User talk:Stemonitis/Archive18

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between August 5 2007 and August 15 2007.

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

DEFAULTSORT and listas

Hi there. I spotted your talk page edits at Template talk:DEFAULTSORT, and I came here and saw that you link to Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Ordering names in a category. Would you be able to advise in the following discussions?

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 3
User talk:Carcharoth/Polbot3 trial run
an archived discussion - please discuss on my talk page if you are interested
Template talk:WPBiography#DEFAULTSORT and listas problems

Thanks. Carcharoth 12:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it, but it's quite a lot to read, and it might take me a little while. --Stemonitis 13:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I also wrote some more at Template talk:WPBiography#Attempt to summarise the above (DEFAULTSORT, listas, PAGENAME). Any advice would be much appreciated. Carcharoth 13:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:DEFAULTSORT

Template:DEFAULTSORT has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

Nothing personal of course; it's just that there is no point in retaining a template that deprecates itself. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The TfD has been updated to suggest modification rather than deletion, now that the actual point of this template is clear. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and defaultsort

I noticed you are cleaning up the DEFAULTSORTs in templates (good job on that). Just wanted to raise the issue of edits like this. The DEFAULTSORT there was inside noinclude tags, which avoids the DEFAULTSORT being used when the template is trancluded. The DEFAULTSORT there is only doing what it would normally do on any page, so those ones are probably OK to leave. On the other hand, unlike articles, templates are unlikely to have a massive list of categories, so hard-coding their sorting is probably preferable, allowing searches like this to be done periodically. Do you agree with that? Carcharoth 12:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also spotted this. What is happening there? Carcharoth 12:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had realised that the {noinclude}d ones weren't causing problems, but I think it's probably just as easy (and functionally identical) to keep DEFAULTSORT out of the template namespace altogether, just in case. So, yes, I'd agree with your summary entirely. Templates are also less likely to be edited by inexperienced editors who might omit a sort key. Adding DEFAULTSORT for a single category (as has been the case on many of the ones I've looked at) it just pointless, as is setting it to {PAGENAME} in a section which will only ever apply to a single page with a known title. The WPBooks edit was a nightmare. I left out the pipe symbols, and even when I'd tried to patch it up, it was still failing horribly, so I reverted myself. It'll still need to be fixed, but I don't think I'm the man for the job. --Stemonitis 13:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing DEFAULTSORT from templates

Could I ask you what the point is to avoid DEFAULTSORT and hard code the PAGENAME magicword? —Dispenser 13:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the three conversations above are about this issue. Basically, there seems to be an agreement that DEFAULTSORT should never be used in the template namespace. The issue revolves around the possibility of transcluded templates having conflicting sort keys which interact negatively. Although it is actually harmless within {noinclude} sections, it is a lot easier to find the templates that are transcluding DEFAULTSORT onto other pages when the sort keys are hard-coded for the others. The rather small benefits of using DEFAULTSORT in templates is thus outweighed by the potential damage caused by over-use or mis-use of the magic word in opaque ways. For instance, if two banners each transclude a different DEFAULTSORT, then the categories for one of them will inevitably be mis-sorted. --Stemonitis 13:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so doing this just make it easier for you to search. However, PAGENAME really should be hardcoded as most editors forget to update the templates after moving. And there's still that nagging problem about templates that transclude cats but still have no cat of their own. —Dispenser 14:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a problem unique to templates. A lot of pages are left with slightly inappropriate sort keys after page moves. I don't know of a good solution to that. Templates are, at least, likely to be moved less often than other pages, because their titles are not visible to the average reader. --Stemonitis 14:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bio-star

		The Bio-star
		For your large volume of work on animals and plants. Squamate 14:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, in all the things going on today, I haven't found time to express my gratitude for this here barnstar. Thank you, Squamate. I'd be interested what edits in particular alerted you to the things I've been doing, although I suppose looking for individual edits might go against the whole point of the barnstar. Ah well. Anyway, thanks. --Stemonitis 21:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved article

