User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 31

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 25

←

Archive 29

→

Request to move a talk page

Hallo. In January 2015 you moved South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe to South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc., but you didnt move the talk too. Please move the talk page :-) (Talk:South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe → Talk:South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc.) Christian75 (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

CfD closure involvement

Good morning! I'm just a bit concerned that you seem to have completely stopped being involved in CfD closure involvement. If it's because you're sick or anything I hope you recover soon. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Likewise. Best wishes – Fayenatic London 10:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Gibraltarian atheists

A tag has been placed on Category:Gibraltarian atheists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for four days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. – Fayenatic London 10:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Black Mormons

Category:Black Mormons, 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. SFB 21:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ruby v. State

Hi, Good Olfactory. Regarding this move, I am wondering if article should again be moved to Rubenstein v. State per, for example, this source? Thanks! - Location (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

CfD

Good morning, I noticed that you've been more active on Wikipedia lately. Welcome back! (if that's the right wording because you were never entirely gone). Is there any way we can seduce you to also participate in CfD closures again? The CfD backlog is pretty big and your contribution here would be greatly appreciated. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Due to a significant change in my real life circumstances, I can only edit sporadically now. I'll try to do some when I can, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Real life is of course more important but anyway thanks a lot for closing a whole bunch of categories the other day! Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I've had some time the past few days so I've been able to get through quite a few. I'm not comfortable closing many of the "YYYY in COUNTRY" nominations since in the past I was fairly opinionated on those issues, so I'm leaving most of those for someone else. I should be able to do more on and off till we get the backlog down. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

As you're not going to close these "YYYY in COUNTRY" discussions, you might instead consider joining these discussions. I don't really remember what opinions you expressed in the past about this topic, but your opinion is worthwhile to share anyhow. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It's mighty good to have you back in action here. I've closed some of those "YYYY in country" ones now. The backlog is better than for a long time. – Fayenatic London 20:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Former British colonies

Hi there! I see you've added Category:Former British colonies back into articles and categories such as Category:New Hebrides, etc., from which I had removed it. The reason why I removed it was that the New Hebrides, Fiji, etc., are now inside another category called Category:British Western Pacific Territories - which is itself a sub-category of Cagegory:Former British colonies.

Question: Should an article or a category be contained in both a category, and in a sub-category of that category? For example, if "British Isles" was a sub-category of "Europe", we wouldn't put Ireland in both the "British Isles" and "Europe". Or would we?

I have no strong feelings either way on this issue. I thought I was following policy when I removed the "parent category" in favour of the tighter sub-category, but I could be wrong. It's not something I feel strongly enough about to press, but I thought I'd let you know why I did what I did. :-) David Cannon (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason I think it should be in both Category:British Western Pacific Territories and Category:Former British colonies is because the New Hebrides was a self-standing colony of Britain after the BWPT dissolved in 1976. It was both part of the BWPT and later a separate colony. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh I see! That explains it. Thank you!David Cannon (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Dry places in New Jersey

FYI, in light of your close rationale, I have proposed splitting it into cities and townships, which it appears most of the items in the category are. p b p 04:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Knights of the Order of the Netherlands Lion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Knights of the Order of the Netherlands Lion. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I'm not sure if deletion reviews work for categories. In any case, I went to DRV because it has nothing to do with your closure - I simply want the category restored. I don't know whether the bots can undo theire deletions like that, however. St Anselm (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough—but yes, DRV can consider categories. If restored, we can easily get the list of articles that were in it from User:Cydebot's edit log, so just let me know if it becomes an issue and I can help getting them back. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You've probably seen that the discussion was closed as relist. Would you be able to restore the categories to the pages they used to be on? St Anselm (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can do it. I wasn't sure if the closer of the DRV was going to restore them and relist, or if I should restore them. I can start into that later today. I'll post here when I think it's done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It was a non-admin closure, and so he doesn't have access to the tools. St Anselm (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

They are restored now and I have relisted them here. I'll notify the DRV and previous CFD participants of the relisting. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:National Association of Schools of Music

Following up a deleted category: Given that NASM is the principal U.S. accreditor for higher education in music, would it make sense to create a descriptive category? To wit: Category:Institutions accredited by the National Association of Schools of Music. — Eurodog (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure—I guess you have to ask is the accreditation a "defining" feature of these music schools. I don't know enough about the topic to venture an opinion on that question. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Did CfD really support deletion for Category:Celtic countries and territories?

