User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 32

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 30

Category:Foods producing flatulence

Thank you for all the CFD discussions you closed. The 3 food categories on the bottom of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 26 were closed with "delete" but the categories themselves are stil around. Thanks! RevelationDirect (talk) 04:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that earlier today. I've listed them at WP:CFDW but I think Cydebot has stopped working again, so I need to notify User:Cydeweys. He usually gets it going pretty quickly once he knows. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:American people by ethnic or national origin

What is your opinion about the using word "citizen" in this category. Why the past editor prefer to use "citizens" rather than "nationals"? Alexander Iskandar (talk) 07:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

[This category page lists sub-category pages that categorize "citizens" of the United States by any ethnicity they are of or descendent of, or previous nationality that they held or are descendent of. The categories lists those both of full and partial origin or descent.

Notable non-citizens who have lived in the United States are also sub-categorized, however, under Category:Immigrants to the United States, Category:Expatriates in the United States or Category:Ambassadors to the United States.]

I think it should be "nationals", not "citizens". Nationals is a broader category than citizens—a person can be a national of a country but not be a citizen of it. For instance, permanent residents of a country are usually classed as nationals, but not citizens. The category trees fairly universally use categorization "by nationality", not "by citizenship", so the category descriptions should use nationality. I think past users have used "citizenship" probably because they thought it was the same thing as nationality, or they didn't understand what the difference was between the two. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

British Poultry Council

Hello - Included below is a message from Andrew Large, who is a client of mine. I was hoping you could help to improve the British Poultry Council article, so please get in contact if this is something you could be involved with.

Dear Good Olfactory,

I wanted to get in contact to discuss potential improvements to the British Poultry Council article on Wikipedia. It has been a while since the article has been updated and there are a number of inaccuracies that need to be corrected. The article would also benefit from the inclusion of additional information about the organisation and its activities.

As you’ve already helped to improve the article and have experience in maintaining similar content, I wanted to see whether this is something you could help with? If so, I’d be grateful if we could start a dialogue to address the points that I have raised.

Kind regards,

Andrew Large
Chief Executive
British Poultry Council

Vjemmett (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know anything really about the British Poultry Board, so I am probably not the best editor to try to improve that article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts on Emeritus template?

Hi! As always, thanks for all you do so well! I am totally just exploring / brainstorming here for your thoughts, not sure I have a specific position in mind. I certainly agree with identifying those that were at one time in the Presiding Bishopric. As you know, the note was inserted in March 2012 when the Bishopric changed and they designated those three as emeritus, although none of them had ever previously been in a quorum of the seventy. So, they are a little distinct from those recently identified who were placed in the First Quorum of the Seventy upon release from the Presiding Bishopric. So, is the note being used to identify those who never served as a seventy, or anyone who ever served in the bishopric? What are your thoughts? ChristensenMJ (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Could be either way, I suppose, whatever is most useful. If the former (those who never served as a seventy), I suppose it just needs to be made clearer, as I interpreted it as meaning any of them who had been the Presiding Bishopric. I'd be fine with such a change back. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the thoughts. ChristensenMJ (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if that helps clarify the template or not. See what you think. Thanks! ChristensenMJ (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that's great. Much clearer, and probably more useful that way. Thanks for doing that, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:New York City Subway stations in Queens, New York

Hi, I noticed you've reverted my category move twice, so I have started a category rename discussion. Please see here for a rename discussion. Thanks. Epic Genius (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

An SPI you might be interested in

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Piccione1. Doug Weller (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

3 digit US Highways.

Not sure if this information in and of itself is enough to reopen, but on United States Numbered Highways, it clearly says "Three-digit numbered highways are spur routes of parent highways but are not necessarily connected to their parents" which is more or less the same as what's on the interstate page.Naraht (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the topic to say, but you're right that this fact was not mentioned in the discussion. If you feel that it might change the result (perhaps to a rename instead of a delete), I would not object to you starting a WP:DRV on the basis of this being "new information" that wasn't considered. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Empty categories

