User talk:Stemonitis/Archive11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between March 27 2007 and April 11 2007.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarising the section you are replying to if necessary.

[edit] Clinton Administration

why have you deleted disambiguation reference from Clinton Administration article? Mnavi 18:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages only become necessary once they list three or more articles. When there are only two, a simple {{dablink}} at the top of each article is used to point at the other. In this case, there are only two topics to disambiguate, the administration of Bill Clinton as president and the band The Clinton Administration. If the latter article had existed, I would have left a link to it at the former (and vice versa), but since it doesn't, there was no need for a disambiguating link, nor a disambiguation page. Once the band has an article about it, a link at the top of Clinton Administration would be justified, and once there's a third article with a similar title, a separate disambiguation page would become useful, but not before. --Stemonitis 19:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree - when a third article is added to a disambiguation page there's no guarantee that the dablink will be changed to an otheruses template. This is especially true for 3-letter initialisms, which are fairly likely to be expanded at some point in the future. If a disambiguation page exists, it should be used, and only if it doesn't would dablink make more sense. This eliminates the need for future maintenance. Ciotog 14:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, that is how it is normally done. Your method sends people through extra steps, which is probably frustrating and wasteful of their time, and all for no apparent gain. Yes, we expect that links to disambiguating pages will be updated as the pages themselves are. That's not a problem, and interpolating 2-topic disambiguation pages is not a worthwhile solution. --Stemonitis 14:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If what the person searching for is the more recent addition to the disambiguation page, then they are going to be frustrated. For example, someone searching for FSH because they know it's a ICAO code will have a hard time finding the article for Flash Airlines. The disambiguation page for FSH does indeed have 3 entries now (I entered the third), yet you still reverted Follicle-stimulating hormone back. Can you see how this can get out of hand? Ciotog 15:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if there are 3 or more, then it might be alright, although someone looking for an ICAO code could do better by typing in ICAO or ICAO airline designator. How many people are likely to look for Flash Airlines by typing in "FSH" instead of "Flash Airlines"? Incidentally, making changes just to show how things can "get out of hand" could easily be construed as a breach of WP:POINT. --Stemonitis 15:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It might, if my edit was disruptive, which I don't feel was the case. From my experience dablinks are used when there isn't a disambiguation page, otherwise otheruses is used (unless an editor decides to do the opposite :). Ciotog 15:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, dablinks are used where a disambiguation page is unnecessary. I didn't delete the dab page, because I knew that it could become useful later. Anyway, this is all rather academic now, since you've found your third expansion of FSH to warrant the disambiguation page. --Stemonitis 15:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marie Antoinette

I notice that you've moved the contested proposal to the dated section. However, there is a move request for the page already posted there. Charles 19:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I've removed the duplicate now. --Stemonitis 19:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem :-) Charles 19:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] stub sorting??

Hey, I noticed you changed the DEFAULTSORT on Damien O'Hagan, to Ohagan, Damien. Is there a reason for this? It's just that O'Hagan is more accurate.--Macca7174 21:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an oddity of the software that it sorts apostrophes before all letters, so that "O'Hagan" would come before Robin Oake, rather than near Joyce Ohajah. Sorting it as "Ohagan" prevents that. The fat that it's incorrectly spelt is irrelevant, because the mis-spelt text isn't visible. --Stemonitis 21:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kiwi!

Sup. The YouTube video Kiwi! [1] has twice been the subject of an article, and both have been deleted. Now, it turns out that it won one of the seven YouTube awards given on monday, which look like they could well be argued to constitute notable independent awards, and definitely have the media attention to back that up. Since it was you who speedied the article the last time, what's your take on how this changes the situation and what do about it? --Kizor 01:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That may well make a crucial difference. Previously, it was just a popular YouTube video, which is not in itself notable, but a prizewinning video which has been reported in reputable media outlets is much more notable. Make sure that the article states all of that, (i.e. that it makes an "assertion of notability"), and it cannot be speedily deleted again. --Stemonitis 07:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Information about pets

Hi Stemonitis, I remember you having issues with a user adding information about how to keep hermit crabs as pets. Can you tell me what the guidelines about this matter are? I see in many articles, like in the sugar glider article which gives information about cage size, etc. Where is line between information and instruction guides? IronChris | (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The most relevant guideline is WP:NOT, in the section "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" (WP:UNENC), which states:

Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes.