Thanks for your admin work. I am a little confused by your close of the CfD for Category:Celtic countries and territories in favor of deletion. I don't see much consensus on this. The nominator proposed Renaming. Marcocapelle voted to Split, and then changed that to Delete. Peterkingiron voted to Keep. I didn't vote, but pointed out some arguments for renaming and some inconsistency in how we name. And Johnbod seems to have voted three different ways. I really don't see much consensus there, so the decision to choose Delete, which got only one unambiguous vote, seems a little poorly supported. Thoughts? Rupert Clayton (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I read Johnbod's !vote as providing three options, the best of which (in his opinion), was delete. Marcocapelle !voted delete after your comment on the size of the category. Carlossuarez46, the original nominator, originally proposed a rename, but his longer comment in the discussion seemed to generally support Marcocapelle's comments, which settled on deletion. We had one !vote to keep. On the keep vs. delete issue, your comment appeared to me to be silent. So that left me very roughly with a delete:keep:neutral ratio of 3:1:1, which I took to be a rough consensus to delete. I think Johnbod summed it up well when he commented that using categories to categorize places by what languages the residents speak is a "[h]opeless concept, as the comments [in the discussion] indicate". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for giving your rationale. True, the relationship between languages and territories is many-to-many, as is the relationship between ethnicities and territories. And a sizeable portion of the world's conflicts result from attempts to collapse that complexity into one-to-one relationships. But we still seem to find value in a whole bunch of other language-based categorizations of political geography, as Category:Cultural spheres of influence attests. (I realize that other stuff is not sufficient argument alone.) Maybe Category:Celtic nations will be just ambiguous enough to provide a useful grouping without overstretching into claims about whether a majority speaks a particular language. Ironically, the original Category:Celtic countries and territories was a better fit for a cultural grouping than the proposed Category:Celtic-speaking countries and territories. Rupert Clayton (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

"I read Johnbod's !vote as providing three options, the best of which (in his opinion), was delete." - correct. This was pretty clear I think. The "hopelessness" was greatly increased when it was "using categories to categorize places by what languages the residents used to speak, or a small minority speak, and so on. Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Categorization of territories by languages spoken by some of their inhabitants at some time in the past is certainly a bad idea. Categorization of territories by their dominant language for a major part of their history has some value. Distinguishing between the two would seem to be tough. However, it was CfD nominator Carlossuarez46 that proposed renaming this to be a language-based category. In its original guise it seemed more related to broader Celtic culture and ethnicity. No big deal though. Category:Celtic nations will likely be fine until the next Celtic expansionist starts to apply it to every state with a history of red-haired residents. Rupert Clayton (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Knights of the Order of St. Olav

I see that Order of St. Olav categories have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 2. Do you know why Category:Knights of the Order of St. Olav was deleted? I see that it was deleted by Cydebot citing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 June 22 (the discussion which you closed), but it isn't mentioned there. If they deleted in error, could you restore the related categories, please? St Anselm (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the date added by Cydebot was in error (which obviously resulted from a user typo, probably mine). The correct link is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_27#A_few_more_award_categories. To find a discussion where a category was discussed, all you have to do is click on the red-linked category name and then click "what links here", which will give you this. (I had forgotten why I love closing CFDs so much ...) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, OK - so it's the same discussion that's being discussed at DRV. St Anselm (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Pre-1870 District of Columbia categories

Your claims of no examples of places not in Washington City is false. Fort Bayard (Washington, D.C.) was not within the city boundaries when it was founded in 1861. The same is true of Fort Reno. I am sure there are other things to add. However I have two concrete examples. Not counting concrete examples of things that were on the opposite side of the river, which since we categorize by what was in Virginia in that year must go in the District of Columbia category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

