Misplaced Pages

User talk:Good Olfactory: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:25, 21 March 2012 editMar4d (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers84,737 edits "United Arab Emirati" or "Emirati"?← Previous edit Revision as of 19:55, 21 March 2012 edit undoExplicit (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators326,238 edits What to do, what to do...: Reply.Next edit →
Line 150: Line 150:


:Hi; You know, I really think you've done your due diligence here, so from my standpoint, you're pretty much free to do what ''you'' think it the best option. If I had to decide, and I knew that you were going to be the one leading the effort, I would choose your option C. You could keep the FOOian songs categories and just create subcategories called "Songs by FOOian artists" as needed. The categories for specific artists could go in the new categories you create, with the folk songs and national anthems and so forth just remaining in the broader FOOian songs category. I suppose doing this runs a slight risk of someone getting upset at this seemingly "unilateral" change, but really, it wouldn't be much different than what happens all the time when users create new categories. There's technically no requirement to consult with ''anyone'' to start a new category scheme, so I think you'd be safe, especially if you can point to the work you did to try to ask others what they thought. That said, maybe ''you'' don't think option C is the best. I would go with whatever you have the most confidence in yourself as being the correct move to make. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC) :Hi; You know, I really think you've done your due diligence here, so from my standpoint, you're pretty much free to do what ''you'' think it the best option. If I had to decide, and I knew that you were going to be the one leading the effort, I would choose your option C. You could keep the FOOian songs categories and just create subcategories called "Songs by FOOian artists" as needed. The categories for specific artists could go in the new categories you create, with the folk songs and national anthems and so forth just remaining in the broader FOOian songs category. I suppose doing this runs a slight risk of someone getting upset at this seemingly "unilateral" change, but really, it wouldn't be much different than what happens all the time when users create new categories. There's technically no requirement to consult with ''anyone'' to start a new category scheme, so I think you'd be safe, especially if you can point to the work you did to try to ask others what they thought. That said, maybe ''you'' don't think option C is the best. I would go with whatever you have the most confidence in yourself as being the correct move to make. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

::Thank you for your input. There's really no easy way around this. Either get yelled at for nominating the categories, or get yelled at for creating categories and going through tens of thousands of changes. I suppose option C is the cleanest way to go about this, so I have a heavy load of work ahead of me. — ]] 19:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:55, 21 March 2012

This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Good_Olfactory.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Discussion on occupation categories

I think it would save us a lot of effort if we worked out a general principle on this. See Misplaced Pages talk:Categories for discussion#On the categorization of biographies by (perhaps) incidental occupation. Mangoe (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Good Olfactory!

Thanks for your help cleaning up the categorization.

I quoted lyrics from the self-deprecating song "Indiscipline" by King Crimson---thinking of my own wanting to finish the categories and list of Crook art and also the deletion-proposer, without an overflowing of love for either character's focus.

I don't think that the additional categorization was worth the bother, now. If Crook had more work noted on WP, then of course I would agree that the categories should be improved, and be consistent!

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It's fine—when I first read it I thought it was nastier than I thought, but then I realised it wasn't so bad and was obviously a quote from somewhere, probably lyrics. Thanks. Good Ol’factory 21:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

who care when you see what else is around...

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=West_Coast_Range&diff=480787204&oldid=480787122

that edit is why I think pruning west Coast Range from West Coast Range Tasmania is wrong. If it had the qualifier in the title - less of a need for a confused template at the beginning SatuSuro 08:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Just saw your user page edits - hahaha - at least you're physically away from those that create the stuff... - just as long you dont take it too seriously (but hell looking at the list you sure get some crap... in any meaning of the word (aware of the possible variants in canadian, new zealnd or austrilian)SatuSuro 08:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Maritime

I've commented there and would like to ask your thoughts on it there. Thanks : ) - jc37 20:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Added what I think may be a solution (for now), to be followed up with a bigger nom later. - jc37 23:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Doc Savage Magazine

