User talk:Lithopsian/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Ansar al-Din

Hi. See that you've reverted the change of this redirect into a dab a couple of times. And first let me say I'm not disagreeing with you, but I wanted to understand your rationale that Ansar Dine is the Primary topic? Why do you feel that has precedence over Ansar al-Din Front? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Onel5969:, I've seen you about a lot tidying up these articles. I see a lot of redirects getting converted to dab pages, very often with only two entries. WP:TWODABS applies, and in the vast majority of cases a redirect and possibly a hatnote will be more appropriate than sending everybody to a dab page to think again about where they want to go. First, I look at incoming links. If there are lots and they predominantly want the old redirect, then I just change it back to a redirect. If there are mixed or ambiguous incoming links, or none at all, then I look to pageviews to see if one is far more read than the other. This isn't proof that the redirect should go to the more common article, but if it seems reasonable and matches the original redirect, then I revert. If pageviews is inconclusive or it appears possible that the users of the redirect would not largely want the original target, then I dig further. In this case, incoming links heavily favoured the original redirect, although most have now been edited out. Pageviews show Ansar Dine is by far the more read article, but not 100% conclusive for me. The articles claim that Ansar al-din is an alternative name for Ansar Dine, but not for Ansar al din Front - the "Ansar al-din" just happens to be part of the name which is Jabhat Ansar al-Din when transliterated from Arabic. Hence the original redirect is most helpful to anyone looking for "Ansar al-din", although a hatnote would seem necessary because of the obvious similarity in the names. Lithopsian (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the in-depth explanation. I also see you around a bit, and have respected your edits. That's one of the reasons I wanted to hear your rationale. I had marked the dab as "reviewed" yesterday, as I considered it a plausible change from a redirect, then saw it back again today, and saw that you had reversed it twice. I tend to shy away from page views, as they can sometimes be effected by WP:RECENTISM, and so the two pages seemed of similar importance to me. But I completely get your rationale. And thanks for all you do.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

2MASS J0523-1403

In the intro of the work cited ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.1736 ) "While evolutionary models predict the minimal stellar mass to be anywhere from 0.070M⊙ to 0.077M⊙"

In the conclusion "We find strong evidence for the local minimum in radius signaling the stellar/substellar boundary close to the locus of 2MASS J0523-1403 at Teff ∼ 2075K, (R/R⊙) ∼ 0.086, and log(L/L⊙) ∼ −3.9. "

The latter concludes it is at the boundary, and the former gives the mass of the boundary, so wouldn't it follow that its mass is at the boundary. Unless you are calling this basic logic synthesis, I had assume synthesis only applied for different sources. Agmartin (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The important word there would be "close". There is no way of telling how close without interpreting the various diagrams. While synthesis would be taking different sources and making a fresh claim not in any of the individual sources, interpretion of the information in a single source to reach a conclusion not stated explicitly by that source (and not a routine calculation) is still original research. There should be a way of expressing the information about the nature of the star without deriving particular numbers that aren't in the source; for example, something like "... is near the smallest mass possible for a (adjective of some sort?) star, which is predicted to be between 0.070 and 0.077". It can follow on naturally from the claims about values which are the smallest known for a main sequence star. BTW, Gaia DR2 finds a parallax somewhat smaller than Hipparcos, hence a higher luminosity, so things might be different if the research was done today. But then so does SSSPM J0829-1309, so who knows. Of more relevance to the article, there is newer research that does explicitly state a mass for 2MASS J0523-1403, and several very recent papers that discuss it in relation to the stellar mass limit, so maybe the article should get a spruce up. Lithopsian (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I added a sentence about the minimum stellar mass in the following paragraph so the reader can do their own logic if you would prefer to remove the 0.08 M_☉ as synthesis. Agmartin (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Enthusiasm for any other stars...?

(also pinging @Praemonitus:) any other stars pique interest? Trying to finish Alpha Centauri? Working down the brightness list - Canopus? Arcturus? Fomalhaut (with its planet)? Deneb (another highly luminous one)? Algol? Polaris (brightest cepheid)? R136a1? P Cygni? Mira Ceti? Antares? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lithopsian and Casliber: There's a list of level 4 VA stars here that could make good targets. Polaris came to mind for me earlier. It's probably the most well-known star in general, so it could make an interesting front page read. A couple of other potential interesting targets are the Pleiades or the Hyades (star cluster). A more obscure alternative might be Sigma Octantis. Praemonitus (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I was trying to think of stars with a bit of substance. Polaris is multiple and a cepheid, Fomalhaut with its dust disk and planet (or not?), that list is a little subjective I feel (Antares I'd have thought more notable than Procyon but who knows...). Hadn't thought of star clusters. I often find enthusiasm really drives these...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

In terms of available scholarly sources for the aforementioned stars, R136a1 appears to lead the list. Praemonitus (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Enthusiasm is rock-bottom at the moment. Most of the stars you mention have loads of literature and the articles are already fairly bulky (P Cygni is surprisingly brief considering its uniqueness, but also probably not so well-known to most people), and should only need a relatively small amount of work to knock them into shape. Unfortunately, any attempt to do so seems to be rapidly plunged into a chaos of disruptive edits. The star cluster idea is interesting, I'll do some reading and see what sort of material is out there that could go in the articles. Lithopsian (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I do most of my star article editing on a sandbox page so I can avoid editing conflicts before it's ready for posting. Praemonitus (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Cut and paste page move

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Winter triangle a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Winter Triangle. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge.
Because this is a very important astronomy article, and for copyright attribution purposes, a history merge from Winter triangle to Winter Triangle has been requested. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  04:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Vranduk: place name disambiguation

Hi Lithopsian!

