User talk:WolfmanSF/Archive2

Your sandbox pages

Hi, I don't know if you have your various megafauna subpages pages watchlisted, but if you aren't aware, I'm having a minor edit war there about having categories on them. I'm assuming that the IP with whom I'm having the disagreement is not you, so I'm wondering if you could help me out here, either by talking to the IP or by helping keep the pages free of category tags. The person is using a dynamic IP, so I've left a note on as many pages as possible, but I don't know if s/he will see it. I'm making one last ditch effort to remove the categories, then I'll move on. I only became aware of the categories because the Indonesian IP added Chinook Salmon, which is on my watchlist, to the category Megafauna, and that didn't really seem right to me, so I checked Category:Megafauna and saw the inappropriately placed categories. I don't have much interest in continuing this, but at some point it's likely that other editors will also notice the inappropriately placed category tags and also remove them. Like I told the IP, the lists were userfied for a reason, and I have no opinion on that, but because they are supposed to be in user space, it is inappropriate for them to be listed in mainspace categories. Before I move on, I may try to alert the appropriate WikiProject so that they can give their opinion on the matter. Thanks for your help in this matter and good luck getting the lists back up to standard. Katr67 (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not aware of the situation. The pages look OK at the moment. I may add a note to them.

I'd like to get to this project eventually, but its not near the top of my priorities, so I don't know when that might happen. WolfmanSF (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding the notes to those pages is a great idea. Thanks for helping out! Katr67 (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you know you can disable the functionality of a category by placing a colon before the word "Category". Thus instead of [[Category:Foo]] you type [[:Category:Foo]]. You can also disable templates by using tl| before a template name - instead of {{Foo}} you type {{tl|Foo}}. Mjroots (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I wish it were as simple to convince everyone that a category tag should be disabled. WolfmanSF (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Mammals

HI, could I tempt you to work through these? Himalayan 20:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I've actually created about 133 articles for missing species already - primarily neotropic missing species, most of which have been removed from the list. The problem is that I've been spending more time on Wikipedia than I ought to, and need to cut back a bit. However, I will definitely keep the list in mind. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree about lowercase "p" in President of the United States

I've run into the same issue, and think your approach is best, that most of the time, it should be lowercase "p" for presidents. Only when talking about a specific president, like "President Roosevelt", then we should capitalize. Good choice.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. From my perspective, excessive and inappropriate use of upper case seems to be a widespread problem in Wikipedia. One contributing factor seems to be that some Wikipedians don't realize that they don't need to use an initial capital when linking to an article. Other users don't seem to know the definition of a proper noun. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

upper vs. lower case in usage of "President"

All of the uses of "President" in question in Grover Cleveland are a part of a specific title -- that of President of the United States. If Cleveland had traveled to Mexico and met with Porfirio Diaz, I would have described it as a "meeting of presidents," since the word there would have been generic. If he had met with ex-President Hayes, I would have called it a "meeting of Presidents," since both held that specific office. This article made it through a rigorous featured article candidacy without anyone objecting to the capitalization, which suggests to me that those editors, meticulous as they were, agreed with me about the MOS. --Coemgenus 12:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"President of the United States" may deserve to be upper case if it is viewed as a "standard or commonly used name of an office" as per the MOS. It is not a title, which is "a prefix or suffix added to a person's name"; in this case that means the word "President" followed immediately by the name of the individual in question. Please refer again to the MOS: "De Gaulle was a French president" is lower case, even though it refers to a specific president of France, while "President De Gaulle" would be upper case. A great many errors commonly make it through featured article candidacies, so I don't think these are as rigorous as they could be. It may be that some editors believe the issue of upper vs. lower case is too trivial to merit much attention. WolfmanSF (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You may be right. It's certainly not worth an edit war, so I'll leave your changes. As to your other comment, I must disagree: there is nothing to trivial for the Featured Article process.  ;) Coemgenus 01:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-SI density units in Planetbox character template?

