User talk:Good Olfactory

CfDs

Of course Thanks for the reminder. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

I was wondering if (as an admin) you wouldn't be willing to edit the {{S-rel}} template to include this in the #switch: statement

|cc=[[Community of Christ|Community of Christ titles]]

The Sel box is used alot on the Community of Christ leadership pages and it has 250,000 members, which is comparable to the other smaller groups in this template. Sorry to bother you about this. I have left a message on the Templates talk page and with other admin editors, but the template seems to be inactive.--ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Done—it should work now—let me know if it doesn't. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Works great. Thanks.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 21:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Maritime boundaries and borders

Good Olfactory -- As background, please see Senkaku Islands#Maritime borders. Consensus of editors at this time support Qwyrxian's decision to remove this section entirely.

A. In preparing to create Maritime boundary and Maritime border, I discovered that there were many articles which incorporate this term, but no links explained that this is an evolving term of art in the Law of the Sea. A lessons learned the hard way informs my decision not to create an article first, and then develop relevant links. In the past, when I searched for articles which would be improved by converting a word or a phrase into a link, it proved to be a difficult task. IMO, although it is somewhat counter-intuitive, it is arguably better to create the links first, then the article.

At this point, I've edited perhaps one-fifth of the list or articles which mention this term here ... which continues through List of international trips made by the President of the United States.

I anticipate that this tedious process will continue slowly for several more days. Then I will create a stub article.

B. FYI, I plan to repeat the same process searching for the unlinked phrase "maritime border" ... and in due course, I will create another stub.

C. When both Maritime boundary and Maritime border are established as stubs, I will post a merge headnote; and then others can resolve what, if anything, to do about it.

With this labours completed, I plan to revert Qwyrxian's edit here. My work will provide a useful context for the discussion which then ensues. --Tenmei (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Arguably better? I would say definitely worse. Why create a bunch of redlinks before an article even exists? It frustrates readers. Also, I doubt that maritime boundary or maritime border should be a self-standing article—they should probably just redirect to a section in border that mentions maritime boundaries. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a context here will help in reconsidering my edits and plan? In simplistic terms, you may be familiar with a Canada-Denmark dispute which is not solely about an island. --Tenmei (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm still not convinced any of this is a good idea. For starters, there is no difference between a maritime border and a maritime boundary. They are two terms for the same thing. Why you would even consider making two articles for the same thing, I don't understand. Secondly, a maritime border is merely a border that happens to be located in the ocean. Thus, it should just be a part of the main article border. Thirdly, it is always a bad idea to create links to non-existent articles. Links should be added after the articles exist. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

My interest is in solving a problem, not creating any new ones.

Responding to your concerns, I copied the index list to a sandbox; and then I created Maritime boundaries as an article stub. Perhaps some of your views may change when you have the opportunity to scan the related hyperlinks and categories? --Tenmei (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't change my mind. And why is the article pluralized to Maritime boundaries? Article names are supposed to be singular. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Odd Fellows

Regarding your edit and your statement: Biographical articles should not be added to this category merely because the person was a member of the Odd Fellows.
Which category should they be added to? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

We generally do not categorize biographical articles according to clubs or organizations the person may have been a part of unless the organization is central to the person's notability. The fact that Winston Churchill was an Odd Fellow is interesting and can be mentioned in his article, but it's not the sort of thing that we categorize by. Only founders of the Odd Fellows or other people who are notable because they were Odd Fellows leaders should go in the category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I see your point.

In that case, I'd like to add them to the lists at places like IOOF#Notable members of the IOOF and Oddfellows#Notable members of the Oddfellows. However, since you have removed them from the category, I'm not sure how to locate them.

I guess they're all in your "My contributions" list? Over what period of time have you been doing this?

