User talk:Good Olfactory

SMALLCAT cutoff

Good morning, I saw you discussing about a rule of thumb minimum size of categories. Just want to let you know that I've seen this number of 5 popping up more often in category discussions, though I don't remember in which particular discussions. It wouldn't be a bad idea to have a poll about it either. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I think a poll would be interesting. I think it's been awhile since anyone actively tried to discover a consensus on the exact cut-off. One of the problems, obviously, is that many users probably have different cut-offs for different types of categories. That's certainly the case for me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Temple Lot edit and revert

Hello, Good Olfactory. My edit was based on one of the references, but seeing that the other reference, the one you referred to, is a Latter Day Saints text, I'm in agreement with the reversion. I didn't check that reference because the other one had a built-in link. Should the other reference be considered for removal? Either way, cheers. Fdssdf (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Thanks Good Ol’factory ^(talk)

Second set of eyes at Captain Moroni

If you've got time can you take a look at and weigh in on the massive text dump added by User:Michoacan2013 at Captain Moroni (see here). IMO it's too POV and UNDUE and goes against the advice given on the WP:RELIGION talk page when I brought up a similar addition, but maybe I'm wrong and this is in my bias blindspot. Thanks. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The historicity stuff is clearly out of place, since no sources address the historicity of Captain Moroni in particular. I'm not sure about the Bundy stuff; it might be a case of WP:RECENTISM, though it does have some relevance. It can probably be pared down quite a bit, though, to one or two sentences. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi all, Michoacan2013 here. There needs to be something to address the historicity issue. All other major biblical figures, including Buddha, Jesus, and King David, have a section of historicity. It seems like others have complained about Captain Moroni's page in the past since it relies only on religious text, portraying his story as secular religious history. There are no secular perspectives on this page touching on the historical authenticity of this figure. I'm beginning to believe that there is an agenda in the constant deletion of this section. I'm going to reintroduce it. If you would like to add a contrasting perspective, please add a legitimate source pointing to the story's historical authenticity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michoacan2013 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

First of all, Moroni is not a major biblical figure; I would say he's not even that major of a Book of Mormon figure, but that's neither here nor there. The Bible is somewhat different because there's pretty good proof that some people in the Bible actually existed, whereas the historicity of others is doubted. That's not really the case with the Book of Mormon—at this stage, most people take an all-or-none approach: the people were either all real or none of them were. There are no sources that discuss Moroni's historicity in particular, or as compared to others in the Book of Mormon. There's nothing special about him when considering whether or not the Book of Mormon is actual history or fiction. So the historicity stuff doesn't really belong on the page about Moroni—it belongs where it already is, in the general articles about the Book of Mormon. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:National Women's Hockey League roster templates

Hi, although I've processed Category:National Women's Hockey League roster templates to Category:National Women's Hockey League (2015–) roster templates ([1]) from the Speedy page, it looks to me as if it may be desirable to reverse it.

The contents are 2015– in the sense that they are up to date, but that is no more specific to those templates than to (? male teams in) Category:National Hockey League roster templates. – Fayenatic London 17:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

In this case, the parenthetical refers to the name of the league (National Women's Hockey League (2015–) / Category:National Women's Hockey League (2015–)), not the seasons of the roster templates. The current NWHL is not part of the (men's) NHL. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Redirect

Hi, I noticed that when you moved Taxation of non resident Americans there was no redirect left. I presume this was deliberate, but What links here shows several pages still linked to the removed redirect. Thought I should point that out to you :-) LeadSongDog come howl! 12:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Actually I don't think it was deliberate. I must have clicked it without realizing or thinking. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for your help on closing a lot of the outstanding CFD listings. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll try to get to some more soon. There's a few days I haven't looked at yet. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_23#Category:Male_translators

With all due respect, Good Olfactory, are you sure that your close on this discussion represented consensus? I'm not particularly opposed to the nomination or even to the result, but I don't see consensus in the comments, and even your closing comment seems to indicate your personal judgement on the issue rather than any suggestion that consensus had been achieved. I was hoping you might explain. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure, but YMMV, as they say. If one just looks at !vote counts, it was 8 in favour of deletion, and 5 in favour of keeping them.

