Misplaced Pages

User talk:Good Olfactory

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AdjustShift (talk | contribs) at 18:32, 3 August 2009 (→Alansohn's behavior: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:32, 3 August 2009 by AdjustShift (talk | contribs) (→Alansohn's behavior: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages.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

TV series CFDs

Would a listing of eponymous categories for TV series be a welcome addition to your list? Lemme know and I'll add them as I find them. Otto4711 (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it can't hurt. The ones I included were just the ones I had the energy to compile. I avoided doing most of the eponymous ones b/c there were so many. If you add them remember to add the "keep" and "no consensus" ones too so I don't get accused of maintaining a biased list. That page is getting rather long—I may need to break off some of the larger sections into separate pages soon. Good Ol’factory 21:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia officials

The category name sounds a bit odd to me, and when I look at the subcategories it appears to me almost if there were two special ICTs, one for former Yugoslav judges and one for former Yugoslav prosecutors. I'd suggest "Officials of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia", likewise for subcategories. GregorB (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I just followed the naming pattern that existed there before with the prosecutors, judges, etc. A rename would require a CFD for all of them. Good Ol’factory 21:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

move protection

Could you please fully protect my user page from moves? I know this will stop me from moving my user page, but I do not anticipate ever having to move it, and I want to make sure that my page is not move-vandalized. Thanks. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Let me know if you ever need it to be lifted. Good Ol’factory 03:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, now I can go to bed knowing I won't be moved during the night. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Test

Does WestfieldWesleyan remind you of anyone, eg user:WestfieldIns? Occuli (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's see .... adding categories on first ever edit: check. Categories are religion-related categories: check. Categories are not nonsensical but are of arguable utility: check. Anything else to add to the PW checklist? Good Ol’factory 03:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
'No edit summaries' was another, but then he is a master of disguise. Occuli (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Another - 72.69.200.217. Occuli (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
He really doesn't give up, does he? I wonder if it would be useful to use CU to get some sort of blanket block on a range of these IPs? Or is he a traveller? Good Ol’factory 21:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
He's a pastor in Ohio. The ips (there's a partial list at IP list) resolve to a Reston address (eg here) which I assume is a service provider. I don't know why the ip address keeps changing for the same user. It's possible he has access to a range of computers at say a college. Occuli (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:United Nations media

Hi. I've broadened the category definition somewhat to include independent works about the UN. Hope you have no objection. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And having done so I noticed on the NFB collections page that the film I added to the category, Overture, was in fact created by the UN after all. So no change to the category was needed. Oh well. If you wish, please rollback my change to the definition. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Either one is probably fine for now. If we get a lot, we could separate the two types. Good Ol’factory 03:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Articles to be split

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 16#Category:Articles to be split

Posted thank you to Vegaswikian, but thought you should be thanked for trying.... As to "Good Ol’factory's points about the headache", my interpretation is that it was really a WP:POINT nomination back on June 4th by Debresser (assisted by Farmbrough) to initiate his idea for mass renaming maintenance "dated subcategories", which is how he came to the attention of WT:CfD in the first place. He nominated it to fail, so that he could remove the Misplaced Pages requirement in the policy page, as he tried to do after Farmbrough early closed it. They're working in concert. (I was and still am confused by Rubin, who is usually more precise. This time, I think he was trying to be "even-handed" somehow, agreeing with both sides.)
-- watching here --William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that clarifies it a bit when I remember that there was that whole brouhaha over the out of process rename for the admin categories. Without having researched the background, I was thoroughly confused. Good Ol’factory 22:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Invotation

Please let me have your opinion on my commentary in Category_talk:Surnames#Recent_CfD_of_all_the_Surnames_by_country_cats. Debresser (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

  • The categorization rule was removed from where? From existence, or from a particular category? I have no idea what "invotation" meant, unless it was just a typo for "invitation" (or some kind of invitation–vote hybrid?) Good Ol’factory 11:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Has it been restored? If not, I'm willing to restore it if you send me the offending diff. I'm going to bed right now but I would take care of it in my tomorrow. I'll also have a word with Debresser about this once I have a chance to look into a bit more. Good Ol’factory 11:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Donald Payne (soldier)