Or can you think of an easier way to identify them?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It was all done on around the 0100–0200 hour on 17 November 2010 UTC. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Different question: The IOOF may not be central to Schuyler Colfax's notability, but he is central to the IOOF (c.f. Schuyler Colfax#Founder of Rebekah Degree). I would therefore place him in the category. What do you think? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Observation: Without any effort at all, I can quickly find you a hundred examples of categories which are simply a list of members of clubs or organizations the person may have been a part of, and the organization is not only NOT central to the person's notability, it has NO bearing at all on the person's notability.
On what are you basing your statement: We generally do not categorize biographical articles according to clubs or organizations the person may have been a part of unless the organization is central to the person's notability.? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I base it mostly on years of CFD results in which categories of those types are routinely deleted when nominated. The fact that you can find many doesn't mean doing so is appropriate. I doubt you can find "hundreds", though, unless you are counting alumni categories. Those are a whole other story. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You're not just a pretty face, are you! Yes, I was indeed counting alumni categories. What's the "whole other story"? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The other story is just that the alumni categories are the one exception that I can think of of categories of this type that have been repeatedly been discussed and the consensus has either been to keep or there has been no consensus, so they have been kept by default. There have been some relatively bruising battles over these, especially for the ones for secondary schools (high schools as opposed to universities). You are right, there are hundreds of those. The ones that are usually deleted (or more correctly, are not used for categorizing general membership people) are the ones for clubs or fraternities, etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. (As somebody wise once said: "You learn something new every day. Sometimes, some of it is useful.") Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Party-position categories?

Don't you think the party-position categories are a bit much? Politicians generally hold many political positions prior to becoming Senator and I don't see how a Democratic congressman category is any more useful than democratic party and congressman categories. It might be a bit much.--TM 15:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It might be, but I doubt it. Coupling senator and party is not much different than Category:British MPs by political party and several others from other countries. If you think they are too much, you can nominate them for deletion, but I suspect this is the logical next step in the scheme. (Incidentally, I haven't created any categories for congressmen, just for U.S. senators. "Congressmen" usually means members of the House of Representatives.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I will probably nominate them for deletion. Btw, per Member of Congress, Congressmen can refer to members of either the Senate or House.--TM 00:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead, but they are not yet fully populated yet, obviously, as I've gone through less than 20% of the states and senators so far. You may fight a losing battle, though. A senator in a party has considerably more pull than Joe-activist or failed House candidate X in the party has."Congressman" usually means member of the House in almost all sources (as member of Congress points out), regardless of what is technically accurate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the underlying problems which makes this scheme helpful goes back to my old bugaboo that users have seen it fit to categorize anyone as a Democrat or a Republican if there happens to be a reliable source out there that says they belong to either major political party. If the scheme was limited to only politicians of these parties, then I might tend to agree with you that that is enough. But how do we, for example, separate the George Clement Perkinses of the world from the James Stewarts of the world when both are in Category:California Republicans? If we focused on categorizing defining features of someone rather than verifiable factoids, we wouldn't be in this mess. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should only sort by defining characteristics, which is why I disagree with position-party categories in general. Are we going to have Category:Republican mayors of cities in Orange County, California? If someone is a California Republican and a US Senator, I just don't see the value added in combining the two categories. Category:United States Senators from California seems to be about as far as we should go. Senators are elected from by a state, so obviously that is notable. I guess you can argue they are chosen by their party in a primary or previously by the State Legislature, but in reality it just seems unneeded to me.--TM 01:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, your example goes a bit too far (perhaps derived from my off-topic musing), since these are not combining state with party with position as with Republican U.S. Senators from California. It's only combining party and position. What is your opinion about Category:British MPs by political party and similar schemes for other countries? Would you suggest there is a difference with those because of the way party discipline works in parliamentary systems? If so, this is a very subtle difference and probably too subjective to apply widely. Or should those categories go too? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the entire reason I thought of doing this is that I recently nominated a category for deletion that was called something like "U.S. Senators from third parties". Several of the comments said things like "senators by party would be good, but not one that segregates all non-D/R senators into one category". So there is some sort of thinking that it would be the way to go. In a way I was doing it to make up for the "data loss" promoted by that nomination. Ah well, I guess when one tries to do a good deed, one will not please everyone. (I do think the superior value of the scheme is found in the categories for the defunct parties, though.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