Perhaps this is a dumb question, but, do we generally leave categories on redirects? ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 03:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The guideline on this is at WP:CATR. To summarise, the answer is that we usually do not categorize redirects, with a few exceptions. One of the exceptions is for cases where it would be inappropriate to place the category in question on the target article itself. This is the case here, since we wouldn't want to categorize the target article Doc Savage as a pulp magazine. So we can place it on the redirect in this case. Good Ol’factory 03:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, interesting. I have never run across such a situation. Thanks! ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 17:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here's a related question. The article The Avenger is about the character, not the magazine. But, a look at the categories shows it is categorized under magazines, and the cat cannot be removed. Why is that? This is not the first such situation I have encountered in the last few days. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 18:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The template {{Infobox pulps character}} appears to add several categories which can't be removed in the normal way (templates should be banned from adding categories). Oculi (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I figured it had to be something like that. In this case, it is adding articles to incorrect categories. I really fail to see how that is helpful. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 03:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, at some point the "template automatically adding categories" issue needs to be revisited, because it still causes some problems. Good Ol’factory 20:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Mmm ... wiki-self-love ....

Good Ol’factory 04:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
(Intended to visit, but then pulls the shades, and leaves to give Go'F some apparently needed private alone time (and at least to take that recent edit summary off the watchlist : ) - jc37 07:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

"Take myself out to dinner, ..., spend a little time with myself, making a scene with a magazine, I don't get weird about it, I don't tie myself up or nothin."

— Tom Waits
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Republic of China article

Since you have previously shared your view in a CfD about the Republic of China, I guess you are interested to share your insight at Talk:Republic of China#Requested Move (February 2012) too. Thanks for your attention. 61.18.170.212 (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't really—but thank you for the invite. Good Ol’factory 23:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Your help with Category Lewisia

Hello! I just created the Category Lewisia a few minutes ago, and I've been populating it with species that had been on the category page for Portulaceae. I was just about to move Lewisia itself, when I saw you'd already gone and saved me the trouble. Thanks! Uporządnicki (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh! No problem. I didn't mean to interfere—I wasn't sure if it was done or not, and I had just noticed it was a new category and that that article had been omitted. I wasn't aware you were still working on it. My apologies if I caused confusion or surprise. Good Ol’factory 21:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Nolo problemo! You gave my typing fingers a break, and allowed my eyeballs to uncross. I'm a new registered user (although I've been re-ordering stuff on Category pages for years as an IP user), and if there's a better way to move things in categories other than plodding through one by one, I don't know it. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
You might be interested in using "HotCat". It makes re-categorization a little bit easier—it at least makes it so you don't have to type the "]" at the end. You can activate it on the "gadgets" panel of your preferences. Good Ol’factory 21:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

PESA

I don't understand the speedy rename rationale for Category:PESA. Oranjblud (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I've responded at WP:CFDS. Good Ol’factory 21:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Roads in Chatham–Kent

Greetings, I have a problem about the template called Template:Roads in Chatham–Kent. I was going to move to it's new title to hyphen it to match the main article but the template cannot be moved. So do me a favour, Could you go to the Template:Roads in Chatham–Kent template page and move the title from an en dash to it's hyphen symbol between Chatham and Kent to form Chatham-Kent to match the main article. And this is to make the new template title Template:Roads in Chatham-Kent. If you please. And let me know if the template is already move to match the main article. Thanks. Steam5 (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've moved it to Template:Roads in Chatham-Kent now. Good Ol’factory 07:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Factory. Oh, And I forgot to tell you something, On the template talk page titled Template talk:Roads in Chatham–Kent. There is an en dash also only at the template talk page. Could you go to the template talk page titled Template talk:Roads in Chatham–Kent there is also an en dash. Move it to a hyphen between Chatham and Kent just like you did it before to form a new title. Just only go to the template talk page and if you see an en dash at the template talk page. Just fix like you did before. Let me know if this problem is solved. Thanks. Steam5 (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, yes I did that one too. I thought I had done the talk page at the same time; I'm not sure why it didn't work that way. Anyway it is all done now. Good Ol’factory 20:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
of unsung templates, categories and moves. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

