User talk:Stemonitis/Archive10

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between March 4 2007 and March 26 2007.

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

Marron

Would you mind going and having another look at the edits you removed. It is not my field but your revert was illogical, if the citation is true. - Fr ed 13:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the text in the citation you added (including in your chosen quotation from it) referred to Cherax quinquecarinatus, the "gilgie". If it turns out that there are two or more species each referred to simply as "marron", then the best response would be to move the existing article to Cherax tenuimanus, and make marron into a disambiguation page. For the moment, though, it doesn't seem necessary; it seems that the unqualified term "marron" generally refers to C. tenuimanus, fairly unambiguously. --Stemonitis 13:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down please. The reference is authoritative and happens to be about the sp. I am working on User:Fred.e/Cherax quinquecarinatus. I realised that the other pages needed work when I discovered the fact - in the citation you have removed. I have found others since. It remains true. I have been fixing these in my own slow way. I have always left the articles better than when I found them. If you had taken twice the time to look into the articles progress, you would have noticed this. I was going to seek advice about the best way to handle the two genera of the Southwest of my state. Your removal was rash. I was already doing what you have reflexively suggested I should do. Please undo your edit. Thankyou - Fr ed 13:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article should never attempt to be about two topics. I prevented one article from trying to cover both C. teniumanus and C. cainii, and took out references that made no mention of either species. I fail to see what the problem with that is. Could you explain? The article on your sub-page looks excellent, by the way, and I look forward to seeing it in the main namespace soon. --Stemonitis 14:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement with the subpage article. I try to be careful what I push into main space. I agree with your first point, obviously the species need their own page. The Marron article was there first. The margaret river variety kept the old name (teniumanus. 1912), cainii is the wider spread model named in 2002. Until a few years ago, people who ate them thought they were the same species. I will produce the taxon determination soon. This was done some few hours ago and I wanted to give the creators of that article to opportunity to reach the same conclusion. I will ask you to retract your statement that the article does not mention the "marron"(as they are both called) species, it does. This was my original lead. Have you considered putting any 'damned data' onto the talk page. At least others will see what is going on. Cheers - Fr ed 14:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, the search function isn't working in Abode Reader on this computer, which led me to believe that neither "tenuimanus" nor "cainii" appeared in that text, falsely as it turns out. Certainly, the quote given in the reference was misleading, since it didn't mention the marron at all. If C. cainii is the widespread species (split from the formerly slightly larger C. tenuimanus), then it would be reasonable to change the names in marron to "cainii" from "tenuimanus", and perhaps make a new article for C. tenuimanus. Have you got the citation for the original (2002?) split of C. cainii from C. tenuimanus? It would make an interesting read. --Stemonitis 14:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to add in my last comment that the quote should have been changed. But I intended to get the papers on my hunt for the two genera. This will probably have to be a physical search, but

Nominations

will give you another pdf. I tried pasting the quote for you and it would not work for me either. Austin (2002) C. cainnii is as far as I got with this. It appears in various updated sites, but not in the 'red list'. As I said I am slow, but I will get there. All the species will get articles. Marron or marroning may remain for the local tradition and to disambiguate for the readers coming from that direction. Gilgies are also a well known and misidentified species. I have the ear of a couple of very experienced editors who will guide me on the finer points of all this. I will send you anything I find on the new species id. Ta. - Fr ed 15:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. and this secondary source [1] gives:

The marron was split into two distinct species in 2002, when it was realised that some individuals were hairy (Cherax tenuimanus) and others were smooth (now known asthe smooth marron, Cherax cainii). The newly-named hairy marron is endemic to the Margaret River in southwest Western Australia (4).

Thanks for the links; I haven't looked at them yet, but I will. I should probably point out that Wikipedia uses only genuine common names — i.e. those that are actually used by authors and others. A species cannot therefore be simply "newly named", but a new name can gain acceptance among users in general. A lot of scientists like to impose "common names", unfortunately, but if fishermen (is that the right word? "marroners"?) call them all "marron", then so should we, probably, or use the scientific names to disambiguate. --Stemonitis 16:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a fairly clear idea on naming and, as I said, the ear of very experienced and critical editors who will determine the "genuine common names". We will sort it out. However, I have to confess to being interested in one thing at the moment. I will thank you for that now. - Fr ed 16:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this conversation with some interest and may contribute following documents/links:

Lycaon 17:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you that man. I'll act on them tomorrow. - Fr ed 17:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is proposed that all previous type fixations for the names Cherax tenuimanus Smith, 1912 and Cherax cainii Austin in Austin & Ryan, 2002 be set aside and neotypes designated for both species to maintain the accustomed usage of the name Cherax tenuimanus. ICZN - BCN Case 3267

Shall I leave it to you sort out, or can I have a short while to continue with this? Fr ed 17:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_{I have moved this discussion to the appropiate discussion page. Fred 02:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

Trilobite Etymology Question

Do you happen to know why they named it "Paradoxides"?--Mr Fink 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. It must be something to do with paradox (obviously), but what paradox that might be, I cannot say. It was named in 1822, apparently [2], which is considerably before the publication of The Origin of Species, so the presumed paradox could have been almost anything. I can only suggest trying to find the original description from 1822 if you want to find out; most introductions of new names include a note about the etymology. The full reference is Brongniart A. (1822): Sur la classification et la distribution des végétaux fossiles en général, et sur ceux des terrains de sédiment supérieur en particulier — Mémoires Du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle 8: 203–240. A library near you may have a copy. --Stemonitis 17:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll see what the local libraries have, then.--Mr Fink 17:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Punchinello

Why you delete Angelo Punchinello?! Craxy 02:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text of that article ("Angelo Punchinello is a fictional character in the video game Max Payne") was so brief and uninformative that it did not deserve an article of its own. It is common practice to expand subtopics such as that within the main article until they are large enough to warrant splitting off. At the moment, Max Payne is the right place to expand upon the character, assuming he is notable enough to dserve it, which remains to be seen. --Stemonitis 07:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Max Payne needs a character and gang article too Craxy 20:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alytidae

Hi, could you please revert your changes to the article Alytidae, per User talk:Eleassar#Discoglossidae et al. Although a very reputable source on this anuran family uses the new name, this is not widely accepted yet. So I think it would be better to retain the old name for some time yet to not give undue weight. Sorry for causing you trouble. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can make that move, since the target page has a single-line edit history, and is a redirect to the current title. I can do it if you like, but you don't actually need my help. --Stemonitis 09:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. I just wanted to be polite and didn't want to cause additional prodecural complications. So if it's fine for you I'll move it back. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that'll be fine. I was really just trying to clear out the backlog at WP:RM one way or another. --Stemonitis 13:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why have you changed Discoglossidae to Alytidae then? IMO it's best to consistently use only one name in the article. --Eleassar ^{my talk}

Confusion, I think. I've corrected it now. You're absolutely right about consistency. Sorry about that. --Stemonitis 13:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DEFAULTSORT and Listas

I got your name from here. {{WPBiography}} has a Listas parameter that is a a sort key for each of the talk page categories. Is there anyway that you can combine the workings of {{DEFAULTSORT}} into the Listas parameter in {{WPBiography}} so that Listas works for the article page categories in addition to the talk page categories? -- Jreferee 18:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there already is a discussion on this matter here. -- Jreferee 18:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. The template can only apply to the page that it's on, be that in the talk namespace, the article namespace or wherever. The {{DEFAULTSORT}} has to appear in the (parsed) page to be indexed, and {{WPBiography}} is not transcluded onto article pages, only onto talk pages. --Stemonitis 18:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mental illness

Hi, I was surprised to see the discussion about this page move suddenly 'sealed off' with a comment that it was archived. Could you clarify for me the grounds for doing this? (perhaps I missed something but I didn't see any a guideline or warning about this on the requested move help page or admin move guidelines page). I'd also appreciate your advice about next steps.

Another editor (see further up the talk page) had previously suggested a move on the basis that "the use of the term "mental illness" here is too broad, confusing and, I think, stigmatising". I'd also made move points and suggestions, which had remained unopposed for several weeks/months. The only reason I didn't just move it was because of the edit history on the target page. Then when I made the "official" move request there was just one response which, while saying that in their personal experience the illness term was used more (not specified what their personal experience is, no verifiable source) was actually a recommendation to look at the evidence. I followed the page title guidelines and set out the usage in the 3 domains. The only response to this was the claim, frmo the same person, that the DSM refers to psychiatric illness in generalities, and mental disorder only in specifics, but as I pointed out this isn't actually the case. Anyway, that isn't an explicit objection to the move (although obviously isn't acting in favour of it). I understand that a page can be moved without a particular size of consensus having been achieved - i.e. no minimal involvement. So how is it right, by Wikipedia guidelines, that two comments from one person, one vague and one simply wrong, can torpedo the whole move, pending for months? In any case, the usage info (including scoring, as per guidelines) hadn't been completed.