I am not here to challenge your judgment but since you deciding on the moving article with 5 editors supporting and three editor's opposing the move, could you please elaborate on how you arrived to the particular conclusion from the survey at the article's talk. We all know that "RM is not a vote" so you won't need to spend time elaborating on that. TIA, --Irpen 15:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume we're discussing the Kiev Expedition (1018) here. In that move request, the first opponent (yourself) didn't provide any means of choosing between the two titles (the previous one and the proposed one) and asked "did anything change since the last proposal was defeated?". Consensus can change, so the results of a previous discussion are not necessarily relevant, and merely preventing change for its own sake is a weak argument indeed. Neither of these aspects is given house-room in the naming conventions. The second person who I think you're counting as an opponent suggested an alternative title, with no support from the existing literature. If that's opposition, then it can only be through sarcasm, because there is no explicit opposition there. I'm sure there's a lot of history to these discussions which I am blissfully unaware of (and happy to stay that way). The third merely said "per above", with no further indication of reasoning. You are right that WP:RM is not a vote; it depends on the reasons given. Piotrus had shown that the existing title was ambiguous and that his proposed alternative was a potential improvement. Had it been contested more on those grounds, the request might have been harder to call, but as it stood, there was one reason for and effectively none against. Thus, moved. --Stemonitis 16:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I request that you please elaborate at the article's talk and I will respond there. It would be best to have both your reasons and the comments I might possibly have visible by all interested parties. --Irpen 16:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got something to say to me, then say it here, because I won't necessarily be watching any other page — as far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed. --Stemonitis 16:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said all I have to say to you already. I requested that you elaborate on your conclusion at the talk page where the discussion is made. I don't understand why toy refuse. But since you do, I hope you don't mind me copying your answer from here to that page. You took an unnecessarily hostile position towards a simple request for an explanation. --Irpen 17:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No hostility. I just don't want to get drawn into debates about the closing of a move request. I find them to be rarely informative or useful, and accordingly I have no desire to get involved in another one if I don't have to. I'm sure if there's a genuine criticism, it'll find its way to me. Talk:Kiev Expedition (1018) is for discussion of ways of improving the article Kiev Expedition (1018), whereas discussions with me about my actions should occur here. I have no ideas for the improvement of that articles, so I am unlikely to have anything to say there. I consider there to be no problem with copying comments around under the right circumstances. --Stemonitis 18:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Lepidoptera policy - Draft categorisation guidelines & Common vs scientific names

Hi Stemonitis/Archive18,

I've brought up two policy issues for discussion on WikiProject Lepidoptera here . May I request your valuable contribution and counsel, as a member of WikiProject Lepidoptera, in this regard. AshLin 18:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stemonitis, thanks for your input. While not voting explicitly either this way or that, you had brought up some issues. I have summarised the points of view to the best of my ability and also looked for a solution to the problem of a person who types in Mourning Cloak and finds Nymphalis antiopa. May I request to have a look once again and give us any further input if any. Regards, AshLin 19:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reeds and rushes

I disambiguated all of the plant uses of reed to Phragmites because that one is referred to as the "common reed" and has a link in the first sentence to the disambig page for the various species of reed. I'm not really sure what else to do. If you think it would be a good idea I can go back through and revert the disambig edits that went to that page and leave them for others to disambiguate more accurately. -AndrewBuck 21:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about reverting them all, but it might be worth checking through them. Phragmites only occurs in standing water, so any articles about heaths or other upland habitats are not talking about Phragmites. How many articles are we talking about? --Stemonitis 06:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was working from the this at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, there were 113 pages that linked to Reed which is a disambig page. Of them probably 70 or so referred to plants, mostly along riverbanks, lakes etc. As I mentioned above I sent anything referring to a plant to Phragmites because of the link in its lead sentence. If you give me good criteria for how to handle them I would be happy to go through the list, I did them all at the same time so my contributions page would make this easy, and check each occurrence against your criteria. I am a physics student, not a biologist, so I'm not sure what to do on my own thats, why I suggested the revert, but like I said with some guidelines I could check them. -AndrewBuck 07:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's only that many, then I'll do it myself. For rivers and lakes it could conceivably be either Juncus or Phragmites, and there's nothing we can do about that, but anything growing on a hillside is much more likely to be Juncus than Phragmites (as is anything under about 2 m tall). --Stemonitis 07:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been through the changes you made, and there were only a few obvious mistakes. Lots of them I'm not sure whether they really mean Phragmites, but that's the fault of whoever wrote it. It turned out not to be as big a problem as I'd feared. --Stemonitis 07:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking through them. I spent a fair amount of time before I started the list trying to figure out what to do with all those plant related ones and thats the decision I came to. In the future I'll probably just leave them pointing at the disambig page if I'm not sure or try to find an expert on the subject to assist me. I'm going to put a copy of this dialogue on my talk page to go with your initial comment, feel free to delete this here if you would like. Thanks again for your help. -AndrewBuck 08:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Street in Berlin

