Category:Executions by country categories, which were all "People executed by FOO". This pattern then moved up the tree to be used for all those in Category:Prisoners sentenced to death by country and Category:Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment by country. There was a user that definitely wanted to avoid the "in" due to courts sitting extraterritorially and issues of U.S. federal courts sitting in a particular state but not acting on that state's behalf, etc. I suppose there could also be a concern—what about the jurisdictions that sentence people to death or life imprisonment by head of state fiat rather than a regularly constituted "court"? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- For me? Definitely. But then I am a pedant. But then categories needs a certain pedantry to be clear, accurate and cover a multiplicity of circumstances with as much consistency as can be gained without being daft. I think that's a good suggestion. --Dweller (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right—in all UK courts the sentencing is all on behalf of HM the Queen, ultimately. (The same goes for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.) Where the jurisdiction comes in is at the court level—a judge could sentence criminally in the High Court of Justice, which is a court for England and Wales, and it has no jurisdiction outside of that. So we would say that they were sentenced by England and Wales (on behalf of the Queen) to life imprisonment. (Truth be told, it's probably far more common to hear the "by" with the specific court rather than the jurisdiction. I would hear "sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court of Justice" far more than "by England and Wales". But dividing the category system by court seems like overkill.) There are other ways to word the action, but I'm not sure they would work well for category names. News reporters, for instance, would probably say he was "sentenced to life imprisonment by a New York court", or "sentenced to life imprisonment by a New York judge", or something like that. It could be "People sentenced to life imprisonment by courts of England and Wales". It adds two words—does it add clarity? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- "England and Wales" has never sentenced anything to anyone??! Really?? That jurisdiction sentences people nearly every day of every week. Judges do the actual sentencing, but they do it on behalf of "England and Wales". It's very common to speak this way in matters of criminal law. Anyway, this format is used consistently throughout the Category:Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment by country tree. Do you see it as a general problem with all of these or just with England and Wales? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's a jarring turn of phrase and looks like a typo. "England and Wales" has never sentenced anyone to anything. There must be a better alternative. --Dweller (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Incidentally, thanks for a pleasant discussion. Everything at CFD is so often "attack-attack-attack/argue-argue-argue/I'm-right-and-there-is-no-other-way-to-view-this" that it's nice to have a query where I don't feel under siege. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Sadly, that's all too true of Wikipedia in general. I do think CfD is an area particularly inclined toward it - it's because, I think, it can be perceived by the content developers that it's a clique of argumentative, fixed-will gnomes with group deafness messing with their lovingly-groomed creations. I think the perception is wrong, but I have some sympathy with how it comes about, and do wonder whether better communication could help. Perhaps some finessing of templates, for starters? Anyway, lmk how you choose to proceed - I'm the novice here. --Dweller (talk) 08:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Er......[whine, whimper]
User:Salix was good enough to close the St'at'imc, Nuxalk, and Sto:lo categories, but made "no consensus" on Category:Cree nations which I feel strongly should be harmonized with other "FOO govenments" categories; there is no other "FOO nations" category, not even one. Will it be considered a POV fork if I just go and create Category:Cree governments. That is what I was going to do in the first place, but seeing the anomalous category "FOO nations" style, I thought it was going to be easy; not so, as things turned out, and all kinds of irrelevant and OR judgments were used by my virtually sole opponent, who like the K-man never listened to what I had to say, only dug in his feels further. I can see no reason for opposition if I put all the same articles in a parallel category, but moving them I gather will be a no-no. Not one of the people on these discussions has been aboriginal; including myself, of course, and though he claims to know some individuals, the conventions (if no guidelines) that were developed now several years ago should apply. "There is one great Cree nation", as Wab Kinew, a noted Cree, and others will state; they do not consider band governments to be nations-in-the nations sense; the question "First Nations band government" = "nations" is fallacious in the extreme; see also the Category:Squamish CfR's latest exchange, which is between me and Salix, who hopefully will understand and not peremptorily dismiss what I have to say, based on the RM which did occur there, unlike in the other cases. There is no "FOO (First Nation)" dab for any "peoples" article. And now that Category:Sto:lo and Category:Nuxalk have passed, I'm faced with an RM on my speedy moves of their main articles (or am I?) from Sto:lo people and Nuxalk people to strip them of the "people", which yes, it was me who added in order to expedite those CfRs.....so far Kwami's other speedies, such as Dakelh=>Carrier people have not resulted in speedy CfRs, but though the latter term is still in wide use, Category:Dakelh by User:Themightyquill in 2008, during the period when "we" were all working out/establishing the endonym-people vs official name-band government and separate reserve and language articles and categories, which had been a horrible jumble prior to that. The Dakelh article's speedy to Carrier people move was by, guess who, Kwami, on on June 28, 2011, a scant few weeks after I began my boycott of Wikipedia because of the election-season ban on me because I dared to maintain that the nest of "Foo policy of the Harper government" were both advertising and also extremely POV because of the politicization of "Harper government" to replace "Government of canada" in government communications by His Steveness, and which remains a political issue in Canada (buried among much larger problems associated with His Steveness and those around him...... That article had been created in May 2004 by User:Billposer, who is the pre-eminent scholar of northern BC languages and peoples and the Dakelh in particular and is the head of the Yinka Dene Language Institute in Vanderhoof, BC, which is affiliated to the University of Northern British Columbia in Prince George, and formerly located on their campus. "Kwami knows best" paid no heed to the article's origins, or the reasons rfor its naming. That one at least should be speedied back....along with other "FOO (anglicization) people" articles that are still out there that he did, heedlessly and recklessly and as evidenced by his conduct and excuses/rationalization in the RMs, with complete disdain for any scholarship but his own, and the books on his shelves. Anyways I tried to engage User:CJLippert who is associated with WikiProject working group within IPNA on the Category:Cree nations CfR, no luck. Most informed people on these matters, including User:BillPoser, rarely edit or participate anymore.........in part my own fault back then due to some misunderstandings about edits and terms and wiki-practices......my three main questions here are creating Category:Cree governments anyway, good idea or bad idea, and since I moved Nuxalk people and St'at'imc people, but have no admin rights, and can't move them "back" to the undiacriticalized plain old "FOO" to match other endonym-name articles in BC, or can it be expedited somehow. I'm in no mood for more RMs or CfRs and have some AfDs on the go, which is a whole 'nother discussion. Had twenty articles I could have written this last couple of weeks, good ones about relevant topics, and once again find my time here chewed up by "picking up after others" and trying to repair the damage done by people who don't know the subject matter and interpret guidelines rigidly without knowing anything about the context or impacts of the things they're changing. Thanks for your patience with me tugging at your shirt all the time......I'm an old man now, facing dire fiscal straits, partly due to the amount of time I find myself taken up with here to sort all this out, and like User:Mkdw am thinking another wikibreak might be the only sane thing to do; partly so I can revise my own website (http://www.cayoosh.net) and get some ebooks published....and find money to pay my landlord here some rent and keep myself and the dog that's adopted me fed; geez I've picked up her habit of whining when she's hungry LOL....I'm facing a border run on July 9 to renew my visa