If I start a new edit section to address the issue again, or stick a move request in again, are there any guidelines for helpful ways to do this? Will the same thing just happen again? (would you have any view on the strength of the case for the move?). What are the alternatives now? I would be grateful for your time to help with this, given this action. EverSince 20:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of the evidence presented in the move request debate was that while "mental disorder" may be the preferred term in the medical community, usage among lay people is weighted in favour of "mental illness". Under the guideline WP:NC(CN), this gives a preference for "mental illness", the current title. There wasn't a great deal to choose between the two options, and I could imagine a future vote going the other way (although a respectable pause of 6 weeks or more is left by convention). However, as I came to it, there was no clear consensus for the move to occur. It is a shame that so few people took part in the debate, which always makes such decisions difficult. The best advice I can offer you is to seek the best evidence you can that "mental disorder" truly is the more common usage among reputable sources than "mental illness", so that in a future move request, your case will be overwhelming, and the move will go through easily. As to the collection of information, move requests are normally limited to five days, unless there is a great deal of activity, and no edit had been made for a week or so. You ask about your options; I'm sure there are means of contesting my decision (although I'm not actually sure what they might be — I can try to find out if you think it's imporatnt), but you can take my word that I was acting in good faith, and it is of course perfectly possible that other administrators would have come to the same decision I did. --Stemonitis 22:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the clarifications and info. The naming conventions and conflicts guideline pages do seem to suggest a number of issues to potentially consider as well as common lay usage, so I will think on it and check things out, and perhaps revisit the issue in due course as you mention. EverSince 11:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chionoecetes

Oops, sorry about removing the species names in Chionoecetes. I take it we eventually want to have Wikipedia articles on each of the scientific names. Dragomiloff 12:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the idea, although it may well be a fair time before they get written. I think you were probably right to take out the recursive links, though, and it's better if articles get written at scientific names (in my opinion), and then, possibly, moved to common names, if it turns out that there is a single common and widespread common name. --Stemonitis 14:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moel Tryfan / Tryfan

I appreciate your interest and contribution to the article Moel Tryfan but am not quite sure I can agree with your statement that Tryfan "is also often called 'Moel Tryfan'". I'm a Welsh speaker, live in north-west Wales and am well versed in our history and literature yet I cannot recall coming across 'Moel Tryfan' for Tryfan. Do you have a source/s? I've checked what Sir Ifor Williams, an expert on Welsh place-names, has to say on the subject but find no mention of it (he deals in some length on the etymology of 'Tryfan' in his book Enwau Lleoedd). Also the author Ioan Bowen Rees, an expert on Welsh mountains and mountaineering in Wales, but again no luck. Certainly no Welsh speaker refers to Tryfan as 'Moel Tryfan' today so I think at least your statement should be modified to reflect that. Again, if you have a reference I'd be pleased to hear about it. Please accept this missive as 'constructive criticism' in the best spirit of the wikipedia! Cheers, Enaidmawr 00:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I haven't got all my old mountain literature here (I've moved house a couple of times recently, and my belongings are scattered across the country). I freely admit that recent authors and careful authors distinguish between the smaller Moel Tryfan and the higher Tryfan, but I'm sure I've seen older authors use "Moel Tryfan" when talking about Tryfan, although I can't find any example now. I've also seen people stating that it was Tryfan where Darwin made important geological observations, and not Moel Tryfan, but again I can't find the references. Next time I visit my library, I'll look for citations. --Stemonitis 07:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grendon

Thank you for moving the Grendon pages. Andy Mabbett 23:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem; I'm glad to help. --Stemonitis 09:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page of FC Utrecht

Please also move the talk page Talk:F. C. Utrecht. Matthew_hk t c 08:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me. --Stemonitis 09:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

Just a short note to thank you for your comprehensive and amazingly speedy categorizing of John Stokes from the Cocos Keeling Islands. Amazing! Gillyweed 00:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alps large pic you deleted