I created a new article for the abandoned Republika Srpska village with the same name as the undoubtedly better known village on the Bosna River. The deserted village near Doboj was populated by nearly 200 Croats before the war und is therefore not irrelevant, as is reflected by five non-english articles. The Croats were probably expelled by the Bosnian Serbs during or short after the war. I hope You agree, that the place name disambiguation page has its justification. Aarp65 (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I saw, but thanks for letting me know. However, I disagree that a disambiguation page is required. See WP:TWODABS and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for a complete explanation of the policies. When there are two pages to disambiguate (and potentially when there are more) one is likely to be a primary topic. You admit that one is much better-known. In those cases, the ambiguous name should be a redirect to the primary topic, and it should (usually) have a hatnote to direct the small number of readers wanting the other article to the correct place. No disambiguation page is needed when there are only two articles. Note that this has nothing to do with "fairness", "symmetry", or "completeness". It is simply putting the most readers where they want to be in the fewest number of steps. For example, directing the bulk of readers for "Vranduk" and asking them to decide which Vranduk they want is less helpful than just sending them all to Vranduk (Zenica) and then telling perhaps 10% of them that they're in the wrong place and they need to click again to reach Vranduk (Doboj). Even the 10% are getting to the right place just as quickly. Disambiguation pages are only needed when there is no clear primary topic, or when there is a primary topic but there are so many other possibilities that they can't be clearly indicated in hatnotes. Lithopsian (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Stellar classification

I've just landed on this page. Does the IP look to you like a sock of all the recent Danny Daniel type accounts? If so, that's block evasion and the IP needs reporting and blocking. Do you want to request WP:RPP for this page, or are you OK to keep on top of it? Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Could well be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat, a different name or IP virtually every day. Stellar classification seems to have been a focus the last week or two. I can revert easily enough, but I'm not here every hour of the day, so maybe some protection might make more sense. Lithopsian (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've made a temporary semi-protection request for Stellar classification. As you're closer to the action, and know the topic well, are you OK with putting in an SPI request? Nick Moyes (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that should quiet things down a little. I'll give the SPI a try, something I really should learn how to do. Lithopsian (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, me to. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Further Evidence of Disruptive Editing

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

Why. On the article page Rigel, you made this aggressive edit[1] and commented that: "confusing to mix up WDS discoverer codes with double star designations." Clearly, the material here is properly cited, relevant and is explicit. As you perfectly well know, this was added by compromise and consensus from lengthy discussions on the talkpage. Your previous attempt and chances to discuss this was including under the section "Unhelpful edits on Rigel's Nomenclature"[2] You've seemingly ignored it.

Under this talkpage section, I have openly said to you: "Upon the above evidence, I have therefore justifiable reverted much of this modified text. I welcome any counterarguments within my expertise in this subject matter." As you didn't respond, nor seek consensus, but just reverted it again. You were even advised your previous attempt: "…. it almost crosses into vandalism and deliberate provocation." This latest aggressive attack shows I was not wrong. The evidence as as stated above points towards deliberate disruptive editing.

You've also openly declare your intent to ignore me[3] and there has already been a claim of disruptive editing made here[4] Surely, any editor is unwilling to engage in obtaining consensus means that any revert if they disagree is probably justified.

Further provocation reverts which openly ignore previous/active discussions, reversion of reasonable compromised and consensus edits, with properly cited text, will evoke a more drastic responses via ANI. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't threaten me. Lithopsian (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

More Disruptive Editing

Please stop your disruptive editing as you did in the Rigel article here.[5] Claiming "remove petty tagging - it may be possible to improve the wording but it doesn't warrant a wall of templates" is unjustified, especially because to refuse to engage with Arianewiki1 and your previous revert here.[6] If you are unable to be willing to correct the problems, then the tagging is necessary so others can know about it or fix it.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I have again added the tag, because the second reference still contradicts the 2nd sentence. Adding the new reference is good, but doesn't exactly solve the problem. As you have not responded on the article's talkpage here[7], and not following BRD, so challenging this. Detag specifically says: "If the person placing the tag has explained their concerns on the talk page, then anyone who disagrees should join the discussion and explain why the tag seems inappropriate. If there is no reply within a reasonable amount of time (a few days), the tag can be removed by any editor without a conflict of interest. If there is disagreement, then normal talk page discussion should proceed, per consensus-building." I've explained the rational. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Double Star Designations for Rigel ; Prove It

@Ritchie333: This particular edit[8] on the article Rigel. Claiming "misrepresentation of WDS discoverer codes " is just bizarre. STF 668A,BC, BU 555AD, BU 555BC. all appear in the WDS. STF 688B, BU 555Ba, BU555Bb, BC 555C and BU 555D are the 'official' star designations, because they are implicit and the cites also show such usage. e.g. Dickel (2000) and his figure.

So instead of again blanking this text, either explain yourself or properly justify that this statement is wrong. (To date you have not done this.) When you previously said: "confusing to mix up WDS discoverer codes with double star designations" here[9] I explained it here[10] under 'Unhelpful edits on Rigel's Nomenclature'. You've never refuted it, thus you do not have consensus.

Change these statement again, and, this time, an ANI will certainly follow.

Note: I will keep on pinging this admins, because these changes are tantamount to entrapment with edit warring, in which I feel you are seemingly far too enthusiastic to exploit and get me blocked. Transparency seems to be only means of resistance here. I do caution you here just in case it boomeranging back on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arianewiki1 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:@Ritchie333: Is this you saying "Lithopsian here before anyone goes mental about sockpuppets"? [11] Using multiple account to enforce a POV is against policy, specifically, logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address.Sock and badsock. It is also evidence of gaming the system and straying into stonewalling / filibustering by attempting to twist Wikipedia sanctions or processes to harass other editors. Worse there is clear evidence of gaming of sanctions for disruptive behavior.

A claim to revert edits because they do not have edit comment is not a reason to do so. Policy is crystal clear. H:FIES makes clear, it is not a requirement to provide edit summaries. That section notes that it can increase the risk of edits being reverted if their purpose is unclear, but does not authorise this. As H:ES says "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." There is no justification to revert any edit just because it does not have an edit summary. As you are already aware of the logic and discussions, there can be no ambiguity of there purpose.

I have also pinged Ritchie333 here to be aware of your continuing problematic edits and the attempt in circumventing the rules of normal editing principles. If you have deliberately used an IP address, and have used as an excuse to remove them because there was no edit comment(s) (especially when already just been explained to you here[12]), then this is becoming a pattern of disruptive editing by not engaging in consensus building - especially by repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arianewiki1 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Lithopsian. You have new messages at Arianewiki1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arianewiki1 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Tabit

Oops, my bad. Not in Kunitzsch. But in Allen and other sources, T(h)abit is the name for several stars. They aren't reliably distinguished by spelling. The IAU just picked one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwamikagami (talk • contribs) 19:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC) (actually, I did sign, but there was an error on this page that prevented it from going through.)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Acrux and Mimosa

Just to let you know, I have changed the the star names of the stars constellation of Crux, from Alpha Crucis to Acrux. I have modified similarly to the IAU official names equally to the other stars Mimosa. I have not, completely edited the page, but will apply the sane system used in Rigel to be similar, and there are many errors. Kindly do not revert until I;m able to make this compliant. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Article "Star" image of Mira.