for another 60 days, or set off for parts unknown with only a small amount of money in my pocket, and will be offline for a long time if that happens......knowing that when I return again, the wrecking ball of uninformed ignorance/arrogance will have swung again, and the useful and needed articles I know need creation, and work on others which need to be fleshed out and should be priority articles in Canada (New Westminster at the top of the list), will not get done, if I have to spend all my time tying the knots others have created......it won't matter after I die anyway, I suppose....Skookum1 (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- What is the appropriate place to appeal a CfD? The Category:Cree nations decision sets a very bad precedent and is anomalous within Category:First Nations governments and there are no other "FOO nations" indigenous peoples categories in Canada....or the US. The equation of "First Nation" meaning a band as "nation" is entirely wrong and not in the slightest NPOV, either. See User talk:Salix#Thank you and my comments to him there. I dislike procedure as you know as exhaustively time-consuming but feel this needs to be appealed and reviewed.Skookum1 (talk) 03:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Appeals (or rather, "reviews", I suppose) of discussions are done at WP:DRV. It's called "deletion review" but any discussion can be reviewed there even if deletion was never on the table. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like Salix Alba is reconsidering, re a question from him in my response to "how can you compromise what people choose to call themselves" response to his call for compromise, with the question "what is the nature of the content of the articles in the category"....the answer to which is "band governments", as he'd compared dictionary meanings of "Nation" and "government" as being different; but without reference to the Canadian context of "nation" or the particular nature of Indian Act-mandated governments, which I've explained now again, though all of that was in the CfD more than once....I have yet to see his response, but I gather that now he's closed it he can't change his decision himself - or ?? And where would I take the "FOO people" non-RM speedies to for fixing (noting t hat two of them, Nuxalk and Sto:lo were my own, the others are mostly you-know-who's).Skookum1 (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the closer could change his mind and change the close. I suppose the "FOO people" nominations would be regular CFD nominations. Unless—if you are the creator and sole editor of a category (excluding bots), we can change them with no discussion. Just list them here and note the changes that you want made and I could process them. If you are the creator but are not the sole editor of a category, it goes to a regular discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'll have to review which categories I made, but it was "FOO people" articles here I was meaning. So far, as noted Category:Dakelh remains unchanged despite the speedy of Dakelh to Carrier people; I think there is a Category:Dakelh people subcat already, and its existence like Category:Gitxsan people, Category:Tsimshian people, Category:Nisga'a people and Category:Haida people demonstrates the issue about changes of the main articles of their parent categories to Gitxsan people, Tsimshian people, Nisga'a people and Haida people, and so on. The stand-alone main article titles for the groups should have remained as they were, a convention which was also arrived at by a working consensus five or so years ago before the "wrecking crew" came along and mandated that they should all be "FOO people" without regard to the consequences or the reasons they were created without "people" tagged on. The Dakelh main article and category were, as noted, created by a prominent scholar whose usership is now dormant, but as far as citations go, I'd say that's a "binding" one......no matter what other linguists, all amateur so far as I know, want to pontificate should be the case.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Clarifying - so it's a bulk RM I mean, once I find all the "FOO people" instances; Mohawk people is problematic as you can see by looking over its talkpage discussions, and it's not an endonym anyway.Skookum1 (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Was a little tied up in providing support for this article on how to treat the "Cree language". The issue surrounding Cree peoples are just as complex, as "Cree" don't necessarily accurately cover either the anthropological nor linguistic definition of "Cree" (such as, the Anishinini consider themselves as "Cree" though ethnically more closely aligned with the Anishinaabeg, and then there are the cases of the Nēhiyawi-pwātak who ethnically are "Cree" but considers themselves more today to be Assiniboine). Category:Cree governments is a good category as it covers just those governments that are considered primarily Cree, regardless of what the ethnic composition of the peoplehood in the particular nation. Additionally, the "government" opposed to "people" would also be a good choice as it also eliminates the complex and muddled ideas of peoplehood that don't necessarily fit in nice categories. The issue of "people" will need to be addressed in the future as the contributors all become for culturally aware of the daily multicultural life of the indigenous peoples of North America, but for today, for article classification purposes, "government" is good enough and clear-cut enough to eventually get to our goal. CJLippert (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Clarifying - so it's a bulk RM I mean, once I find all the "FOO people" instances; Mohawk people is problematic as you can see by looking over its talkpage discussions, and it's not an endonym anyway.Skookum1 (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'll have to review which categories I made, but it was "FOO people" articles here I was meaning. So far, as noted Category:Dakelh remains unchanged despite the speedy of Dakelh to Carrier people; I think there is a Category:Dakelh people subcat already, and its existence like Category:Gitxsan people, Category:Tsimshian people, Category:Nisga'a people and Category:Haida people demonstrates the issue about changes of the main articles of their parent categories to Gitxsan people, Tsimshian people, Nisga'a people and Haida people, and so on. The stand-alone main article titles for the groups should have remained as they were, a convention which was also arrived at by a working consensus five or so years ago before the "wrecking crew" came along and mandated that they should all be "FOO people" without regard to the consequences or the reasons they were created without "people" tagged on. The Dakelh main article and category were, as noted, created by a prominent scholar whose usership is now dormant, but as far as citations go, I'd say that's a "binding" one......no matter what other linguists, all amateur so far as I know, want to pontificate should be the case.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the closer could change his mind and change the close. I suppose the "FOO people" nominations would be regular CFD nominations. Unless—if you are the creator and sole editor of a category (excluding bots), we can change them with no discussion. Just list them here and note the changes that you want made and I could process them. If you are the creator but are not the sole editor of a category, it goes to a regular discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like Salix Alba is reconsidering, re a question from him in my response to "how can you compromise what people choose to call themselves" response to his call for compromise, with the question "what is the nature of the content of the articles in the category"....the answer to which is "band governments", as he'd compared dictionary meanings of "Nation" and "government" as being different; but without reference to the Canadian context of "nation" or the particular nature of Indian Act-mandated governments, which I've explained now again, though all of that was in the CfD more than once....I have yet to see his response, but I gather that now he's closed it he can't change his decision himself - or ?? And where would I take the "FOO people" non-RM speedies to for fixing (noting t hat two of them, Nuxalk and Sto:lo were my own, the others are mostly you-know-who's).Skookum1 (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Appeals (or rather, "reviews", I suppose) of discussions are done at WP:DRV. It's called "deletion review" but any discussion can be reviewed there even if deletion was never on the table. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks CJLippert...I'm aware of the Oji-Cree for example because of the excellent maps and articles resulting from the Anishinaabe workgroup....and the other kinds of Cree. There's similar complexity with Dene peoples; I wound up reading and bookmarking the Denesuline article (Chipwewyan) and they, too, have a complex set of inter and infrarelationships....big distinction between governments, peoples, IRs and such as per my comments throughout all this, and the BC RMs which are now thankfully closed '"the right way", though Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish people and Category:Squamish remain issues. About the Denesuline, and the various BC Dene peoples (Tsilhqot'in, Sekani, Kaska, Tahltan, and the extinct Testaut, plus the Beaver/Danezaa see Talk:Dene#Denendeh - a term which is now identified as an alternate name for the NWT but has a much broader sense also......please take your comment to User:Salix Alba on this talkpage, I think the section is User_talk:Salix_alba#Thank_you and note that he's ready to reconsider and was asking which of "Cree nations" and "Cree governments" most accurately describes the contents of those categories; obvious enough to you and me but I guess not obvious to someone unfamiliar with Canadian aboriginal identity and politics.....my opponent there, by the way, felt that the Ojibwe articles should all be called "Chippewa".....yes, there are Chippewa-named bands in SW Ontario, but.............and I hope you've noted my exhortations about starting a set of guidelines re indigenous/aboriginal content for CANMOS and/or IPNA.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Found another stupid knee-jerk speedy that HAS to be reverted ({{Squamish}} grrr