Hi, Good Olfactory,
I have a question for you. I've been tagging empty categories now that I've found where they are listed. Most of them are straight-forward but I was wondering about a category like Category:Robotech element redirects to lists. The page contains content but it doesn't contain any pages/articles. It looks like a "hands-off" maintenance category but those ones usually say not to delete them, even if they are empty and this one doesn't.
There are other examples, like categories made for an editor's sockpuppets (when no sockpuppets have been identified) that contains a template but otherwise are empty. But I wasn't sure about tagging tracking categories that aren't being used. What's your opinion?
Now that I have admin tools at my disposal, I hope to help out at CfD soon. But I still find the system of actually enacting CfD decisions confusing and involves more steps than CSDs. So, I guess I'm working my way up to them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Liz, congrats on becoming an admin, you have good judgment and will do well. Closing CFDs can be a bit more involved than other types, especially if the result is merge or rename, as you kind of have to monitor that things went OK after you start the bot implementation. I usually check that everything merged as it should have and that the new category is properly formatted with parent categories, etc. Take your time, as you do a few, it will become more intuitive. Processing deletions are usually easier.

For the first type of cat you mention, I usually don't delete those types of maintenance categories speedily, even if they are empty. You are right that usually they are marked "do not delete when empty", but maybe that was overlooked in this case?. Generally, I think maintenance categories should go to full CFDs if users think they should be deleted because they are not being used, etc.

The sockpuppets example is a controversial one, I think. I have seen editors fight over (or vigorously debate, I should say) whether these should continue to exist or not, even if they are empty. Personally, I think they should be deleted if no sockpuppets have been confirmed for a user. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the sound advice, Good Olfactory. I might tag those maintenance categories that they should be kept even if they are empty.

Right now, I have a question about Fetx2002. He has been doing category moves (like an article move) but I don't think this works because of the problem with category redirects and the need to recategorize all of the articles contained in the categories. It looks like these category moves go back quite a ways. I've left a note on his user talk page but I wanted to ask if we need to undo all of these moves and put them through as speedy renames instead. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, category "moves" are almost always problematic. Users seem to think that something is out there that will move the articles. There is a bot that moves articles in redirected categories, but I don't know how frequently it runs. The main thing I suppose is to get him to stop doing it. What to do about those he's already moved—well, we could just leave them if there are tons of them and they are non-controversial, and hope that the bot moves the articles. Or, if you want to put in the effort, they could be moved back, but then if the moves are desirable, it does create a lot more work for someone to speedily nominate them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Happy pre-Christmas!

Isn't Category:Christmas onstage redundant to Category:Christmas plays and Category:Christmas musicals? Johnbod (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would think so. I find the entire Category:Christmas tree (har har) to be a bit confusing—I've been trying to work out some of it, but probably just making things worse. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Another one you might be interested in - here - seems sensible to me. Johnbod (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Mexico

Hey G, there is still inconsistency with the Mexican state capital city names and their respective administrative division state names.

Here is a list of the same-name capital/divisions in Mexico concerning state capital names and their respective administrative division names.

Same-name capital/divisions in Mexico: Guanajuato City, Guanajuato; Oaxaca City, Oaxaca; Puebla City, Puebla; San Luis Potosí City, San Luis Potosí; Zacatecas City, Zacatecas; Querétaro City, Querétaro; Durango City, Durango; Chihuahua City, Chihuahua; Tlaxcala City, Tlaxcala; Colima City, Colima; Aguascalientes City, Aguascalientes; Campeche City, Campeche

In keeping with consistency, I followed your format by completing the list above, which shows which six articles (ones with correct links) should not be moved, and which six (ones with incorrect links) should be moved. Six of the twelve names are consistent with one another, while the other six names are not. Thought maybe you could fix this up with some appropriate article moving, whenever you have the time (if you don't mind, that is). Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this! I suspect that do all need to be "FOO City". In my experience, those are certainly the common names that're typically used in English. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Category: Singles certified...

Hi Good Olfactory, Apologies for the interruption. I just noticed the deletion of the Category:Singles_certified_platinum_by_the_Australian_Recording_Industry_Association category, per the deletion discussion here.
No issues with the deletion at all; just wanted to see if we should also delete the redirects at Category:Singles Certified Platinum by the Australian Recording Industry Association; and also if we should look at removing the autocat field for Template:Certification Table Entry. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi; yes I can delete the redirect. As far as I know, the autocat field for all of the Australian certifications has already been removed from Template:Certification Table Entry. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