I see you reverted my change with the comment to stick to the originally published image. But the image I uploaded is this original image, simply converted from tiff format to png. And if you open the source link on the old jpeg file, you will see that the jpeg available there isn't even the same resolution as the one you restored, don't know if someone resized it or where it's from. I tried better jpeg quality first, but even 100% still looks much worse than png, so I uploaded it as that. FriedrichKieferer (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

If the jpg image is definitely worse the published images then it should either be fixed or deleted. We don't want two identical images in different formats. Being scaled down from an already-small size is wrong in itself, and a downscaled copy would eventually get deleted anyway. It is used in a lot of places, so it would be nice to be able to just replace the image at the same name. I don't know if that is allowed when the image format is changed. Is the full-fize jpeg really so bad? I don't see it. It looks slightly less pixelated, but otherwise identical. I know the pixels are "real", but still don't have a problem with the image and it would make things very simple. You could simply tag the jpg version: probably {{SupersededPNG}}, but possibly {{duplicate}}, so that people are aware that there are two versions and why. {{Supercedes}} can be used if the new file is simply better. Lithopsian (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the jpeg is worse enough to use the png, and the lossless png is even a smaller file. I see the problem of it being used in more places, I would have just replaced the old one with the png, but wasn't sure if that's allowed either. No idea how the thing with the tags works, haven't done anything of the sort yet. FriedrichKieferer (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Actually I just noticed that the jpeg looks almost the same as png if you disable chroma colour subsampling... I guess for now I will just replace the old jpeg with a better one then and have the jpeg in the article as well, even though I still think eventually it should be lossless, smaller file size, better looking thumbnail etc. FriedrichKieferer (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for this edit.[13] I ran out of time to format the editors in this cite, and was going to fix it when I returned, but you did it for me! Thanks for your diligence. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

"Thusia"

Hi. Any idea what this is? Saw you deleted from Gamma Lupi. Still in List of proper names of stars as if it'd been accepted by the IAU. Should it be deleted from there too? Thanks — kwami (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know the origin of this name. There are a few mentions of it around, possibly all copied from Wikipedia. Or perhaps some astrologers decided it was a good name, it is in a couple of mystical books. I removed it from the article lead because it certainly isn't that important. I left it in the starbox and tagged it. It was added to quite recently. Lithopsian (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Theta Tauri

Hi again. The text and infobox seem to contradict each other as to which star is which. At least, when I tried ID'ing the yellow and white stars in the image, I'd conclude contrary things depending on which part of the article I was reading. Could you double check? Thnx — kwami (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The article is all mixed up, presumably because θ¹ is the fainter component, aka θ Tauri B. Simbad is also somewhat misleading about this. A is the brighter component of the visual double, the hot white star, and is θ². I've edited the properties section, which seemed to be the main offender, and I think it is consistent now. Lithopsian (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Beta Ursae Majoris spectral type

Pardon me, but doesn't the page for Beta Ursae Majoris contradict itself with its spectral type/stellar classification? The infobox uses "A1IVps", but the "Properties" section uses "A1 V". I'm really not familiar with this field, but the difference strikes me as odd. Reversinator (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

You'd be amazed how many different spectral types have been published for this star, and many others for that matter. β UMa has historically been A1V, going back to the 1943 MK Atlas of Stellar Spectra and the Bright Star Catalogue. It was listed as a spectral standard for A1V, so almost by definition that should be what its spectral type is. However, the luminosity class IV was not defined for A1 stars at that time, and when it did become possible to discriminate subgiants for early A stars, β UMa was revised to A0IV. Increasing understanding of chemically peculiar A stars has led to that being further revised to A1IV. I modified the starbox to say A1IVps in 2014. Simbad uses the same value as the preferred MK spectral type. Unfortunately, I didn't update the body or give a reference, so it has been inconsistent and confusing ever since. I'll try to straighten things out. The history of the spectral type might make an interesting little story. Lithopsian (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thank you very much for the explanation! Reversinator (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Re Chrysolina hyperici

Re: Chrysolina hyperici, you say "a redirect is not a synonym, just a pointer to a useful article". Except that in cases as this one the redirect is not useful, on the contrary. It redirects to the original page Chrysolina, giving the false impression that the page exists, when it doesn't. Please look at the links on Chrysolina, you can see at a glance which species have a page and which don't except when a false redirect misleads the reader. There should be no redirect. --Polinizador (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The redirect on Chrysolina quadrigemina is equally misleading. --Polinizador (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

If you don't like the self-links, then remove them. That's somewhat undesirable for when someone finally writes an article, but in this case it is fairly clear that they would add them back in Chrysolina. Linking to a species article that obviously doesn't exist, but has a redirect, is no more helpful than redlinking to all the other species that don't have articles. As for misleading, redirects don't claim any form of "correctness" (and often they are deliberately "incorrect"), they simply do the best they can. Whenever that is better than nothing then they are kept. If you try to delete them again, someone else will slap it down, probably an admin. For future reference, there are very few criteria for speedily deleting a redirect, and if you don't meet them then you're just annoying the admins. You can offer it up at redirects for discussion, but again you'll need a better argument for why it needs to go. Read WP:REDIRECT for general information on what redirects are and aren't for. Lithopsian (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Please, read the ongoing discussion on self-redirects: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Request_for_comment,_qBugbot_and_self-redirects. With several thousands of such self-redirects, we are faced with a colossal mess that only a bot could fix. I am not going to worry about your refusal to delete a mere couple. I hope that Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life manages to solve the problem. --Polinizador (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Get a grip. Go do something productive. Nobody is going to be deleting those redirect pages, not even the proposed bot. If you still feel the need to rant, go do it somewhere else. Lithopsian (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

KOI-4878.01

Greetings. I have reverted your AfD nomination of this article on technical grounds. A previous version of this article had been AfD-nominated and deleted in 2016. Unfortunately, the Page Curation tool which you had used for the new nomination isn't set up to properly handle second and subsequent AfDs on the same title, so it appended to the old discussion rather than creating a new discussion page.