Hold it. This is a very bad idea! — Aldaron • T/C 05:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have waited for more discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. However, why is using non-SI density units a bigger problem than using units that many readers (as well as editors) can't grasp, and having a lot of values (as I have just found) that are off by a factor of 1000? WolfmanSF (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That's why the correct approach is to add a new parameter with the new units and a name that indicates units (e.g. density_gcm), leaving the old parameter intact. Doing that would tip off editors that they should pay attention to the units when they enter values. The errors you cite happen for the simple reason that the parameter doesn't specify units and editors probably just assume some, without double-checking what gets displayed—not because they're thinking in g cm^-3. — Aldaron • T/C 05:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

RJH has already admitted he was thrown off because he was thinking in g cm^-3. I can guarantee you other editors will be also. And that many if not most nonspecialist readers will draw a blank when they see values in kg m^-3. At any rate, is this an issue you're interested in dealing with in the near future? WolfmanSF (talk) 05:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

All right, I'll revert the changes and continue discussing this subject for a while, and see where that leads. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I could be completely wrong, but I'd like to see what others say. Especially others who are big exoplanet contributors or in the field. — Aldaron • T/C 05:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. Happy holidays. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Ceres

I like this dif. Solid collaboration! Hiberniantears (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Noronha skink

Thanks for the corrections at the Noronha skink article. I thought I had struck the redundant "floating over" part, but as it turns out I didn't. I'm planning on getting the article to WP:FAC soon, with only a bit more work needed on the "Description" section; do you have any suggestions on how the article can be further improved? Ucucha 01:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

More and better images would be helpful. There are some nice images at Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimsk/124238509/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimsk/790092387/). It might not hurt to contact the photographer, let him know the reason for your interest and ask him if he would be willing to change the copyright to allow uploading into Wikimedia with attribution. Otherwise, the article looks pretty complete to me. It's an interesting story. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. While writing the article, I found more interesting aspects all the time: its diet, its incredible abundance, the weird stuff going on with the helminths. The nomenclature is as messy as it can get (and there is even an additional point of confusion that I haven't covered yet).

You're right about the images; I tend to forget about that with the rodents, which are extremely unlikely to get images. I've written to one of the people who contributed good Flickr images to ask him to release some. Ucucha 02:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, this guy also has a gallery of images of the island (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimsk/sets/25895/) WolfmanSF (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Now look again. :) Ucucha 17:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Much improved. Definite FAC material. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

References

I appreciate your help in working on the Lemur article, but your addition of animals that use self-generated acoustical cues is not supported by the reference I cited. You will either need to find a reference, or the list will have to be deleted. And if you do find a reference, you might want to add the information to the Striped Possum article, where nothing at all is said about this. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually looked at the reference on Google Books, and it lists precisely these species. Ucucha 21:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the Striped Possum article needs work, and better references. The reference listed in the Lemur article does not give enough details to be very useful for the Striped Possum article. WolfmanSF (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a recent paper in Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 97:7–17 on "mammalian woodpeckers", including Daubentonia, Dactylopsila, and perhaps the extinct marsupial Yalkaparidon—an interesting parallel. It doesn't mention echolocation, though. Ucucha 21:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I did not recall that list. Thank you for the correction! – VisionHolder « talk » 21:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Aye-aye acoustics

Won't echolocating shrews also fall under that? That would mean there are not "a few" species outside bats and cetaceans either. Ucucha 20:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

How many echolocating shrews are there? Perhaps further editing is needed. My original motivation for using the term "type" was to point out that the echolocators fall into just a few groups (even though the number of species is quite large). WolfmanSF (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Basically all, I believe; compare this paper. Tenrecs apparently also echolocate [1]. I think it may be best to leave the specific other groups out and use something like "Aye-ayes use acoustic cues, a rare trait among vertebrates" or something (which the cited source explicitly supports) and throw in a link to animal echolocation. Ucucha 21:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

From my perspective, the fact that Malagasy mammals from two different non-flying non-marine groups use echolocation is interesting enough that it would be a shame not to mention it. However, I don't have time to do further editing now. Somehow, we have to avoid using "rare" in a species context where it doesn't make sense (given bat and cetacean diversity).WolfmanSF (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of this edit? We're in a summary article about lemurs here, so I think details about exactly which other unrelated groups have the same trait are overkill. It's highly relevant to the Aye-aye article, however, as you say. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if other similar groups, like small opossums and dasyuromorphians or sengis would also be found to use echolocation. Ucucha 21:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right, the list was getting a bit long. It's enough to indicate that it is unique among primates. WolfmanSF (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Marsh rice rat

See Talk:Marsh rice rat#Sigmodontinae. Ucucha 17:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Earthen Grave 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Earthen Grave 1.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  fetchcomms☛ 18:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I know you wrote "I was unable to find a suitable free content alternative", but as they appear to still be together, it's still possible to obtain a free image of it.  fetchcomms☛ 18:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You're correct, clearly someone could replace it (although I can't). WolfmanSF (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears the image will have to go. The alternative is to obtain a suitable copyright license, which might be possible. WolfmanSF (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Megafauna