POV TV series category tagging

Hi. For some reason, it seems like the bot didn't completely remove your speedy rename tag from the category after the successful rename -- just part of it. Is that normal, would you know? I've never noticed that before. If you click on the edit tab, you'll see it left all this behind:
  {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Category| |{{error:not substituted|Cfr-speedy}}<div style="display:none;">}}  
Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Over the past day or so I've been noticing that Cydebot has been doing this on speedy renames. I've seen them on quite a few new categories created via speedy. I guess we should let User:Cyde know, maybe he can tweak things. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I see there's already a note about it. I'll add a link to this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This should be fixed now. The bot wasn't expecting those spaces in the HTML comments. It now does. Let me know if you still see any related issues. --Cyde Weys 01:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9mNQICjn6DibxNr

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Your actions were uncalled for in regards to the Climate change skeptics category

The previous participants were an angry mod who found no problem with someone saying that those who did not subscribe to climkate change skepticism "deserved to be mocked". You notifying them was a form of canvassing, and in this case canvassing a lynch mob. I looked at DRV as an option, but it is specifically denominated as dfeletion review and nothing was deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that overall you're being a bit extreme in your rhetoric. That tends of happen with this particular issue, on both sides. I notified the previous participants because they were participating in the discussion, and the same discussion was re-opened just a couple days after it was closed with a consensus. I'm not canvassing for any position. DRV can review renames, but I agree that your objection doesn't really comes under its "jurisdiction" since you're not arguing that the discussion was improperly closed or that new information has come to light, etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hogwash. Denier is the extreme, meant to equate those of us who will not sell our freedom to those who will not acknowledge the historical reality of the Holocaust. I did not make up the "deserve to be mocked" line.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It's unclear to me why you are posting here, apart from engaging in polemics. What are you requesting that I do? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

(†)

What is the function of this (†) sign? I think † is Christian sign, you added this in Islamic category. Is it any other funcion?Ameen Akbar (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi; it's only being used as a category sorting key so that the template appears at the bottom of the category contents rather than the very top. The symbol is called a dagger or an obelisk—no connection to Christianity was intended. I used it because it resembled the letter "t" as in "template". If it's troubling to have a cross-like symbol as a sortkey for a Islamic-related template, it could be replaced with some other symbol that will sort it to the bottom of the category contents. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much, your reply is very informative for me. I shall be very thankful if you suggest another sign which keep template at the bottom of category.Ameen Akbar (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

How about this sign, it should work just as well: µ Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, if it helps, per Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort_keys (and looong convention), templates are sorted using the tau symbol. - jc37 17:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you soooo much.Ameen Akbar (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

That does help, jc37—I didn't know there were specific guidelines there. I guess I hadn't read it completely for awhile. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Ifound out awhile back when helping work on a complete reOrg of Category:Comics and it's subcats. IIRC, there's a banner template which lists this as well (possibly predating WP:CAT itself : ) - jc37 14:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Question

diff

given that we can now move category pages and preserve the edit history (and since 2 cats were being merged) would it have been better to move dishes to the new cat, since it had the longer edit history? - jc37 17:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right. I didn't even think to check that—old habits dying hard, it seems. I have rejiggered it now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand. Getting used to this myself. - jc37 14:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

For Your cooperation. :-) Ameen Akbar (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Singles by certification

You obliterated two categories on a handful of votes. Was this discussion publicized on the affected ARTICLES? I heard nothing about it even though I have multiple articles that are now affected in my watch list. CfD, in general, is a process that is held in secret. But it affects a lot of articles when you decide to delete such organizational content. Where is the substitute or replacement? Nothing. Plus you have now left the perception of WP:SALT on the idea of grouping these items together, which is what a category is supposed to do. It is bad policy to continually hold these discussions in secret like this. It should be mandatory to post notice on the ARTICLES affected ib this kind of decision. Trackinfo (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that it would be impractical to publicize a CFD discussion on all article pages that will be affected. Such proposals have been made before and roundly decided against by consensus. If you are interested in categories, I suggest you place them on your watchlist. The categories are tagged for discussion when nominated, which serves as notification of those who are interested. CFD discussions are not held in secret, obviously. It's all a matter of perspective--if you ignore CFD, then yes, I can see how you might feel it is in secret. But it is open and accessible to all users and participants. I see no reason why this CFD decision would preclude the creation of list articles for these certifications, though, so I disagree with you that it has shut down all attempts to organize based on these characteristics. It just means that there was consensus that they should not be categorized in Wikipedia categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Cfd

Why is it that the more I read and comment at CfD these days, the more I am reminded of this page.