Hi Good, I've left a short note over at Talk:Donald Payne (soldier) explaining why I think he belongs in Category:International Criminal Court. Please let me know if you disagree, or else I'll probably add him back at some stage. Regards, Polemarchus (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Responded there, thx. Good Ol’factory 22:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a completely different issue, but not worth a separate section: I responded on my talk page. Dc76\ 02:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Americans accused of spying for the United States

Hey there Good Olfactory, I noticed that Category:Americans accused of spying for the United States was tagged for CfD, but wasn't mentioned in the actual discussion, which lead to it not being deleted. Just thought I'd bring this to your attention. Regards. — Σxplicit 04:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I considered listing it now, but in light of the recent results on these categories, that would probably be nothing more than a formality and it's probably safe for us to delete it. Good Ol’factory 04:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Quick question: would these categories of accused spies fall under CSD G10, or would they have to be listed for a full CfD? — Σxplicit 04:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This would probably require looking at things on a case-by-case basis. I can imagine situations where creation of one of these categories could be considered a G10, but I'm guessing that the vast majority of ones that people will ever be inclined to create have now been deleted, so G4 will probably be the more likely speedy method of deleting them. We can speedy ones that have been deleted before even if they are re-worded and not identical to the deleted one. Since Category:Accused spies was deleted, there's even an argument that this deletion covers any subcategory type that could be created. If you see any that crop up again, I would nominate for a G4 based on Category:Accused spies being deleted and then do a full CfD if the speedy gets denied. Good Ol’factory 04:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. I just tagged a category for speedy deletion and will bring it to CfD if it's declined. Thanks for the help. — Σxplicit 04:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Stray cat

I tagged Category:People from Pitsmoor but unaccountably omitted it from the list. I leave it in your hands. Occuli (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's probably safe to merge as were the others, since it was tagged. I'll do that. Good Ol’factory 04:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Academics of the Hochschule für Musik "Carl Maria von Weber", Dresden

I am sorry but I missed the discussion on the change of the name of this category. I created the category with the name Academics of the Hochschule für Musik "Carl Maria von Weber", whithout including the name of the city, for the reason that there's no other Academics of the Hochschule für Musik "Carl Maria von Weber" with such name, and the name of the city is not neccesary, as it would not be neccesary to read the following "Harvard University, Cambridge, Royal Academy of Music, London or "Juilliard School NY". I will nominate this category for renaming to "Academics of the Hochschule für Musik "Carl Maria von Weber"". --Karljoos (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Karljoos could nominate Category:Alumni of the Hochschule für Musik Carl Maria von Weber Dresden at the same time. Occuli (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I wondered about this when I renamed the category, but no one had raised it in the discussion. I agree that a re-nomination could be appropriate here. Good Ol’factory 04:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Close of Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 16#Category:Sportspeople by city

Can you explain your close of Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 16#Category:Sportspeople by city as "Upmerge and delete", which appears to be in conflict with the discussion, which appeared to reach a consensus of keep or no consensus. The argument for deletion from User:Mayumashu in his nomination is the entirely non-policy based "not against the idea in principle but do not see it as necessary and wish to fell this tree while it s still a sapling", which amounts to WP:IHATEIT, let's get rid of these categories now before there are more categories I HATE. "not necessary" is not policy. User:Mike Selinker's argument had nothing to do with the other entries listed, but observed that Category:Sportspeople in Columbus, Ohio essentially overlaps with Category:Sports in Columbus, Ohio, without offering any other argument for deletion of any of the other categories and I essentially agree with what he appears to be saying which is that the Columbus category should have been deleted and the others retained, though you appear to have interpreted it in reverse. I'm not even sure that User:Vegaswikian's vote actually says anything. With a new CfD at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 6#Category:Sportspeople from Melbourne citing this close as precedent, we need to come to a resolution on the original CfD to see if the close is justified. Any input you can provide to explain your actions here could help eliminate the need for any further action on this matter. Alansohn (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


