User talk:Stemonitis/Archive09

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between January 26 2007 and February 28 2007.

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

Categorising Philip Øgaard

Hi, point taken. Am I to understand that there is no way of to end up with the collation Ø after Z? In a near-naked category, it seemed silly to have it appear under O, as it handled Ø very well.. Also, you seem puzzled by the use of å, but that is the reality of aa, placing Øgaard after, say, Øgaland. Cheers, MURGH ^disc. 17:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorting in categories is category-specific, and in most categories, "ø" should collate as "o". The sorting rules would otherwise been too cumbersome and unpredictable if every national variant to alphabetical order were included. For Norwegian-specific categories, it may be usual for "ø" to sort after "z" (i.e. as "ø"), but that should not be applied elsewhere. It is still possible to override the default sort key for specific categories, by placing text after the pipe symbol (e.g. [[Category:Norwegian stuff|Øgaard]]), which can be used to achieve that. However, it seems that Category:Norwegian people does have Anne-Sofie Østvedt sorted as "Ostvedt, Anne-Sofie" and Morten Øen as "Oen, Morten". I would be happy to see purely Norwegian categories sorted by Norwegian rules (and likewise for other extensions of the "Latin alphabet"). This would need to be suggested and reach consensus elsewhere (perhaps at Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway). --Stemonitis 17:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. A consensus and a rather big job. It's a discouraging mix right now. So each such category would need customisation-care? As partially done in Category:Norwegian writers or does this happen by default? I'll lurk a bit around mentioned wikiproject and ponder if it's really my calling to pursue this ;) MURGH ^disc. 17:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I can well understand your trepidation. I know that there are a few people who would oppose Norwegian-style sorting, even in Norwegian-specific categories (on the basis that this is the English Wikipedia). I would be in favour of it, but achieving consensus could very well be a lot of hard work for not a lot of gain. --Stemonitis 22:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I hear ye, but then again I'd have to imagine most would fall in with us, by simply allowing Æ Ø an Å to be placed after Z in Norg cats (which just can't be seen as obstructing any of the other global procedures) but gathering a "campaign" is the real effort. The English wikipedia is the inclusive mother of all others, and in so many other areas people find a way to cooperate, so I can't really see it as insurmountable. If it ought to be a priority right now is another matter, and small gains, well.. yes. I'll keep you posted on this if you'd like. MURGH ^disc. 01:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do. There are precedents. Category:Icelandic people is sorted the Icelandic way (by forename then patronymic). I think getting the support of the Norwegian WIkiproject is probably the way to go. If it's suggested elsewhere, the anti-diacritic brigade will probably try to upset it. --Stemonitis 09:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Pen-y-Gwryd

Hello, I know you have edited on this before, would you be kind enough to look at the talk page. I feel the article has been hijacked for a hotel and this cannot be right.NoelWalley 12:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is a bit hotel-heavy, but there really isn't much else there. All the notable footpaths stop at Pen-y-pass (which is another blow to the ridiculous "P.Y.G. track" theory), leaving a road junction, some Roman remains and, most notably, a hotel. I think as long as the article discusses the hotel's notability (i.e. its history for climbing in Snowdonia and, therefore, the rest of the world), and is not simply an advert for the hotel, there's no problem with it. I've combined the hotel bits into a single section, and generalised the introduction a bit. --Stemonitis 13:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Noel and I are trawling the same people for advice and their take (which is a good thing), I think I can live with it as its stands. I agree with the plugging comment (although I didn't quite mean it to come out like that). However I have written to Ordnance Survey for their reasoning and for an exact location of "Pen-y-Gwryd" (where the head of the NantyGwryd is, geologically speaking) as its not clear, amongst other things. I've also written to Gwynedd Council to see is they can come up with the their information. In the meantime I'll keep adding more information (climbing and Roman connections) etc. Probably best to let the dust settle for while. Cheers again for yor take on the matter. (Gowron 15:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC))

Y Garn (Rhinogydd)