I've set everything back to its previous state so that you can renominate from scratch if you like. If you have Twinkle, it handles re-nominations properly, or you can add the templates by hand. I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept--I came upon this because I follow a bot-edited page which tracks AfDs with potential issues, and I merely saw fit to perform cleanup. Thank you for your understanding. --Finngall ^talk 20:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I didn't check closely enough and missed the previous AfD. Lithopsian (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Rigel POV Templates

There are two templates on Rigel#Nomemclature were added as there are two issues of POV problems within the Rigel article. The reason is to final resolve the POV issues, and we should await investigation by others not associated with these edits in question. It appears listed here[14] and template usage/removal discussion under [2]. Discussion should be made on the Rigel talkpage. Hope this helps. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding coordinates to J1124+4535

I recently created an article for J1124+4535. There is sky-coordinates so I am wondering if you can somehow convert the sky coordinates into the location map. AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

External academic review and publication of Wikipedia pages

Hello, I'm just pinging you again about this because the WikiJournal system for external peer review has been updated a little to make it easier to submit existing wikipedia pages: WP:WikiJournal article nominations. It should be prelatively analogous to WP:FAC. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 04:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Rana and other star names

See Rursus' list. --Bay Flam (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reflist dropping down of sources/cites

Please consider not dropping references into a reflist within articles, like here. [15] It makes it nearly impossible to review the sources, and when edits are changed, to verify those sources. Do so, when two were added by me in Antares, makes it difficult other for editors to check my, or your revisions, to be reviewed -either the cites themselves or the statement/content. . I'm sure you have good intentions, and if were it a 'good article' it might be fine, be perhaps if you leave sometime when doing this, might it might be more helpful. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Huh? The ref is still there - it actually makes it alot easier as the references are then all in the one place. The reference is still at the end of the statement. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Who says it wasn't "still there"? The problem is the reference is placed elsewhere meaning you have to search for the cite away from the statement - often before others can even verify it. This is an editing style that is very frustrating because it disrupts editor's contributions, especially when rearranging or reverting parts of the text. e,g. This edit under Antares#Antares B here[16] . Lithopsian makes seven successive edits here[17], modifying the cites and removing their URLs to check. They remove tags so others can't check it, modify the text, then immediately dump the references in the reflist. They make further modifications here[18]

Any editor trying to check or further improve the article is near impossible. If they left the cites in place (and didn't remove the URLs) until some consensus is achieved, it would make editing articles a whole lot easier. That's the point. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR recommends (mandates, even) not breaking an existing consistent citation style within an article. For Antares that is CS1 citations in the reflist. Lithopsian (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

True statement except it was you who decided / changed the Antares citation style here[19], and prior to this date, the style was not this. You also imposed the style on Rigel here[20]. There are other instances too.

WP:CITEVAR also says: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." It also says under To be 'avoided'': "changing where the references are defined, e.g. moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist." Have you not done this?

The extended explanation in the example given to Cas Liber explains to problems this generates. Fair? Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

And another discussion descends into a paranoid rant with little relation to the real world. If you don't like the policy, take it up at the policy page. If you don't like the functionality at all, take it up at the template. If you seriously think I'm contravening the policy, now or two years ago, you know where to go. Discussion over, here at least. Lithopsian (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Why did you erase the edit for Theta Persei?

That was a factual edit And there is supporting documentation. Kriliokonc (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have given an edit summary for that revert. The reference you gave for that sentence is a defunct website, so probably not the most WP:RELIABLE source. There is an archived copy of the page, but it does not include the name you gave - uncited material can be removed at any time and if it looks unlikely it will be removed immediately. Lithopsian (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Will you stop removing my edit. Leave it alone. Kriliokonc (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll let someone else remove it. I suggest you stop replacing the same content or you may end up being banned from Wikipedia because of disruptive editing. I realise you believe you have bought the right to name this star, but that's not how it works in the real world or in Wikipedia. You don't get to choose the name of stars no matter who you give money to. Sorry. Lithopsian (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's a web page that may help to explain. Lithopsian (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Floor van Leeuwen

Regarding {{R:Van Leeuwen 2007 Validation of the new Hipparcos reduction}}, it's true that the citation usually truncates the first name, but that's no reason for excluding that datum. Displaying first names as initials is a rendering style decision which should not be enforced by deletion. Why increase entropy? Urhixidur (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Please stop undoing changes to local Scout Camp, D-Bar-A.

Our council's page is bloated with local camp information. I am removing it from the Council's page and creating a separate page for the camp. None of the information is new or changed, simply presented cleaner on its own page. Undoing my changes is neither friendly nor helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pale Horse One (talk • contribs) 20:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Friendly, perhaps not, but certainly helpful. You can't just write what you want in Wikipedia, even if you own the scout camp. It must be verifiable in (preferably multiple) reliable sources. Please familiarise yourself with these policies before re-instating the page again. Splitting out a page from another article also isn't a "right" - if people object then you must discuss it. Just plowing on making the same changes over and over when other editors object will get you blocked. Of you are going to add sources later, then you might want to work in your own sandbox, or on a draft page, before publishing the new article in one go. If you have a close connection (see conflict of interest), then it is best to declare it up front to avoid later accusations of bias. Lithopsian (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize you had sole authority on how information is presented on Wikipedia. The information is there and it is verifiable. Point to one thing that is not verifiable and I'll change it. Just because you like it one way, doesn't make it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pale Horse One (talk • contribs) 23:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

If I may, @Pale Horse One: verifiable means a reader can check the facts in an article by looking at the sources that are cited in the article. Since your article has no sources, it is entirely unverifiable by readers. Railfan23 (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

And it has a source. Further, this is information that has been on Wikipedia for 6+ years. I'm moving it from the Council's page to it's own dedicated page. Pale Horse One (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pale Horse One: The sources you've added aren't independent, published ones. Just because an article has been breaking the rules for 6+ years, doesn't mean it can continue to break them. At the moment both D-bar-A Scout Ranch and Edward N. Cole Canoe Base have multiple serious issues, especially with a lack of notabilityand verifiability. Unless you are able to fix these issues both articles are likely to be deleted, or redirected. Railfan23 (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a scholarly discussion with peer-reviewed third-party publishings. This is information about a scout camp. I feel the best verification is the actual information published by camp. As far as notibility. I think a camp that has been in existence for 60+ years with over 10,000+ scouts having attended is fairly notable. Certainly more notable than the "Cash me outside" girl, but you seem to have no problem with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pale Horse One (talk • contribs) 23:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Libertarian Capitalism

