User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 33

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 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

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)

I think the statement should remain, since it is relevant to a portion of Mormonism (several groups of Mormon fundamentalists adhere to Adam-God), and the section is setting out statements by prominent Mormon leaders on the subject. But yes, it could be clarified that that particular statement from Brigham Young is no longer accepted by the LDS Church, or that it is now generally only accepted by the fundamentalists, or something of that nature. I think the section Heavenly Mother (Mormonism)#Controversy around sacred silence deals with the fact that HM is there in the LDS Church but doesn't play a big role. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

How would this addition be, in your opinion? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Storm Rider: was this OK? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, was on a vacation for the past week. The article is still odd - a collection of sayings by past leaders and none of them are speaking from a position of doctrine. BY is an unusual prophet of the Church and had a penchant for speaking his mind freely. None of the doctrines mentioned were ever mentioned in scripture or added to scripture and thus never carried the weight of actual revelation.

The Proclamation on the Family mentions heavenly parents, which infers that Heavenly Mother stands beside the Father, but as with other similar passages never explains or expounds further on this point. It may be worth mentioning.

My overall concern is to not allow the tail to wag the dog; all of the minor groups within the Latter Day Saint movement are minuscule when compared to the LDS Church. Though it is appropriate to mention these other groups and their teachings and doctrines, I have always felt they should be mentioned, in general articles, as secondary or as the exception to the rule. Does that make sense?

The intro is clumsy to me - "the wife of God the Father" is not language I have heard or used. I don't reject it, but it is foreign to my ear and clanks badly. For example, I would change to first sentence to read as follows:

"In Mormonism, heavenly Mother or the Mother in Heaven is understood to have participated with God the Father in the creative process of all human spirits. The teaching's origins can be traced to Joseph Smith, the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement. The doctrine became more widely known after Smith's death in 1844."

I don't have a problem with using doctrine or teaching interchangeably, but I suspect that is out of laziness. If I had my rathers I would use teaching rather than doctrine. The fact that this teaching is not explained or expounded upon by any prophet indicates a degree of care should used. I think it is doctrine, but there is not "meat" to share with others when discussing this. We don't understand the creative process in which she participates; we do not understand what role she plays now in the heavens; we do not understand much except that she is there. Discussing the topic with members and the public alike should explain this ambiguity. Mentioning her in hymns is hardly the stuff of sure teaching, whereas the Proclamation is. What do you think? --^StormRider 05:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand. I think a goal to be to have the article reflect what the secondary sources say about the topic. I have not read all of the sources included in the WP article, but the ones I have read do kind of focus on quotes from leaders, the words of hymns, and stuff that is not "central" in establishing doctrine. I wonder if the Adam-God quote was used in any of the sources; that's something that I should check out.

I have no problem changing the word "doctrine" to "teachings", as needed. What exactly is "doctrine" in Mormonism does tend to vary, depending on who you ask. Some limit it to canonized content, whereas others use the term more expansively. If we limited it to canonized content, I think that it is safe to say that there is no way that mother in heaven a doctrine. But if we expand it to include everything that gets printed in Gospel Principles or spoken of by a church president, then I think it could be.

Another issue is the question of how "current" does the article need to be? Should it only reflect current teachings of Mormonism? Or should it include the historical teachings as well that are no longer taught? I think it should include both, which is one reason to include the Adam-God ideas. What Mormons taught and believed 150 years ago might not be the same as what they teach and believe today in all respects. That makes sense, given the idea of continuing revelation. The fundamentalists tend to be those that just hang on to the older interpretations and teachings. They are small, but I think they are important because of the role they play in maintaining the traditional teachings (at least as they interpret them). But if we include both types of teaching, I think it should be well organized so that it's clear what is historical and what is more current for the majority of Mormons. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Political parties of Bhutan

Hi GOF, thanks for this close, but the request was for Category:Banned political parties in Bhutan, not "of". I could put in a speedy request for this, C2C with Category:Banned political parties by country and Category:Political parties in Bhutan, but thought it might be more expedient to contact you directly. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for coming to me. I'm not sure how I managed to make that mistake. I didn't intend to close it differently than you had proposed. I'll correct it right now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I know I've made similar mistakes myself. --BDD (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Category query

Greetings. I'm flabbergasted by your argument that the good sense of an important article is somehow subject to the functional vagaries of categories and their survival prospects. You might at least link to the deletion dialogue and/or indicate when the ludicrous (and unverified) category assertion is now going to be removed by yourself. Regards Bjenks (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The link to the discussion is on the category page itself, which is where it is always located. The template on that page also states, "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." I know that there are a number of editors who are very touchy about this subject—they regard users removing articles from categories that are under discussion as disruptive behavior. I'm not sure I agree, but I try to be sensitive to what other users feel. If the category is deleted as a result of the discussion, it's likely that it will be removed by a bot. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada

Hi Good Olfactory. I saw your recent helpful edits at Template:Infobox settlement in February that added some additional parameters. Would you please consider helping us at the above? See this discussion. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

