User talk:The Lake Effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Article breaking apart

Hi The Lake Effect,

I noticed on the Association of Mergist Wikipedians page that you're a mergist, too. I have been writing an article about the letter t, but editors have begun to break it up into nonsensical entries, like Abbreviations and symbols of T. So, I was wondering if you could do me a huge favor and possibly give your opinion here? If you could, I would be greatly in your debt.

Best wishes,

Macaw 54 06:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

WARNING: The following statement may not conform to the beliefs of the Association of Mergist Wikipedians!

Wow. You certainly are meticulous. I know one of these days I'm going to give you one of these puppies, but not today. (Not just because of any quality issues - it just seems a tad prententious for me to award one as I'm still new to the game.) That is definately more information than I realized I wanted to know about the letter T. If I haven't responded over at the "T" talk page, it's because I don't think I would be much help in supporting the maintenance of such a verbose article. You'll see why I've hesitated right after this sentence.

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear on my page about my Wikiphilosophy (I'm still figuring it out). I'm not strictly a Mergist, but I'm also a bit of a conservational Darwikinist. I believe in merging vulnerable articles into larger "flower pot" articles (see Soon Ja Du, you know, to protect them from the cull-happy Deletionists, but once it gets too big, I believe it needs to be organized and split into descendant articles so they can grow on their own merit (see the mess I have to deal with in Chinatown). Then again, there must be a more precise term for this belief system. ("Conservationist?")

Honestly, I hate scrolling ad finitum. I NEVER read articles like that to the end, unless I really need to write a 50 page report on it. As I'm not in university right now, that's not an issue. I find that I'm more likely to read a subject of a long nature if it has a main article on its own. I have a pretty low attention span. I should probably go out and watch Jackass: Number Two. See, my attention is going already. Two Thumbs Up? WTF?

So far, I've found that most critics only have issue with your need to "keep the whole article together." Don't give up on filling Wikipedia with all manner of knowledge. You have a serious dedication to that letter - (which is also the common nickname of my sister-in-law), and I applaud your efforts to state your case. I just hope you don't let that same inflexibility wave over the deletionists like a raw steak dripping on the snouts of spirited dobermans. Seriously, you don't want THAT kind of attention. If you need help splitting and sorting the article into a "family of articles", then I'm here to give you what ever small assistance I can muster up. -The Lake Effect 05:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I understand.--Macaw 54 09:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Countries by Population

Hello there; I removed Macau, Taiwan, and Hong Kong from the list of "states" because they are not sovereign states. I did not mean to add the changes as minor, and probably clicked the box by accident as I was saving. That happens frequently to me, and I suppose I should watch for it.

Even though these three entities are listed in various places as states, they are not so deemed by international consensus. Their population should not be listed alongside that of China's. What do you think? I hope this does not come across as POV, because I really don't care about (LOL @ this term) sino-sino relations. Thanks. Shagmaestro 01:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've done the "accidental premature save" too. What I do is write the Edit summary BEFORE I actually edit it and it still ends up looking like an actual summary.

You do make a good point on Macau and Hong Kong not being states - they are Special Administrative Regions of the PRC. Their respective statistical authorities operate independently of the one in the mainland and thus have a different rate of accuracy. By that understanding, you would also have to remove ALL the territories sporting French flags - they are full fledged regions (see Département d'outre-mer), and tack on their populations to the French figure.

Heck, even The People's Republic of China isn't recognized by "consensus." (see Foreign relations of the Republic of China.) The Republic of China is still a matter of contention and it is still one of the "7 states unrecognized by the United Nations." I've seen the Taiwanese article pages gone through a few protections with POV wars, so I try to stay away from that unless I want to invite debate.

If you do feel strongly enough to push the changes, then I'd suggest you bring them up on the Talk:List of countries by population page. With the level of vandalism and subtle POV the article attracts, I wouldn't be surprised if a revert war were to get started. No, not by me - I already know that the List of countries by population article is already pretty fudged up as it is and I find morbid curiosity in where everyone is going to take it. (I mean seriously, some of those population clocks are just ridiculous.) - The Lake Effect 05:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there; you make a good point using France as an example. Your side is well-reasoned and makes sense, though we agree that this article is far from perfect. And of course, anyone can just add the 4 Chinas together. Thanks for explaining your perspective. And no, I have neither the level of effort not conviction to push this through. Cheers. Shagmaestro 15:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)