(Don't you love self-answering rhetorical questions? Oh look, another one : ) - jc37 07:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Because you're a normal person? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh! (smacks my forehead) What was I thinking? I forgot I need to think like a Wikipedian : ) - jc37 19:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Closing a discussion

I see you're experienced at closing discussions. The following one has been running for two weeks and is a pretty clear snow close for "oppose" of a title change:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_16#Category:Climate_Change_deniers

{{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 19:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I closed the discussion on the same category that was before this one that resulted in the initial rename, and in the discussion you refer to I made some comments and promised the nominator that I would not be also closing this one, to avoid any accusations of bias. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

On opposition to renaming categories from Venice to Republic of Venice

I oppose all the nominations to change from Venetian to Republic of Venice. I do not see the value of this change. Please see the discussion of this category change. It should not be a speedy change. \

One specific example of the problem is that it would miscategorize hundreds of entries. For example, I have written and categorized dozens of Venetian painters of the 19th century under the category of Venetian painters, they would not be painters of the Republic of Venice. While the passing of the republic was a major upheaval and discontinuity, Venice still remained Venice. Many of the patrician families remained influential. Some still own their palatial residences to this day. Leave Venice as Venice. Rococo1700 (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Just one example, Egisto Lancerotto (Noale, August 21, 1847 – Venice, May 31, 1916) was an Italian painter, mainly of genre scenes of Venice. He trained in Venice, painted many Venetian scenes, for example regattas, and exhibited and lived in Venice. He is one of over 300 Venetian painters, not a painter of the Venetian Republic. Rococo1700 (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, such articles are already miscategorized then, because they are all subcategories of Category:Republic of Venice people. If you want to categorize people from Venice, it should be "FOO from Venice". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy Diwali!!!

Sky full of fireworks,
Mouth full of sweets,
Home full of lamps,
And festival full of sweet memories...

Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali.
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Nomination of Carol F. McConkie for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carol F. McConkie is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol F. McConkie until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. p b p 14:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

People from the City Municipality of Celje‎

Is there a reason, why Category:People from the City Municipality of Celje needs to be in Category:Municipalities in Styria (Slovenia), if Category:City Municipality of Celje is already in that category? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry—no, there's not. I am confused. So very, very confused. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Football team templates which use images

Please restore Category:Football team templates which use images and add a note saying that this is a maintenance category used by Template:Infobox football club and that it should be empty. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the category to its previous state when it was deleted. You can go ahead and edit it from here as you see fit. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

EU law

Moved from User talk:Cyde § EU law again

Thanks for replying @Good Olfactory: and @Fayenatic london:. At it's most simple, this category is misleading because the CJEU is not a body (named as such) that has done all those cases historically. We can have a full discussion if you want, but I'm not entirely sure what that'd achieve. Here's some of the major categories for your reference:

I'm sorry I missed the proposal initially - is there a way I can be informed before something like this move happens in future? I'd be very grateful if you did a speedy renaming. Wik idea 10:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Taking up a point raised, just created this:

Category:European Union case law by topic Wik idea 10:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Is your objection to the long name just because it's anachronistic, since some cases were decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union under its previous names? – Fayenatic London 20:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Sort of: (1) the name is wrong because old cases weren't decided by the "CJEU" as such - and some of those cases are the Court of First Instance. I know this is annoying, but it's important (2) the convention - as I pointed out above - is to have the category as it was originally. Wik idea 11:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

So, there's nothing wrong with having an additional category for cases from the CJEU - although the move that Olfactory made initially was mistaken (for perfectly understandable reasons though - it's not easy to follow what EU law is doing!). Wik idea 11:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

But the Court of First Instance (which is now the General Court) is part of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Maybe the information we need is this: what is an example of some EU case law that is not from the CJEU? Since the CJEU "encompasses the whole judiciary" of the EU, as the article states, what is left? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

To answer your question, every case before the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992 was not from the CJEU, because there was no such thing as the Court of Justice of the European Union then. However, now all that case law is part of the accurate category "European Union case law" - because all the cases from the European Community have been brought into EU case law.