You've been mentioned. Thought you might like to know. - jc37 08:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I had a feeling at the time that I was probably being invited by a blocked user, given that it came from an IP ... Good Ol’factory 20:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Acid0057/Userboxes/User Ford Focus‎‎

Why did you remove the category Category:Ford Focus from the userbox User:Acid0057/Userboxes/User Ford Focus‎‎? You said it was adding user pages to the category. Is there a different category that should be added? Also, on Ford Focus, you added "| " to Category:Ford Focus. May I ask why? I've seen this in lots of categories, but I thought it was a typo. What does it do/accomplish? Thanks for further educating me on the finer points of Misplaced Pages. Allen (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Generally, userpages should not show up in regular categories that contain articles. User pages do show up in categories in the Category:Wikipedians tree, but I'm not sure that Category:Wikipedians who drive a Ford Focus would be a subcategory that would be deemed productive. I don't know all that much about the Wikipedian categories.
As for the "| " issue, you can read about that at WP:SORTKEY: "*Use a space as the sort key for an article matching an eponymous category, or for a key article for the category. Typically, these eponymous articles or categories are best listed first even if they do not appear first in alphabetical order. For example, the article Barack Obama includes the category sort key ]. This places the article at the start of the listing for that category." It simply adds that article to the very top of the list of articles when the category is viewed. Good Ol’factory 20:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Cats:Immgrants -> Emigrants_Emigrants-2012-03-14T15:45:00.000Z">

Hi! I see that I made a mistake. Sorry for that. Thanks for the corrections. Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)_Emigrants"> _Emigrants">

Not a problem, As you know it's been fixed now, so not a big deal. Good Ol’factory 22:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"United Arab Emirati" or "Emirati"?

Recently, I have been going through UAE related categories and a misnomer that I have identified is that all categories using the denonym, for some strange reason, are named "United Arab Emirati" instead of "Emirati". The official term however is Emirati (see for instance the article Emirati people, the denonynm listed in the infobox on the UAE article) while I can find no official usage of the term "Untied Arab Emirati" apart from Misplaced Pages. All newspapers and sources refer to a native of the UAE (or anything related to the country in general) as "Emirati". My question is, do you think all categories should be renamed accordingly? And if they should, how should the proposal be listed? I am not quite familiar with mass-scale category moves. Looking forward to your input on this; thanks, Mar4d (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. This is the only recent discussion from CFD that I know about related to this issue. As you can see, I participated and you participated, but there was not much else.
I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, but from what I have seen, "United Arab Emirati" is pretty much limited in use to Misplaced Pages categories. So I think I agree with you that they could be changed. I don't know exactly why the category system developed that way—whether it was thought it was more clear, or if there is indeed some other meaning to "Emirati" (I'm sceptical about that).
A proposal to do so could be approached in two different ways: (1) all the categories that use "United Arab Emirati" could be nominated together. This would be a relatively big job. (2) We could have a "test nomination" for Category:United Arab Emirati people. This one category could be nominated for renaming to "test" if there is a consensus for the general change. If it's successful, then we can go ahead and later nominate all the rest. But if it fails, you save the hassle of having started a massive nomination.
So if you're unsure of yourself in starting a large nomination, you might want to go with #2. Good Ol’factory 21:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I could blame my eyes or brain; the eyes seemed less sensitive. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Union Nationale