Let's see; just as a preliminary matter, the following is how I read the "bottom line votes" of each user:

  1. Mayumashu (nominator): upmerge all
  2. Postdlf: upmerge all, except Category:Sportspeople in Columbus, Ohio
  3. Alansohn: keep all
  4. Mike Selinker: upmerge all
  5. Closeapple: keep all
  6. Vegaswikian: upmerge all

In summary and as merely an indication of "vote count", the results (as I interpreted them) were:

The reason I read Mike Selinker's vote as "upmerge all" was for the following reasons:

  1. His bolded vote said "Delete/upmerge"; and
  2. He said, "I think categorizing the individuals by city is too specific," which I understood as applying to all the categories under discussion, because the statement was unqualified and all of the categories under discussion categorized individual sportspeople by city.

Maybe Mike Selinker could be consulted to see if I misinterpreted his comment; it is, of course, possible that I did, though on a second look I still don't think I did.

Leaving aside Category:Sportspeople in Columbus, Ohio, the following arguments are ones that I gleaned from the commenters:
From the "upmerge" side:

  1. Not part of a larger categorization scheme (Mayumashu; Vegaswikian);
  2. Categorizing sportspeople by city is too specific (Mike Selinker; Vegaswikian)
  3. Overcategorization issues: categorizing people in this manner will lead to articles being in categories that are not defining for them (Vegaswikian)

From the "keep" side:

  1. A wider scheme would be sustainable (Closeapple)
  2. Categories are well-organized and well-populated (Alansohn, Closeapple)
  3. A high proportion of articles in one of the parent categories are sportspeople (Closeapple)


My assessment of the arguments:
From the "upmerge" side: no. 1 is true and is relevant, though not determinative and should not to be given any great amount of weight. No. 2 is relevant but essentially a judgment call; however, it is one that was not really challenged by anyone else. No. 3 is significant and gets to the heart of the problem, and ultimately was the most convincing argument for me.

From the "keep" side: No. 1 is relevant but essentially a predictive judgment call, and is not a particularly weighty argument. No. 2 is true and relevant, though not determinative and should not be given any great amount of weight, since many well-organized and well-populated categories are deleted. No. 3 was true for one of the categories, but was not true for the others and would not necessarily be true for similar categories for other cities, as Vegaswikian pointed out.

My conclusions
It wasn't what I would call an in-depth discussion, and much of it focused on Category:Sportspeople in Columbus, Ohio, which I haven't discussed above and for which I saw no consensus. For the rest of the categories: on balance, the upmerge side had the stronger arguments by far. Both sides' no. 1 arguments essentially cancelled each other out and they didn't play a big role in my decision. However, neither the upmergers' no. 2 and no. 3 arguments, either of which could theoretically justify the deletion of the category on policy and guideline grounds, were not challenged. The keep side pointed out some virtues of the categories, but nothing that was particularly convincing or based on a policy or guideline. The strength of the arguments, combined with the 4–2 "vote count" in favour of upmerging (a fairly healthy ⅔ majority), led me to make the decision I did.

—Good Ol’factory 05:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

RE:

Whoops, awfully sorry about that, I must have been mistaken about the nomination, thinking that it had been nom'ed for renaming the previous day to when it actually was as a result of not looking close enough. My mistake, won't happen again (fingers crossed), all the best Spitfire

No problem; thx for letting me know. Not a big deal in this case. Good Ol’factory 09:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Lithuanian surnames