Most of the pets section of Sugar Glider seems to be in contravention of this (probably everything except the first paragraph), and should be removed. Pet-care manuals are appropriate at Wikibooks, so it can help to suggest that writers submit the text there instead (or to do so yourself), so that it doesn't sound like out-and-out deletion. There certainly is a lot of it around on Wikipedia, but there really isn't any justification for it. --Stemonitis 07:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trek: take 2

I wasn't aware of the discussion, but the film has been called Star Trek by the writers, per the fact it is a reboot of the story. I'm thinking of keeping quiet on the article, but note per Wikipedia's naming conventions, the film's title is not Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Alientraveller 16:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Wiki-newbie. --Stemonitis 16:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would mind. If the writers said that their film is Star Trek, then to change it to Star Trek XI would be in violation of WP:ATT. Alientraveller 16:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reopened the RM. Please voice your concerns there. --Stemonitis 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crawfish minor change

I changed your entry to point out that crawfish (not crayfish in Louisiana) are boiled live and you keep changing it. WHY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padooley (talk • contribs)

While there have been several attempts to change the word "crayfish" to "crawfish" in the article crayfish, none has succeeded, because "crawfish" is restricted to the (southern) US, while "crayfish" is global. Similarly, the article must be internally consistent, so it cannot switch from "crayfish" to "crawfish" willy-nilly. Please stop trying to change the article to parochial spellings — they will be changed back. Some of your edits also altered the formatting, to the article's detriment. If you just want to change it from "boiled whole" to "boiled live", then that's fine, although it would be even better if you could cite a reliable source for that. --Stemonitis 17:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC

[edit] Princes of Portugal

Thank you! I hadn't noticed that. By the way, do you know if reverting moves has been restricted? I seem to have lost the capability. Charles 14:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Cfvh. --Stemonitis 14:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stewart O'Nan

Sorry I messed up your category indexing for Stewart O'Nan and made you do it over again. I wasn't aware of that feature of the sorting—but I am now. If other people are making the same error, perhaps you could create a stock hidden comment to place next to or beneath the DEFAULTSORT tags for the O' names, like  --ShelfSkewed talk 08:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll consider that — the misunderstanding does keep cropping up. The problem is that it would involve copying and pasting as well as typing, or a lot more typing, and I'm supremely lazy in that regard. I already paste in the edit summary of "category indexing". --Stemonitis 08:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stubs

Hi. I saw you categorized and sorted the stub George W. Olmsted. I was wondering, is there a comprehensive list of stub types as I would rather categorise them myself if possible. Thanks. IvoShandor 13:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is, although it's pretty big and can take a long time to load. It's at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types (or WP:WSS/ST for short). It looks pretty up-to-date, I'm glad to say. --Stemonitis 14:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. : ) IvoShandor 14:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pneumocystis

Thanks. I saw you just moved everything. Should I standardize the links to Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) I put in other sites, or was that automatically done Wiki-wide, or is it worth the effort to do it manually?Heliocybe 14:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not really worth it unless you've got other changes to make as well. There's no problem in having people sent along the redirect to the new title, but making the edit takes up considerably more server time. --Stemonitis 14:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. It's good to know these things.Heliocybe 14:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Quebec sentiment