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Y Garn (Rhinogydd), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Oo7565 18:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The criteria worked out at Wikipedia:WikiProject British and Irish hills were that at least all 600-m relative height peaks in the British Isles, together will all Marilyns above 2000 feet (absolute height) were notable and necessary (see Wikipedia:WikiProject British and Irish hills/Key mountains). Plenty of other peaks are also notable for other reasons or despite these (somewhat stringent) criteria. --Stemonitis 18:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I should have added: "and so I have removed the {{prod}} template". --Stemonitis 18:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Help over at CAT:CSD

Hi, and congrats on your promotion! Per this discussion, I'm dropping a friendly note to some of the recently-promoted admins requesting help with speedy deletions. I am not an administrator, so if you don't feel comfortable diving into deletions - or if you need more info - please don't come to me, but I'm sure that Cyde Weys would be happy to guide you if you want to help. Any help is great, but I'm sure that Cyde and others would deeply appreciate it if you could put the page on your watchlist and do a bit of work there on a regular basis? Maybe weekly? Thanks in advance! Oh and if you're already working away on CSD please disregard this message; it's not meant as a slight against any hard work you're already doing. Cheers! Anchoress 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

According to that discussion, and WP:BACKLOG, there aren't too many candidates for speedy deletion at the moment, but you have spurred me into taking on a few move requests. --Stemonitis 12:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Anchoress 15:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrow crab

I thought the idea behind links to commons category is that it allows other people in the future to add more images to the Commons. As long as they tag their images with the right category, people will be able to get to their images easily from wikipedia article, by following the commons link. I know there are only two images in the commons category, but hopefully there will be more. See: Cable car (railway). Fred Hsu 20:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I take part of it back :( The commons page is not a category... It should be enhanced... Fred Hsu 20:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Turritopsis nutricula‎

Thanks for your identification help in the tax box!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JUBALCAIN (talk • contribs) 05:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Co-ords on Wales article

Hi. This tag is needed in order for Google Earth to include the wikipedia entry next to the location of Wales - which i guess it set due to it being in the centre of Wales. Currently without this tag, the label for Wales shows up next to the Cardiff label (due to the Cardiff co-ords also being present in the article). Rather than delete the tag, there's probably a way to change it so that it doesn't zoom in so close with certain map websites. In which website did you try to view the link? --Rebroad 23:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Google Earth as it happens. At the very least, having co-ordinates to 6 decimal places probably isn't useful for an entity that spans two full degrees north to south and three east to west. In most of the coordinate link templates, there's a field "type:", which sets the zoom factor. I don't know what the largest scale available is, but I think that would be the one to go for. And, of course, as an aside, labelling Wales at Cardiff isn't totally wrong. --Stemonitis 08:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

British/American Spelling

Hi. Regarding the ctenophore page, I didn't realiz/se that there was a Wikipedia convention for following spelling precedent in editing pages -- wasn't trying to enforce an Americaniz/sed version of things. I thought the existing -our's, and -ise's were an arte/ifact of the German translation. Since I'm not comfortable using Commonwealth spelling, in adding new content, does have to conform to this? beroe 05:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I didn't notice your message up at the top there, and the orange boxes don't tell you how many new messages you've got. Wikipedia does not assert a single spelling system throughout, but does require that each article consistently use one system of spelling. If the topic is region-specific, then the local spelling is used (e.g. an animal found only in the United States would be written in American English, while one only found in Australia would be written in Australian English), but if not, the spelling used by the first major contributor is followed (i.e. the spelling used when the article first grew beyond a stub). All this is covered in WP:ENGVAR, which probably explains it better than I have here. (Incidentally, I suppose it would be possible for -ise spellings to come accidentally from a German–English translation, but it seems unlikely that the -our spellings would.) --Stemonitis 14:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Arthropods

I'm new here, motivated by interests in Crustacean evolution, and noticed you doing a bit of police work on the Daphnia page. A question -- nowhere do I see instructions on how to join a WikiProject, such as that for Arthrops or Evolution. Is it really as simple as editing the project page to add myself to the list of participants? Cheers, Brunsweiler 06:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Just sign up on the project page, if you want to. There is no requirement to do so, and if you'd rather carry on editing without listing yourself anywhere, then that's OK too. Welcome! --Stemonitis 08:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Catherine of Genoa