I like your megafauna lists. Given the vagaries of the definition of the term, though, I think you'll have a hard time convincing the community to keep them in the article space. I wish you luck. Abyssal (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to the ones in my name space? I haven't actually worked on those much yet; I just haven't had time. I asked to have them transferred to my name space after they were deleted. I think they can be salvaged, but it will take some effort. Listing the species by mass as is done for marsupials here may be the way to go. I have done a fair amount of editing of the list in Megafauna. Thanks, anyway. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, here we are, already a topic..Again, the definition of 'megafauna' is a scientific question just as the definition of species...and here is a good review with a consistent definition of Megafauna, appearing in a recent Science issue: 10.1126/science.1172393Amdurbin (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that article doesn't offer a definition per se for megafauna, but just argues that the largest animals in insular environments should be considered megafauna because they play the same relative ecosystem function as the largest animals in continental environments...regardless the Megafauna page seems to lack any rigorous discussion of megafauna definitions, so that is another problem here.Amdurbin (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Lists of Megafauna

Hi- I think your regional/continental lists of megafauna are excellent and they deserve to be standalone pages and improved by the Wikipedia community. For example, I think any Wikipedia discussion of eg African ecology should link to a list of megafauna, and I am surprised there isn't one (other biomes have faunal lists, etc.). I think this should include all megafauna from Pleistocene to recent. If you are an editor, perhaps you can get the ball rolling by linking from pages such as African ecology and African fauna. Also, as far as definition of megafauna, this recent review in Science makes a good argument for a consistent definition of megafauna: <10.1126/science.1172393>

In the meantime I will add a few to your African list.. Amdurbin (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

They aren't really my lists, they just got stashed in my name space when they were deleted from article space. I still think the idea of adding body mass values to as many of the entries on the lists as is practical is a good one. These articles can't be linked from other articles until they are accepted back into article space. WolfmanSF (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

MSW3 templates

Awesome job expanding/updating them! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My idea is to have a separate template available for each separately authored section, but that will take a little longer. WolfmanSF (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Equus caballus in South America

Firstly I thank you for your diplomacy--you're the only person I've encountered on Wikipedia who hasn't screamed at me for disagreeing with you. I did believe that this was a mistake, as I frequently find animals on the La Brea Tar Pits page that most certainly do not belong there.

I still find myself doubtful as to the species in question however. I find it difficult to believe that the literal domestic horse, Equus ferus caballus was present in South America and not a related species such as Przewalskii's horse--doppelgangers of which are already known from Alaska. Is there an alternate approach to horse nomenclature at play here? 71.43.182.92 (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(I saw this on my watchlist and was interested by the subject, so I looked around a ltitle.) I think the issue with your interpretation is that the specific name used in the Interchange article for the entire horse species (including domestic horses, Przewalski's, and tarpans) is Equus caballus. This is technically wrong (I believe), but often seen in the literature. That said, apparently Pleistocene American horses had some of the same DNA sequences that are still present in domestic horses. Ucucha 16:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't noticed that the authors' nomenclature was inconsistent with the Wikipedia Equus article. It does appear to be consistent with MSW3, however (where the variations in usage are discussed): http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/browse.asp?id=14100015 I've adjusted the Great American Interchange article according. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer rights

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

New MSW3 template

Just to let you know, I started a discussion of your new {{MSW3 Primates}} template on WT:PRIMATE. I wanted to make people aware that it exists, and it gives people a chance to address any concerns that might be shared by members of the WikiProject. Overall, it looks like a good reference template. Thanks. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. There are new templates to every separately authored section of MSW3; see documentation for MSW3 templates. WolfmanSF (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Dzungarian Gate

My thanks for your very helpful edits to the article, and I hope you like the picture of Zhang Qian you inspired me to add.μηδείς (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Medeis, thanks for your work in creating this interesting article. I certainly hope my edits were helpful, but it was actually PericlesofAthens (talk | contribs) who mentioned Zhang Qian. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops! I swear I am going blind. I did notice and appreciate your edits as well, and was surprised to see the above comments when I came here to thank you. LOL. I do have to say I was quite surprised this article didn't already exist when I went to look for it.μηδείς (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of battles by casualties