Please see, both of you, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America#.22Squamish.22_template_was_wrongly_speedied. The RM needs intervention to overturn, my comments there about non-indigenous editors showing no respect for prior consensus and for who created the articles and categories and templates and so on and why is now underscored....the RM was faulty and is a clearly case of people applying guidelines as jackboot rules without considering context OR knowing anything substantial about the subject. This has to STOP and the damage reverted.....It's like if someone had come along and arbitrarily held a move of this WikiProject to "Indians of North America".....Skookum1 (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I find it ironic that User:Kauffner's userpage is about applying diacriticals to articles with titles from other languages, when he supported the Skwxwu7mesh-Squamish RM and now is the one doing these speedies. Because the indigenous endonyms in Canada exist without criticals is why I wanted the various categories changed to de-diacriticalized versions, now accomplished e.g.Category:St'at'imc, Category:Sto:lo .. the predecessor to Category:Squamish was heavily diacriticalized, although t he RM on Talk:Squamish people that mandated all this was about "most common name"....as adjudged by people not from BC oblivious to the primary meaning of that term. Gaaagh. I'm going to bed, Guidelines forum on all this, and more than IPNA people have to be made aware of these issues, the domino-effect gamesmanship of the RM-Cfd-TFD gambit has bot to be overthrown by a clear statement that RMs that do not take into accuont authenticity or context or the who and why of endonym-name items will not be held validk, and should not be decided by admins who know f-all about the content at hand....grrr I could have written so much these last couple of months instead of having to try and reset egregious errors via "combat by CfD" and "combat by RM" against people who don't know what they're talking about, but love throwing out wiki gudelines...whatever happened to WP:NORULES???Skookum1 (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
ARBCOM instead of more TfDs/CfDs/RMs et al?
This has to go to ARBCOM or wherever as a "global" issue.....I don't want to have to deal with MORE CfDs, TfDs and RMs that were all totally wrong in conception, decision and execution. Aaaargh.Skookum1 (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Redlink
Hi there,
I see you removed my Wikilink to the Martin Harris Gravesite. I'm not a big fan of adding intentional red links either, but it seems pretty standard with National Historic Sites.
The red link can be found on these pages as well...
It might be a good idea to do a full search using ( ~Martin Harris Gravesite ) to find all the redlinks.
Take care and thanks.
Richard Apple (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I see—I didn't realise that this was part of the NHS system. I would suspect that maybe we should create Martin Harris Gravesite and redirect it to Martin Harris (Latter Day Saints)? Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea. The NHS sites are slowly filling in, but what a big job! Thanks for all your great edits on here. Cheers, Richard.
The article The Name of the Rose (film) is in this category, which you deleted nearly 3 years ago, yet there seems to be no way of removing the category. Looking at the category page, I see there are still a lot of articles in it, yet it cannot be removed. I find this very puzzling. I am not taking issue with your deletion, but shouldn't the category be depopulated? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- talk-page stalker - the category is automatically added by the {{Lang}} template. I don't know why this latin category was deleted, as many others still exist. Perhaps GOF remembers the history here, and as is often the case, an all-important hyphen is involved this time... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just commenting re that, I was on the page where Roxelana redirects, and the Arabic-language one was there; redlinked. It was wrong anyway, Ottoman language used Arabic script, not Arabic-language as the deleted cat said; same with Persian/Farsi and other languages.....Berber maybe? I saw that CfD go buy, don't know why there were created, or being deleted; but wonder about their application and accuracy, across the board, if only by that one example.Skookum1 (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- The plot thickens - there is now a mass rename in progress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy#Add_requests_for_speedy_renaming_here. I do note that Category:Articles containing Latin language text (without the hyphen) does exist.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, the templates have been changed to now include the hyphen, but the categories have not been all renamed yet. It's a process that will be ongoing this week, so Category:Articles containing Latin-language text will be re-created in the next few days. I suggest patience, as there are a lot of these to get through and it's a time-consuming task. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- The plot thickens - there is now a mass rename in progress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy#Add_requests_for_speedy_renaming_here. I do note that Category:Articles containing Latin language text (without the hyphen) does exist.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just commenting re that, I was on the page where Roxelana redirects, and the Arabic-language one was there; redlinked. It was wrong anyway, Ottoman language used Arabic script, not Arabic-language as the deleted cat said; same with Persian/Farsi and other languages.....Berber maybe? I saw that CfD go buy, don't know why there were created, or being deleted; but wonder about their application and accuracy, across the board, if only by that one example.Skookum1 (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Language categories
Please take a look at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Articles_with_fooian-language_external_links and Village_pump_(technical)#Articles_with_Russian-language_external_links for consequences of the automated language categories you edited[4]. -DePiep (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wow. Users really can't handle a few days of transition, can they? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I did not get it was in process. Since you clearly are working with it, I don't mind any more. -DePiep (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'll try to fly through them as quickly as we can. I agree that it's a confusing issue and it's not readily apparent that it's being worked through. I don't blame users for inquiring—Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- All fine. I even do not want you to hurry. Please don't. It will be OK, your way. -DePiep (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'll try to fly through them as quickly as we can. I agree that it's a confusing issue and it's not readily apparent that it's being worked through. I don't blame users for inquiring—Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I did not get it was in process. Since you clearly are working with it, I don't mind any more. -DePiep (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hidden categories
In your edit here, when the hidden category template was added, there are now duplicate header boxes on that category page. The Template:Non-English-language external links category already adds the hidden category template to any category it's trancluded on. Unless you are planning to change the template the Non-English template? --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- No, that's fine. I forgot that the template had the hidden feature built in. I'm not sure why I didn't see that it was already there when I added it. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- No problem! Sometimes it takes a 2nd set of eyes... :) --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
what??