Colleague, your repeated deletion is misguided. The page in question is not recreation. It was created as a reasonable redirect, as an easy safeguard against recreation by unsuspecting novices, - a commonly used mechanism, pursuing exactly the same goal you (and me too) are favoring. - Altenmann >t 16:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There a possibility that a by-culture scheme for surnames could be created in the near future. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to pre-empt this possibility by making this page a redirect. A by-language scheme is not the only possible meaning of "Lithuanian surnames". It may eventually become an appropriate DAB page. See the close statement at the relevant CfD for further information. Good Ol’factory 22:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Your justification of deletion is invalid. What is more, when DAB will bepossible, then it will be turned into DAB. This happens all the time. Please stop unilateral actions without discussion finsihed. If you delete the page one more time without proper justification, you will be reported for abuse of admin privileges. - Altenmann >t 10:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like someone else is engaging in a wheel war. Power to you if you want to do that, but please don't project "abuse of admin powers" onto others. Good Ol’factory 00:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I've self-reported our dispute, since wheel war issues are involved. Good Ol’factory 03:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not as passionate as another editor here on this topic. I have one and only concern. I want you and me to come to understanding about one and only thing: when page content is replaced by something completely different in content and function, it still may be subject of speedy deletion, but it is not "recreation of deleted article". You don't have to argue with me here, please ask opinions of 1-2 seasoned admins.

This question is not matter of life and death for me. For last 1-2 years I am away from any disputes. As a friendly advice, in answering someone's objections please start from addressing opponent's arguments rather than from presenting our position. As an example from above, your position "it would be inappropriate to pre-empt" may be valid (although subject to further discussion), but it does NOT answer my concern that rule G4 is not applicable, even if you feel that the page must be deleted. - Altenmann >t 15:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes editors just need to recognize that there exists disagreement about a particular issue and that one interpretation is not necessarily the one and only "correct" one. I've no problem acknowledging that. At the same time, acknowledging it doesn't have to change your mind about the dispute in question. Good Ol’factory 22:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with understanding that. However we are talking about speedy deletions here. There have been many long and heated discussions about the scope of CSD. Inevitably the point of view prevailed that the scope this policy should be deliberately kept as narrow as possible and with minimal possibility of "extended interpretations", for a number of reasons I am not going to list. Most of other policies give admins much more "free hand" of interpretation, but not this one. Therefore, much as I hate to be a stubborn smartass know-it-all do-what-I-want, I would like to hear from you whether you acknowledge or not that speedy deletions must be handled in strict "letter of the law", unless a clear harm to wikipedia is expected. - Altenmann >t 16:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Complaints about Good Olfactory's close in the CfD for Category:Slavic-language surnames

Welcome; if you're here to complain about my close in Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_29#Category:Slavic-language_surnames, you have been expected! Please write your complaints below in a subsection. Replace "Subsection#" with your user name. If you start a new non-subsection section on this topic below this section, note I will move it here as a subsection. I will hold off responding to specific comments for a little while to allow time for more to comment here. After a period of time, I will respond to all the comments at once to avoid repetition, since repetition became a problem with the other surname closes. (In other words, I'm not ignoring you if I don't respond immediately.) Thanks. Good Ol’factory 00:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Subsection1

Subsection2

Subsection3

Plaudits

Splendid close. Occuli (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yay! --Kbdank71 12:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Roman Empire

I welcome your solution to the problem with categorising Category:People executed by the Byzantine Empire in Category:People executed by the Roman Empire. Debresser (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Figured that was best, since apparently I was confused. I thought Category:Roman Empire was inclusive of Category:Byzantine Empire, but apparently not. But I thought we should link them somehow. Good Ol’factory 06:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

One to watch

Tiramisoo? It might be a little early to tell. Katr67 (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, looks like the IP that edited Willamette Valley right before him/her originates from here. Katr67 (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Americans accused of spying for the Soviet Union

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Americans accused of spying for the Soviet Union. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Bender