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of battles by casualties, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles by casualties. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rubikonchik (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi Wolfman! I'm french contributor, I have a question for you. I translated the article Deep-sea gigantism in French and I would to know if you have found these few species, in this diff, in a book or you have found from your knowledge? Because I know a scientist french magazine has copied my article gigantisme abyssal, with the same list of species, in the same order. I would be sure no exists a book with the same list! Thanks! Best regards--Citron (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Citron, at this point I can tell you that the contribution was based neither on a book nor my previous knowledge, but on information from the web including Wikipedia. However, it is quite difficult to reconstruct exactly where I obtained the information because the web has changed so much in 2 years. Now, if you search for the list in the same order, you will locate mostly copies and derivations of the Wikipedia article. Hope that helps. WolfmanSF (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If the magazine has used the same list in the same order, very likely they did copy your Wikipedia article. That is commonly done. WolfmanSF (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wolfman, thank you for the information, I think that they really copy my article, I sent them a letter! Cordialy --Citron (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting Jupiter Trojan

"Trojan" is a proper noun, like "Londoner" or "Parisian". It should be capitalised in any situation. Serendi^podous 23:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

And please never move articles by copy/pasting, this breaks the article history. Ask help or/and discuss at a talk page first. An article with a brown star at the top right corner (i.e. a featured article) has gone through extra scrutiny by at least several editors. Surely, it may contain blunders, but often those might only appear as blunders. A usual habit is to post proposed (if major) changes at its talk page first. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"Trojan", as referring to a resident of Troy, is not actually a proper noun, because it refers to a class of people; proper nouns only refer to things that are unique. It is capitalized because it has the same spelling as the proper adjective, and can be viewed as shorthand for a term involving a proper adjective ("Trojan resident"). Likewise, "Londoner" is not a proper noun, but is capitalized because the word is a derivation of and reference to a proper noun, the name of the city. In the case of a "Trojan" asteroid, as referring to an asteroid named after a participant of the Trojan War, it can be viewed as a proper adjective (although I don't think this the only way it could be viewed). However, as a noun referring to a class of solar system objects that reside near a Lagrangian point of a more massive body, and which are not necessarily named after anything in particular, "trojan" is not a proper noun, any more than "planet" is a proper noun. The capitalization rule for a capitonym should then be applied, making it lower case. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great, but this is still WP:OR. My Oxford dictionary specifically spells out "A Trojan asteroid" in its entry for Trojan. It is really difficult to prove that Trojan is a capitonym as I know no usage of this word which is not (indirectly) linked to Troy. Materialscientist (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Pan wakes

Hi Wolfman. If you can get a hold of this book, which in general is excellent, section 13.2.2 describes the mechanism by which wavy edges and wakes form around the Encke Gap. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I've been looking around for some papers on the subject as well. By the way, the eccentricity of Pan's orbit, while small, appears to be nonzero. This has been modeled by M. Seiss et al. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2010.06.013) and J. Weiss et al. (http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138/1/272). WolfmanSF (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did misspeak about that. Pan's eccentricity was indistinguishable from zero a few years ago, but now does have a detectable value. The papers you cite show that Pan's eccentricity can have a secondary effect on the shape of the wakes, but it does not cause them. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Book is on-line at http://books.google.com/?id=M56CHHxVMP4C&printsec=frontcover; the relevant section begins at page 381. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HD 10180

-- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

		The Space Barnstar
		Very nice work on HD 10180!! —hike395 (talk) 03:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Gliese 581 g

Hello, WolfmanSF. You have new messages at Viriditas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Gliese 581 system tidal locking

Hi Gabriel, you added a statement to the Gliese 581 g article to the effect that there are planets between Gliese 581 g and the parent star that are not tidally locked, and then in support mentioned the eccentricity of Gliese 581 d, which is outward from Gliese 581 g. You also mentioned that eccentricities that could be up to 0.2, which to my way of thinking means that they might not be tidally locked, not that they are not tidally locked. The content of the Tidal locking article doesn't support the claim. I don't see any support for this idea in the other articles on the Gliese 581 system, either. Do you have any reference(s) or arguments to the effect that planets inward of Gliese 581 g are not tidally locked? Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Did they change it yet again, maybe I didn't mean Gliese 581 d, perhaps it was Gliese 581 c, they keep changing their story, in any case the 0.2 maximum looked like confirmation to me that they still could have some eccentricity and if Gliese 581 c was up there, what was it 0.17 or something like that, that is still under 0.2 and that also doesn't seem likely to be fully tidally locked with such a high eccentricity, 10 times that of the Earth. I only added it back because it seems like a novelty to me, the example of the planet that is tidally locked because of it's size more than it's distance, while the larger close one is not, and that it can happen is unique. That's all.GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way don't take it personally that I don't leave anything on my talkpage, I'm just checking in on all the nonsense; my local newscast just today said this new planet was habitable for people and that shit has got to stop. After a balance is struck in this article I will re-retire.GabrielVelasquez (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