So, once again I'd really be grateful if you put it back to how it was, and raise it with me next time before you make such moves again. Wik idea 11:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

e.g. Van Gend en Loos, Costa v ENEL, Cassis de Dijon, Defrenne v Sabena (No 2) etc, etc

Yes, of course that's the case, but it's standard practice with Wikipedia categories to use the current name of the court in the category name, even if the court has existed under previous names. For example, the articles about cases from the NZ trial-level superior court are all in Category:High Court of New Zealand cases, even though the High Court of New Zealand was called the "Supreme Court of New Zealand" for the majority of its history (1841–1980). So there are cases categorized as High Court cases even though when the case was decided it was decided by a court known as the Supreme Court. It's the same situation here. I understand what you are requesting—I just disagree that it should be done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

All you're suggesting is that the New Zealand categories are wrong too. Maybe you did those as well. Wik idea 08:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

They're not "wrong"; it's just the way consensus has determined we should approach these issues. Categorization is a rather blunt tool and cannot be fine-tuned to the degree that individual articles are without the creation of unnecessary forking. The important thing is to group like articles together. These naming conventions are not ones I thought up—they are the result of years and years of discussions at CFD and consensus-building. And they generally apply outside of the area of law as well. For instance, when a university changes its name, the categories for alumni and faculty of that university change as well—retroactively applying the new name to all of the articles from the time the university was established. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Well okay - I spoke too hastily. We have separate categories for the courts and the subjects on most UK case pages. But it does seem to me that if the category refers to a court, it actually has to have been from the court, surely! Maybe there's another solution here. Wik idea 07:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I guess it just goes to what the specific court "is". I believe that a court that only changes its name but keeps the same functions is the same court. Of course, this is just for categories—the article text will always make it very clear what the name of the court was at the time and through links etc. will hopefully make it clear what that same court is called now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

CfD closure

Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_23#14th-16th_century_disasters, manual check has been completed. Nominated categories are empty and can be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll have them deleted now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

CFD closures

Hi, these categories under and including anti-imperialist organizations in Europe, were to be deleted as per CFD but have not yet been deleted (see [1]). Thanks. Quis separabit? 16:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes—they are listed at WP:CFDW but it doesn't seem to be processing these. Will investigate further. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Quis separabit? 21:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Request for renaming Works by Hergé category

Hi, I thought you might be interested to know that I nominated the category Category:Works by Hergé to be renamed as Comics by Hergé. Since you created this category I thought I'd notify you about the discussion. Hope you can tell us how you feel about the suggestion. With respect, - User:Kjell Knudde, November 26, 8:00 (CET).

Victoria, Malta

You just moved the page Victoria, Gozo to Victoria, Malta stating that there is "no other Victoria in Malta." I think that "Victoria, Gozo" is more appropriate since "Victoria, Malta" implies that the town is on the main island of Malta. In Malta, the term "Malta" generally refers to the main island only, despite the fact that it is also the name of the entire country. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll move it back and perhaps start an RM. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Same Ol'Pattern

Thank you for supporting the RM at Talk:Southern Alps (New Zealand). Unfortunately, I can tell what's going to happen, because I've seen this several times before:

Inexperienced (or stubborn) user does a unilateral page move.
Experienced user uses RM process to proposed restoration.
RM process fails to get consensus (because that only seems to happen when it's uncontroversial, and the RM wasn't necessary anyway).
Unilateral move sticks.

There seems to be a perverse disincentive for people to avoid discussion and ignore process, because then they get their way. —hike395 (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, and I think to a large extent that's the fault of the closing admins, who should recognize that if there is no consensus for the name, the status quo ante should be reinstituted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

My cynicism was unwarranted! Yay! —hike395 (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I must admit that I too didn't expect that to happen. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: Saint Peter

I changed the title in the lede to St. Peter from Saint Peter. You reverted it because the title of the page is Saint Peter. You said that the lede should change. I don't know how to change the article page. But I suggest that the article name be changed to St. Peter, with it redirecting to the page, if somebody types in Saint Peter. You don't call a doctor like Mehmet Oz, Doctor Oz. You call him Dr. Oz. I saw that is how his page is titled. I suggest that that be done for St. Peter. NapoleonX (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposals to move article titles can be made via WP:RM. I doubt that a proposal to move this article would succeed, though—from what I have seen, it's one of the most popular articles to attempt to move, and it doesn't generally get moved. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I remember the last move request. How can a newcomer understand why it is Saint Peter, but John the Baptist and - again different - Mary, the mother of Jesus?? - Peter was not born a saint. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong opinion on what name Saint Peter should be at. Where it's at now is probably as common a name as any. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Russian Hindus