An admin already closed the discussion. Could you please move Category:Bender (I cannot delete), and (if you see necessary also) Category:Communes of Bender municipality. Thank you very much for your help and kind approach. I hope to see you around. If anything anytime (Currently, I am working more on articles in the scope of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Moldova), please feel free to drop a short note. (Just mention the issue, spare the time to write pro/con arguments; I will ask for them explicitly if necessary.) Take good care. Dc76\ 02:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I've started a nomination for renaming here. Good Ol’factory 03:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Does it always have to go through such formalities? :) Dc76\ 04:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, unfortunately it does, since we can't move categories as we can move article pages. It has to be formally deleted and then re-created under the new name. Good Ol’factory 04:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that technicality. If I am not mistaken, it is similar to the case of page moves X --> Y, when Y already exists (generally a redirect to X). I do understand the reason to discuss such things when there were multiple editors, when there could be potential objections. But when we two are the only persons who even know about this issue... :) and our disagreement seems to be only the degree of unfortunateness of having to file this... :) You know, in reality when such things are controversial, sometimes they are done almost incognito (only "my watchlist" feature of a few editors detects it). Anyway, I recommended speedy close. Thinking of it, I could have created the new category, moved everything there, and put a speedy CfD for the old one as the creator and only contributor. But I promised to tell you (also I wanted your opinion about the second category, which I see you did not nominate, so I conclude, it stays where it is?) Dc76\ 04:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
True. Though it doesn't meet the technical requirements for speedy. You could say what you said here at the nomination and see if any admin is willing to speedy it. I probably shouldn't do it since I've been involved and have started the nomination. Good Ol’factory 04:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Note to self

Opening a DRV because you don't like the outcome of a prior DRV that was just closed is not POINT, nor is it to edit war to continually re-open it if someone closes it as a duplicate. I wonder how long it will take the GFT to point to this as precedent for re-opening a DRV he filed that was closed as endorse. Just another reason to extend my break. --Kbdank71 20:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This comment is not necessarily related to anything you just said. You know, there are a lot of dicks out there in the world. Life is too short to let them bother you. Some of them can have what they think is a day in the sun by adding an "aggressive" comment on WP. But in reality, the only people who even take notice of what they have said are the people who they've attacked, who probably have already realized they are dicks and ignore most of what they say. When does a dick realize he is a dick? It usually never happens. (Except for my uncle Dick, who did indeed know he was a dick, as well as a Dick.) I'm going to let it bother me about as much as much as I worry "about the baggage retrieval system they've got at Heathrow". Good Ol’factory 10:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
BTW, nice to see you're now getting the "overturn, because you close too many CFDs". Ahh, that brings back memories. So, how are things? I see jimbo's comment about showing jerks the door (even if they do good work) has been falling on deaf ears. At least I can say nothing changes around here. --Kbdank71 10:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Things are just going—"swimmingly", I guess you would say. Meaning I've been foregoing WP time for swims in my local salt water pool, since the latter has been more fun lately. I've got no problems not performing volunteer administrative work if users want to complain that I do too much! Of course, these are generally the same folk who tend to complain about administrative backlog and the lack of community participation at CfD, so of course there is no way to "win" in this regard. In practice, those who close CfDs will almost always do "a lot" of them, precisely for these reasons. Good Ol’factory 22:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, funny how that is. I never understood how closing what needed to be closed was a bad thing, but like you said, certain people have to have something to bitch and whine about. And on that note, enjoy your swimming! :) (BTW, I just got the quote above about the baggage retrieval system at Heathrow. That was obscure even for me, and I'm a Python fan.) --Kbdank71 13:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps my I spoke too soon. Here I was semi-expecting a groundswell of opinion that would advise me to take a break, and in the end it has amounted to a grand total of two editors (or 1½, depending on how you consider the comments). If nothing else, it's a useful reminder that the yapping dogs at the trail of the caravan don't really care where we are headed—I think they just want to yap. Good Ol’factory 22:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

SamuelTheGhost

Your remark in the close "(I know some of you imagine that I'm biased on these matters, so I'm looking forward to the same people who have complained about my bias in the past doing so again with respect to this closing. If no such complaining materializes from the same parties (or if complaining materializes from new parties), I guess I'll chalk up the difference in the "complaint experience" experienced after the previous close and the "complaint experience" that I will encounter now to simply this: whether the complainers liked or didn't like the actual outcome of the separate discussions.)" motivates my response.