~~Disregard. I think I figured out how to do it in the sandbox.~~ Hwy43 (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Oops. Disregard by disregard. Still need help as the template is locked down such that I can't edit it. Could you do this to the live template please? Hwy43 (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, done. (Please double check that I did it correctly.) I'm actually not that good with coding. I too kind of have to mess around to figure it out sometimes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Implemented at all 13 articles. However, this is what it looks like with unpopulated parameters and this is what it looks like without the parameters. Needs some fine-tuning. Perhaps some "optional" coding wherein if the parameters are used but unpopulated, or are not used whatsoever, the row doesn't appear. Do you know how to do that? Hwy43 (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hm, no I don't know how to fix that. It's the optional coding parts that always trip me up too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll try experimenting in the sandbox. Hwy43 (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Good move. That's what I always do. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. Please try implementing this, which appears to avoid displaying the row when the parameters are empty and removed entirely. Hwy43 (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, give that a spin. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Great! It worked. I may swing back again for another minor thing relating to this template (though I may seek permissions to edit templates in the meantime now that I've gained a bit of confidence and to avoid inconveniencing others). Thanks again! Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure; I'll try to respond as soon as I see any other requests. Apologies if I'm offline for a period of time when you need it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Misgendering

GO

In this edit you referred to me as "s/he".

That usage is clearly an attempt to deny or problematise my gender. It is not the first time you have done, this, and it is an unacceptable form of harassment.

Please retract it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I typically use gender neutral language when referring to users because I don't want to make any presumption about anybody's gender on Wikipedia when I don't know anything about the person in real life. Other users use "they" instead of the mixed gendered pronoun to achieve the same thing. I don't really like how you assume the worst about my motives. But whatever!—as you were. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

GO, that doesn't stand up.

you don't use "s/he" for other editors
you have previously specifically stated I am a man, so there is no reason to assume that you act in good faith in this matter
Given that context, your use of the phrase BrownHairedGirl appears to not even be able to conceive earlier in the same sentence does not appear innocuous.

Enough. Whether this is labeled as personal attack or harassment, it is unacceptable.

Please retract, or I will take this further. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Go for it. I'm sure you can find some editors to have a tut-tut session with. Just don't expect me to be involved. As for the issue, all I can state is this: I have no clue what your gender is. Statistically, most WP editors are men (somewhere between 80–90%, last it was measured). If I know for sure that a user is a man, of course I wouldn't use "s/he" in referring to them. If there's something that suggests I should not be playing the odds b/c the person could well be a woman, I try to be more careful and not reflexively use "he". Having "Girl" in your username suggests you could be a woman, but I don't think I've ever specifically inquired about your gender, as it's not particularly important to me. I don't think I've ever called you a man; if I did, I was writing in ignorance since I have no clue. (Parenthetical: I believe I wrote something to the effect of, if you're not a man—wow, amazing—simply because you were acting to a level of dickishness that I have only ever seen in real life in men. (Sure that's a sexist generality; if anyone has a problem with it, I'm sure they can get over it.) Perhaps it was some sort of dick joke—I can't remember and can't be bothered to dig it up. (Wouldn't know where to begin looking in any case.) You would be a unique female specimen in my world, in other words. /parenthetical) If you want to declare to me that you are a woman and that you want me to refer to you as "she" ... well, that would certainly be a new one for me on Wikipedia, but I'd have no objection: semper alere flammam and all that. Having recently called me a liar, and then suggested as much again in this thread on my talk page, I have very few cares to give about you right now. Sorry, but explicitly calling a user a liar trumps the use of a gender-neutral pronoun in my books. Once a user crosses that line, I don't want much to do with "them" and can't take the user very seriously. (That's an amusing one about the word conceive though .... never saw that coming!) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Redlinks left by CfD processes

Hi, you are probably shouldering a huge proportion of the work at CfD these days – much appreciated.

If it's just not viable any more to check backlinks before de-listing categories from WP:CFDW, so be it. However, if you do have capacity to check such things (per WP:CFDAI), I noticed that this edit overlooked a redlink from Category:Peabody Award winning broadcasts. I did not check the others.

Best wishes – Fayenatic London 23:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. No, I think it's still something that can be done without too much trouble, and I should be doing it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I finished checking that batch in the link above, anyway. – Fayenatic London 13:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Germany

Regarding this category: what do think "Germany" meant in 1807? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Having now seen that it has exactly one entry: I think it should not even exist, as misleading. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

To me, it doesn't much matter what "Germany" meant in 1807—the encyclopedia is not in an 1807 existence, nor did the category exist then. "Germany" in 1807 can mean anything that happened in 1807 on the territory of what is today Germany. I'm not of the opinion that every category has to make perfect sense if transported back in time to the time it refers to. Historians use such "anachronisms" all the time to group material. If something happened in present-day Germany, it makes sense for it to appear in a subcategory of Category:History of Germany. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

How would I - as a reader - know that Germany here means todays territory, not nation? - Don't you think "Saxony" was more precise? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps more precise, but as a consequence less useful as a category. I can only see one item that could go in the Saxony category, whereas I can see more than one that could go in a Germany category. Categories are sledgehammers, not scalpels. The minute details are better left to article text. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)