In this context, I think the last sentence I wrote in my opinion in the discussion is relevant. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

American coats of arms

Hi-

I'm not sure why this category move was never open for discussion. So based on the category name, any coat of arms from any American country should also belong here as well, no? Anything from Central America, or South America? If the purpose is to have a category for United States coats of arms then shouldn't that remain the name?--Godot13 (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The category was listed on WP:CFDS for more than 2 days, and after that it was processed in this edit. The rationale was: "C2C per Category:American heraldry and format of subcategories of Category:Coats of arms by country". Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Armbrust-Got it. Thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Welsh-speaking people

Given the centuries of persecution suffered by Welsh-speakers (just read the history - it makes for shocking reading), the fact that the Welsh language still exists as a living language is nothing short of a miracle. Naturally therefore, it is of much interest to those interested in the Welsh language, those interested in Welsh current affairs, those interested in minority languages as well as to many members of the public in general, for it to be acknowledged that certain notable public figures e.g. politicians, sportspeople or musicians have the ability to speak Welsh. Indeed, failing to do so seems to suggest that the Welsh language is of no significance, to anybody. Whilst some may argue that the language that one speaks is not actually significant, this viewpoint is likely to be prevalent in individuals with a limited understanding of minority languages/cultures. Put another way, whilst the fact that a notable person can speak English may not be necessarily of interest - mainly due to the fact that English is the third most widely-spoken language in the world - by contrast, when a notable person who happens also to speak Welsh is not acknowledged as a Welsh speaker this is missing a very important point, simply because Welsh is much less prevalent than English. Yes, defining a cohort of Welsh-speaking people is of interest to many people, even if that does not happen to include the person(s) who instigated the deletion of this category in the first place. Therefore, just as the section 'Notable people with the name Prabhu', or 'Category:Black British people', for example, may not be of interest to a certain individuals, the fact that these Categories/Sections exist confirm the fact that they are of interest to at least some Wikipedia users, and the same is true for 'Category:Welsh-speaking people'. I hope that the majority of Wikipedia users/editors wish to build a more informative and inclusive encyclopaedia, and not an encyclopaedia that projects an Anglo-American bias whereby smaller cultures and languages are dismissed. I therefore call upon those who instigated this deletion to see beyond their possible prejudices, and remain true to Jimmy Wales' Statement of Principles by re-instating this category without further delay please as many useful links have been lost with the current deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haul~cywiki (talk • contribs) 19:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not instigate the discussion nor did I participate in it. I was the administrator who closed and implemented the decision that was made by the discussion participants. The category was not deleted: it is here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Continuity in CfD closing

Thanks a lot for diminishing the huge CfD backlog that we had, entirely on your own!!! However, at this point of time it may make sense if you slow down a bit on CfD closures, in order to facilitate that User:Fayenatic london and User:MER-C keep closing CfDs on a regular basis as well. It's probably better to have multiple administrators who maintain regular experience in CfD closing because if you would need to stop closing CfD again, for any reason, there should be administrators who are experienced enough to take over. In fact I think it wouldn't even be too bad to try recruiting a 4th administrator for this (if possible), just for continuity's sake. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Never. NEVER! Lol—I wasn't intending to continue my pace indefinitely. I'm trying to get it to the point where at most we are a week behind. But there are plenty of opportunities to close some—at this stage no shortage, really. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Some of the still-open really old discussions seem pretty much like no-brainers to close, but I can't close them, either because I participated in them or have been otherwise involved int he past. For instance, this one seems pretty straightforward at this point. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't any of you worry about leaving work for me!