  • Frankly I think that this pre-emptive counter-attack on your critics shows that you do not have an appropriate personality for an admin.
  • "I know some of you imagine that I'm biased" - I'd never heard of you until 24th June, when articles on my watchlist, some of which I'd created, were suddenly attacked by your bot. I've been trying to fathom your behaviour ever since.
  • I understand it to be correct policy, when no consensus is reached, for the close to leave things as they are. That was what was wrong with the previous case, whereas in this case your action is defensible on those grounds.
  • You are still completely failing to see the point about WP:NOR and WP:RS. These excellent policies are essential to keep control of wikipedia's user community, which contains a large proportion of ignorant amateurs. The insistence on avoidance of OR and use of sources allows those who are experts to keep things just about on track. These policies apply to all wikipedia activity; your suggestion that categories are exempt is pure invention on your part, and utterly wrong-headed, as this whole business shows. What has happened is that large amounts of incompetent OR have been invested in the "new system". The wikipedia community is not capable of such development, and should never have attempted it. The correct questions to be asking about national surname categories are:
    • Are there reliable sources on the subject of "Russian Surnames" etc.?
    • Are there reliable sources on the subject of "Russian-language Surnames" etc.?
    • Are there reliable sources on the subject of "Slavic Surnames"?
    • Are there reliable sources on the subject of "Slavic-language Surnames"?
    • In the cases where the sources exist, what criteria do they use to decide if a name fits the corresponding description?
  • The answers to these and similar questions should control the choice of category names and descriptions. Having an elaborate hierarchy of categories is, I suggest, not very important, and of course many surnames will appear in several categories.
  • Instead of drawing attention to wikipedia policy in this way, you have joined in the OR effort, compounding the problem rather than in any way solving it.

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(1) I have never said categories were "exempt" from NOR and RS. If you have understood my words to mean that, you have misunderstood. I'm a strong supporter of avoiding OR and requiring RS in the population of categories. What I have said is that typically references are not added to categories in the same way they are added to articles, which is true. You're the only person I've ever met on WP who has given any hint of the idea that categories do not in fact work slightly differently than articles. They do because of the WP software, not because we change OR and RS. If you disagree, please show me how you add a reference to a category that justifies the inclusion of a particular article in that category. It can't be done, except in the particular article space.
(2) My comments about perceptions of bias were not necessarily directed to you. In fact, they were not, so you don't need to defend yourself.
(3) The fact that you think that I "do not have an appropriate personality for an admin" is interesting, nice, etc. Apparently you missed the irony.
(4) I don't have a bot. I use User:Cydebot, as do most closers at CfD, but she's not "mine". Good Ol’factory 23:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course I'm aware of the limitations of the software in the referencing of categorisation. It is, however, possible to add references to the definition of a category, giving the criteria for inclusion in it. I'm aware that this is seldom done, but that reflects only the facts that most categories are pretty uncontentious, and that there is in general a rather relaxed attitude to them. I don't think that need change much in general, but in the case under discussion, where there is dissension and a need for clarity, putting a citation into the category definition would be the best course. Consideration of the sources would also have an effect on the choice of names for the categories, namely "English surnames", "Russian surnames", etc. since that is the terminology univerally used in those references, not neologisms like "English-language surnames", which I have never seen in the literature. It could then be established that an "English surname" is whatever is considered to be so in books of that title. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a big job. How many categories do we have now? Good Ol’factory 10:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't really understand what you're saying here. My suggestion implies that the set of categories that existed before the bot was run would be a better starting-point. Some of them might need radical alteration (e.g. New Zealand replaced by Maori), but the European ones at least would mostly just need clarification and the citation of book titles (quite a few of which I could do). Whether to populate them from scratch or starting from their previous populations is a separate issue, but involving quite a lot of work either way. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I was just saying your suggestion—if implemented WP-wide across all categories—would be a fairly significant departure from the status quo and would be a big job to implement, since it's not really done at all in category space right now. (I have seen it done once to some "Anglican" categories, but it was done by an editor who was trying to emphasize that Anglicanism was not a branch of Protestantism—it was really more of an excerise in WP:POINT than an attempt to properly reference the name of a category.) I do realize you're speaking more particularly about a particular instance though. I'm not sure how productive it is to continue to debate this issue post-CfD, post-DRV. I suppose eventually you could nominate the categories for renaming back, but if you tried to do that immediately you might run into some turbulence. Good Ol’factory 22:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course I do not envisage some massive roll-out operation; that's precisely the kind of thinking that created the current f**k-up. What I would like to see is progressive agreement that a correct and wise interpretation of policy requires an avoidance of WP:OR, always, and a use of WP:RS for categories at least in difficult cases, so that the latter eventually became common, though probably never universal. In the particular case of the surnames, I shall continue to say what I think on talk pages, but I didn't create this situation; perhaps those who did could take the lead in putting things right SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
From what I've observed, the new scheme is being worked on, but to some extent things are getting bogged down in petty edit wars between some who liked the old system and some who are trying to implement a new system. The problem with asking that users "put things right" is, of course, that different users may have different ideas about what is "right" for WP. Good Ol’factory 21:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Your first sentence says effectively that the original research is coming along nicely ... except that it isn't. Even if the "new scheme" were to be in any sense successful, which it won't be, it's WP:OR and contrary to wikipedia policy. If editors persist in asking the wrong questions they will get the wrong answers. Insofar as any investigations are needed they should be focussed on what the sources are, and perhaps even on how libraries classify these things. What's needed now is for authoritative voices, such as those of admins for a start, to point this out. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Jewish jurists