My impression is we don't know for sure about the inward planets being tidally locked or not, so perhaps we don't need to speculate about that. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, remove it, but there is one this you can't argue with me on: Habitability. When I tell you that my local news says this new planet is "habitable for people," what does that make you think?? It tells me that the use of the term habitable in the article has to be qualified with "extremophile forms of life." The associated press, quoted in my local paper, wrote a very good article that did just that qualifying it very well. If we can find that online I think it should be referenced in the article. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that given our limited knowledge, everything needs to be qualified, including over-enthuasiatic statements by the press and scientists. At the same time, there are reasons to suspect that the greenhouse effect there is stronger than here (due to the greater fraction of Gliese 581's radiation being in the infrared, and the likelihood of a more massive atmosphere), so it is still possible that life there would not be restricted to extremophiles. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Get a grip man, Could be stronger and could be zero. It's nonsensical to allow this irresponsible speculation to run wild. If you have to go there include them both. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"Life on other planets doesn't mean E.T. Even a simple single-cell bacteria or the equivalent of shower mold would shake perceptions about the uniqueness of life on Earth." <- Associated Press. - GabrielVelasquez (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that story is currently reference #2. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was the one who added it between commenting here and you noticing it, 8P - GabrielVelasquez (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad you got around to re/reading the Gliese 581 c article and understand comparisons are a good thing. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I should ask, since now I'm being badgered at Gliese 581 g, was your acceptance of the comparison to Mars (even if only in temperature) a concession or a conversion?? GabrielVelasquez (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As originally written, the comparison to Mars was 4 sentences, and followed the section claiming that the published data was "less optimistic". It seemed to imply that the values for Mars were supporting the case that the habitability of Gliese 581 g was doubtful. That implication was what I objected to the most. Now that the Mars discussion has been condensed to 2 sentences and is being presented as a simple comparison, it's less objectionable from my standpoint. I'm closer to being neutral about it. It might be worth adding another sentence to improve it. WolfmanSF (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581_g#Temperatures
I know this is more than a sentence, but what do you think? GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the table may be useful, but it needs a few edits (see my changes) WolfmanSF (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Edits by Drbogdan

User:Drbogdan has made an effort to discuss his proposed edits on the talk page. Could you join that discussion? He has been very civil and gracious, and I think we can accommodate his edits without deleting them. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

In my view, the criterion for whether edits should be retained is whether they make a positive contribution to the article. Whether the editor is civil and gracious is really not the issue. WolfmanSF (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but I think you've entirely missed the point. You reverted Drbogdan and deleted his edits without responding to the civil discussion about his edits on the talk page first. That's not how we do things here. I realize you are more on the content side of things, and I appreciate your expertise. We need more people like you that are on the content side, so for that I thank you. However, at the end of the day, Wikipedia is written by editors, not machines, and we have guidelines and policies to help us best interact with each other in a harmonious and collaborative environment. Reverting and deleting content contributed by an editor who has previously discussed said content in a civil and gracious manner without first responding to that discussion is not helpful. You may be interested in WP:BRD among other things. Viriditas (talk) 10:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but it never occurred to me to look on the talk page for a discussion for that particular edit. I'm happy to join a discussion whose existence I've been alerted to, but you can't expect editors to check the talk page before every little edit they make. WolfmanSF (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you use a watchlist? Recent changes? How do you keep on top of revisions? Viriditas (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I tend not to add heavily edited articles to my watchlist. If I've been active in editing a given article, I do often scan its history. WolfmanSF (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

Although the lead can be improved, I think the changes by several editors have made it more difficult for our readers. It is very important to remember that we are not writing for astro geeks nor for professionals, but for people we assume know nothing about the topic. For this reason a certain amount of redundancy is not only acceptable but encouraged, as a way to take the reader by the hand and immerse them in the subject while also maintaining their interest. As an example, I will show you the last version prior to your most recent edits:

Studies indicate that the planet is located in the habitable zone of its parent star, where the stability of liquid water is important to sustain life. In an environment where it is neither too hot nor too cold, Gliese 581 g is believed to be the first Goldilocks planet found outside the Solar System, and a candidate for the most Earth-like exoplanet with the greatest potential for harboring life found so far.