You discussed the name of Vossstrasse the last time it came up; you may be interested in doing so again. See Talk:Voßstraße#Page_name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I consider it a positive sign that the discussions can be continued in good humour when traditional opponents on the issue can still extend cordialities to one another. I had stopped watching the article some time ago, so I probably wouldn't have noticed the discussion for some time. Perhaps the loss of certain editors and the influx of new ones may help to settle the issue in a more friendly way than was possible before. --Stemonitis 06:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket move discussion wasn't over

I was in the process of drawing more users to the discussion as advised by User:William_M._Connolley Malamockq 05:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Five days is the usual duration for a move request. I consider it unlikely that a strong consensus would have been reached even after more time. I'm much more an entomologist than a sportsman, so I'd be quite happy for cricket to go to the insect, but it doesn't fit our policies to do so. The sport is simply a much more popular search term. --Stemonitis 06:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the idea was to redirect cricket to a disambiguation page, or turn it into a disambiguation page, because BOTH the insect and sport are commonly associated with the term Cricket. Malamockq 16:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the whole discussion was effectively about whether or not the sport is that much more frequently meant than the insect to make it the primary topic, or whether there was no primary topic. The outcome was that there was no consensus to change the existing setup. --Stemonitis 16:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the users there are obviously fans of the sport, of course they would never agree to change Cricket to a disambiguation page. There needs to be more users who aren't directly involved in either the sport or the insect. Just for the record, I'm not a fan of the insect myself, I just feel that the current set up isn't right. Malamockq 20:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an ad hominem argument. I see no reason to believe that the contributors to that page are not capable of unbiased reason, and one purpose of listing moves at WP:RM is to bring in outsiders anyway. Requests are typically prolonged only when there is particularly vigorous debate, or it isn't clear whether or not there is a consensus in favour of the request, and extra time is likely to clarify that. In this case, it didn't look like a consensus would be reached no matter how long it was left open, or at least that that consensus would be against the proposal if it was reached. --Stemonitis 20:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't ad hominem. It's reasonable to believe that fans of the sport would favor leaving Cricket directed towards the sport just as you said you would prefer directing Cricket to the insect since you favor entomology. I would like to open up the discussion again and invite outside users into the debate. There simply weren't any before. Malamockq 21:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what I would prefer, but I am capable of putting that to one side when considering move requests. There is, of course, nothing to stop you opening a new move request, but I would be surprised if it didn't return the same result — maintaining the status quo. --Stemonitis 21:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy shrimp

Thanks for upgrading the taxoboxes on the fairy shrimp pages, they look much better. And the categories! KP Botany 16:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stemonitis - I wish you'd proposed this stub type! It's going to be redundant pretty quickly. I'm currently adding new stub types for French non-metropolitan teritories and departments (most recently, {{Réunion-geo-stub}}) and the next ones on the list to do are Martinique and Guadeloupe. Suddenly having this appear unannounced is a little confusing, to say the least. It's probably a rerasonable idea in the short term, but since they'll all have templates pretty soon anyway, it's not likely to have much longevity. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's no bother if it gets deleted in the longer term, but it makes it much easier to spot the ones in metropolitan France in the short term (and I came across a few in so doing). Most of the territories, collectivities and départements will not reach 60 individually for a good long while (can there be 60 Mayotte geography stubs?). Splitting off non-Metropolitan France from Metropolitan France seemed like a much more sensible way of doing things. But like I say, if it does get deleted later, then that wouldn't bother me. --Stemonitis 05:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinians

I believe you didn't read the entire debate. If you did, you would have seen that there was a large consensus to move with only one very vocal detractor. --GHcool 17:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RM carefully. Move requests are not votes, but depend on the arguments presented, and I am rarely swayed by claims from one side of a heated argument that there is a consensus — it frequently turns out to be a somewhat skewed view of the affair. --Stemonitis 17:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stemonitis, re. the request to move back "Palestinian People" to "Palestinians". Can you please be specific and explain what kind of consensus you were looking for? Also have you taken into consideration that this article had for years the proposed name, which is in itself a compromise; and was moved without consensus to a new much more controversial name? Itzse 19:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

Hi,

It looks like, contrary to your edit summary here, none of the requested moves were completed. I could definitely be missing something here, but if so, could you explain? Thank you. --Evil1987 21:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The requests were completed, in each case with no consensus for moving. --Stemonitis 05:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for clarifying. --Evil1987 14:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 12 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article valley elderberry longhorn beetle, 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.

--DarkFalls ^talk 07:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yoko Kurama move

As no one else has commented long after I did, you can safely close the survey at Talk:Kurama (YuYu Hakusho)#Requested move. Most agreed to this: keep as Kurama (YuYu Hakusho) since other YuYu Hakusho characters are named by their full name, not titles, and that this particular article is about the character's human & demon role as Kurama. Lord Sesshomaru 17:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

I note that you have protected the Scotland article. Fair enough. But how, may I ask, did this edit manage to get implemented the following day:

[1]

Either the article is protected, or it is not. We cannot have one rule for one and one rule for others. I respectfully request that you revert that edit that somehow sneaked through (how?), and also request that you alter the protection from full-protection to semi-protection. The real problem at that article is the ip edit warriors and ip sockpuppets, not respected registered users. --Mais oui! 08:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay — I've been away for a couple of days. I have reduced the protection to semi-protection as you requested. The edit you ask about was performed by an administrator, User:Arctic.gnome, which is how it was possible even after protection, and was probably reasonable. I would shy away from editing that sentence, because I'm aware of the rancour that has become attached to it, but presumably he wasn't. Linking "constituent countries" to constituent country is not unreasonable. --Stemonitis 06:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of proposal: Guideline/policy governing lists

Dear editor:

Given your extensive experience here on Wikipedia, I would greatly appreciate your input on the following topic:

Wikipedia: Village pump (policy)#Proposal to make a policy or guideline for lists

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic.

Regards,

Sidatio 15:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move

You removed these as "completed". However, you forgot to move the Wikipedia:Double redirects page. Would you please look at it again? :) Mel sa ran 16:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember rightly, that request was initially proposed as uncontroversial, which was contested by at least one editor. No full request was ever begun, and so there was no request to close. Like any other contested "uncontroversial" proposal, it lapsed after five days. The exact meaning of these sections of WP:RM is not always clear, and if you have any suggestions about how to improve it, I'd be glad to hear them. I think it is clear from the discussion there that there would not have been consensus for the move anyway. --Stemonitis 06:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

article question

Hi Stemonitis. just want to let you know, there is a question for you at the following article section: Talk:Palestinian_people#Second_requested_move. it is a question from an editor requesting more information on the kind of consensus needed for an article move or renaming. --Steve, Sm8900 19:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steve, I just posted for him the link to the article's talk page after I noticed that Stemonitis doesn't necessarily read those talk pages. Itzse 19:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cricket confusion

The taxobox image for Gryllus_bimaculatus is identified as Gryllus campestris, while the African Field Cricket is listed as bimaculatus. Can you verify which is correct? It is evident these pictures show different species Pendragon39 16:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could not find it on ITIS, only here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?id=6999