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Jewish jurists. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. lifebaka++ 22:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yet another DRV started by a user who couldn't be bothered to discuss the matter with me first. Good Ol’factory 22:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Good Olfactory's Day!

User:Good Olfactory has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Good Olfactory's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Good Olfactory!

Peace,
Rlevse
~

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean the entire day was "my" day and I didn't bother to login until 22:40, leaving me only 80 minutes to relish the me-ness? Just my luck .... Good Ol’factory 22:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

invite

Hello. I noticed you've made edits to articles related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and thought you might be interested in participating in the LDS Church work group, part of the Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject . The group aims to serve as a hub for collaboration on Church-related articles. You don't have to be a member of the Church to participate, and the only requirement for active membership is that you edit at least one Church-related article per month. Best wishes! LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Surnames_by_country CFD

If you could help out, there's quite a bit of discussion regarding your close here and the rash of similar Category:X-language surnames starting up (including those upmerged articles now becoming redirects). I'm not aware of the full history behind this but I'm pretty sure something like Category talk:Polish-language surnames where a request to have a bot unilaterally repopulate the category seems to be a complete end-run around the decision. I'm wondering about G4 all of them (or CFD them again) since it seems like either they belong at DRV or the same problems yet again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

  • As an extension to this, a DRV has been raised for one of the categories, Category:Lithuanian surnames, I wanted to notify you of this and was wondering whether you feel recreation of this as a redirect was precluded by your close. Your reference to User:cjllws comment makes me think you're ok with it. ] (] · ]) 13:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oy, I rue the day I closed the discussion. Yes, I am aware of the ongoing s-storm, but thanks for bringing it to my attention. Some complaints never die, and this appears to be one of them. A week or so ago, I had been G4'ing the re-created "FOO surnames" ones, but have decided that if they are re-created as redirects I'm not going to push the issue, since there are a vocal few who want to argue the issue vigorously, and at the end of the day I don't really care about a redirect. I'll G4 them if they get re-created as substantive categories, however. I'm trying to stay out of the ongoing arguments, since (1) I don't really care about the substantive issue, and (2) certain editors have stated point blank that they view me as biased on the issue, so commenting will contribute little in terms of "convincing" anyone. I may comment to clarify anything I've done in the past, however. Good Ol’factory 21:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Which is appreciated. ] (] · ]) 08:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Recreation

Category:Burials at cemeteries has been recreated (cfd in 2008-ish). Occuli (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. In light of recent events, I'm a little hesitant to G4 anything these days, but perhaps I'll go out on a limb here ... and duck for the incoming branches being swung at my head ... Good Ol’factory 20:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Music videos