In my mind, all party-position categories are going too far. Politicians tend to hold many political positions before reaching the US Senate and I don't see the usefulness in fully devolving the idea, thus the Republican mayors example above. Given that the positions of political parties have changed so rapidly over the multiple centuries of US and UK politics, I don't see the usefulness of including all members of one body from one party in a category together. What, in your mind, is the value added? What do we gain from including Strom Thurmond, Jefferson Davis and Barack Obama in the same category?--TM 01:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, all party–position categories go too far ... I would disagree with that, as I mentioned above, because if we are going to categorize by people party it makes sense to carve out those who held particularly influential positions while a member of that party, since, for example, a senator of the party has considerably more influence on the party and its direction than a Hollywood moviestar who is a registered member of the party. It's easy to pull out three of the least-alike people from any one very large category, but as I said the scheme makes especial sense for the smaller categories which address defunct parties. And if the scheme exists for all the smaller parties, then that is usually a reason to have the scheme for all parties, even if it ends up putting Thurmond and Obama in the same category. That you say all party–position combinations go too far, though—wow, I don't know what I can say about that besides "wow". I think most users, and not just the Alansohns of the world, would find the party–position combo to be one of the most defining combinations for a politician in many democracies. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Taking the step a bit further: would it be acceptable in your mind to start sorting all categories by party and position? So, for example, would it be acceptable to have a Category:Republican Party Mayors of New York City and the like? How about for members of the House of Representatives? Governors? Attorney Generals? Presidents? State Houses of Represenatives? State Senates? City Councils? What of Bernie Sanders and the hundreds of other elected independent candidates? If we say being an elected member of a party and an elected member of a body are defining, no logical reason exists not to go down and sort every politician everywhere in this way, which to me, is a very, very bad idea. We should be consistent with categorization. It is defining that a person is a US Senator and it is defining that they are a member of a party, but the intersection is not defining.--TM 01:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, again. I'm not particularly interested in playing the slippery slope game, since I created none of the theoretical categories you suggest. They would have to be considered on their own merits. Certainly, most of the positions you mention have historically been less visible and influential on a party than a U.S. senator. But to say that the U.S. Senator–party combo is not defining for many, many politicians—wow. But if the existence of one category scheme means that you can see "no logical reason exists not to go down and sort every politician everywhere in this way", I think you need to broaden the considerations you are processing to take you beyond mere slavish consistency. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Politicians, even elected ones, regularly change political parties. Eliot Cutler was a member of a Democratic administration, then enrolled as a Republican and then ran an independent. Can we really say that any political party is defining of someone who changes it? Strom Thurmond and Arlen Specter ran for the US Senate at different points as Democrats and Republicans. Is it really defining to include both categories for them? I would appreciate it if you wouldn't keep saying "wow". If you won't address the points I make and the questions I ask, then lets end this conversation.--TM 02:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Wow" is an expression of surprise, because your statements are very surprising to me and I suspect that they are well outside the view of the majority of WP users. I don't know a better way to convey my surprise. I think if you review my comment, you'll find that I've answered the questions you have posed, though perhaps not in a fashion you wanted them answered. I won't play the slippery slope game, but I'm happy to address issues regarding the categories that I actually have created. To your question re Thurmond and Specter: it's easy to find individual cases that poke holes in the "logic" of the categories, but "... the scheme makes especial sense for the smaller categories which address defunct parties. And if the scheme exists for all the smaller parties, then that is usually a reason to have the scheme for all parties ..." If one wanted to adjust the application in individual cases, one could, but I'm not gonna be the one to make that subjective judgment call. For Saunders, if one wanted one could have a category for independent U.S. Senators in the same way there is Category:Independent MPs of New Zealand, for instance. I'm not necessarily advocating that, but I say it to answer your question in that regard. Or, you could just exclude independents from the scheme. Can we really say that any political party is defining of someone who changes it? It obviously depends on the influence they had on the party and others in the party, and so forth. Yes, features of a person that are easily changeable can be defining: defining doesn't mean "immutable". For instance, it's quite easy for anyone to change their career, but it is often defining for a person. On broad per capita averages, I would think that most American people change careers more often than a U.S. Senator changes parties. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, did your last sentence mean the conversation was over? ... How embarrassing!—or to put it another way, "wow, how embarrassing". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't mind me, I'm just talking to myself now ... I did a quick check, and there are a minimum of about 7600 articles in the subcategories of Category:Republican Party (United States) politicians. Proportionally more in the one for Democrats, no doubt, since it has been around longer. Those would be full undifferentiated categories! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Zealandia.jpg