Could you provide the count you used to decide that "Anti-Quebec sentiment" was the most widely accepted title for the article? Opinion seemed evenly divided to me. The current title is anti-English-Canadian propaganda, too. Its proponents wouldn't even attempt to justify it. I am also posting this at Talk:Anti-Quebec sentiment. John FitzGerald 12:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Move requests are not, strictly speaking, votes, so that a majority does not guarantee a move. However, in this case there was only a single oppose vote, one support vote and a further two opinions voiced favouring "Anti-Quebec sentiments". Combining the latter two (i.e. combining singular and plural versions of the same title) gives about a 3:1 ratio in favour of the new title. Of course, in reality, it's much more complicated than that, but there certainly wasn't a consensus in favour of the previous title. I think many of the people involved in the debate noticed that the issue of the title is much less important than the article's contents; that is where work is needed and that is where I recommend you focus your efforts. --Stemonitis 13:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In "Survey -- in support of the move" and "Survey -- in opposition to the move" there are two votes, one for and one against. I may seem to be splitting hairs here, but if people don't vote they don't vote. Anyway, let's leave that aside, and address your contention that my reasons for opposing the move weren't legitimate. Any comment about that? John FitzGerald 13:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I went back and counted myself. There are three comments for and three against. if you want to discount the two anonymous opinions, that's fine, but i can assure you i didn't make them. Anyway, three people does not tom my mind constitute wide acceptance, but I guess that's a matter of definition. Would like to know how my comments were illegitimate, though. John FitzGerald 13:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me; I did not claim your arguments were "illegitimate" as a whole, merely that they were less legitimate than the others. "Legitimate" was probably the wrong word. You made some good points, but the request's supporters made better ones. Your opposing vote contained the following text:

Furthermore, the reason given for moving is in itself offensive. The title is objective, and the objection to it seems to be only that it doesn't adequately conform to Laval's own beliefs about what is motivating the contributors to this article. In the absence of any evidence that we're bigots, I suggest the correct move is for Laval either to demonstrate we're bigots or to apologize for slandering us.

This violates WP:AGF in the first sentence, and continues to be something akin to a personal attack. I am sure that your comments were sincere, but I think both sides allowed themselves to get riled and to speak too rashly. Your point about original research was more significant, but the term "Anti-Quebec sentiment" does seem to be in fairly widespread use (I did check).

A person doesn't have to vote to voice an opinion. The instructions at the top of every poll state "Please remember that this survey is not a vote", so the fact that I've inferred opinions from other parts of the debate is not a problem. It seems that 205.157.110.11 (an IP, but one with a very strong history of contructive edits) would have made an explicit vote were it not for the hot-headed wording of the proposal, and GTBacchus (an editor who I have yet to see make a mistake) also supported a very similar title. Laval, the move's proponent supported his move, of course; tjstrf proposed an alternative title, which garnered little support, and "Marc Gévry" commented more on the debate than the title. This makes 3 "votes" in favour of "Anti-Quebec sentiment[s]", and one (yourself) directly opposed. Characterising votes for alternative titles as either support or opposition for the quoted proposal cannot be accurately done, so I omitted those from the count (but took them into consideration for the decision, of course).

I don't approve of returning to debates once they've been closed, and I really think you should move on. There is plenty of work to be done to the article, at whatever title it may be, and I'm sure you can contribute a great deal to it. Therefore, I don't wish to discuss this matter any further. I reviewed the case in good faith, and I made a decision, which I stick to. I know that this sounds harsh, but I cannot dedicate this amount of time to business which has already been settled. --Stemonitis 14:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have moved on. I'm going to be working with Laval and Mathieugp to improve the article. What i have now established though, is that your review of this request was slipshod – you admit that your use of legitimate was incorrect, for example, but there it is in your decision, justifying it (and apparently we now have to "move on" from it without questioning it). As for AGF, my statement in no way implies that Laval was not acting in good faith. It implies that he was calling all of us who had worked on the article bigots. One can offend in good faith. Anyway, your acceptance of the argument that the title "Controversy over criticism of Quebec society" promotes bigotry as a legitimate reason for changing the title (as your remarks here seem to imply) implies that maybe I should be questioning your good faith. John FitzGerald 12:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You are making some odd inferences, and you continue to question the move; you do not appear to be moving on at all. I disagree with your characterisation of my decision as "slipshod" but I don't believe that dwelling on it will be helpful. Moving on would be to let the matter rest, both here and at Talk:Anti-Quebec sentiment. I recommend it. --Stemonitis 12:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not appealing the title change. I was just asking for clarification. I just came back to apologize for my misreading of your statement about legitimate arguments. Sorry if expecting an explanation from someone with arbitrary auhority seems pathological to you. As for "odd inferences," I'm sure that phrase violates one of Wikipedia's myriad of behavioural rules. Anyway, no hard feelings. John FitzGerald 12:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RM

Why did you close this as no concensus? Most of the commentators in the discussion section favored a move, and it was shown that the corresponding Brittanica article is not at "Djemal".. Baristarim 15:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

With one person avowedly supporting and one avowedly opposing the move, and each entrenched in his/her opinion, there was little evidence of a consensus. The remaining comments concerned appropriate spellings in different orthographies, but did not address the issue of which orthography is appropriate for use on Wikipedia, and so cannot be counted. --Stemonitis 15:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian of English descent

The result of the vote on the talk page is insane. This discussion should have been publicized more widely. Those who opposed the move said that the two notions English Canadian and Canadian of English descent are distinct. That may be true, but virtually the entire content of the article would more appropriately belong to English Canadian (in the linguistic sense). I wonder if some of the people who voted were confused about which way the article was being moved. The page had been moved on 24 February, so one could actually question which direction would have needed a consensus. The discussion was also closed very quickly. Could you please take steps to reopen this debate and involve more people? Joeldl 07:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

These are all issues that should have been brought up at the time, not shortly after the debate was closed. Had you left a note in that discussion that it was being more widely publicised, then it could perhaps have been kept open. I am unwilling to set a precedent of re-opening discussions after they have been closed, at the behest of one of the involved parties. Inevitably, one side of the argument often feels hard done by (and I think this talk page testifies to that), but sometimes decisions just have to be made, and they are made on the evidence presented. It is not up to the closing admin to determine whether it has been widely publicised enough; from our point of view, anything properly listed at WP:RM is fair game. In fact, in this case, there seemed to be a widespread view that the current article needed to be divided into two or more articles with different titles. The fact that the current title only applies to part of the current contents is therefore not surprising. You would be better off working on the article than worrying too much about its title; after receiving the work it needs, that title will be more or less academic, since there will be articles at each of the relevant titles. --Stemonitis 09:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not involved at the time. I only noticed this move a few hours ago. Also, I'm not against two titles, but probably 95% of the current content will likely go to the other article, so doing it this way will mess up the history more than is necessary. Joeldl 12:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tommy Thompson

Stop redirecting these pages. Thompson officall announced this morning and I am filling out the pages. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you keep making pages with no content whatsoever. It would be much better to make sections at the fairly short Tommy Thompson page (15 kB) until the page is significantly larger (articles are usually split once they get past 32 kB). There is no obligation to make parallel articles for all participants in an election. You should wait until you've got some material to add before creating these pages, or start working on a sub-page in your userspace, rather than cluttering up the main namespace with empty articles. --Stemonitis 18:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think I am "cluttering up" anything. All of the major party candidates have these corresponding pages, and they are outline to be filled out as the campaigns go on. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, they were cluttering up Category:Stubs, for one thing, and some people may arrive there using the "random page" link. It's not good practice to create placeholders without content. I also don't think a Tommy Thompson category is likely to be needed any time soon. But never mind, I'll leave it all alone from now on, since you seem so set on recreating them. --Stemonitis 18:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chalkidiki

A user has unilaterally decided to rename the page because he does not agree with the consensus. The page has been renamed to Chalkidice. --Kimon^talk 22:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that really is unacceptable behaviour, and Pmanderson should have known better. I'm also astonished because the title he (I assume Pmanderson is male; he may correct me if I'm wrong) moved it to was not one that featured in the discussions and is by no means widely ~~moved~~ used. Thanks for alerting me — I've put it all back now. --Stemonitis 06:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Kimon^talk 12:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black Arrow

Hi - I disagree with the no consensus ruling. The only people who voted were people who were already editors of the Black Arrow article, so of course they want to keep the real estate. But it's not a vote based on numbers, but strength of argument. I think I showed 2 maybe 3 rules that apply, that no one really addressed. I could ask for the vote to be reviewed but before I do, I wanted to get your rationale on why you closed it out as no consensus. Or if you had another suggestion. Thanks, -- Stbalbach 22:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That debate was effectively an argument between yourself and GW_Simulations, with no other significant participants. One took the opinion that the current disambiguation framework wsa fine, and the other that something needed to be changed. There was no conflict about policy, merely about whether the rocket is sufficiently differently named to make its position as the primary topic tenable. In these circumstances, where guesswork must be applied to determine what would cause the least surprise to readers, I am loath to make moves without a clear majority, and one voice on either side does not constitute such a majority. Where there is no clear mandate for change, nothing gets changed. --Stemonitis 07:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inírida

Im still unsatisfied with the title of the article Inírida, Guainía, it still has an accent!, it should not have an accent anymore, it is just Inirida now. mijotoba 13:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could help find a source for the name having changed. I have looked through the municipality's website ([2] which uses both the accented and the unaccented spelling, incidentally), and couldn't find an explicit announcement, but my Spanish is pretty poor. I think if you could produce documentary evidence of the name change, it will probably get changed here as well. Without it, the discussion looks like being a stalemate. --Stemonitis 13:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welsh schools stubs

Hi I noticed that you de-stubbed Gorseinon College but changed the UK Schools stub for Swansea College to a Welsh Schools stub. This seems inconsistent to me but I'm not a stub expert... Ewen 07:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Stubbing is not an exact science, and one has to apply a certain amount of discretion. In the case of Swansea College, the page is quite long, but is filled by a number of empty sections, so that the real amount of information is more stub-like. If it still seems inconsistent, then change it by all means. I was only really splitting out a new category, and changing as few as possible. --Stemonitis 07:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. We're trying to extend the Swansea College article to have more detail on the various faculties, which is why it looks unfinished - it is! Ewen 08:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Salvadoran civil war redirects...

... I was thinking just the other day that we ought to create these, but it was getting late and I was too tired to think of all the spellings! Much appreciated. Lawikitejana 14:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice work

Thanks for the help and leadership on (what's now) Cheonji lake. I try to do what I can for WP:RM, but it's great that you're always there to sort things out. Dekimasuよ! 07:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was struck by the elegance of your solution, particularly since the current title cannot be maintained (and thus has no benefit of stability). I just hope that the debate stays good and clean. I shall keep an eye on it to make sure it doesn't get out of hand, although I'll be away from my computer over Easter weekend. --Stemonitis 07:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MTR Move

Hi there, I noticed you removed the move notice regarding the proposed move from MTR to another name. By removing that notice, does that mean you have closed the corresponding move discussion as well? It appears to still be on-going and in progress. Just a little confused. Luke! 17:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a complicated case, and I don't want to compromise myself by giving a quick answer here. It was not my intention to close any discussion that could reach a conclusion. I will have a closer look tomorrow, and if I find that it was closed out of process, I will happily re-open it, or assess it as if it had been listed for long enough. --Stemonitis 12:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. The move request was opened on the 11th of March by User:Selmo [3]. User:HongQiGong, a participant in the debate, closed it on the 19th of March [4]. This was undone a week later by User:Huaiwei [5]. I had re-listed the discussion on March 17 [6]. Four days later, I removed it as having been closed some days before, with no further comments [7]. Typically, when the closure of a debate is contested, someone comments to that effect within a day or two, so the fact that it had stayed closed for so long without complaint led me to believe that the debate had stagnated [8]. In any case, the request would have been almost impossible to call because of the ad personam arguments being used. It had spiralled into a debate about where each voter was from and how much he/she knew about the topic, none of which has any bearing on a move request. A raw count was also against the move, so I suspect it would have been closed as "no consensus" even if it had been allowed to run its full course.

Sorry I took so long looking into this, but now at least I am confident about what happened, and I would assert that although procedure wasn't strictly followed, it wouldn't have made a difference in this case. --Stemonitis 10:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look into this. Your second opinion is much appreciated. Since I have already directly voiced my opinions at the discussion, would you then mind officially closing this discussion per your rationale above then please. It has been long-winded for sure. Luke! 06:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Stemonitis 08:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roland Garros

I would like the discussion to move French Open (tennis) to Roland Garros (tennis) reopened. I brought up the request more than a year before the discussion was actually opened and had no idea that it was opened. I would like to state my point and believe that if it is reopened, the correct decision will be made so that wikipedia does not become a bastardization of itself and prove itself to be inaccurate by having pages under incorrect names. Bsd987 19:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's only a couple of weeks since a move from French Open (tennis) was quite soundly rejected by the community. I can't believe that opinion has changed that much since then. --Stemonitis 16:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite soundly? 4 people responded. That really isn't "quite soundly." Bsd987 00:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The majority was 3:1 against the move. I see no reason to believe that a similar proportion would not be repeated among a wider sample. The move was listed for the required time at WP:RM, during which period anyone with an interest had the opportunity to vote. There is no procedural reason to re-open the debate, but only the fact that you do not seem to like the outcome. --Stemonitis 07:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

What makes me mad is that I initiated the discussion and it took more than a year before it was actually brought to a vote. A result is a result, but I wanted my say on the matter in a vote and was absent for it because it took so long that I stopped monitoring the thread. Bsd987 02:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eugène Bozza

You don't think this article is a stub??? Some tag indicating insufficiency should be attached. Eusebeus 11:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That article was already marked as a stub, but with a more specific tag. --Stemonitis 16:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Taylor

I'm seriously at a loss to figure your decision on this one. "No consensus to move"? Even one of the two "oppose" voters (User:miketm) commented in the discussion about alternative pages where it could be moved to. The clear consensus was that it should be moved. It's also ironic that there was such dispute about what should be parenthesised for disambiguation pages: "Don't put Duran Duran or Queen, that's not the only work they've done." And what do you read on the Roger Taylor disambiguation page? "Drummer for Duran Duran" and "Drummer for Queen and also a solo artist".

Given the way the parentheses works (i.e. [[Roger Taylor (Queen)|]] appearing onscreen as Roger Taylor), leaving the page at Roger Meddows-Taylor seems absolutely the worst possible outcome both for editors, who now have to pipelink [[Roger Meddows-Taylor|Roger Taylor]], as well as for most readers, who're not going to be able to identify the man either by the band he was in or the instrument he plays, but by the utter obscurity of his middle name. --DeLarge 12:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there were so many suggestions about where it could go is indication that the proposed title does not represent the consensus. "Meddows" is not a middle name, incidentally, but part of a double-barrelled surname, and could be argued to form an integral part of his full name. The ease of typing [[Roger Taylor (Queen)|]] is also a weak argument, because Wikipedia is written for the readers' ease, not the editors' convenience. The debate boiled down to the best method of disambiguation, and there was no clear consensus that a band, or an instrument, or a combination of them both, was any better than the full surname. Thus, no consensus to move. --Stemonitis 12:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trouble with notostracans

Do you happen to know what is wrong with my Triops longicaudatus (see full comment here)? I could not think of anything I did wrong; could it be the eggs are unhealthy? --Crustaceanguy 13:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the crustaceans I've studied have been preserved in alcohol, so I'm afraid I can't suggest anything. --Stemonitis 13:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philip (II) of France

On April 1, 2007 User:Michaelsanders moved this page unilaterally. I moved it back on April 2, and started a discussion on the talk page. Michaelsanders insisted on unilaterally moving the page, so on April 7 I initiated a "vote" (I know it's not a vote) on moving the page. I was a little surprised that after only two days an administrator moved the page, but there was a 4-1 "consensus" and the template does say "If, after a few days, a clear consensus for the page move is reached, please move the article". Now you've moved it back. I'm not quite sure that it's fair to move it back to what it was changed to eight days ago instead of what it originally was until then. User:Michaelsanders is doing a lot of this kind of thing on other pages (e.g. Marie Antoinette, Louis, Dauphin of France (1729-1765)); he really doesn't need any encouragement. Noel S McFerran 01:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I only did that to allow the discussion to run its full course. After five days, an administrator will close the discussion and move the page. This carries more weight than having one of the participants decide that there is a consensus and act unilaterally. In closing, administrators take many factors into account that are harder to do as a participant in the debate. When the full five days are up, (some time late tomorrow evening or after, European time), the move will be made. Once a move request has been started, it really is best not to move the article until the time is up; the article should stay at the title it had when the request was started until a new title is agreed upon, from which time it should remain at the new title. Sticking to the proper procedure makes everything more transparent and less open to criticism. --Stemonitis 07:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animal distribution

Hello, how to write distribution of animals? I wanted to add local conservation status to "bare list" of countries to Vertigo moulinsiana. I think it is better to have full list of countries than incomplete list. (List of countries IS helpfull. Notice, that it is one of the main thing on IUCN Red List homepage.) Please, have a look at - for example - Unio crassus article. How should I add other countries from [[9]] to the article? Please help me (or not revert my edits), becouse many of my articles are very similar to this, another example: Bithynia tentaculata, Galba truncatula, and many other. --Snek01 09:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers prose to lists, and lists are rarely the most informative format. In a case like Unio crassus (your link), a description along the lines of "It is found across temperate parts of Europe and Asia, from France to Kazakhstan." would convey all the important information. Whether or not it occurs in Liechtenstein is interesting for the naturalists in Vaduz, but almost nobody else. You will presumably be linking to the source anyway, should anyone need the detailed list. Don't get me wrong: the distributional information is indeed important, but the way it is presented is open to debate. Political boundaries correlate poorly with biogeography, and should ideally not be used. It would be better to say "[xxx] is found in temperate parts of Eurasia, from 4°W to 138°E, and from 44°N to 52°N, although avoiding coastal areas", but this information isn't often available, just because it's easier to count presence / absence in individual countries. There is also the possibility to have distribution maps within the taxoboxes: a picture is worth a thousand words. --Stemonitis 09:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Numb3rs

You say: 'Nobody pronounces it "numb-three-ers"'. Actually, I always pronounce it "num(b)-thers".... --Macrakis 17:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alaibot and vandalism

It's been mentioned before, but I'm afraid I don't have a good answer at present. The bot's not really set up to do this, technically; it works purely with the current text, and the data from the source for that particular run (special page or db dump), and isn't able to look at the history at all. Even if it were, I'm not sure how I'd go about distinguishing between vandalism and good faith and possibly "correct" edits. (Ideally people wouldn't remove stub tags without replacing them with a valid category, or unredirect without "making good", but it's not exactly compuslory, either.) There are supposedly anti-vandalism bots checking every edit, so I tend to suspect they're likely to do a better job of it than anything I could come up with off the cuff. One thing I am doing is checking whether articles were categorised in the previous db dump, and listing those separately rathert than tagging them, but that's obviously a rather large interval of time in the current order of things, during which time a lot of things can happen. Alai 03:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chalcidiki

Sorry if that was unclear, I meant "keep with present name". In my estimation, there is no consensus for the rename in the CFD debate. You are quite correct that consistency with the article would be preferable, but there seems to be no strong consensus on the article name either (based on the second move request which was basically tied). So this appears to have become one of those annoying places where Wikipedia is inconsistent. I suppose the way to go would be to seek broader input (e.g. WP:RFC) on the matter, and based on that either request a rename of the article or of the category a few weeks from now. HTH! >Radiant< 08:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. --Stemonitis 08:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)