As a generalist encyclopedia, we first introduce the reader to several ideas, which while redundant to an expert, are stepping stones for an editor who doesn't know the topic. The introductory sentence is an overview, bringing the reader up to date with the latest findings from a new study. A term, HZ, is also given to the reader, with a concise definition attached. Now that the reader knows what we are talking about, we can explain a bit more in the second sentence, and indicate the importance of the finding. Notice also, the importance of linked items represents takeaway subjects: habitable zone, Goldilocks planet, Solar System, and most importantly, Earth-like exoplanet. So, while an expert like yourself might find this annoying, when we write for a general reader, we add redundancy to increase readability, and we carefully link to key topics that can help the reader understand what it is we are talking about. I feel that your latest revision to the lead did not take any of these things into account, and decreased the level of readability a general reader will require. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think I've improved the explanation of the "habitable zone" concept. "Habitable zone" does not imply liquid water is stable there, only that it could be. I tried not to remove any useful links. The addition of the mass estimate was needed. Almost any native English-speaker would know that "Goldilocks" implies neither "neither too hot nor too cold". I honestly don't think anything is gained by piling "most Earth-like" on top of "greatest potential for harboring life". In short, I think you may underestimate the readers a bit.

If you think it needs more work, have another go at it, but please don't revert all my edits. Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, and your linking of terrestrial planet is discouraged per WP:EGG for the same reasons I state above. We write for the general reader, not astro geeks. Lots of problems here, and the linking is neither correct or helpful. The reason that basic key words and topics were linked in the previous version is to help readers who do not know the topic. Those are the people we are writing for, and the lead is tailored in such a way that we draw the reader in slowly and deliberately. Try writing in a way that does this. Your removal of links to these basic concepts and ideas is not helpful. Honestly, I don't know who you are writing for, but we should be careful not to write for ourselves or our peers. I believe the previous version best reflected the secondary sources and the overall subject using simplicity, redundancy, and clarity. We should work from that starting point. Viriditas (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not remove a single link. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I explained the problem above. Read EGG. Viriditas (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the piped link and expanded the explanations a bit to try to address your concerns. If it still falls short, you'll have to take over from here. I'm done for the night. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The most common, primary terms are still not linked in the lead section, and this is not best practice. If you make a list of the most common terms used in the secondary sources, the reader should find these terms linked in the lead. That's what I did previously, and you removed it. The lead is supposed to standalone as a summary of the topic, and the reader should be able to scan it to get an easy to follow list of keywords that they can explore easily and without effort. It might help if you would review actual, published encyclopedia articles and other tertiary sources covering astronomy, written for the general reader. You'll find that instead of links, they use bolded or italicized index terms. This style might have escaped your attention. Basically, our reader should be able to understand the entire topic from just reading the lead section. Technical analysis and fine detail is welcome in the body, preferably in the "meatier" sections. This is why it helps to have at least two paragraphs in each section, with the first introducing the reader to the topic, and the second, explaining the technical details. Viriditas (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What links are you talking about? I didn't remove any links. If any of the links you added are missing, they must have been removed by some other editor. Please recheck the article history. WolfmanSF (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Lots of stuff was removed. For example, you removed a link to "Earth-like exoplanet", which has great currency in the literature, and you replaced it with "Earth-like Goldilocks planet", which is used approximately zero times. You also replaced "stability of liquid water" which is again, a term with wide currency in the astrobiological literature, with "the presence of liquid water", which does not. There are many other instances of non-standard wording that you have added for reasons I do not understand. I go from the literature, based on the literature, and try not to deviate from it. Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"Earth-like exoplanet" was part of the piped link to "Terrestrial planet#Most Earth-like exoplanets" which is still there. "Earth-like" and "Goldilocks planet" are two separate links. As I said before, I did not remove any links. I did change some phrases. "Stability of liquid water" and "presence of liquid water" mean the same thing, and the latter makes more sense in the context where it was used. WolfmanSF (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, it was Styath who created the "most Earth-like Goldilocks planet" phrase; I'm not happy with that either. I would like to delete the term "Goldilocks planet" from the intro, as I don't think it adds anything, but no doubt others would complain. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)