Hi. You uploaded that file to Commons as being in the public domain. But at Ticket:2010111910006357 the author of the image tells us that the image is not in the public domain and that they request its deletion. The source page, [1], states: "MY PHOTOS ARE NOT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. Usage in other places must NOT and will NOT indicate otherwise." Could you please comment about that? Thanks,  Sandstein  10:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel I should point out that the source didn't use to say that, however it still doesn't appear to have been a clear release into the public domain. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If the author has changed his mind about use of his photos, I don't care that it is deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Since they have apparently changed their mind I've tagged it for deletion now. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup, thanks. I've deleted it. But I'd be interested to know why you believed the file was PD in the first place? Was there some sort of PD release on the page that is now removed? Regards,  Sandstein  07:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I interpreted the statement under "anything of interest here?" as a releasing the material on the website into the public domain on condition that an acknowledgement of the source be made. I guess that's not what he meant with respect to the photos, because he's added the emphatic statement that photos are not in the public domain. In retrospect, the statement is ambiguous enough that I think I should have emailed and asked before using, so I regret that. I don't upload much to commons so it's not surprising if I screwed up. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:International Borders.

What I appreciate that there is some overlap, I believe that there should be a category for the main page about a specific border. There should be a category which includes Mexico – United States border and Canada – United States border without having to up through two intermediate categories and one with these and Russia–Norway border without having to up through three (four?) intermediate categories. This category would specifically *not* include things about specific things on a border like Øvre Pasvik National Park or the Adams–Onís Treaty but only *main* pages about the borders.Naraht (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the name you used is the way to go about it, since a huge proportion of what is now in Category:Borders would be transferred to Category:International borders if interpreted in a straightforward manner. I'm not sure why we really need a category for these, though, when there is a comprehensive subcategorization scheme. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the subcategorization divides entries which, to me, make sense as a single grouping. While Mexico – United States border and Adams–Onís Treaty do belong in a category together, I believe that the *main* pages for borders (Mexico – United States border and Canada – United States border for example, make up a specific category as well. I think that there are two issues here, whether a category for the "main pages" makes sense and if so, whether there is a category name that makes sense. Is there a wikiproject that might be able to weigh in on the first and give suggestions on the second.Naraht (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

When you have such a generic name as Category:Borders or Category:International borders, of course a wide range of things can go in it. Changing from Category:Borders to Category:International borders doesn't seem to help the situation, IMO. I don't think a category for the main pages is necessary when there is an extended subcategorization scheme. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:International borders in North America seems what you're getting at, and would include items like the 1824 and 1825 Russian treaties on 54-40, the San Juan Dispute/Settlement, the maritime boundaries between Canada and France and Greenland, and if the Caribbean is included in North America (? - if Greenland is, then....), etc. Border crossings and towns right on the border (usually the crossing is not a separate article) are also at least a subcat, I think they may already be a subcat of Category:Canada- – United States border (as a side issue, I really don't like having to copy paste dashes to replace hyphens in order to get category names working, it's really tiresome...). So it's not just the Mexican-American, or Canadian-American, boundaries, there are also historical ones to consider (the Russo-Spanish agreement, for instance), and the Greenland-Canada and St Pierre and Miquelon-Canada boundaries, and presumably US-Cuba, Cuba-Mexico etc (even if Cuba's not classified in North America, it's still a "North American" boundary because it's that of the US).Skookum1 (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Railway incidents, etc. (Media hype)

I discovered that CSX 8888 incident was wrongly categorized as an accident, which it was not. This is further categorized up the line as a "Disaster" which is preposterous. In investigating, I discovered that Maritime "incidents" also got rolled up into "Disasters" higher up. I tried to "move/Cfd" Disasters, with predictable results. Commentators sympathized but there were just too many categories underneath to make the transition smoothly.