Wow, that was quick. Thanks. -- Pastordavid 01:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Thanks for the trigger finger on the delete button. Please can you hold off for a few minutes? That was a page whose creation was discussed on another page, and a few people agreed to collaborate on it. What's the harm in letting them do that before deleting it? Gravitor 01:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, OK, but the deletion criteria are there for a reason. Your best bet is to fill it in with some actual information before another editor requests that it be deleted for being empty. If another admin comes across it, it may very well be deleted again. It is possible to work on a draft in your user space, or on a talk page (possibly a subpage) somewhere, until it's ready to withstand the onslaught of picky editors. Oh, and a better tag than {{stub}} would be a good thing, too: either a more specific stub tag, or something like {{expand list}}. That's how I came acorss it in the first place: Category:Stubs is not a place for any article to be, as bizarre as that may seem. --Stemonitis 01:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

How about adding to it? That would actually be useful. Gravitor 03:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not an appropriate attitude. I deleted the article in good faith, and then made some suggestions about ways of improving it to prevent that happening again, and all this despite the fact that I know nothing about the topic in question. I can understand your annoyance, but there's really no need to get angry. I don't think you could reasonably expected me to do any more than that. --Stemonitis 09:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate

Hi Stemonitis, Don't know whether this is your area or not but there are 2 articles covering the same topic, one the scientific name Pholadidae & one a common name (Angelwing) for the same family. I expanded Pholadidae not knowing about Angelwing. Angelwing contains info which in my opinion belongs on individual species pages. Both pages contain useful info. I wonder what is the right way to go. Don't want to upset anyone. Can you advise please? Thanks. GrahamBould 15:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm… angelwing is a pretty new article, and was created after your first edit to Pholadidae, which may explain why you (and I and everyone else) had overlooked it. It patently covers the same topic, and the fact that an article for that family has been put at both "angelwing" and "piddock" demonstrates that the scientific name is the only usable title. Angelwing does indeed contain species-specific information, but there's no reason why it shouldn't. It's common practice in other parts of Wikipedia for articles to grow until they need to be split (c. 32 kB). This is the approach I've taken with king crab, rather than create dozens of tiny articles, and I think it may well be appropriate here. The two articles do need to be merged, and I would recommend copying the current contents of angelwing into Pholadidae and converting it into a redirect. Only one important page links there, Angel Wing (disambiguation), which would need to be changed, but apart from that, it should be straightforward. I wouldn't bother about leaving {{merge}} tags for a week in a case as clear-cut as this; just copy the material from angelwing to Pholadidae. You may consider making articles for each species, but, like I say, it's not necessary. WP:BOLD --Stemonitis 17:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Stemonitis, will do exactly as you say. Cheers GrahamBould 12:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Now done. Any improvements, just let me know. Cheers GrahamBould 12:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work. I've made a few small adjustments, but nothing serious. Well done. --Stemonitis 14:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fauna article

I wonder if I could ask for a couple of favours relating to the Fauna of Scotland article? First of all, as noted on the talk page, I am not a zoologist and would appreciate input, especially re. the invertebrates. Secondly, I left this note on at WP:SCOWNB about a fortnight ago, but my Scottish colleagues, (perhaps wearying of my regular calls for help) have not responded so far:

"I also note the existence of Wildlife of Scotland. I think its fair to say it's a start class article and does not even mention flora. (Fauna = animals only of course, 'wildlife' = flora and fauna). Should this be ignored, should a merge or a deletion be suggested, or... ?

Yours, grateful for any assistance. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the current Wildlife of Scotland is a little spartan. I think the ideal to strive towards would be for it to be written in summary style, with links out to Fauna of Scotland, Flora of Scotland, Conservation in Scotland and perhaps others, or indeed to more specific articles if they become necessary. At the moment, it contains little that isn't already covered at Fauna of Scotland, which is a vastly better article. I'll have a closer look at it in the future, although experience suggests that I won't be likely to change much except for a few cosmetic alterations. Thinking about it, it may make sense to move Wildlife of Scotland to Natural history of Scotland to parallel the Category:Natural history of Scotland, and to enable it to expand to have a summary section on the geology of Scotland as well. This will probably involve ditching most of what's already there, but that doesn't trouble me at all. --Stemonitis 23:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Can you suggest a good example of a short summary style article I could draw on? Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Fauna of Australia is probably a good model, although the Scottish article will probably be a fair bit shorter. Many of the sections (birds, reptiles and amphibians, fish, etc.) are linked to a "Main article: xxx" and only give a brief overview of the topic. That's sort of how I'd envisaged a comprehensive Wildlife of Scotland to be, but I admit it may be some time before it reaches that state. It may be that there isn't really enough material around yet to warrant summarisation for some of the topics, so you'll have to use your discretion. --Stemonitis 22:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