Please stop your disruptive editing (reverting) of the Libertarian Capitalism article and the Right Libertarian article. Thank you. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Constellations

Both you and AtticSalt have reverted my edits to the constellations entry without giving reasons. What do you find wrong with them? Would you like to consult an expert such as AstroLynx for his opinion? FYI, I was trying to get it back closer to where it was in June 2017 before it was messed about with by ArianeWiki, among others https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constellation&oldid=787775346 Skeptic2 (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Hopefully, we can have a more constructive discussion this time round, and get a good solution. Bring in anyone you think would be interested, or perhaps they're still watching the article and will chime in if they feel the need. Lithopsian (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, thanks for sorting out the inappropriate redirect page edit I had made – entirely understood. Springnuts (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

(Earl of Springnuts (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Zetland!! Springnuts (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:FS Canis majoris variables

A tag has been placed on Category:FS Canis majoris variables requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Xeon W

I do not understand the reason for your reverting my change to a disambiguation page. There is no primary topic in this case. The problem is that with the redirect, searching for 'Xeon W' takes you to only one page, which hides the other case. Please explain. - Tystnaden (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a common confusion about disambiguation pages. They are not a popularity contest (and definitely not an attempt to drive traffic to a new article!), not a database, not something where symmetry or completeness (or even accuracy) matters - it is a simple case of sending the most possible readers to where they want to be with the least possible thought or clicks. Sending anyone to a dab page is a failure 99% of the time, it is not where they want to be. There is nearly always a primary topic when there are only two dab pages, and quite often when there are more. One will inevitably be a more likely target than the other (although it may be hard to work out which, read the policy for lots of detail). With two dabs (read the policy), a hatnote on the redirect target should be used to alert the minority of readers that end up in the "wrong" article as to where they should go. So now over half the readers get to the right place without having to think, and the other half still have to think a bit, big improvement on everyone having to look at a disambiguation page, try to remember what they were looking for, and then try to work out which cryptic title is the right one. There can still be a disambiguation page (eg. XEON W (disambiguation)) even when there is a primary topic, although with only two entries it isn't usually necessary - it can be helpful for hatnotes instead of listing multiple alternate articles. If you really think that the two target articles are exactly equally likely to be the desired landing page for someone interested in "XEON W", then perhaps it could be a dab page instead of a redirect. Even then, is it really going to be meaningful to them? Neither of the target article sections is particularly helpful, just a table in a very long article. It might be more helpful to have a short covering article explaining what a XEON W is and giving some context for the two wikilinks. Consider a set index, similar to a dab page but with more flexibility over layout so that there can be some explanation about the term instead of a bald list of article that may at first glance have nothing to do with it. However, the overriding policy is still to get the most readers where they want to be as easily as possible, so don't create a separate article unless it is likely to be more helpful than sending them straight into one of the main articles. Lithopsian (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not trying to make this a popularity contest. The issue is that a newer generation of processors has now been released this year with the Xeon W marketing name. The new Mac Pro's will contain this newer processor. So, if someone searches for Xeon W, they get taken to the article containing the old processors. Time marches on in the semiconductor industry, and the old is superceded by the new. I am not convinced that adding a hatnote to original target is the right approach. I will create a new disambiguation page, so that the reader gets the option in the search results. Thank you for your time. - Tystnaden (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Creating the disambiguation page does not fix the problem. Using the search still takes you through the redirect. I think that my original approach was the correct one. Okay? - Tystnaden (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? More importantly, did you read the Wikipedia policy pages? What's the point of asking a question, ignoring the answer, and just doing what you wanted again, claiming it is "after discussion"? That's called an edit war, good way to get yourself blocked. If you really think everyone, or at least a majority, wants to read about the new processor series, then change the redirect target. Lithopsian (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I read what you wrote. You said: "If you really think that the two target articles are exactly equally likely to be the desired landing page for someone interested in "XEON W", then perhaps it could be a dab page instead of a redirect." I took that as a concession by you that a dab page could be acceptable in this instance. And, I do think that users today who plug "xeon w" into the search box are just as likely to be looking for info on the new processors as the older generation. It makes sense to allow them to choose which generation they are interested in. Note that I also added the year of introduction for each to the page. - Tystnaden (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

"Setia" not same as "Sezze"

Hi @Lithopsian:, How come page Setia redirected to Sezze? So if I want to make the sub-district Setia in Aceh in Indonesia what shoud I do? Thanks.Joseagush (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Setia is apparently a historical name for a settlement that became modern Sezze. So I understand, but whether it is or it isn't isn't too important. What matters is that the redirect has been in place for some time and a number of other articles link to it, expecting the Italian place. So you can't just take the redirect and make it into an article about something else, because that would break all those links, as well as possible links from outside Wikipedia which we have no way of detecting. If you want to make an article bout Setia in Aceh, then the simplest thing to do would be to call it something like Setia (Aceh) or Setia (Indonesia). If there are multiple Setia's then unless one is overwhelmingly the best-known it is best that articles about them have disambiguated titles. The Setia redirect might one day be made into a disambiguation page, but that isn't usually done when there are only two options. See WP:TWODABS for advice about when to make a disambiguation page and when to just place a hatnote. Sezze already has a hatnote about Setia, notifying about Setia (gastropod). If and when it is appropriate to turn a redirect into a disambiguation page, at a minimum it is polite to track all the Wikipedia links and make sure they are edited to point to the correct place instead of the disambiguation page. Consider whether Setia (disambiguation) is the best name for a DAB page, again because disturbing longstanding redirects can upset links that we can't easily find to fix. Lithopsian (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps worth mentioning, in the extreme case that the overwhelming primary topic for Setia would be the location in Indonesia, the redirect could be trampled on, but there needs to be a fairly strong case for that, and every effort should be made to make related and linked articles point to the right place. Hard to see that being the case here, but always good to know. The very fact that two Setia-related articles have been around for some time and nothing about Aceh suggests it isn't the first thing people think of when Setia is mentioned. Lithopsian (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, its help me much. I am new in english wiki so be grateful if you have any suggest.Joseagush (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Create the article with a title such as Setia (Indonesia). Once it is done and approved, then you can worry about whether Setia should be changed to a redirect to your article, a dab page, or even if your article should be moved over it. Lithopsian (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