I see from the history that you moved Union Nationale (Quebec) to Union nationale (Quebec) once upon a time (and then some bot stomped over it much later, so it can't be moved back without admin intervention). However, the term "Union Nationale" was often used in English, and always with a capital N; Quebec always had a sizeable English minority and the party was prominent for decades, so there were countless stories in the Montreal Gazette for instance, even some from recent years that discuss historical events. And I don't have a copy of Conrad Black's biography of Duplessis, but I'd be astonished if he spelled it with a lowercase-n. I'd like to have it moved back. Before I initiate that request mechanism, I don't suppose I can persuade you that this would be an "uncontroversial technical fix"? -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You can, and did. Your reasoning makes sense to me. Good Ol’factory 21:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks... -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for contribting to Alcan Lynemouth Aluminium Smelter Ottawahitech (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Is this need to lobby? Like this. Esc2003 (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not clear on what you are asking me. I deleted Category:Anti-Turkish sentiment, which you created, because it was a re-creation of Category:Anti-Turkism, which was deleted by consensus here. You must have known this, since you had previously attempted to re-create Category:Anti-Turkism and it was deleted. Were you trying to get around the previous deletion by changing the name slightly? I'm not sure and I hope not, but it could be interpreted that way. Good Ol’factory 21:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I only say with an example: Iranian users are kept this (Anti-Iranian sentiments) category with their lobby. Esc2003 (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
That is interesting. What has it to do with me, though? Good Ol’factory 21:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Of course lobbying is not their intent. But they are doing similar things. I do not expect a solution. These examples (1, 2) clearly Anti-Turkism. Should be a category. Esc2003 (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
OK .... If you are looking to pursue a solution (I'm suspecting that you might want to, since you posted here), I guess WP:DRV could be your next stop. You could ask that the deletion decision be overturned. Good Ol’factory 22:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Two Talk Page Title Errors

Greetings, I have a problem with the two talk page titles, On the first talk page titled Talk:Chatham–Kent there is an en-dash error on the the talk page. The en-dash is wrong. So could you go to Chatham-Kent talk page and switch it from an en-dash to a hyphen to form Talk:Chatham-Kent. The Talk:Chatham-Kent new title at the talk page is to follow the Chatham-Kent main article. And second, there is another talk page titled Talk:Drumheller, Alberta there is a comma-province in the talk page title that is wrong also. Could you also go to the talk page titled Talk:Drumheller, Alberta and move it to it's new title to form Talk:Drumheller. The new title is to follow the Drumheller main article without the comma-province included. Let me know for both talk page title errors has been fixed. Thanks. Steam5 (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed both. Thanks for catching these—I see that both errors were originally mine! I will be more careful now when moving content that the talk page will follow. Good Ol’factory 22:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Robin Ficker

You've previously edited the Robin Ficker article. Please take a look at the current discussion and contribute to it if you have an opinion. Thanks. -- Pemilligan (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

What to do, what to do...

Hi, Good Olfactory. I'm kind of torn on how to deal with Category:Songs by country, and I was wondering if I could get some insight from you. As you may remember, a CFD regarding the subcategories of Category:Albums by artist took place nearly two years ago. It resulted in Fooian albums being renamed to Albums by Fooian artists. The songs categories currently follow the Fooians songs format, and the change to Songs by Fooian artists is long overdue, but matters are far more complicated for this category. I attempted to get a solid approach from WP:SONG in this thread (with three options of going about this rename) shortly after the albums category CFD succeeded, only to receive no response and getting archived away. I tried again over a week ago, but it looks like that thread will be archived without any response, too. With no interest from the related WikiProject for nearly two years, I'm stuck on what to do. How do you think I should proceed from here? — ξ 07:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi; You know, I really think you've done your due diligence here, so from my standpoint, you're pretty much free to do what you think it the best option. If I had to decide, and I knew that you were going to be the one leading the effort, I would choose your option C. You could keep the FOOian songs categories and just create subcategories called "Songs by FOOian artists" as needed. The categories for specific artists could go in the new categories you create, with the folk songs and national anthems and so forth just remaining in the broader FOOian songs category. I suppose doing this runs a slight risk of someone getting upset at this seemingly "unilateral" change, but really, it wouldn't be much different than what happens all the time when users create new categories. There's technically no requirement to consult with anyone to start a new category scheme, so I think you'd be safe, especially if you can point to the work you did to try to ask others what they thought. That said, maybe you don't think option C is the best. I would go with whatever you have the most confidence in yourself as being the correct move to make. Good Ol’factory 08:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. There's really no easy way around this. Either get yelled at for nominating the categories, or get yelled at for creating categories and going through tens of thousands of changes. I suppose option C is the cleanest way to go about this, so I have a heavy load of work ahead of me. — ξ 19:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)