OK & thanks - its on my 'to do' list. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing redundant WikiProject Arthropods templates

Hi Stemonitis,

I have noticed that you have been removing redundant WP Arthropods templates. If you would like to go faster and not have do so manually, you should talk to User:Betacommand who's in charge of the bot that automatically puts the template onto talk pages of articles in arthropod-related categories. If you ask him to remove all Lepidoptera and arachnid-related categories from the list the bot has, it will (as far as I know) automatically remove all WP:ARTH templates from those articles. It might save you some time. Also, I'm afraid that the bot might put the templates back on the articles from which you removed them. If you take a look at User talk:Betacommand/20061117#Tagging for WikiProject Arthropods, you can see all the categories that the bot uses. The only problem is that some articles that are covered by WP:LEPID don't have a template, so removing the WP:ARTH template would leave them templateless. Hope this helps. IronChris | (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I could, but automated edits always need checking, and I suspect it would take some time before the bot started on it. It also breaks up the monotony of article assessments a bit. If I get really hacked off with it (I've just seen the L section of Category:Unassessed Arthropods articles, which does indeed look a bit overwhelming), then I might be tempted. Thanks for the offer, anyway; it's good to know who I should turn to. --Stemonitis 15:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Upogebia danai

Hi Stemonitis, I'd appreciate it if you could check this new stub article. 2 issues, Is it endemic to New Zealand? I think so but cannot absolutely cite a source. Second, is Upogebia danai its latest name? Again, I can't find a reference renaming it, but my source is dated & I can't find Miers' date. Thanks. GrahamBould 17:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be very much information online about U. danai, just one article in the Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute and one in the Transactions of the New Zealand Institute. There was a search hit for the Australian Faunal Directory, but their checklist does not include U. danai. It definitely occurs around the Kermadec Islands and the main islands of New Zealand, but I haven't seen any records for anywhere else, so it seems reasonable to assume that it really is endemic. As for the nomenclature, I haven't seen any indication of synonymy (except a reference to one which had later been undone), so it would appear to be the latest name, but again, this is based on a lack of contradictory evidence, rather than any positive statements. I hope this helps. One of the frustrating aspects of studying invertebrates is the great lack of information about most species. --Stemonitis 12:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories on User:SatyrBot/Current project page

Hi! You made an edit to "uncategorize" my bot's user page. The bot needs that page to be in the categories, since it checks that page to see what ones to run through for tagging with the WikiProject tag. If you wouldn't mind, please don't change that page. It stays in the categories for a day - until it's finished running through them - and then I remove the cats. I don't know if I've made sense or not, but feel free to leave me a note if I'm not :) Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it alone if you like, but a better solution may be to alter the bot to check all categories linked to on that page, rather than all the categories that it is classed in. That way, it saves cluttering up categories with irrelevant pages, albeit only for short periods. WP:USER is relatively clear that user pages (including sub-pages) should not be in categories intended for articles. --Stemonitis 14:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

I have been accused of being a vandal on User:LUCPOL/Vandal:R9tgokunks due to past editing disputes with yourself, or other being involved in ways with yourself. Since you have been mentioned, i'd like to ask if you could please comment on the mentioned report, Thanks much. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 15:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what that page is supposed to achieve. It certainly doesn't seem to be a "report" which I could comment upon, but rather just a list of diffs, followed by some fairly incoherent paragraphs of mixed language. It's a user sub-page, not a request for comment, or any other more formal document. At the moment, I can't see any way in which I could contribute on it. I would only note that my user page is linked twice, which seems a little redundant. --Stemonitis 17:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

New species

Hi. Thank you for your great work on articles which I created which link to list of animals new to science, like addig taxoboxes, fixing templates, and adding links. Great work. AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 22:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves

Hi Stemonitis,

Would it in that case be a better idea to move the collosal and the h. squid to lower case articles?
What do you think?