I enjoy helping at CfD, but am as delighted as anyone to see the backlog back to proper proportions. I need to be getting on with work in real life, and when I do come into Wiki-land for a spot of recreation, I can always work on content if there's no admin backlog appealing to me. – Fayenatic London 14:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Mormonism and Christianity

Take another good, hard look. "80-million-member" modifies "Anglican Communion". The three words together do the modifying, and the three words need to be hyphenated. Chris the speller ^yack 05:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

That's what I was suggesting. I think I misunderstood your change as being the opposite of what it was. In short—I agree with you, and I did the opposite of what I thought I was doing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Dry places in New Jersey

Following the "keep" closure for the CFD of Category:Dry places in New Jersey, I've followed the closer's recommendation and submitted a new CFD to rename it to Category:Dry municipalities in New Jersey. Please offer your opinion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 16 if you have one. Nyttend (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Welsh-speaking sportspeople

Just to let you know I'm taking this to a deletion review. It doesn't appear that you understand the issues, and, despite my input to this category, I was not notified that it was up for deletion. Deb (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

While I'm thinking about the wording for the review, I'm going to suggest that you look again at your decision, taking into account two facts:

Welsh sportspeople, particularly in team sports, often use the Welsh language as a tactic to confuse the opposition.
Welsh sportspeople are regularly interviewed or employed to commentate in Welsh by the media.

Thus both their ability to speak Welsh and its relevance to their profession is clearly demonstrable. Deb (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You know, we're kind of supposed to discuss this before it goes to DRV. Jumping in right off the bat and stating that "It doesn't appear that you understand the issues" is a bit condescending and presumptuous a statement to make before I have even had a chance to respond to any inquiry or request for clarification that you may have had. I see the DRV has started, so I suppose you're suggesting there's no point to discussing it here beforehand. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can see why you would think that. But from my point of view, it’s obvious. That’s why I sent you further information. You are Canadian, aren't you? Maybe if I was talking about a category called "French-speaking Canadians", it would be easier to put across to you what I'm talking about. What would be your response if 20 people who had never lived in Canada voted to delete such a category, while 10 people who lived in Quebec wanted to “keep”? Wouldn't you feel that the people who were unfamiliar with the issues were maybe overlooking something? Deb (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No, not really, because we're not talking about "the issue" in the abstract, we're talking about it in the context of Wikipedia categorization. The arguments that were presented in favour of deletion were far stronger in the argument than those in favour of retention in that they relied on principles set out in the categorization guidelines. It's evident from their comments (and from yours) that many in favour of retention do not understand these guidelines or practices very well. So doesn't that mean that since these people are unfamiliar with the issues of categorization, they are maybe overlooking something? It works both ways, see. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Then we'll just have to agree to differ, and it's just as well I carried on with the review request. The arguments in favour of deletion, in this case, fell into the I just don't like it category as far as I can see. Why should specialist knowledge should be disregarded in favour of arguments as vague as "I don't see what the language--often 2nd language--a sports person speaks has to do with their playing", "it does not need to be sub-categorized except where the language use is integral to why the person is notable", or "Welsh-speaking categories should be limited to ones where language matters"? I'd like to know what principles you think are supported by such statements. Deb (talk) 09:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The comments "it does not need to be sub-categorized except where the language use is integral to why the person is notable" and "Welsh-speaking categories should be limited to ones where language matters" are quite well substantiated by categorization guidelines. See WP:DEFINING, which is the central organizing principle of categorization. The users are suggesting that being Welsh-speaking is not a defining characteristic for a sportsperson, whereas it would be for someone who, for instance, writes poetry in the Welsh language. (For instance, a Welsh-language poet is likely to be described in an article lede as a poet who writes in the Welsh language, whereas a Welsh-speaking sportsperson is unlikely to be described in an article lede as a sportsperson who speaks Welsh.) As the closer, I didn't find such comments vague at all—but that is probably because I might have a more specialized knowledge in principles of Wikipedia categorization, which goes back to what I saying before about the issue you are raising cutting both ways. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