This category is a mess. Out of the 225 articles, maybe six of them (i. e. Anime music video, List of most expensive music videos) are for something other than songs for which music videos have been made. It obviously serves as an appropriate parent category for its included sub-cats. Would it be kosher to set a bot to empty the category so the few articles that belong can be manually re-added? I'd rather not manually edit 200+ articles if I don't have to. Otto4711 (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think doing this would be OK, but clarify for me why the majority of the articles do not belong in it. Is it because they are already in appropriate subcategories? Or just because they are articles about songs that happen to have music videos, but the articles are not about music videos? Good Ol’factory 00:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Right, now that I re-read your comments, I realize it's the latter. I think this could be fine, if you could find a bot that could do it. Cydebot would go whole hog and empty everything and then delete it, which I suppose could be fine if we re-created it and added what needed to be added, but such an approach is bound to be more controversial. I've found User:RussBot extremely flexible for stuff like this—you might want to give User:R'n'B a shout. Good Ol’factory 00:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I was going to post this where it belonged

and then I realized, I really don't give a fuck.

"I get the impression that you would rather complain than do something about it, thereby enforcing the fifth-grade level mentality. Here's an idea. Instead of shooting down everything that was said and then complaining about it, why don't you remove the chip from your shoulder and, oh I don't know, help come up with a definition that works? "

As far as I'm concerned, someone painted him pink and erected a Somebody Else's Problem field on him. --Kbdank71 21:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I said as much, though I'm going to be joining you in the caring department. It's becoming clear that there is a lack of desire on the part of some to actually work together to make CfD work. It's a "my way or no way" attitude that is a bit anti-consensus, no? Good Ol’factory 23:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, what do you know. I was 100% correct. I wish I could say I was surprised, but honestly, I wasn't. --Kbdank71 00:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Positive, cheerful, optimistic Good Olfactory: "I'm looking forward to hearing a productive suggestion. (I hope I'm not getting my hopes up too high.) ..." Negative, grumpy, pessimistic Good Olfactory: "Whoa, déja vu ..." Good Ol’factory 00:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Statelessness

Latvian non-citizens are not "stateless" although that is alleged. We can think about whether the category actually applies to the Latvian non-citizen article. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  12:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, to tell you the truth I wasn't positive about that one. Perhaps it doesn't belong in that category. Maybe we should just keep it in Category:Nationality law. Good Ol’factory 20:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow

What in the face of this does one even say? Otto4711 (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I wondered that a bit myself and was a bit flummoxed. Nothing, I suppose—just pretend you are fresh out of billy-goats-gruff for feedings. A happy-face emoticon? Is there an emoticon for "lighten up"? (I didn't know this: attempts at humor are unwelcome at WP? If so, I should have been banned months ago. I'm heavy on the "attempts", light on the "humor.") Good Ol’factory 03:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I recalled a quote that I think answers it satisfactorily. Otto4711 (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Other World Kingdom

Hey, how's it going? I'm curious: why did you remove Category:Micronations from this article? --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoops—because I meant to place it in subcategory Category:Micronations in the Czech Republic, which I see didn't work out for me too well. I've put it in there now. Good Ol’factory 03:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick fix. --Stepheng3 (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Micronations as 'states' or 'territories'

Are you sure that Misplaced Pages should be calling these either states or territories? Because that's what we are doing if we put them in a sub-category of Category:States and territories established in the 2000s. Dougweller (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Micronations → Category:Unrecognized or largely-unrecognized states → Category:Disputed territories → Category:Political geography
Category:States and territories established in the 2000s → Category:States and territories established in the 21st century → Category:States and territories by year of establishment → Category:Political geography
Seems pretty solid—both tie directly back to Category:Political geography, which has as subcategories Category:Territories and various subcategories about states. Whether or not microstates are recognized entities is an entirely different issue—one that categories are not designed to address, really. Good Ol’factory 05:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok I guess, but one view could be that the categories recognise these as 'recognised entities'. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Both the words "state" and "territory" imply that the subject has an actual land mass. Hence, Wirtland shouldn't be included. Any others with no land mass should also be removed from these categories, at a minimum. Greg Tyler 07:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

And no, that's it for me: I can see my efforts were only feeding the fire. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Alansohn's behavior

Dear Good Olfactory, you have been involved with Alansohn before. He is doing what he used to do before he was restricted. Can you analyze his behavior once again? Now he has posted a thread against me at WP:ANI. AdjustShift (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)