Cheers JackSparrow Ninja 12:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be my preference, but I'm not particularly active in malacological articles. I certainly think that some kind of standardisation would be good. There doesn't appear to be a WikiProject Molluscs, which would have otherwise been the place to find a consensus. If you ask at WP:TOL, you're unlikely to find any real consensus, so I can only suggest you poll the editors who most often contribute to mollusc articles, and see whether they have any opinions. I went through most phyla standardising to sentence case, or upper case if that was the more prevalent, but left the molluscs alone, because I couldn't see a clear pattern. Category:Snails seems to lean towards sentence case, but Category:Squid seems to tend the other way. Category:Bivalves has the clearest pattern, with sentence case being clearly favoured. If none of the active malacological editors has a strong opinion, then I would be tempted to go for sentence case on that basis (but then I'm biased against applying Capital Letters All Over The Place anyway). The alternative is to follow the botanists' example and insist of scientific names wherever possible, thus side-stepping the problem (but perhaps creating a few others). --Stemonitis 12:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

General praise

I came across your page by chance and am impressed by your dedicated work. Thank you for your fine pictures of Snowdonia. It seems you may have studied at Bangor as I did. I'm intrigued that you took the trouble to list Swiss municipalities, something I needed a few times! --Theosch 10:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments — it's nice to be noticed. As to Bangor, no, I didn't study there, although I have got strong links to the area, and I plan to visit Snowdonia again in the summer, if not before. --Stemonitis 17:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sandy D'Alemberte

I have removed the apostropher and internal capitaliztion from D'Alemberte's sort key. You removed the entire sort key when you claimed to have only done the former. When you remove the entire name... it's sorts by Sandy... and not Dalemberte. Just about every other person who is in a category on the entirety of wikipedia is sorted by their last name... not their first name.--Dr who1975 18:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see {{DEFAULTSORT}}: it is a new method for automatically sorting all categories (as you would have seen in any of the category listings). The article was sorted primarily under "Dalemberte" (or "D'Alemberte") all of the time. Hopefully this, and my statement on that talk page, wil help to end the misunderstanding. --Stemonitis 18:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah.. I had just made those changes to the indiviual categorizations. I didnt know about the {{DEFAULTSORT}} function. learned something new--Dr who1975 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I went back and examined a little bit mroe. I swear the Default sort was not working on Feb 21. I see that it is now, but I checked the categories before I reverted your change initially and he was under Sandy... not Dalemberte. In any event, thanks for the clarification.--Dr who1975 19:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Category fixes in Phasmatodea

Hi, thanks for going over the articles I have been contributing to and making the required corrections. I do query the removing of Category:Phasmatodea from those articles in Category:Stick insects. The definition of a stick insect is not clear cut (as it is for leaf insects) as it does not coincide with a taxon. Many species such as Heteropteryx dilatata are considered to be stick insects by some, and not by others (they do not resemble sticks), and the same applies to other species that resemble bark. I think the solution is either:

• Put them in the Phasmatodea and Stick insect categories, or
• Remove the Stick insect category and just use the Phasmatodea

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edwbaker (talk • contribs) 18:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

I have no particular expertise in the field of Phasmatodea, so I can only comment generally. If the limits of "stick insects" are not clearly defined, then it probably does not make a good choice for a category. Having all the contents of Category:Stick insects in Category:Phasmatodea as well is confusing and inefficient. As I say, I have no idea which solution is the more appropriate scientifically, but only two are justifiable from a categorisation point of view. Either retain Category:Stick insects and have articles listed in it, but not in Category:Phasmatodea, or return those articles to Category:Phasmatodea and delete Category:Stick insects (i.e. either the current situation, or your second suggestion, but not your first). I would be happy with either, so if you decide that the latter makes more sense, then just drop me a line and I will gladly delete the unwanted category. --Stemonitis 18:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The latter makes the most sense, and would allow for splitting by taxonomic categories if this becomes necessary.Edwbaker 18:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)