The ultimate problem is hype by category. A runaway train or ship is certainly frowned on by authorities and they want a report on it. But certainly no "accident" nor even close to a "disaster", not even by media standards which are pretty sloppy. I discussed this on the various Project Pages again receiving a modicum of verbal support. One editor correctly pointed out that disasters really should be categorized under "incidents" and not the other way around. But I did not try to fix this.

I decided to correctly categorize CSX 8888 and Maritime incidents. I discovered today that someone had cursorily reverted my correct categorization and erased the new categories.

Correctly categorizing for future editors took a bit of work. I am not a transport person. Just trying to fix an obvious mistake. I need the categories "incidents" back. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the category Category:Transport incidents should exist, and should be different from Category:Transport disasters. I would like to recreate it, for the simple reason that I believe not all "incidents" are "disasters", but all "disasters" are "incidents". There was a related discussion earlier this year (see CfD here) regarding Category:Aviation accidents and incidents; in this setting an "incident" is defined to be: "An occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft which affects or could affect the safety of operation". This is a useful distinction, and I think it should be reflected in the category structure; clearly not all incidents are disasters, by this definition. Mlm42 (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sooo... you proposed this through CFD, but your proposal was rejected (the "predictable results") ... now you want me to let you make the change unilaterally because those at CFD just aren't getting it, or something, and not realising that it's all just "media hype" to call something related to transport a "disaster". I'm not convinced. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I explained this superficially. I asked the Cfd to change "disasters" to incidents at the highest level, or "incident and accidents", something of that nature. They did not really disagree, but perceived that it would affect dozens, if not hundreds of categories underneath. I hadn't appreciated how huge the problem was before. I realized that the top category could not be changed without a major effort by a lot of people changing underlying categories. Also, I realized that the category could remain as is if other changes were made, which would be less intrusive. The Cfd provided information to me that I did not have.

I therefore did the only honest and realistic thing: I created an "incident" category for CSX 8888 incident and followed it all the way up with correctly named categories, imitating the wrongly promoted categories, until it reached the top, probably a generic transport category (and other categories that weren't really affected). Since I had noticed the same problem with Maritime incidents being misclassified, I defined correctly named categories for them as well.

Try to understand that these incidents were wrongly classified (pov) to start with. I am not doing anything "wrong." Nor is this a matter of "voting." I did not try to "sort out" "incidents" from "accidents" for other articles. This was just beyond my scope.

While disasters probably does belong under "incidents" as a category, I will leave this for "later" discussion by aficionados. Student7 (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess we're talking about this CfD? Good Ol'factory, I think my interpretation of this discussion is quite different from yours.. I think there is agreement that there is a problem which should be fixed. Notice that categories like Category:Incidents, Category:Incidents by country, Category:Incidents by year already exist, as do the corresponding categories under Category:Disasters. I think the plan is not to rename the disaster categories, but to create new categories like Category:Transport incidents, etc, and fill them with incidents which aren't disasters. I'm not familiar with CfD's, so I don't know exactly what the procedure is.. but I didn't get the impression people were against this idea. Mlm42 (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't do any interpretation—I just repeated back what I was told in this section. I'm not going to attempt a full interpretation of the discussion until it is completed and closed, which it is not yet. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that the last word in the "discussion" was mine, which I am sure others visiting the site assumed was a retraction of the request. It was not explicit but I'm not sure why anyone would leave further comment. Would it help if I made it explicit? Student7 (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Major League Baseball pinch hitters