Can I recreate the Russian Hindus category? There are plenty of Russians who are Hindu. Thanks. FrankieL1985 (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yup, if there are articles to go in it, it can be re-created. It was only deleted because it was empty. I've restored it for you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Andrej Rozman

Regarding Andrej Rozman – Roza and the Slovene love of en dashes, you're right about 'Roza' being a nickname (or pen name, or both). I guess in English it ought strictly to be 'Andrej "Roza" Rozman'. The same issue crops up with noms de guerre of Slovene (and other) resistance fighters, one example being Karel Destovnik, known in Slovene as 'Karel Destovnik – Kajuh'. His Wikipedia entry is now at Karel Destovnik and starts thus: 'Karel Destovnik, pen name and nom de guerre Kajuh (Slovene convention: Karel Destovnik – Kajuh) [...]' This could be a good solution for Rozman too. Against that, of course, is the fact that the guy's name will continue to appear in theatre programmes, reviews and the like as 'Andrej Rozman-Roza' (or 'Andrej Rozman – Roza'). The body of the article should probably refer to him as 'Rozman' rather than 'Roza', come to think of it... Rabascius (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting—thanks for clearing that up for me. It was unclear to me, as I indicated, and I jumped to soon in making a change. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Categories & Religion w/ Footballers

Dear Good Olfactory, I noticed that recently you have been removing categories pertaining to religion from a number of football articles on the logic that they do not belong in this category because their religion is not notable to their careers. While I don't dispute that your edits were made in good faith I'd like to remind you that pertaining to WP:CAT/R does not require the religion of article subject having to be relevant to their notability for them to be categorized, simply they have to identify with their religious beliefs and that being backed up by a reliable source. Thank you & happy editing. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The overall principle of categorization is that the feature should be WP:DEFINING for the subject so categorized. I don't think religion really has much to do with these footballers' notability. I couldn't say with confidence that it's defining for them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

But for example in the Cheick Tioté how notable is it that the subject is from Yamoussoukro and belongs in the Category:People from Yamoussoukro article? How relevant is that the subject was born in 1986 and belongs in Category:1986 births? If we only kept the categories that were directly pertaining to their notability I think that would make Wikipedia rather bland. All the subjects of these articles identified with their religion and in my opinion that's enough. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

If you disagree with me that's fine would you like to move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories? Inter&anthro (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This is kind of a perennial discussion that applies in a lot of contexts. I'm not so invested in the issue to want to expand the discussion, but I think it's just worth highlighting that this is an issue over which users disagree quite a bit, so you may bump into it again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Southern Alps

Category:Southern Alps, 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. Oculi (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

In a thread about moving Southern Alps, you suggested that guidance can be derived from the disambiguation guidance, but I think you will find that the AT policy page is better at answering the question posed by Parkywiki in the thread (see the section WP:NAMINGCRITERIA:

"Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize."

This is particularly relevant given the other English encyclopaedia entries. It also answers the similar point raised by Oculi, OCpro -- and In ictu oculi's statement in the first debate. -- PBS (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Cancer deaths by country

Category:Cancer deaths by country, 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. Big_iron (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Casimiro Monteiro

Hey Good Olfactory, I was just wondering where you got your information about Casimiro Montiero from as I believe I could be a relative of his. My family history is Portuguese Indian, some of them were from Goa, and he has a striking resemblance to my grandfather. Your sincerely, Brandon Brand1999 (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't really know anything about him apart what I have read in Casimiro Monteiro. I was not involved in researching that article or writing it—all I've done is place the article in a couple of categories based on what it says in the article text. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC) {{clear}}

Season's Greetings!

Hello Good Olfactory: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Thank you, that's quite the elaborate card! I know this is probably sacrilege for a Christmas theme, but something relevant to the hot southern hemisphere summer we're experiencing (or the summer solstice) would carry with it a nice international touch. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Page titles and Bluebook

Hi. I mentioned you at Special:Permalink/675074826#Use of Bluebook in April 2015 and never received a reply. I've now started a new, more specific discussion at Special:Permalink/696412973#Page title, if you're interested in weighing in. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I've commented there. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

	Happy Holidays!
	Hi, Good Olfactory! Have a happy and safe season, and a blessed new year! Holiday cheers, --Discographer (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)