Now let's look at the contents of the arguments in favour of "keep". One wanted to keep male and female subcategories in order to advance "equal ghettoization" of the articles. One made what I interpreted as a sarcastic comment: "Since it can serve a very useful and logical purpose I suppose we better get rid of it." The comment did not explain what that purpose was, however. Another !vote simply repeated that it could be useful and serve a logical purpose, but again did not explain what that purpose was. A fourth !vote wanted to keep the women category "to improve coverage of women's biographies", but didn't explain how it accomplished this and didn't comment on why we also needed a corresponding men category. Finally, the last !vote suggested that there might be "other useful reasons" to keep separate women and men categories, but again did not explain what they were. All in all, I found these arguments weak, which is why I stated so. This was a personal judgment on the value of the arguments presented, not my personal opinion about what should be done.

On the other side, those in favour of deletion did present some arguments that were specific and fairly convincing to me: (1) women and men do not perform the act of translation any differently; it is thus irrelevant to separate translators into men and women; separation into gender categories should be reserved for cases where gender is relevant to the role that is played (2) splitting into gender categories may also be appropriate where men dominate the profession or activity and finding a woman performing the role is unusual or noteworthy; this is not the case with translators; (3) articles are already well-categorized within the subcategories of Category:Translators by language of translation and by nationality of translator, etc.; (4) having a male category to parallel a female category demonstrates a misunderstanding of gender bias anyway, so at least the male one should be deleted.

All in all, I found it to be pretty clear. A good discussion, but not much substance on the "keep" side. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:Buro

Thanks a lot for your elaborate answer in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_10#Category:MediaCorp. I think I fully understand your point, but with this I don't mean to say that I agree with everything you wrote. With preservation of flexibility (which you've advocated strongly and I do agree on its merits) I'd also rather like to avoid having the same type of discussions over again, perhaps with different people who knew nothing about a previous similar discussion, and therefore I'd prefer to include more often a "for example" or "about" in the guidelines. So in this case I'd rather add in the CFD/S guideline: if the article name has been stable for about 10 days or for example 10 days or any other number of days for that matter. (Likewise I'd favor to add "for example 5 articles" or "about 5 articles" in the SMALLCAT guideline.) A phrasing like that would still allow flexibility in applying the rules, but at least it would define a cut-off that would apply under 'normal' circumstances. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That might be a way forward, if users could agree somehow on the arbitrary cutoffs. For now, I'm more than willing to let the issue go into hibernation. From what I observe, it's not what I would call a massive problem, but I do see it crop up from time to time. I also see a lot of nominations go through the speedy process that I'm OK seeing go through under a flexible approach, but I think they should definitely fail under the strict interpretation User:BrownHairedGirl has put forward. So I guess it kind of depends how everyone approaches things—if those types of nominations begin to be opposed routinely, then I think I would press more for a change to the precise guideline wording. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:infobox settlement – rowclass92 error

Error occurs.

You have missed second rowclass92 should be rowclass93 194.75.238.182 (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. It looks like an editor made the correction. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

checking

apologies, when I lived there and did things there and used old sources it was always Kota Gede. My contact in Yogya has shown me the usage now is predominately Kotagede. So my oppose is wrong, sorry to have interfered in your process... trust all is well your side of the paddock/whatever. JarrahTree 11:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

That's OK—thanks for letting me know. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I have learnt further it is modernity trumping (dare i use that word) traditional spelling and usage, so really if the encyclopedia was a true encyclopedia it would defer to the split word rather than the single word and refer to the modern uage as what it really is. JarrahTree 06:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Case name abbreviations

Hello, Good Olfactory. I continue to appreciate your efforts to clean up case names in article. I want to touch base with you on a couple, though. You recently moved Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l (with the comment "Bluebook does not suggest abbreviating 'International' in case names") and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc. (with the comment "Bluebook does not suggest abbreviating these words ['Services' and 'Laboratories'] in case names"). Can I ask you to double-check that? My copy of the Bluebook is old (17th Ed., 2002), so it may be out of date, but in rule T.6 (abbreviations for case names), it lists the following abbreviations:

International --> Int'l

Laboratory --> Lab.