The guidance is clear that nac should not be overturned just b/c i'm not an admin, and i seriously doubt you would have done the same if i made the same close as an admin. I explained my reasoning in detail and it was not a supervote; i came into it intending to find nc close too, but careful reflection and study brought me to that conclusion so its inappropriate for you to revert that close. yes there were good args on both sides, but as i explained, hc clearly passes commonname, there was rough consensus on that, and it passes precise and conciseness tests, all policy based. please restore it and take my move to move review if you disagree, otherwise this is going far too far (and you've reverted another admin's actions to boot)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- You're right—I would not have done so if it was done by an admin. I did what I did pursuant to a review under WP:RMNAC, which is explicitly about non-admin closures. And it was not overturned just because you are not an admin. I don't see the "rough consensus" in that discussion you are seeing. And I don't appreciate the implication that I did not use "careful reflection and study" in doing what I did. As for your final parenthetical point—I'm not aware of another admin formally reviewing this under WP:RMNAC and determining that your close should stand as is. The only thing I reversed was an admin's move of the page, but he appears to be taking no view on the close one way or the other. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- @Obiwan, I think we all appreciate boldness, and I don't doubt that you did put a lot of thought and reflection into the close. However, given the nature of the debate, and the blowback on the talk page, I think it's probably best to let the status quo reign for now. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree. In reading it, I found a consensus, consensus is not votes, it's strength of argument, and The arguments to move based on polic were simply stronger, a lot stronger. My close was proper and fully within bounds. As I understand it, The admin oversight is for egregious cases, not ones where someone made a call that you might disagree with - and that's what you're effectively saying above - you simply disagree with my call. Thats fine, but i think reverting is a step too far. You didnt even discuss with me on talk first, you just reverted without a word. The blowback on talk page is mostly opposers of the move, so not surprising. Please reconsider, I really think this was improper and I spent a lot of time on that close that you've just thrown out without letting others judge. If you really think there was an obvious NC, take it to MR and see if consensus agrees. But a unilateral revert of a carefully considered and argued consensus close based on a careful analysis of arguments and their application to policy and coupled with a detailed closing statement laying out the reasoning on a per-policy bases is imho overextension of admin oversight and violates the spirit and the law of that guidance as far as I'm concerned. I have a lot of respect for you GOF and the many actions you do here, and I did not mean to imply you weren't thoughtful, but I urge you to reconsider. If you're right, and there was no consensus, move review will bear you out in spades. Please at least allow me my day in court, I was honestly trying to help the wiki and my reading of non-admin closes did not indicate I could just be reverted like this. As it is, I'm now feeling discriminated because of my lack of a mop. Again, with all respect, please reconsider. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- (Gad—why do I get involved in these sorts of things?) The reason I did what I did was not just because I disagreed with the close, but also because I didn't think it met the (loose) requirements for non-admin closures at WP:RMNAC. Point number one is that the consensus or lack of consensus be clear after a full listing period (seven days). I can acknowledge that you found a consensus, but I don't know how we can say it was "clear". As for the close itself—I don't disagree with several of the point you made there, but to me it just looked like a casting vote- or benevolent dictator-type situation. Anyway, as a gesture of good faith and an acknowledgment that I believe your in your sincerity and your own good faith, I'm willing to overturn/nullify my review—with the understanding that my position on the appropriateness of the close hasn't really changed and that there are also other avenues available for those who want to challenge the close. (Now I'm sure to be flamed from the other side—gad x 2.) PS: I was going to drop you a note on your talk page after I did the reversion, but you beat me to it by commenting here, so I am sorry about that. It probably would have been better for me to notify you beforehand. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- You called? You're safe from flames from me on this count :-).-gadfium 04:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't realise you had wired-up WP to notify you every time someone typed "gad". I need to do the same with "olfactory" :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- thank you kindly GOF, I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt. I reckon this will end at MR in any case, but that's fine, I am interested to see how others analyze this close. And honestly, I tried my best to close based on the applicability to policy of the move arguments. I read the consensus guideline probably 20 times, and I felt like, once you discarded arguments not based on policy, you end up with a rough consensus to move here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- You called? You're safe from flames from me on this count :-).-gadfium 04:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- (Gad—why do I get involved in these sorts of things?) The reason I did what I did was not just because I disagreed with the close, but also because I didn't think it met the (loose) requirements for non-admin closures at WP:RMNAC. Point number one is that the consensus or lack of consensus be clear after a full listing period (seven days). I can acknowledge that you found a consensus, but I don't know how we can say it was "clear". As for the close itself—I don't disagree with several of the point you made there, but to me it just looked like a casting vote- or benevolent dictator-type situation. Anyway, as a gesture of good faith and an acknowledgment that I believe your in your sincerity and your own good faith, I'm willing to overturn/nullify my review—with the understanding that my position on the appropriateness of the close hasn't really changed and that there are also other avenues available for those who want to challenge the close. (Now I'm sure to be flamed from the other side—gad x 2.) PS: I was going to drop you a note on your talk page after I did the reversion, but you beat me to it by commenting here, so I am sorry about that. It probably would have been better for me to notify you beforehand. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree. In reading it, I found a consensus, consensus is not votes, it's strength of argument, and The arguments to move based on polic were simply stronger, a lot stronger. My close was proper and fully within bounds. As I understand it, The admin oversight is for egregious cases, not ones where someone made a call that you might disagree with - and that's what you're effectively saying above - you simply disagree with my call. Thats fine, but i think reverting is a step too far. You didnt even discuss with me on talk first, you just reverted without a word. The blowback on talk page is mostly opposers of the move, so not surprising. Please reconsider, I really think this was improper and I spent a lot of time on that close that you've just thrown out without letting others judge. If you really think there was an obvious NC, take it to MR and see if consensus agrees. But a unilateral revert of a carefully considered and argued consensus close based on a careful analysis of arguments and their application to policy and coupled with a detailed closing statement laying out the reasoning on a per-policy bases is imho overextension of admin oversight and violates the spirit and the law of that guidance as far as I'm concerned. I have a lot of respect for you GOF and the many actions you do here, and I did not mean to imply you weren't thoughtful, but I urge you to reconsider. If you're right, and there was no consensus, move review will bear you out in spades. Please at least allow me my day in court, I was honestly trying to help the wiki and my reading of non-admin closes did not indicate I could just be reverted like this. As it is, I'm now feeling discriminated because of my lack of a mop. Again, with all respect, please reconsider. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- @Obiwan, I think we all appreciate boldness, and I don't doubt that you did put a lot of thought and reflection into the close. However, given the nature of the debate, and the blowback on the talk page, I think it's probably best to let the status quo reign for now. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- What the hell is going on? You actually did it right in re-closing that thing as no-consensus, then let yourself get trolled by this guy into restoring his bad close? This is fucking ridiculous. Tarc (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Tsk tsk on the language and the attitude. Don't give me anything that I might want to permanently stuff. If you want to know what the hell is going on, my comments are above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm afraid the mere whiplash of all of this may end up in everyone washing their hands of this, which is unfortunate. It shouldn't have been moved, and it most certainly shouldn't have been a non-administrative closure. That being said, I tried to fairly summarize your reasons for undoing the move and then reversing yourself at the move review. I don't ascribe bad faith to User:Obiwankenobi, just bad analysis. In that regard, I can understand your reversing your undo on principle, but I'm not sure about the practical impact. Nonetheless, if you take any issue with how I summarized things at the move review, please let me know. My goal genuinely was to get as objective a description for the whole affair as was possible. user:j (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- I did read the statement through shortly after you posted it. I appreciate the effort you made to treat all users fairly in writing it. I am comfortable with how you represented my actions and have no objections. Great work, I would say— Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm afraid the mere whiplash of all of this may end up in everyone washing their hands of this, which is unfortunate. It shouldn't have been moved, and it most certainly shouldn't have been a non-administrative closure. That being said, I tried to fairly summarize your reasons for undoing the move and then reversing yourself at the move review. I don't ascribe bad faith to User:Obiwankenobi, just bad analysis. In that regard, I can understand your reversing your undo on principle, but I'm not sure about the practical impact. Nonetheless, if you take any issue with how I summarized things at the move review, please let me know. My goal genuinely was to get as objective a description for the whole affair as was possible. user:j (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Tsk tsk on the language and the attitude. Don't give me anything that I might want to permanently stuff. If you want to know what the hell is going on, my comments are above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
A broader question re: RMNAC
Hi GOF. WP:RMNAC says there should be clear consensus or no-consensus. After starting to do the close, thinking it would be a clear NC, I was surprised to find what I judged was a clear consensus (using the policy-based argument of WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISE, and WP:CONCISE). At the same time, others are claiming there was a clear/obvious no-consensus. So would my action have been disputed if I closed as no-consensus in this case? Or would the "support" !voters have said "You can't close that Mr. no-mop, it's not obvious there was a NC".