Do you think the picture should have indicated inside the names of the single mountains on view to be enough informative for wiki? I still think it is notable on its kind because such a view is quite rare and an extremely difficult picture to take, absolutely unusual for the alps. Certainly it is a curiosity for this article being the collàge of 185 pictures taken the same day from the same point of view at 250-300 Km of distance, perfectly right for a full title as "Alps". So I still think it is pertinent. But maybe under a different header. Do you have a suggestion? thnxx --Florenus 11:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an astonishing piece of photography, but it doesn't add anything to an article about the Alps that a picture taken from closer distance couldn't show. The picture is grainy, and only a few dozen pixels high in most places. For demonstrating the nature of the Alps, a picture like the one at the top of that page (reproduced right) is much more informative (see also commons:Category:Alps). The only place I could imagine that panorama fitting in would be in an article about the hills around Bologna, to demonstrate the sorts of views of the Alps that can be observed on a fine day. Personally, I would find it interesting to know the names of the peaks in question (is the dominant one on the right-hand side Marmolada?), but it still wouldn't give it much encyclopædic value. Incidentally, there is some good software available these days for stitching panoramas together, which would eliminate some of the unsightly edges, although it may find it very difficult, given the number of images involved here, and the relative lack of detail to work with. --Stemonitis 12:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A last question on the Alps pic

>The picture is grainy, and only a few dozen pixels high in most places.

The correctly visualized complete picture is 24545 x 679 pixels, not "a few dozen pixels high" and it's grainy because it's processed at maximum contrast with 400 ASA due to the telescope. With such large long distance panoramas you have this problem also when using analogic films. What about leaving only the link to its bigger version, under a chapter "Curiosities"? Anyway your suggestion to have it under an article about the Appennini is right and I think you can start it. Thank you, --Florenus 22:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: No it is not Marmolada (close to the church on the right), but Cima Dodici. From here we can see the Dolomites with Marmolada right after the church in between the 2 hills, but due to some clouds forming and the gone sun that day it was impossible to picture them. On the very left the Sondrio mountains are visble, and in the center quite clear is the Adamello peak and the Monte Baldo (just before the Garda Lake). I have a complete list of the visible peaks if you are interested. Some are even 300 Km. distant from our location. And I have also a higher resolution pic source (about 60 MB psd).

Djouce

Hi Stem - that was the quickest update to a new article I've seen! Regards (Sarah777 14:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

screw you

gertano —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.202.240.117 (talk • contribs) on 2007-03-20 at 18:11 UTC

Iokanaan

I'm happy for Iokanaan to redirect to Salomé, but I was hoping the article would get expanded to include discussion of why the name was used. It's less likely to happen in the general article on the play. Njál 12:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Edison / User:205.202.240.117

You blocked this IP for 24 hrs for vandalism. A few minutes after the block expired, the IP made a single edit to Thomas Edison, changing his place of birth. diff Just thought you might like to know. --Butseriouslyfolks 21:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for putting the correct stub on Social Pathology...I hadn't seen that stub group. Anyways, thank you. Have a good day. Saber girl08 14:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

You recently made a change to Cordillera Penebtica. In the process of checking out what you had done (which was fine, by the way), I noticed, on your contributions page, that you manage to make tens of edits, to different articles, all a minute or two apart. My question is: How do you do it? As for myself, I know that I can't read/think/type that fast ... by a factor of ten or more. PeterHuntington 18:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing special, just efficiency. For all of the recent bunch (stripping out {{foreignchar}} from articles that don't really need it), I don't need to check many things before taking that line out. I open up half a dozen at a time in separate windows, click "Edit" on each of them, then remove the line of code in question, press tab, paste in the standard edit summary, then press tab – space (for "minor edit") – tab – tab – space (for "save page"), for each of the articles in turn. That way, I am changing one page while the others are loading up the edit screen. If any of the changes were more complex, each edit would take a lot longer, but for such repetitive things, it's easy enough to make many edits in a minute. It relies on a decent Internet connection and a degree of practice, but there's no technical jiggery-pokery involved. --Stemonitis 18:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Jay Nelson

Not sure who you are, or why you removed edits I made to his page.

I scattered his ashes in the Sierra Nevada. Leave the reference as it was. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Los cuervos (talk • contribs) 22:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopædia. When I saw the text "His spirit lives on in the Sierra Nevada of California. Caw Caw!", I deduced that the language was unencyclopædic, and that the statement was not backed up by any reliable reference. Either of these would be enough to warrant removing the text; being both makes it irredeemable. As it happens, the reason I first came across it is because it links to "Sierra Nevada", which is a disambiguation page, and not Sierra Nevada (US), which is the range you meant. --Stemonitis 08:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The stub template in IntelliType

I located the stub template in IntelliType above the keyboard types' list on purpose. Everything else in that page isn't stubbed, just the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lwc4life (talk • contribs) 18:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

In that case, you probably want {{sect-stub}}, which marks a section of an article as a stub. Also note that lists are not generally considered stubs, so {{expand list}} may be an option. --Stemonitis 18:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lwc4life (talk • contribs) 17:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Re: Mercury Monterey

I just noticed that you had renamed Ford Freestar to Ford Freestar/Mercury Monterey. Why?