San Diego Clippers

Please describe why this topic should not have its own page while Buffalo Braves should. Buffalo Braves, San Diego Clippers, and Los Angeles Clippers are three separate iterations of the basketball franchise and follow the same lineage. Seattle SuperSonics and Oklahoma City Thunder is another example of this. Should the Seattle SuperSonics page be deleted? If additional content is required for the new page, that is understandable. Please advise. Azure1233 (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The reason is the same reason your edits were reverted the first time, the information is (in the opinion of two editors) better in a single article, and certainly not almost entirely repeated in two different articles. Incidentally, you would get far more information back by asking questions on the article talk page, where all involved or interested editors can see it. There are even formal procedures for requesting that content be split out into a separate article (and similar procedures for discussing merges). Just for reference, a "split" involves transferring information from one article to a new one, not just copying it and leaving it in two places. If you go that route, and most people agree that it makes sense, then the changes are not going to get reverted. Your suggestion that because other crap exists, you should create more is just wrong, but by all means open discussions to merge the other articles if you value consistency that highly (check when and why they were split out in the first place, there might be good reasons). You didn't do anything wrong by being bold and making the changes, but making them again after an extremely experienced editor (not me!) reverted them was not the right response. Try bold, revert, discuss, in other words, when someone (anyone) disagrees with your bold moves, talk them out before trying to bludgeon them in again. If your changes have merit, it will quickly become apparent, the reverting editor might even agree with a detailed explanation straight away. Lithopsian (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

Hello Lithopsian, shouldn't MUME redirect to Mume? I thought that this is what you wanted when reading your edit comment. MUME is used for different articles, so according to WP:D we should create a disambiguation page. Right? --Beethoven (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Possibly, but it still leaves dangling wikilinks (unless you fixed them already, I didn't check). Rude to expect someone else to come along and clean up everything that you broke. Click "what links here" to see which pages link to the one you're on; can be an eye-opener, and a good thing to look at when considering whether a page should be a redirect or dab (for example, half of them might already be getting redirected to the wrong page). Standard thing for reviewers to check - sometimes we're in a good mood and will fix a couple, sometimes not ;) Also consider that long-standing redirects may have links from outside Wikipedia that are very difficult to detect and even harder to fix, so think twice before hi-jacking a redirect that has been in place for years. Remember that we aren't building a database where everything has to cross-link exactly consistently; we're building an encyclopaedia where redirects get people to the right article (fingers crossed!) smoothly and quickly, and disambiguation pages don't, so use a redirect when you can identify a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which means almost always if there are WP:TWODABS. Dab pages are simpler for use, but usually worse for readers. It is very tempting to think that a new article must be important, but it is very rarely the primary topic just by virtue of never existing until that day, so an existing redirect should very rarely be converted to a two-entry dab page. All caps is a complex one, it doesn't have to be a redirect to the corresponding normal case dab page if the all-caps usage will predominantly correspond to a particular article. Middle-earth in video games is by far the most viewed of all the articles listed at Mume (by a factor of about a hundred), but it is hard to interpret how many of those are for Multi-Users in Middle-Earth. There's always MUME (disambiguation) if it would be best for MUME to stay as a redirect to an article. Or not; its ironic that two of the pre-existing entries at Mume are really for MUME, one is for MuMe, and none for mume or Mume. Lithopsian (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Request to reconsider uncontroversial move

The policy of all monotypic species articles to link to the genus. I moved Promoniliformis ovocristatus to Promoniliformis as per the norm, but the move was reverted? There is no talk page to shift, so the switch should not have resulted in a revert. Is there a reason that this move should not have been done? Mattximus (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You didn't move. You cut and pasted the contents of one article into another. This is (generally) not allowed. Move it properly and I doubt I'll object, and I doubt anyone else will object. If you don't have the permissions to move it properly, then go to WP:RM as I already suggested. Lithopsian (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

How do I get permission, and whose permission do I need? It's uncontroversial. Mattximus (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Permissions come with time and edits. Depending on your theme, there will be an option in a menu (eg. the more dropdown) to move a page. However, in non-trivial cases, the move can only be done by an admin. Non-trivial means when a page already exists at the new name and basically has more history than simply being created as a redirect. So probably, having already attempted a cut'n'paste move (and been reverted), you won't be able to make the move yourself. In "uncontroversial" cases, you can make a request at WP:RM and it will be done by an admin within a day or so, often just a few hours. You should explain why this case is uncontroversial; many admins will already know, some might not and then you'll end up with a standard move request which is a discussion taking a week or more. Lithopsian (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

This seems like a lot of hoops to go through for an uncontroversial policy based move, and makes editing wikipedia harder than it needs to be. If the result is the exact same, why create barriers to this edit? Why make this so difficult? Mattximus (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Most of the time, you can just do the move yourself. Unfortunately, if you've already done something like pasting masses of text into a redirect (and getting it reverted), Wikipedia can't tell whether that is meaningful content or not, so it won't let you wipe it. The technical request procedure at WP:RM isn't too hard though. Moral of the story, if you'd done it the right way to start with, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Next time, eh :) There must be more monotypic species that you can try it out on. Anything where the genus is a plain redirect that hasn't been messed with. Lithopsian (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Solution

What solution would you suggest, to support your edit? Your thoughts are appreciated. --721FF721 (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Good question! Shun di and hence Shundi have been co-opted into Emperor Shun (disambiguation) as foreign-language forms for Emperor Shun, although the primary topic Emperor Shun doesn't mention this form of the name. The root of the problem is the usage of Shundi both as an equivalent to Emperor Shun and as a separate unrelated word, combined under Emperor Shun (disambiguation). It would seem undesirable to disambiguate terms unrelated to Emperor Shun on that page (although Shundi (fictional kingdom) is already on there). Analysis of page views suggests that by far the most read article related to "Shundi" is Toghon Temur, several times over more often than everything else combined. It also explicitly refers in the lead to "Shundi" as a synonym, so it would seem to be a reasonable WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - hence Shundi could be a redirect to it with a hatnote about the redirect on that page (note that this could still be contentious because it changes long-standing usage, but it is at least in line with WP policy). That would leave a need for a Shundi (disambiguation) page, either redirecting to Emperor Shun (disambiguation) or in addition to it. I'm going to suggest in addition to, despite there being considerable overlap, so that usages for Shundi unrelated to the emperors can be kept out of Emperor Shun (disambiguation).