I guess the language isn't clear to me, and I'm not sure which debates are neither clear consensus nor clear non-consensus (since it's often a question of where you stand), or how that is supposed to be judged. It just seems a bit vague to me. And the recent village pump discussion, which many seniors editors commented, suggested there were no issues with NAC, even on contentious issues. Just wondering your thoughts on the above. FWIW, this is more of a general question, and I'm not trying to re-open specifics of what I did, what you did or the MR here - I'm just thinking more generally. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Upon reflecting on this and reading it through several times, I think it is ambiguously worded—but I'm not sure on how if could be improved without making a more firm "rule" one way or the other on NACs. My interpretation of it has always been that the result (whether that be a consensus or a no consensus) would need to be clear on its face to any user reading through the discussion. It gets confusing, though, because what one user judges to be a clear "no consensus" can be judged by others to be a borderline consensus result one way or the other. Often, users perception of this is colored by their own opinion on the underlying matter. In the Clinton case at hand, obviously those who were opposed to the move will see a clear "no consensus". I think it's better to trust the views of a neutral party, if one can be found regarding such issues. (I question whether there is any user out there who has absolutely no sense of whether the Clinton article should be at one place or the other, but maybe they exist.) Which means that except in the very clearest of the clear cases, the result is not clear—but even then, maybe it's not. I think this leads some editors to just be in favor of a blanket ban on NACs. That's not an approach I would take, but it does have the benefit of clarity, which I don't think the current guideline does have. It's squishy. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Category articles containing non-English-language text/inner core
How are your coding skills today? When I was renaming and looking at the non-English-language text categories, I felt that the template needed cleaning up. All that I think is left is to modify {{Category articles containing non-English-language text/inner core}} so that if there are more then 3,000 pages in the category the template uses {{LargeCategoryTOC}} instead of {{Category TOC}} which is added at 150 pages. Right now it has been manually added leaving two TOCs. Better to add the correct one in the template. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hm, that might be slightly beyond my abilities. I'm not great with coding when it comes to varying the application based on conditions precedent, or whatever it's called. I could take a look, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I thought it was a simple else on the ifexists. But I get confused by the parentheses. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- BTW, in my trawling I'm finding that a lot of these dumb categories aren't even using the templates that are designed for them. It looks like a lot were just created and parented in the regular way by various users. Cydebot also seems to be moving a fair number of articles out the old into the new, suggesting that some users are also manually adding these categories to articles. I can't imagine why a user would even think to do those sorts of things involving hidden categories. Weird stuff. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- So that's why cydebot is running so slowly. I thought it would not find any categories to change. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yup, on some of the larger categories for the more common languages, it's churning through quite a few articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like {{ISO 639 name pnb}} and the rest of the series add the categories directly. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- I had a look at this and I don't think I can do it—it's just beyond any skill that I have in it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- I made my comment from the text in the categories. In looking at that template, I don't see where it is added. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I couldn't even find that either. Maybe if I can find it I could figure it out. BTW, I don't know much about Chinese either, but I thought the written forms of Mandarin and Cantonese were the same and only the spoken forms were different, and that therefore the written language can be simply called "Chinese". If that's true (and I don't know for sure if it is) then these categories about "Cantonese-language text" are just redundant to the ones that are for "Chinese-language text", aren't they? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- No idea about the Chinese language. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'll leave it. The distinction must be meaningful to some degree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- No idea about the Chinese language. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I couldn't even find that either. Maybe if I can find it I could figure it out. BTW, I don't know much about Chinese either, but I thought the written forms of Mandarin and Cantonese were the same and only the spoken forms were different, and that therefore the written language can be simply called "Chinese". If that's true (and I don't know for sure if it is) then these categories about "Cantonese-language text" are just redundant to the ones that are for "Chinese-language text", aren't they? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- I made my comment from the text in the categories. In looking at that template, I don't see where it is added. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- I had a look at this and I don't think I can do it—it's just beyond any skill that I have in it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like {{ISO 639 name pnb}} and the rest of the series add the categories directly. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yup, on some of the larger categories for the more common languages, it's churning through quite a few articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- So that's why cydebot is running so slowly. I thought it would not find any categories to change. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- BTW, in my trawling I'm finding that a lot of these dumb categories aren't even using the templates that are designed for them. It looks like a lot were just created and parented in the regular way by various users. Cydebot also seems to be moving a fair number of articles out the old into the new, suggesting that some users are also manually adding these categories to articles. I can't imagine why a user would even think to do those sorts of things involving hidden categories. Weird stuff. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I thought it was a simple else on the ifexists. But I get confused by the parentheses. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
hi. can you please speed up a process of protection? the guru was convicted and they try to make him looking persecuted. with no proof, they come with info from his site. Bivolaru had the right to defend himself but instead he ran to Sweden granting political refugee. he didn't show up at his trials for years. not the decision is definitive. Valosu (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like it has been protected since your comment here. Is all well now? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
On another note