FWIW, WP:CARS has never come to a decision on whether or not that is a good idea. --Sable232 20:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. I'm half-way through moving Mercury Monterey (1950-1974) to Mercury Monterey, as requested at WP:RM. I'm moving the old article into the talk namespace so as not to destroy the history when I make that move. The article about the minivan will reamin at Ford Freestar (if my Internet connection ever gets up to speed, that is). --Stemonitis 20:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your confusion now — I never intended the slash to indicate alternative names, but to indicate a subpage of the talk page. In retrospect, there might have been a better title, but it was such a struggle to do just that much that I'm loath to try anything more. --Stemonitis 20:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just realized that myself. Wow, I'm stupid. Anyway, thanks a lot for doing this. --Sable232 20:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tripolis (Thessaly)

I thank you for improving my stub. I just put stub, but you put it by category. I am still new as an editor, but I will check for categories in the future! Toyalla 18:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Botley Hill

Thanks for adding the infobox on Botley Hill. --Spagus 19:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mayan cichlid

Hi Stemonitis, thanks for helping but I'm surprised you have decided to rename this page while the debate is still on-going and the consensus hasn't been reached. The Latin name vs common name is a heated and old controversy on wikipedia, so we have to be particularly careful about it. Would you mind undoing the move until we reach a consensus? --Melanochromis 13:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make it clear that once a consensus had been reached at WP:FISH, I'd be happy to move the page again (without going through WP:RM). However, the debate specific to that cichlid was basically over, having reached a conclusion of waiting to see what was decided at WP:FISH. The move is not meant to indicate that that is the best title in the long term, nor is it supposed to influence the debate that is still going on. It was simply a stop-gap measure. --Stemonitis 13:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. All editors participating in the Mayan cichlid renaming discussion have decided to move the discussion to WP:FISH and agreed that once we've reached a WP:FISH consensus, the renaming issue of the Mayan cichlid article will be decided. This discussion is still very much active. I honestly think the best and most respectful action for an admin is not to prematurely rename the page, but wait for the consensus of all the involved editors. And you are more than welcome to join our discussion, if you like. --Melanochromis 14:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holding a single move request open while guidelines are thrashed out is not usually a good idea. Everyone is agreed that once the guideline at WP:FISH is in place, the naming of Mayan cichlid / Cichlasoma urophthalmus / Mexican mojarra will be decided. My interpretation, which may be flawed, was that "Mayan cichlid" was one of many common names, and the one of the three possible titles which was least likely to be agreed upon. So, rather than leave the article at a probably unsustainable title, for the duration of the discussions, I moved it to a potentially usable title. My use of the {{moved}} template was probably confusing, since it suggested that the move request resulted in the current title, which is not the case. I can only stress that the current title was only ever intended as a temporary measure until the guideline is agreed, whatever outcome that may produce. So you are right that we should wait for the consensus there, and I am looking forward to reading and applying the new guideline when it is established. Any temporary move of mine would be over-ruled by that guideline automatically, but I will personally see to it that the article ends up at the location desired by the community of Wikipedian ichthyologists and aquarists (for which reason I will avoid the discussions myself). --Stemonitis 14:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you are trying to help with the article and I do understand that it was a temporary move. But is a temporary move really the best action in this case? If we take the WP:FISH on-going discussion out of the consideration and look at the Mayan cichlid renaming discussion alone, you'll see that there's one "support", one "oppose", and one "neutral". I think it's ok to close the discussion if you feel like it's overdue, but to rename it while the discussion was 1-1-1 might not be the appropriate decision, especially with this issue. We know that the Latin vs common name titles in wikipedia have been quite a controversial and passionate debate. --Melanochromis 15:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The move to xxxHolic

Hi Stemonitis,

I noticed that the polltop template wasn't filled out all the way—it should have used a result= parameter to indicate that the eventual move was different from the proposed move. As it stands it seems like it says the move was to a different location than it ended up being to. —pfahlstrom 22:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. I must have overlooked it that time. It's fixed now, anyway. --Stemonitis 07:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]