My last and most concrete suggestion is to create a page Shundi (surname). This should be a set index rather than a disambiguation page; such pages are very common for surnames. It could also give see-also links to Shundi (disambiguation) or even Emperor Shun (disambiguation). Lithopsian (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Great and complete suggestion, I started the surname and the dab page, which are now filled redlinks. Thank you! --721FF721 (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Nemesis theory brought to the next level

http://www.secondsun.net/full.htm#b1

What do you think? Are there any errors? Is it even possible? 118.17.153.51 (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of fringe- and conspiracy-theories. Lithopsian (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: Onychiuridae and Onychiuroidea

No, you don't understand that these pages should not be redirects to the wrong taxon. Now that I created Onychiuridae, see the reasons why. Still the redirect from Onychiuroidea to Poduromorpha should be deleted because it is incorrect. Thanks.--Polinizador (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand perfectly. However, they are called redirects, not synonyms, for a reason. Don't treat them as synonyms, don't think of them as synonyms. They are simply shortcuts that should take someone typing "something" to "somewhere", as opposed to taking them nowhere. They may be mis-spellings, obsolete terms, sections that don't deserve or don't yet have their own article. Or even synonyms! Before you try to delete any more redirects, please read the (very few) speedy deletion criteria that apply to redirects, and a variety of essays such as Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap and RfD outcomes, and their linked pages. Lithopsian (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

In fact, it seems that most of the redirects on page Poduromorpha take you back to the page of origin, which is obviously wrong. I hope you can take care of them. --Polinizador (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a tricky area. Self-redirects are not considered very helpful, for obvious reasons. However, in cases like this, the alternative of not self-redirecting is often worse. The problem is not the redirect, which is helpfully taking people who want to know (for example) about Brachystomellidae to the only place in Wikipedia that will currently tell you anything about it. An alternative is to not link to those pages that don't yet have articles, but that leads to a maintenance problem where a taxon may not in future be linked to an article that exists about a sub-taxon. WP:SELFRED suggests avoiding these, but does also say that self-redirects "to a section" or "with possibilities" are more acceptable. Direct self-links are actually rendered in bold rather than as a wikilink, but unfortunately this doesn't happen with self-redirects. I'd leave them alone, slightly frustrating for someone who clicks them but less harmful than the alternatives. Lithopsian (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

No, the trouble is that User:Galactikapedia went into a rampage creating redirects for absolutely no good reason. He did it in 2017 and then again in 2019. Fortunately he has stopped doing it, at least for now. It would take a bot to fix the hundreds or perhaps thousands of unnecessary redirects he created. Can't you see that the redirects on Poduromorpha serve no purpose? The same thing goes for the most recent ones, e. g. on Porphyra or Diploderma. --Polinizador (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

s.....sorry about that. i realized the damage i caused. i don't remember doing it again this year though? i had a hyperfixation with taxonomy in july 2017 and also upping my total pages created number, but now i know better. recently i've felt really bad about it. --Galactikapedia (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

edit: i checked my contributions page, and it turns out i was continuing to do this in february. i legitimately don't remember doing so, but i do regret my "rampage" of 2017. rest assured i'm never doing this again. i am also willing to help revert the edits in any way that i can. --Galactikapedia (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Either way, complaining here isn't the way to resolve this. They are very unlikely to get speedily-deleted, because they simply don't fit any of the criteria. You can try redirects for deletion, but I wouldn't get your hopes up. There is simply nothing wrong with any of the redirects themselves. The only real complaint is that they cause self-links. This is hardly unique to that one article, but if you really really don't like it then you could take them out. Or discuss it on the article talk page. You probably know how taxa pages are typically structured better than me and consistency counts for a lot. Lithopsian (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Mangudadatu, Maguindanao

Do not you think, it should be linked somehow? Mangudadatu now links to the person but what about the place? 49.149.42.219 (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hatnote. See Esmael Mangudadatu. Only use dab pages where there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, or a dab page of the type Mangudadatu (disambiguation) if there is a primary topic and there are too many entries to show clearly in a hatnote. Lithopsian (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

So, in this case, Mangudadatu (disambiguation) can be a solution? 49.149.42.219 (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

A solution to what? There isn't a problem. What do you want a disambiguation page for? If anyone looks for just "Mangudadatu" and gets sent to the person but wants the place, then they will see a message with a link to the place. We don't need to disambiguate anything. Hopefully, the majority of people just typing "Mangudadatu" will be happy reading about the person; if not, then the redirect should point to the place. A disambiguation page is worse than that, it sends nobody to the article they want, and everybody then has to click through to an article, instead of sending most people where they want to be and the minority has to click through. Lithopsian (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

As I have followed the political scene, the successor of Esmael Mangudadatu for the gobernstorial post in Maguindanao is also a Mangudadatu. In the senatorial election in 2019 the brother of Esmael Mangudadatu was running for office. That is why I mentioned the possibility to create a disambiguation page. There are several Mangudadatus eligible to get an Wikipedia article if they haven't one already. So what about the other Mangudadatus then? How to deal with that problem? 49.149.198.13 (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

When there are too many articles to concisely show them in a hatnote at the primary topic, or when there is no longer a primary topic (ie. no single article is where a majority of readers want to be), then create a disambiguation page. There is obviously no need to disambiguate non-existent articles; write articles first (assuming the topics are notable) and then worry about disambiguating them. Lithopsian (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Yup, that "JoeyP" sockmaster's made an even longer list of largest stars...

https://static.miraheze.org/thesciencearchiveswiki/5/57/Largest_known_stars.pdf

Wanna work on taking it down? That would be good. 46.107.124.47 (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Homeland Security Investigations Article Deletion

Thanks for deleting my article I understand what I did wrong, I will re-write it.