I haven't been participating in the 1910 in Some country that technically didn't exist then discussions as (and no offense to anyone), I find them extremely tedious. Is there any way to have a single, broader discussion about this, to establish some ground rules, rather than battling it out cat by cat? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oh man, I wish something like that could or would happen. Being involved in them, I'm getting a bit worn down by these discussions too—making the same comments repeatedly, having the same users accuse me of ignoring the same issues that I have addressed a number of times previously. I agree that users need to adapt their strategies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- As an aside, a while ago we had similar discussions about even venues or events. My contention was that if it was held at the old name, then we should leave the category unchanged and make it a subcategory of the new name. Of course, I could not get consensus support. The question above, is to me, just a different flavor of the same concern. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, same sort of thing, I think. It would be nice if there was some sort of unified approach across multiple areas. It gets a little strange looking at the various opinions over time because some editors who are gung-ho about using the "historically correct" names for states are also in favour of eliminating the "historically correct" categories for alumni and sports teams. My views have shifted over time in some of the areas too. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Good point about alumni. My college has morphed into a full university. But I still graduated from one of the university's colleges. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, same sort of thing, I think. It would be nice if there was some sort of unified approach across multiple areas. It gets a little strange looking at the various opinions over time because some editors who are gung-ho about using the "historically correct" names for states are also in favour of eliminating the "historically correct" categories for alumni and sports teams. My views have shifted over time in some of the areas too. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- As an aside, a while ago we had similar discussions about even venues or events. My contention was that if it was held at the old name, then we should leave the category unchanged and make it a subcategory of the new name. Of course, I could not get consensus support. The question above, is to me, just a different flavor of the same concern. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Japanese language text
You were right - also Template:Nihongo3 wasn't changed until now. I suspect there may be other templates lurking in some of the categories to maintain the pain. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, maybe that's why I was seeing what I was seeing. I thought there might be bunch of manually added ones, so I just wanted Cydebot to give it one more sweep through. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Cree categories (again)
Well, I've explained to Salix Alba what he wanted to know, he's not reversed his decision, though others have commented on it (CJLippert), I think on IPNA).......I'm of a mind to just create Category:Cree governments and move everything there and let the cannonfire come at me. I doubt you recall but the Talk:Mohawk people page (which IMO should be Talk:Mohawk goes into the problem with teh old name "Mohawk nation", the same is true here. CJLippert's comments on this on WP:IPNA are a propos, look towards the bottom of the talkpage there. My mistake here was in just not creating the governments category from the start and depopulating "Cree nations" then speedying its deletions......I'm coming to the end of my rope here, my life is only so long and all my intentions of improving and expanding certain topics have been sidetracked by having to deal with all of this, which also affects articles and categories I was going to create...if the comments in the Squamish RM about how since Phaedriel and I and OMR and various others weren't around anymore, what we did doesn't have to be respected, are very troublesome and cast aspersions not just on our contributions but are an insult to all our discussions and informed debates/consensus. "A consensus of fools is only foolishness", as I put on my userpage; all this proves that more than ever to me....everybody playing editor/wiki-cop, nobody actually working on the articles taht are the subject of hot-button RMs and CfDs, e.g. the Deadmau5 thing.....or any of the ones I've brought forward has having big problems, but am hearing all kinds of irrelevant guideline-citing/interpretation to defend the speedied, or mistaken RM, status quo's......I mean to write a summary of "the old consensus" as a sandbox, but my health is suffering from the stress of all this and I may join the ranks of other people who have become frustrated and alienated with the WP:Brat in a Bubble syndrome and more (montanabw created that, it may have been deleted or I don't have its location right if capping the second b doesn't work). Whatever; do you think I'd get blocked for such a thing as creating a category that needs creating, and moving things that shouldn't be in a misnamed category into it, despite the stonewall of its CfD (who is also a pain in the Squamish CfD).Skookum1 (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Would you get blocked for doing that?—very possibly. It really would depend on who noticed and how hard you press if you got "caught". If someone noticed and reported it, you probably would not get blocked if you apologized and backed off immediately. But if you kept doing it or were totally confrontational or unapologetic—yeah, you would probably get blocked. If no one noticed or cared, then of course nothing would happen. Sometimes, to be a good citizen editor, you just have to bite the bullet, throw up your hands, and admit that the consensus-based system can lead to major mess ups. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- It says right on my talkpage "A consensus of fools is only foolishness".....so if Salix Alba has his question answered about "which term best describes the content of this category" and the answer is clearly band governments, not the highly loose/vague and not-in-the-slightest POV term "nations" as if that were an apt plural of "First Nations" (which it's not), and doesn't deign to even answer me, what's the next step to appeal this? Dispute resolution? More procedure where other fools can comment and muddy the waters further???Skookum1 (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- What about two parallel categories, since other "FOO governments" categories already exist matching it; and leave what's in "Cree nations" as a free-for-all not limited to band governments? I'm getting ready because of all the nonsense on so many things to leave again, I'm only gonna live so long and wanna enjoy my life, not spend my time battling with the rule-bangers who are deleting material and throwing around templates and unwarranted, unnecessary name-changes like confetti.....(see my comments on Talk:Ed Corney for example).... and write about history and geography without having somebody who doesn't know all that much lecture me on what language I can use and whether or not my sources satisfy them.....as a good friend of mine, who is a published author (notable enough to be in here himself) said, as have others, "Mike, just write your books, then they will have to cite you. Before I'm gone I'm gonna draft up a sandbox summarizing the now-melting consensus arrived at in IPNA, WPBC, and WP Wash/Oregon back in the day, before people without any familiarity with the complexity of the ethnocultural map or political geography of the region started moving articles without any reference to content or context.....and started speedying templates and categories in lockstep, and resisting any move back to the sensible consensus-made system that informed editors created to organize what had been chaos, and impose archaic terms on peoples that don't want them anymore, or who will be alienated by seeing out-of-date names and titles and not take part in Wikipedia as a result; that was the whole point of embracing the modern, accepted native usages; so as to not give offense, and to invite inclusions and participation....not have non-native people who don't know much about them at all decide what's best for them...; I've seen this also outside IPNA type stuff, it's worrisome, and as noted is like the scenes in Brazil and 1984 where rooms full of bot-like humans apply their rulesets and change and police language and wind up wiping out the future, the past, and current reality......I used to think Wikipedia was destined to become "the central document of the internet"...but now I see it's being populated by the unknowing and informed but rule-happy who treat their barnstars and adminships like sherriff's badges; lots of informed writers and researchers who did a lot a few years ago say "I don't miss Wikipedia at all" and would never come back, because of the ilk of those now doing more "editing" than any actual article-writing....except about trivial items.Skookum1 (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- The "nation/nations/Nation" issue was discussed extensively back in the day, by aboriginal editors as well as non-aboriginal ones, and it was decided to avoid the term for the two reasons that it's (a) vague and (b) often POV. Till Eulenspiegel's testimony about his friends is purely hearsay and original research, and also synthesis by misquotation and personal interpretation of the very few sources he did quote (so few I can't recall what they were). How the obvious existence of the "FOO governments" categories was ignored by the closer is quite beyond me, "no consensus" exists between right and wrong, apparently, or between an anomaly and an existing, obvious conventions/standards and examples. So what's the next step? Dispute resolution? It's not like Salix Alba is an expert in the field, now, is he?Skookum1 (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- For other routes, there's always WP:DRV—it's not always satisfying, but I would go there before dispute resolution just so you could say that you've exhausted your other routes. I suppose you could also just try to create the two parallel category system and see what happens. I wouldn't worry too much about WP becoming "authoritative"—I work in academia and there is a fairly widespread realization (and all academics I know tell this to their students if they are doing any research papers) that WP is an OK place to start research on a topic, but an awful place to stop. A decent WP article can be good to get an outline of the main thrust of a topic and an idea of some basic references (most of which are usually online, since the majority of WP editors do not cite to non-Internet materials). But unless something is cited, it's inherently suspect—and even then, it's wise to consult multiple sources. In the outside-of-WP world, I don't think anyone worries too much about what WP articles and categories are named—most people are familiar with the idea that things can have various names with a variety of capitalizations, and I doubt that if WP calls it something and other sources call it something else most people would even give it a second thought. Cold comfort, I know, when you care and think about it, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- It says right on my talkpage "A consensus of fools is only foolishness".....so if Salix Alba has his question answered about "which term best describes the content of this category" and the answer is clearly band governments, not the highly loose/vague and not-in-the-slightest POV term "nations" as if that were an apt plural of "First Nations" (which it's not), and doesn't deign to even answer me, what's the next step to appeal this? Dispute resolution? More procedure where other fools can comment and muddy the waters further???Skookum1 (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- This wasn't a deletion that needs reviewing, it's a move of category name.....or is that all the same thing in wiki-speak? And what to do about the host of RMs that Kwami pulled without discussion, e.g. what is now Sechelt people (NB the change from Sechelt, British Columbia to plain Sechelt, which complicates any potential category name for the people/tribe.....apposite of "Squamish" which is so aggravating I won't go on about it today, you understand the problem with it by now I'm sure....Kwami speedied, then argued nastily and baited over the RM, delaying things grossly and tried to get an ANI on me, basically, for opposing his high-handedness; User:Billposer who founded the Dakelh category and main article who I've mentioned before is totally alienated and won't return.....yet he's far more of an expert linguist and certainly an authority than Kwami ever will be....so how to roll back RMs to keep more bad-call category and template changes from being made by drive-by editors shooting guidelines like six-gun bullets at varmints, like I quipped to the Ed Corney interloper who deleted that comment? Because thats' all too much what's going on; people cruising for rules to invoke to make themselves feel useful, when really they're being destructive and ignorant....then claiming personal attack when criticized (about that see User:Montanabw's citation of another editor in a box on his userpage.Skookum1 (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, not his userpage, but here.Skookum1 (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- WP:DRV can consider renames of categories, though it only does so rarely. So yeah—it is just a technical WP-speak thing. I guess if we want to get super technical there is a deletion involved, since categories can only be moved by deleting the old category and creating a new one. There is Wikipedia:Move review as well, and you might think that appeals of category renames would go there, but as far as I know that only deals with stuff that went through the WP:RM process, which categories do not. ... Kwami, eh? Hm, I've had more than a few editors complain to me about that user making changes to language-related content, and I've seen a few myself (involving the old hyphens vs. emdashes thing) that have raised my eyebrows. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't bother RM'ing the language articles that he moved when he moved the ethno articles; other than Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish, all those recent RMs were caused by his speedies shortly after I began my post-election boycott in 2011. The addition of "people" is also against the previous consensus, and all should be removed except in rare cases for certain reasons; sometimes it should be pluralized, as in "Sto:lo peoples" if retained at all; there is no political or cultural unity in many cases; he didn't touch Kwakwaka'wakw but complained about how he thought that Kwakiutl should be used as "most common" but the complication with that being one people of the dozen or more that were misnamed that way was beyond him to address; same with Nuu-cha-nulth, which I'm sure he considered changing to "Nootka people" for the same reason, but the same complications lie in the way. I'm reminded of Asimov's line from '71 or so, lampooning the rise of arrogant ignorance in face of the civil rights movement, "my ignorance is better than your education".....another I didn't bother addressing is Okanagan people, which and been endonym-titled as Syilx but there's otehr issues there; the title should be "people from the Okanagan" i.e. the region, and worth noting that the Okanagan Indian Band is only one of a good dozen or more...(it's the one in Vernon, BC). I'm so exhausted and frustrated by the ongoing re-explanation and re-citations of the various RMs I think its pointless to start new ones; when a rollback (and censure of kwami) is what is needed; how to deal with the language article titles is something of a separate matter; MOSFOLLOW gets in the way, and tends to overwhelm modern usages and emerging norms, e.g. "Nlaka'pamux language" is now more common than "Thompson language", but as with van Eijk's book about the Lillooet language, people used that to maintain "Lillooet" was "correct" for the group of peoples who now self-identify as St'at'imc or Stl'atl'imx, depending on which group uses which spelling.....Carrier people and Sechelt people need rolling back definitely, and also the addition of "people" on Haida, Tsmishian, Gitxsan and Nisga'a, which are used in English most commonly without "people" appended (and in the first three cases, as also in St'at'imc and Secwepemc and Tsilhqot'in, is redundant....one of the main reasons, but not the only ones, that "people" was not used in them, or on the categories, in teh first place. Namespace collision my ass, it wasn't accidental, somebody drove a truck into the traffic jam and rammed a few innocent bystanders....that's my view of it of course, and highly POV ;-). But I'm certainly more an expert on these matters than nearly any other non-aboriginal in Wikipedia; most especially kwami.Skookum1 (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
In terms of knowledge and world-experience, all Wikipedians are NOT equal. Some kind of "dean" or "maven" or "expert" status should be established to prevent the unqualified from running roughshod over "consensus" discussions the way that has been happening far too much.Skookum1 (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Why deleted Mediterranean California page
Hey Good Olfactory,
Why did you delete "Mediterranean California" page? It was a good page about the ecoregion, right? What, because that user has been banned or what?