How can a person who is unfamiliar with an endangered language judge whether being Welsh-speaking is a defining characteristic for anyone else? Those who are familiar with the language have repeatedly commented that being Welsh-speaking is a defining characteristic for almost everyone who speaks it, and certainly for those who speak it as a first language. But for some reason their informed comments are being treated as somehow less "strong" than the others.Deb (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Just saying something is so doesn't make it so, and one doesn't necessarily need to be an expert (either in the subject matter or in WP categorization) to assess whether a given trait is defining. Where is the evidence that being able to speak Welsh is defining for a sportsperson? Nothing very convincing was presented. On the other hand, there was some convincing evidence to the contrary. A fairly reliable guide to whether a trait is defining for an individual is whether the fact would reliably be mentioned in the lede of an encyclopedia article about the person. Another standard is whether the trait is "one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having": see WP:CATDEF. The fact that these sportspeople could speak Welsh was not in the lede of any of the articles, and for some, it wasn't even mentioned in the article at all and there were no reliable sources that could even be used to substantiate that they were a Welsh speaker. This is strong evidence that while it might be a notable trait of the person, it is not a defining trait of the person in the context of an encyclopedia. (Whether the person feels that it is "defining" for themself as an individual is not the relevant test—it is whether it is defining for encyclopedic purposes.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

What is this "strong evidence" of which you speak? Deb (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"This is strong evidence ...". The "this" refers to what was set out in the sentence before, starting with "The fact ...". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Good Olfactory clearly did get it; the supporters of that nonsense category are the ones not understanding (namely, not properly parsing WP:OVERCAT, especially WP:TRIVIALCAT). No amount of "understanding the issue" (i.e. engaging in advocacy for soapboxing or the righting of great wrongs) makes it appropriate to categorize by trivial intersections just because one feels the "issue" of Celtic language revivalism needs attention. "How can a person who is unfamiliar with an endangered language judge whether being Welsh-speaking is a defining characteristic for anyone else?" How can someone unfamiliar with New Mexico green chile judge whether being a huge fan of it is a defining characteristic for anyone else? Namely by basic reasoning. Do kicking a football or jumping hurdles require Welsh-language use? No. Trivial intersection. Does being a Welsh-language poet require Welsh-language use? Yes. Not a trivial intersection. Finally, it's insulting, presumptuous, and ad hominem to suppose that everyone opposed to pointless categories like this is unfamiliar with the language in question or the politics surrounding it, and its flat-out wrong to suppose further that anyone familiar with Welsh would necessarily support such a nonsense category. What next? Category:Albino biologists? Category:Dancers who are Protestant? Category:Prime ministers who can juggle? Having a characteristic or skill is a trivial intersection with one's vocation [or notable avocation] when they do not intrinsically relate. We've made exceptions (which many of us think are a very bad idea) along "racial" lines, and gender ones, in some categories, but this does not magically translate into a license to trivially intersect at will. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Welsh-speaking sportspeople

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Welsh-speaking sportspeople. 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. Deb (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Peasants Revolt of 1834

Hi Good Olfactory. I reverted your recent move of Peasants' Revolt of 1834 (Palestine) to Peasants' Revolt of 1834 because the former title had been reached as part of a compromise several months ago. It was not the best compromise and unfortunately there was not much participation in the discussion as I had hoped for. From my understanding of the sources, this revolt was notable for taking place across all of Palestine (the region) and despite its fame for being a "peasants' revolt", it included wide participation by all of the segments of Palestine's inhabitants i.e. the urban notables, the peasants (incl. some Christians), and the nomads. The sources don't use a consistent and formal name for the revolt, but nearly all emphasize it was known as the "Peasants (or Fellaheen) Revolt". --Al Ameer (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I can just move the proposal through WP:RM instead. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --Al Ameer (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for making me aware of the situation/background—it's very helpful. Feel free to comment in the new discussion—we'll see if any more contribute this time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

EMF miniEURO

Help please by editing the seasons of EMF miniEURO. Are just 6 including the present one. Thank you !Alexiulian25 (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I know next to nothing about the topic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Something that may interest you

Hello Good Olfactory,

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Quran that may interest you.

Bobby Martnen (talk) 03:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Kenyan television programmes

Category:Kenyan television programmes, 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. Fuddle (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Fictional characters with neurological or psychological disorders

Category:Fictional characters with neurological or psychological disorders appears to have grown as you suspected years ago, based on your comment n the talk page. Slivicon (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. Given that that was about six years ago, I suppose a fresh nomination might be in order, rather than a speedy deletion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)