Yes, I think ITIS is showing its weaknesses here. It is often incomplete, and the fact that even Gryllus campestris is missing from its list tell us that the list is not to be relied upon ("Gryllus". Integrated Taxonomic Information System.). I have seen no indication that Gryllus bimaculatus is a synonym of Gryllus campestris, and I have found one website which lists a couple of distinguishing features: [2]. The head of G. bimaculatus is supposed to be smaller, and the wings longer. I wouldn't like to make a specific identification based on that, but for a bold person, it might be enough. I would suggest contacting the photographer, but since commons' User:Slippuri has only made one (non-deleted) edit, I guess he/she won't be responding to enquiries. The best option is probably to remove the image from the article, if we can't be sure which species it represents. The other image on the page has "African field cricket" in the filename, and is used on commons' page Gryllus bimaculatus, so I guess that one really does show G. bimaculatus. --Stemonitis 07:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes G. campestris and G. bimaculatus are different species! Campestris also digs a burrow and calls from a mound of sand. A Google search associates another name to the African Field Cricket, Scapsipedus marginatus, see [3]. Its range is limited to Africa. The common name of bimaculatus is the two-spotted cricket. The French website has excellent images, and bimaculatus does not have the same shape as the 'African Field Cricket'. I could leave a message for User:Arpingstone who may remember details regarding [4]. Interestingly, that image was taken at the Bristol Zoo in England. Pendragon39 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made to both articles and message left, lets see if this gets cleared up :) Pendragon39 17:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, let's see. I wouldn't rely on common names too much, since by their very nature, they are not necessarily either unique or restricted to single species. --Stemonitis 17:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Pingstone has provided an image that removes all doubt [5] Case closed? Pendragon39 22:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barring errors on the part on Bristol Zoo, yes, I think that settles it. At least now if we claim it's G. bimaculatus, it's not our own fault if it's wrong, not that I think that's very likely. --Stemonitis 07:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing moveto in Talk:Royal Arch Route

Could you please explain why you removed the {{moveto}} tab from Talk:Royal Arch Route? It is my understanding from reading WP:RM that moves which don't require administrator assistance and don't require wide input to the discussion do not need to be listed on WP:RM. If this is not the case then why does the template say "The proposed move may have been noted at Requested moves"? What does the word may here mean? Thanks, -- Patleahy (talk) 10:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the word "may" is confusing here. You are right that there is no obligation to list any move request on WP:RM, but the template {{move}} exists only to help standardise move requests for WP:RM. The template adds pages to Category:Requested moves, and so should not be used unless there is also a listing at WP:RM. It seems the tempalte was changed unilaterally and had previously read "should" which is a lot nearer the true situation. I've changed it back. --Stemonitis 10:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Patleahy (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triops longicaudatus

I have expanded the Triops longicaudatus article, and I am still adding any new facts I can find on the Internet. I am thinking of promoting it to GA-class status, but I need to know exactly what improvements it needs to make it flow. If you would like to make any suggestions, please leave them at Talk:Triops longicaudatus/Comments. Thank you. --Crustaceanguy 16:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just remembered: I will soon try to upload two files, Image:Triops anatomy en.svg and Image:Triops anatomy ru.svg, the first for the Triops longicaudatus article and the other for the Russian version of the Notostraca article. Both of them show the external morphology of Triops longicaudatus.--Crustaceanguy 16:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of move tab from Burj al-Arab

I am not sure why you removed the move tag from Talk:Burj al-Arab. What did I do wrong? Can you help me with this? I appreciate it. Leitmanp 20:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Adding {{move}} to a talk page is only one step in the process of requesting a move. There also needs to be a space for discussion on that talk page (ideally a new section, although I suppose that modifying an existing section will do at a pinch). The third thing, which was not done in this case, is to list the move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Without that step, there is no indication to anyone who is not already watching the page that there is any discussion going on. It also alerts administrators that there is a task to be done, and without it, even if a consensus to move is achieved, it is likely that nothing will happen. The instructions are given in considerably more detail at WP:RM. --Stemonitis 20:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I added the request to Wikipedia:Requested moves. So, is that all? Do I just wait until there is an outcome to the discussion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leitmanp (talk • contribs) 01:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, that's all. At some point on the 21st, someone (probably me, judging from the timestamp) will examine the request and the opinions people have given there, and either move it or not. --Stemonitis 17:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of entomologists

I was just wondering why you would list the entomologists with their first names appearing before their surnames? This does not help when someone is qucik referencing to a binomial authority. Is it possible to have a sort template without the names being reversed in such a way? Thanks, Taxidermistjake 21:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the usual format for listing people. Compare the other articles in Category:Lists of scientists and related categories. It is also the more natural form for listing a person's name. The previous comma-format was only a quick and dirty fix from before I was aware of {{sort}}. Sorting by forename instead of surname is clearly undesirable, so I had to reverse the names to achieve surname sorting. Now that I have found {{sort}}, there is no longer any need for that format. --Stemonitis 21:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]