You recently nominated the above mentioned category for deletion and it was subsequently deleted after almost no discussion at all. Your stated rationale was that being a pinch hitter is not a position at all. It certainly is a position - just not a defensive one. Offensive positions such as pinch hitter, designated hitter and pinch runner are recognized as positions by MLB as well as Baseball-Reference.com, the most commonly utilized secondary source for baseball info on Wikipedia. Baseball biography pages are usually categorized by primary player position and there are a number of players who played their entire major league careers as pinch hitters and never took the field defensively. I have re-created the category and added a few members who are listed at B-R.com or MLB.com or both as having the major league position of pinch hitter. Their game logs confirm the fact that pinch hitter is the only position they ever played. When nominating a page or category for deletion, it is usually advantageous to notify the creator of the page/category as well as the relevant WikiProjects (in this case WP:Baseball). It doesn't appear from your edits around the time of the nomination that you did either of these. I believe that this is why there was almost no discussion. Kinston eagle (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Since when is it my responsibility to help you manage your watchlist? The category was appropriately tagged, which should have registered on your recent changes watchlist if you were interested in participating. I'm not really interested in going through this debate again with another user, so if you want to know my opinion on it, it's fairly reflected in this essay. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't debating anything with you, I was just pointing out that notifying the creator and appropriate WikiProject would have created more discussion and therefore a more reliable consensus. Since I was neither the creator of the category nor a member of that WikiProject (nor did I even know that the category existed up to a few days ago) that page would have not been on my watchlist at all. I never said it was your responsibility to notify people only that it is advantageous to do so. I know when I take enough of an interest in something to nominate it for deletion, I prefer as much discussion and debate as possible to make sure a solid case for consensus is established. I apologize if you misunderstood my intent. I must not have made myself clear enough. Regardless, I was just writing to you as a courtesy since you showed some interest in the subject and thought you may have had some interest in my opinion on the matter. I apologize for bothering you. Take care. Kinston eagle (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Since you were involved in the orgininal discussion. I am notifying you that it is now at DRV. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 29 -DJSasso (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Amorphous

You removed Tektite, Obsidian and Polycrase from Category:Amorphous. Rocks are a collection of minerals, minerals may cristalise or not, vitreous is a special case of amorphous. Comments ??? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"Amorphous" is an adjective. Simply having a category called "Amorphous" is nonsensical. "Amorphous" ... what? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion (though it doesn't quite work) Category:Amorphous solids , Ideally it would be Category:Amorphous solids defined as things that aren't crystals due to lack of a defined symmetry, but I think that's a bit long. Naraht (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it needs to be something like that. Category:Amorphous solids does exist, so I suppose they should go in there. We need a noun, even if it's a bit imprecise. I'll redirect the category to Category:Amorphous solids for now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This edit

I was wondering why you removed the two categories from File:Victor L. Brown.jpg (Category:1914 births & Category:1996 deaths). I know that you know what your doing on WP so I wanted to know if I was doing something wrong by putting the birth and death dates on the images like that one?--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally images that aren't transferred to commons go in Wikipedia image categories (eg: Category:Images of religious figures). Generally they don't go in "regular" categories unless they are for some reason especially appropriate. I usually don't worry too much about an image being in a regular category, but I don't think an image of a person should be in a by year birth or death category. That's just my intuitive sense; I don't know that there is a specific guideline about this or not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Good to know. I wont put any new image into the "regular" categories.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 21:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the other regular categories it is in are kind of borderline cases, with no clear guidelines, as far as I know. If it makes sense to you to have it in them, I think it could be OK. I'd be interested to find out if there are guidelines on this, but I don't know of any. It's usually not that important an issue now because most images are just transferred to the commons, but as you may know not all images can be transferred there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Taiga and Boreal forest

Hi User:Good Olfactory, Thank you for noticing and speedily renaming 'the the' Category:Taiga and Boreal forests in the the United States I'd mis-created recently.---Best---Look2See1 t a l k → 01:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is here if you want to register approval for it. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Because you commented at AN/I

You wrote here So please see here. I would really like to get this resolved. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)