Dalizo (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Dalizo
- Yeah, the only reason was because the user who created it was a banned user. It was a situation where the community decided that all the user's contributions should be deleted en masse, regardless as to whether or not they were articles about legitimate topics. Feel free to re-create the article; it is a legitimate topic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
If your ears were burning
It's probably because I quoted you here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Harrassing_admins_into_reversing_decisions. Please weigh in, if you feel like it. Best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Unified Patent Court
I wonder whether you realized, when making this edit ("these go on Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, not on there"), that Agreement on a Unified Patent Court redirects to Unified Patent Court. Perhaps the categories are still relevant there as long as the Agreement has not its own article? --Edcolins (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I realized it. Redirects can have categories. Not every category that is appropriate for a redirect is appropriate for the target article, which is why the redirect would have categories in the first place per Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I didn't even know that it was possible to add a category to a redirect... --Edcolins (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- They (redirects) show up as italicized entries in the category contents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Good to know! --Edcolins (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- They (redirects) show up as italicized entries in the category contents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I didn't even know that it was possible to add a category to a redirect... --Edcolins (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
K-move again
Sorry to come running to you all the time; I just found another that's highly dubious; the Mi'kmaq page was converted to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mi%27kmaq&diff=407978675&oldid=386415841 Mi'kmaq people by a certain K-type personality in Dec 2010...I was still around, didn't notice because my focus was all on my own region and other interests.......in doing so he converted Mi'kmaq into a dab page for the language and the hieroglyphic writing were equally common usages. The primary usage was obvious....unless to an amateur linguist with an arrogance problem, that is. So partly what happened was that a new page was started off the dab, and had only the WP:Dab on it, not IPNA and WPCAN, which IMO were deliberately left off......so as to evade the radar. Man this is tiring to deal with; another case of peremptory high-handedness by a rogue editor...............and it's not like he hadn't been told or was unaware of the obvious existing convention that said "Mi'kmaq people" was properly a title for people who are Mi'kmaq. This needs intervention, a mass RM and a retrenchment of categories, and that guideline I go on about but find myself stumbling over the damage caused by somebody who gives a flying f*** what anybody else wants, or what common sense demands. I weary of this, I'm an old man wondering where my energies have gone if a bloody fool can take a sledgehammer to months of collective work and go smashing about like a rogue gnome in a crystal shop. Yes, I'm venting here, I"m aghast at finding another case of undiscussed Kwami-isms, and I've already had my fill of hearing his nonsense and insults and baiting in those RMs......"something must be done". It may be me leaving Wikipedia again, as I have no time for fools and do not suffer them gladly.......aaaaaagh. Wikiquette? Demanding wikiquette of me for being upset because of somone who has none at all. I got shot down for saying people here were passive-aggressive all too often; and being attacked in soft speech veiling the hammer of a council of admins is very much that; some wag on their user page or comments box points out taht in Wikipedia, increasingly, making a criticism is denounced as a personal attack i.e. by those very people who deserve criticism. About this one case, it's OBVIOUS that the primary usage is the people known as the Mi'kmaq, not their language nor their writing system In Kwami's world they're all equal perhaps; but is Kwami a consensus of one. Mi'kmaq should be the article title, Mi'kmaq (disambiguation) should be a disambiguation page - with more than three linguistics-only pages....because there are several organizations and band councils and more that use the name; Kwami only considers these people as curios on a shelf to be studied; they are real, not artifacts to be classified and studied by some person who's never even been there.Skookum1 (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Might as well start an ANI for me about that....I won't take part, I'll let the kangaroo court judge me for being uncivil for speaking my mind about someone whose entire conduct is uncivil; I watch his talkpage, there's always complaints about him acting unilaterally and irresponsibly and behaving as though he's the resident authority on all things language - he's not. As I pointed out about Dakelh it was started by the pre-eminent scholar in that field, who lives in their territory. And his pompous and insulting and baiting behaviour in those RMs, which were fairly straightforward until he started putting up all kinds of nonsensical "bring me a shrubbery" demands was asinine in the extreme......and cost me part of my income, it was so aggravating and I did so much unnecessary legwork to prove the real world to somebody who lives in his own ego, and still refused to admit very valid citations were not relevant to Wikipedia. You know what's not relevant? Wikipedia if it's run to death by people like him, who care nothing for the work or thought by those before him or workign around him, and talks down to them like he's the Dean of this place. Aggravation is something he enjoys seeing in other, is my very honest opinion of him, based in obvious experience, and though I raise calls for recognition of the existing conventions in IPNA (before he came along), I've gotten nothing but shrugs. Same on many important matters in Canadian history and geography and more; and I see nothing but people tossing templates and deleting and reverting while not actually working on articles. Except, as in Kwami's case, to tailor them to his own views and terminologies. I don't work on articles in my own area very much because I'm often having to explain what is well-known locally either within the region or within BC to disinterested individuals far away who just want to invoke guidelines and fiddle with the molehills while the mountains fall. I've got books to write, a real person to be; these last couple of months seem likely to be my swansong here, and I look upon the last - eight years as a waste of time, knowing that all the earnest work that I and others put in will be lawnmowered by hedgetrimmers and more and more junk articles will be created, and important ones even deleted or so misnamed that they are a throwback to older citations and points of view. So much wreckage created by one individual that would take me months of work to correct even if there is cooperation and common-sense and open minds in the various procedures; to say nothing of all the CfDS and TfDs that have gone through by speedies because of the too-many undiscussed RMs that overturned other people's thoughtful work.....add on the obvious p.r./spin machines at work on political and government and history articles, where similar blockbusting and stonewalling goes on, and Wikipedia's credibility for me, as one of the top 500, since 2005 I think it's been, is vanishing quickly, and my distaste for 'the way things are done' here, despite my many friends who are erudite and sympathetic, is mounting to the piont of nausea. And resignation. History is not written by the victors, except in so much as often people "win history" by outright lying and deception and newspeakage......sorry to rant, it's 40 degrees, I dropped by to see a dab notice on my page, about an article that, for me, never had any other primary meaning but the people (many of whom I know), to see that K-name in the critical point in the article history, and knowing that it is pointless to take him on; oh, there's a point, if i want to spend another two or t hree months finding the citations he was deliberately avoiding having to do himself, as he knew what he had done was unjustifiable...not just arrogant, but sneaky. And no, I'm not in teh mood to launch an ANI myself, more energy gone into explaining things to people who should know better, and if they don't, should not take part in ANIs and pass judgement on thigns they are slow to understand.....Skookum1 (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Interesting outcome on discussion you started
You may want to look at the links in this close that you initiated. While the close was as proposed, the current status is not what was proposed. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I see that: Orlady has created Category:Appalachian Trail people. Hm—if all those are just AT Hall of Fame members, I'm not sure what the point is. I may need to follow this one up. Thanks Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Problem with hyphenated language categories
I noticed at Protestant Church in the Netherlands that there is a red category, presumably added by {{lang}}. I saw you recently edited that template because of a CfD. Would you take a look? --JFH (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- This may be due to a bug in the way the software works. We usually wait for the categories to be empty after a rename before deleting them. In this case the old categories showed zero members and were then deleted. However, as noted on my talk page, there are red category links in articles for some of these. If you use the red link to check, all of the ones I have found show no members in the category. A null edit of the article in question will fix this. I'm not aware of any way to easily find these. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- That is an annoying bug. I thought all of these were resolved, but I have seen a few popping up, like this one. As soon as any edit is made to the article, it fixes itself, but it's annoying to see. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Re: File:Friberg Samuel the Lamanite low res.JPG
As a non-Mormon admin who has demonstrated knowledge and interest in the Latter Day Saint movement (LDSm), and who also has been involved with discussions of image usage on other LDSm articles, I'd be interested to hear your views on the matter being discussed at wp:NFCR#File:Friberg Samuel the Lamanite low res.JPG. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have commented there. It's an interesting issue, but in general I take the view that use of copyrighted works on WP should be limited to a minimum of what's absolutely necessary and non-replaceable. I think Wikipedia probably stretches fair use a bit too far in many cases, this being one of them--it's not in an article about the artwork itself, for instance. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
UK labour/employment law categories
Hi there. You moved all the categories for United Kingdom labour law and United Kingdom labour case law to "employment". Please see me addition to Talk:United Kingdom labour law. Can you please revert all the category changes? I really have no idea why you or someone didn't ask me, considering that I created just about all 195 pages. Cheers, Wikidea 12:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- I had nothing to do with moving the categories. After the categories were changed, I created a redirect on the old name, Category:United Kingdom labour law, and redirected it to the new category, Category:United Kingdom employment law. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about User:Good Olfactory. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |