User talk:Dr. Submillimeter/Archive Jan 2007

LINERs

Thanks for the offer. Although it would doubtless be good for me to go off and read a few review articles, it would be far better if someone with some experience made a start on this. Mhardcastle 17:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good start on the article. I've added some linking text from active galactic nucleus. Mhardcastle 13:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expatriots / Emigrants

I thought about it long and hard and eventually decided that what you had suggested is the right thing to do, although perhaps not for exactly the same reasons... I agree that it would be unwise of us to speculate as to intent, so in cases where it's unclear we should just call them expatriots until the moment they become citizens. However, at that moment they stop being Fooian expatriots and start being Fooian-Americans. So really, the emigrants category is nothing more than the first generation of People of Fooian descent. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expatriates is one source for the difference. There is also Category:English immigrants to America, and English is not even a nationality (naturally enough we find some of PW's articles in it - there was a failed attempt to merge it). (If all categories were to be deleted, imagine how much time would be saved.) It's almost impossible to determine if someone is English; you would have to ask them (and most deny it, citing an exotic grand-parent or similar). roundhouse 21:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pastorwayne

I left a comment on User:Pastorwayne and his rapid category creation at WP:ANI. The comment asks for Pastorwayne to be regulated regarding category creation. Feel free to comment. Dr. Submillimeter 22:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the head's up : ) - I commented there after I responded to his response to my request for clarification. Personally, I have hope that he can once again be seen as a positively contributing member of the Wikipedian community. I was rather disappointed to see votes on CfD based on the category creator rather than concerning the category in question. In this case, I think the best solution may be just a bit of Wiki-Love, and the opportunity for edumacation : ) - jc37 09:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your efforts. However, I doubt that Pastorwayne will respond to any calls for voluntary action on his part at this point. While I would ideally prefer not to pursue administrative action, I feel like it is necessary at this point. Moreover, if I did not find Pastorwayne to be confrontational and uncompromising, I would not have chosen to ask for administrative intervention.

Ideally, I would prefer it if Pastorwayne channeled his energies into writing articles on Methodists rather than simply attempting to spam Wikipedia with categories. It seems like he has a large wealth of knowledge on historical and contemporary Methodist pastors that would be very useful for Wikipedia. Instead, his constant category creation is having a negative impact. Dr. Submillimeter 09:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per your first paragraph: He's stated that he will. At this point, one merely need watch his contributions list. As I said, I have hope, and I hope that I will not be disappointed.

Per your second paragraph: I agree, though, as I mentioned, I'm hoping that this disruption is not intentional, but misguided due to lack of information. Sometimes, one has difficulty finding the forest, due to the many trees in the way... - jc37 09:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pastorwayne now clearly disruptive

Pastorwayne made a number of edits to Beverly Waugh on 3 January 2007, including the creation of a link to Category:Christian editors. This category was deleted on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 8. This looks like Pastorwayne is creating categories again following the instructions at Wikipedia:Categorization. Moreover, this is the recreation of content that was renamed following consensus at WP:CFD, a clear violation of Wikipedia policy.

I will now pursue definitive administrative action. Dr. Submillimeter 15:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to ProveIt, Pastorwayne did this in multiple articles on 3 January 2007. It looks like either Pastorwayne is trying to game the system (i.e. he is adding categories without actually creating the category pages) or he clearly does not understand anything about categories in Wikipedia. In either case, definitive administrative action is clearly needed. Since you are an administrator, can you suggesty a course of action? (Several other people would also potentially want to be involved.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AN/I#Pastorwayne and category creation - jc37 18:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging proposal

Can we merge Category:Editors of Christian works with Category:Editors of religious publications? - Kittybrewster 00:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we merge Category:Scottish immigrants to America with Category:Scottish immigrants to the United States? Canadian immigrants too. - Kittybrewster 14:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emigrants

Re your last comment - Expatriates/emigrants - I seem to recall that / is not recommended but 'Expatriates or emigrants' might work. It seems unworkable to have both. Or just unworkable - how does one categorise immigration between (say) USSR - Israel (which will be substantial) over 300 years or so? The debate was excellent I thought - high quality stuff throughout. Hope you have some time left for astronomy. (Expatriate - I was surprised not to find the assumed definition anywhere. I find that my son is an expatriate, b. in Malawi, British passport, resident in England, and from Sheffield.) Or consider the Chelsea football team, all notable. Or say Davor Suker, very notable. There is another strategy for deleting a small cat - empty it and it can be speedy deleted after 4 days of being empty. I am trying this with Category:People from Henrietta, Ohio - or perhaps it should be preserved as a ridiculous example of a cat (see Henrietta, Ohio - I see it has been recently edited). roundhouse 03:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Henrietta, Ohio has gone - I didn't have to do anything. roundhouse 20:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LINERs

I will create at least a short page on LINERs in the moderate future; I have professional experience with the objects. 13:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to (and agreed with) your suggestion on Talk:Ocean liner. Thanks. Kablammo 14:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now created a small page for low ionization nuclear emission regions. This page will grow substantially; I still have a lot of information from a couple of my scientific papers that I can copy into the article. (Having written on this topic before makes it easy to write a Wikipedia article on it.) Dr. Submillimeter 17:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking good. Thanks again. — RJH (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improved names for SAB and SB galaxies

Sounds reasonable, but please also add a new category:

 Category:Weakly barred lenticular galaxies

to your list and include a citation showing the usage of weak and strong barredness to the main article of each strong / weak pair and briefly explaining the difference, this would apply to both Barred spiral galaxy and Barred lenticular galaxy. WilliamKF 18:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US State Related Ships

Thanks for being willing to wait. What is your reservations? --71Demon 21:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know why you feel the category is a bad idea? --71Demon 22:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of see what you are staying, and agree with you in part, but that is not the reason for the category. Yes, other than being US Warships they don't really have anything in common. However that is not the intent of the category. The category takes into account what is related, and that is the naming of the ships. Ships names are important, if not we would only refer to them as hull numbers. WE don't the destroyer DE-576 was given a name, USS Barr (DE-576). The Barr family is proud that a ship was named for Woody, I saw his nefew today. The town has a model of the ship on display. I do see your point, but these ships really are related because of the naming convention. Woody's name is inscribed in the state captial 4 hours away from Keyser. These people and places are important, important enough to honor people and events by naming them after people. That is what makes them related. I believe this is were Wiki shines. People looking for info on Barr find he has a ship named for him, then they see the category for WV related ships. Looking at the list they will see one named USS Mineral County which is the county Barr (and my) home town is in. The categories drag you in and teach you in the process. This is a category that represents a specific category of honoring, and that is the naming of US Warships. --71Demon 22:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomy/Physics

(In response to your message on my talk page.) I count articles such as Supernova as falling under astrophysics - i.e. the point where astronomy meets physics. As no astrophysics wikiproject exists, I tagged them as physics. Articles such as these being tagged as physics doesn't really hurt, especially if they are also tagged as astronomy (see below)

The situation with astrophysical/astronomical wikiprojects seems to be a bit messy at the moment. We have:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy, which is pretty much dormant
Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects, which is surprisingly active
Wikipedia:WikiProject Space, which should also cover astronomy, which is fairly acquiescent at the moment.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Constellations, which I guess should be a sub-project of Astronomical Objects; this also seems fairly quiet at the moment, although according to the discussion about merging Astronomical Objects with Astronomy it is fairly active.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Telescopes, which should be a sub-project of Astronomy, and which would be inactive were I (and possibly another editor) not doing bits on it occasionally

Then there's all of the space exploration wikiprojects too. Wikipedia:WikiProject Space/Projects lists all of them that I know of.

Why am I mentioning the above? Ideally, I'd like to see some of them merged, but the discussion on Astronomy/Astronomical Objects went down like a lead balloon, so that's probably not going to happen. Another option would be to style Constellations, Astronomical objects and Telescopes as "work groups" or "task forces" of WP Astronomy, similar to how WP:WPBIO does things, but that probably wouldn't go over too well either. So, I would like to see a single WikiProject banner that covers the astronomical subjects, which lists the various WikiProjects that should be able to help with the article page in question. That would hopefully guide users to several support venues for the article, and hopefully enliven WP Astronomy at the same time.

For examples:

Supernova would give WikiProject Astronomy as the main contact, but also WikiProject Physics as another contact. This would replace the existing physics bar on those pages. I'd do this by using something like {{WPastronomy|astrophysics=yes|class=|importance=}} on the talk pages of appropriate articles. If a Astrophysics wikiproject started up in the future, this would allow the template to be changed fairly easily.
Articles on constellations would list WP Constellations as the main contact, WP Astronomy as a secondary. This would be via {{WPastronomy|constellation=yes}}
Articles on astronomical objects (excluding constellations) would give WP Astronomical Objects as the main contact, WP Astronomy as the secondary contact, via {{WPastronomy|object=yes}}
Articles on telescopes, observatories and surveys would give WP Telescopes as the main contact, WP Astronomy as the secondary, via {{WPastronomy|telescopes=yes}}
Articles on "pure" astronomy, e.g. Right ascension, would just be listed as WP Astronomy, via a simple {{WPastronomy}}.

I should be able to set up Peelbot to tag articles as such, obviously once a WPastronomy template's been put together (which I should also be able to do). I will need either a list of categories, or preferably/additionally a list of articles, to pass into Peelbot to be tagged. After the problems that emerged when tagging articles with the physics tag, I'd want to get these lists sorted out and checked over before starting tagging. I'd also need to seek approval at WP:RFBA to add the tags, but that shouldn't be an issue.

This has turned into a bit of a long reply, considering the relatively simple questions you asked on my talk page. Sorry about that. It seems I ramble when tired. Anyhow, please let me know your thoughts on the above, and/or ask for clarification where needed. Thanks. Mike Peel 23:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now created Template:WPAstronomy, which does at least part of what I laid out above. I've left a more detailed description at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy and WP:ASTRO. Mike Peel 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) NCurs e _work 18:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andromeda Galaxy removed text

Hello. I noticed that you cut the text that read,

Andromeda is also a LINER-type galaxy (Low-Ionization Nuclear Emission-line Region), the most common class of active nuclei galaxies.

from the Andromeda Galaxy article. The NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database[1] lists M31 as a LINER, and an article by Keel 1983[2] said that 80% of local Sab galaxies are of the LINER type. I was wondering if this was an obsolete result? Or is the the issue over the use of the phrase "active nuclei galaxies"? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cut the statement because it was in the Structure section where it did not belong. The AGN activity should be covered in the Nucleus section. However, I did not see how to place the statement into the Nucleus statement without rewriting the section, so I moved the statement to the talk page.

Also, NED should not be trusted for its AGN classification. NED garbles some AGN classifications and sometimes chooses strange references for its AGN classification. Look up "NGC 4826", for example. NED lists this as a Seyfert 2 because someone found that this objects lands in a weird place in a diagram. On the other hand, Ho et al. (1997), using systematic line diagnostics, categorize this as a "transition type" galaxy (transitory between LINER and HII). I would recommend finding another reference for the AGN classification. Dr. Submillimeter 16:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's good information. Thank you. I'll see what I can do to address it. — RJH (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Low-ionization nuclear emission-line region on DYK

On 6 January, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Low-ionization nuclear emission-line region, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you for your contribution. — ERcheck (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Galaxy cluster

Thanks for fixing the RA/ra and DEC/dec bug I introduced on Template:Galaxy cluster. I guess I'd somehow got it into my head that they should be capitalized to match the template names. I've checked the other templates I've modified today, and I don't think I've made the same mistake on the other templates. Thanks again for fixing it. Mike Peel 22:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please revisit and consider

Thanks for your input on the Category:Categories for deletion proposal, but be advised per User:Tim! and your point, I've modified my proposal.
re: See this summary, and my comments on clear documentation all along our project pages. This alternative is more consistent with normal category practices. For your convienience this is a direct link back into the discussion. Thanks // FrankB 21:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Tifft - response

Please see my response to your comment. EdJohnston 22:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for defending CatDiffuse

Thank you for your defense of CatDiffuse: I had no idea it was up for deletion, and I am amazed at the response it has generated. I invite you to review and participate in WP:∫, to bring order to Wikipedia. Cwolfsheep 05:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert in the article NGC 4631

Hello. A few comments about my edits you reverted:

The nickname among the catalog designations look odd, especially as the field is labeled as "other designations". However, this is just a matter of taste and it is pointless to argue about that.
Forced linebreaks in the infobox are not good. The template could have a relative width so the infobox doesn't grow too wide.
Italics should be used only in titles, quotations and such. Only the topic term should be bolded when introduced, including possible alternative names. Nicknames hardly need bolding, italics should be sufficient.
External links are usually located below references. Since galaxy articles don't seem to follow that rule so there's no point changing the structure.

--JyriL ^talk 18:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Category:Rhythmic Top 40 acts

I was planning to delete this in the first place but thanks. Plus most of the artists featured are already placed in their respect genres, including the Dance musicians and Dance musical groups categories, but I might look at revisiting this issue in the near future. As for Alanis Morissette, she did start out as a Dance artist in Canada and "Ironic" did crossover to the Rhythmic Top 40 chart in 1996, peaking at #15, so there is some credibility to this. Robert Moore 17:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The decision has been made. I will go ahead and officially delete it. Robert Moore 05:13, 13 January 2007

Wien lawlessness

I have been stuck on trying to find a good name for the Wien approximation for the blackbody function. It looks like the redirect Wien's law should be made into a disambiguation page or the article on the Wien approximation for the blackbody function itself. I will be discussing this further at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. Dr. Submillimeter 22:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a disambig is an idea I was thinking about. I would call the article: Wien approximation. I'll probably be able to contribute to this in the future, after I do more background reading about Wien. --Sadi Carnot 14:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouting?

Your last comment at CfD ended up all in bold. It doesn't look like it was your intention to shout. -- Samuel Wantman 08:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NED distance

Thanks for the information, I was unaware that NED's distances were all automatically calculated. I had assumed that the various distances based off redshift were, but that luminosity distance had a different basis. I guess I should have checked on which cluster it was in before making the change. Do you know of any place that lists reasonably accurate distances short of a literature search? I guess I ought to assume no such thing exists, but it would be nice. --Keflavich 04:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nearby group information

I saw the link that you added to Local Group. Just to let you know, Karachentsev and several collaborators have done a lot of survey work in recent time that has significantly improved distance measurements and group identification for most galaxies within 5 Mpc. See what I have written at the IC 342/Maffei Group, Centaurus A/M83 Group, and Sculptor Group articles based on his references. I would consider Karachentsev's work to supercede van den Bergh's at this point. Please contact me if you have questions. Dr. Submillimeter 23:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I used that reference for the Galaxy page to cite the basic information regarding the Local Group, then added it to the later page in case it would be useful. I have no qualms about the link being removed from the Local Group page due to obsolescence. — RJH (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planck's law of black body radiation

I have made a comment on the Derivation section. The section does not make it clear how to derive and use the calculated formula in simple practical measurements on Earth. Please see on WikiProject Physics . --C. Trifle 21:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pastorwayne again

Hi Dr S, thanks for the message on my talk. I have left a note on PW's talk page and nominated one of the new categories for deletion (CFD:American Free Methodist bishops), so let's see what sort of response we get. I have seen a much more positive spirit to PW's work in the last fortnight (e.g. at the CFD on Baptist ministers), so let's hope that the latest new categs are only a blip and not a return to the create/delete cycle.

One of the things on my mental todo list is to try to start a big tidyup of Category:Missionaries, which remains a horrendous mess after PW's earlier efforts, but I think it best to discuss it as a whole before bringing anything to CFD ... but in the meantime I am watching out for any new categories in that area. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Missionaries to Hawaii

It should be deleted. Just one entry. Xiner (talk, email) 15:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for the info! Xiner (talk, email) 15:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review on 50000 Quaoar

You did notice I had reviewed this article against the GA criteria just 1 day ahead of you, didn't you? My comments are just above yours. Er rab ee 11:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missonaries categories

I am just finishing a propsal for a wider restrucuring and cleanup of Category:Missionaries. May I ask you to hold off any further nominatons for a few minutes so that you can take a look at what I am suggesting? (I will post a link here) --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's at Category talk:Missionaries#Restructuring_and_cleanup. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should this talk page be categorised as a missionary? (It is at the moment.) roundhouse 19:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at this?

this. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 18:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I wrong here? Xiner (talk, email) 22:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to references

Could you suggest any sites that give more relaible facts? Miraculousrandomness 14:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration Catagories

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one interesting in fixing this. I briefly read some of the logged converstation. Basically people were talkng past and around each other without getting at the issue. I agree that there needs to be a cat for people who move to "America" before it was the USA. But it should be called Category:Immigrants to Colonial America or Category:Immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies. Just "America" with any other info is just way too ambigous.

I would like to work with any other interested editors to dis-entagnle the historical definition of "America" from the geographical idea of "the Americas". Kevlar67 19:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Libby

do any of yall know what instrument you would use to measure a tornado or hurricane?

Libby

NASA/ESA Hubble images

Hi Thanks for your comments re. the NASA/ESA images that we have added or added information to. I think it will be easier if I just give you a call when you come back from lunch, so that I can better understand what we have done wrong. Obviously we want to do this right. Cheers Lars Lars Lindberg Christensen 13:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 5195/SEDS

I'm a little confused by the message you left me... you told me that SEDS was an unreliable resource, even though I had specifically re-written the NGC 5195 article to not use the SEDS classification of the galaxy... Your re-write was much more thorough, though - good work.

Pastorwayne is creating categories again

Pastorwayne is creating categories again. He is not working at the same pace as he was previously, nor is he producing categories that look like immediate categories for deletion, renaming, or merging. However, his voluntary withdrawl from category creation has not been very long. Please take action as you see appropriate. (I am also contacting BrownHairedGirl.) Dr. Submillimeter 12:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, my apologies for not responding sooner, as I've been "away" from Wikipedia for a bit. I find I am also a bit "out-of-the-loop" on this. Is there further discussion or has this been resolved? If not, I'd appreciate a few links as to where such discussion is so that I can "catch-up" : ) - jc37 12:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments have been posted to User talk:Pastorwayne. User:BrownHairedGirl spoke to him first about his actions. It is not clear how Pastorwayne has responded. Not much discussion is continuing at the moment, and Pastorwayne's contributions seem to have slowed down. However, I am still alarmed that his voluntary withdrawl from category creation was only approximately one week, and some of his new categories still look problematic. Dr. Submillimeter 12:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my standpoint, his act of creating categories again, after the previous discussions, which he agreed to, should indicate to us that he feels that he now knows current policies and guidelines regarding categories. And if that is the case, then if he starts mass-creating categories and/or category systems again, then they should be nominated at CfD. If consensus determines (again) that these should be deleted for the same overcategorisation reasons, he should be warned a final time, and if he still refuses to stop at that point, I suppose he may be blocked for this. - jc37 12:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_27#Birds_by_country

As usual, you are correct ... I think in the long run they ought to go. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]