Service --> Serv.

With respect to the plurality of "Laboratories" and "Services", it also says "Unless otherwise indicated, plurals are formed by adding the letter 's'". It may be that my copy is outdated -- I don't use it in daily practice, and no one is going to complain about my cite format in in-house emails, so I've never been motivated to pay for a more recent edition -- but I'd have expected the abbreviations to be pretty stable. Can you check? TJRC (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Admittedly, I too am working off an old version, but it is the 18th ed (2005), and I know that this particular issue did change from the 17th to 18th ed. (I assume that it has not been changed back in the 19th and 20th eds., but I too could be wrong about that. I could probably dig up a copy of the 20th if I put in some effort.) Here's what the 18th ed. says about abbreviations in case names under rule 10.2.1(b):

... abbreviate only widely known acronyms under rule 6.1(b) and these eight words: "&," "Ass'n," "Bros.," "Co.," "Corp.," "Inc.," "Ltd.," and "No." If one of these begins a party's name, however, do not abbreviate it.

Rule 6.1(b) includes AARP, CBS, CIA, FCC, FDA, FEC, NAACP, and NLRB as examples of acronyms that can be used.

(Note, though, that there is quite an extensive system of abbreviations it recommends for case names in citations, including abbreviations for states, countries, commonly used words, and pretty much any word over 8 letters. International, Laboratory, and Service would all be abbreviated under this rule. I have assumed though that we use the Bluebook's style for case names in textual sentences when applying it to WP article names.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: found a 20th edition (2015)—a close-by friend had one so it was easier than I thought to get one. The things I referred to above from the 18th ed. are unchanged in the 20th. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... I would think the article title is more like a citation than a textual sentence (although it's clearly not either one exactly), so I would prefer to use the abbreviations. But I can see how reasonable minds can differ. I guess in the end it's not that important, so long as, whichever form is used, there's a redirect from the other form. TJRC (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

If we tried to use the citation style, I think that there would be general resistance to it. I can't see most users supporting "Ariz. State Leg. v. Ariz. Indep. Redist. Comm'n" as an article name as opposed to Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. My understanding has always been that citation style is essentially for footnoted material, and the reason that the style is heavily abbreviated is because the goal is reduce the length of footnotes. An article title seems more like regular text to me. But maybe this issue should be clarified by having a discussion at whatever Wikiproject would be most appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, your Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission example convinces me. You had me at Ariz. TJRC (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a merger proposal rgdg LeBaron group/Ch1stborn

...Here: Talk:Church_of_the_Firstborn_of_the_Fulness_of_Times#Merger_proposal.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Palestinian Christian monks has been nominated for discussion

Category:Palestinian Christian monks, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Heavenly Mother article

Hello Good Olfactory, it has been awhile since I have been active on Wikipedia and I don't see myself returning in any significant way. You recently reversed an edit on the Heavenly Mother article - a statement of BY. Instead of reversing it back to the Anon's edit, I thought I would just reach out to you. The Adam-God theory has been declared not the doctrine of the LDS Church. Either this should be cited as not doctrinal for the vast majority of Mormonism or limited in some other way. Does that make sense?

Wasn't there a woman that was excommunicated in the 90's for teaching about praying to Heavenly Mother? I cannot remember her name offhand, but it might be worthwhile to bring up to demonstrate the very narrow position of the Church on Heavenly Mother - she is there, but not much more than that. Cheers, --^StormRider 02:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)