Have a good one, Mexeno TVMexeno (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Input welcome, please

Your input would also be welcome to Zeta Hydrae. In this age of ever more precision, why are the Gaia team and their Vizier/Simbad database in some stars obviously not publishing parallax (notably omitted); far-off ones I hear from you lumping together other stuff (I assume normally more distant) in an observation window and not giving a much more synthetic and reality-based disclaimer in their margin of error published; and for near ones getting sometimes narrower margins of error than ever published before? Why are they getting re-published by editors on here as a 'better source' and what on Earth (or at Lagrange Point 2) are they doing? They appear to be muddying the waters? This is supposed to be an ever more guarded, critically-reviewed age, instead they appear to be a total loss and law unto themselves with distant objects and the raw data they are pumping out without disclaimers and without even rudimentary analysis.- Adam37 Talk 20:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Just had time for a quick look. ζ Hydrae is a little too bright to have a really precise Gaia DR2 parallax. The margin of error is around 10 times larger than a typical 6th-10th magnitude star. This is comparable to the revised Hipparcos margin of error, actually a little larger so that Simbad prefers the Hipparcos value. Special processing (and special observations runs) will be applied to brighter stars for the final Gaia catalogue to achieve precision of a few tens of micro-arcseconds, comparable to the fainter stars that Gaia was actually designed to observe, probably better than the really faint ones where it will always have reduced accuracy. Lithopsian (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Altena, Netherlands

Dear Lithopsian. What makes you think that Altena, Netherlands should redirect to Altena, Drenthe and not to Altena, North Brabant while both are equally plausible? Isn't a disambiguation page meant to give the user a choice?

If your argument is that they are already on another disambiguation page, then: yes, but what's the problem with that? Favouring a redirect to Altena, Drenthe over Altena, North Brabant doesn't make sense, so I'd rather have Altena, Netherlands deleted then.

Compare also with Stein and Stein, Netherlands, by the way. Thayts ••• 20:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleted makes no sense. It isn't harmful for it to exist, regardless of whether it is a redirect, dab page, or something else. You say dab pages give a user choice. I say they give (in many cases) unnecessary choice and WP policy agrees with me. Redirect them to where they want to be, not interrogate them about their true intentions. That's what a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is, and there almost always is one in the case of WP:TWODABS: out of two choices, one is very likely to be more notable than the other. Given that Altena in North Brabant didn't even exist a year ago and the article didn't exist a week ago, I suspect the Altena in Drenthe is the primary topic. Add a WP:HATNOTE to it to alert the odd reader who wanted the other article. Then perhaps come back in a month or two and see which article people are actually interested in, then maybe switch the target or even make a dab page. And don't start with the WP:OTHERSTUFF, just because someone else had a bad idea doesn't mean we all have to follow. All just suggestions, I'm not going to fight over it. Lithopsian (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree. Of course dab pages give users a choice, that's the whole point. How do you know that users want to be at Altena, Drenthe if they could equally likely be looking for Altena, North Brabant? Who are you to make that choice for them? Hence the invention of dab pages, because in the new situation the term "Altena, Netherlands" is ambiguous. The old situation is no longer relevant, certainly not since I changed all links to Altena, Netherlands into Altena, Drenthe already. Also, how are we going to measure "which article people are actually interested in"? Shouldn't we do that for all topics on all dab pages then and get rid of dab pages altogether? Seriously, I don't see how turning this into a dab page does any harm. It does provide clarity, though. Thayts ••• 16:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Someone has already changed the redirect to the other Altena. So while you may think it should redirect to the small but old village, others think it should redirect to the new but large municipality. It is simply not clear that either is significantly more prominent and that it would therefore be logical to deserve the redirect... Thayts ••• 06:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi

Is not it better to move Kocho (Iraq) to Kocho? Because the bracket is not needed. 119.10.202.60 (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Possibly, if the new redirect sticks. Give it a while and then raise a move request. You won't have the permissions to move it yourself, and I probably won't either given that the redirect has been edited several times. Or start a move discussion, then someone with the righ powers will swap the pages if the consensus is to do so. Lithopsian (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Andersen Tax LLC and Andersen Tax merge

Hi—I see you've undone my Andersen Tax LLC and Andersen Tax merge. I don't understand your reason why. I simply followed the "How to merge" instructions on Wikipedia:merging. Can you please give me a good reason besides that I copy and pasted? Because that is what Wikipedia instructed me to do. Thanks! Capricorn Lion (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You didn't do a merge. You did a move. The difference? A merge is taking two articles and combining the content into a single article (attribution history, talk, etc., can also be merged, not a simple process, details vary and it isn't always done). A move is changing the title of an article, with the content staying largely the same. You did a cut'n'paste move, which is deleting the contents of one article and pasting them in their entirety into a different article (usually empty or a redirect). This is a bad idea, it leaves the history in one place and the content in another, makes it look like you wrote the entire article from scratch even though it may be a collaboration going back years, and is likely to lose the talk page and any sub-pages. You also didn't hold a discussion, so far as I can see, or this would have been flagged up. Discussions before mergers or page moves (renames) are not mandatory, but are a good idea especially if you're fairly new to Wikipedia.

Articles can be renamed (moved) using the move function, found on the more dropdown (provided you have suitable user rights and the move is not blocked for some reason). Ironically, having had a cut'n'paste move over a redirect reverted, you will not now be able to move the article properly (unless you're a secret admin). You'll have to go to WP:RM and ask an admin to do it. I would suggest that this should be discussed first, someone will almost certainly raise objections. One or two objections won't necessarily stop the move, just let the discussion take its course. Lithopsian (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Undid your revision to Jimmy Pattison

Hi, I undid your revision to Jimmy Pattison as the disambiguation page is very useful and the baseball is not WP:Primary. Originally, Jimmy Pattison was Jim Pattison, but was cut-and-paste moved by a user in 2006, which I just came across and reported to User:Bradv. Please do not undo this change until he evaluates it. Thanks. --Doug Mehus (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Expansion and move of the Pippin/Pepin article

Hi Lithopsian. I expanded the Pippin article with new information about the first name Pepin and moved the article to the Pepin spelling because, 1. this is the more common spelling of the name (e.g. Pepin the Short is much more common than Pippin the Younger) and 2. the article had 30 references of the Pepin spelling and only 20 of the Pippin spelling before my edits. Therefore I thought this move was justified and uncontrovercial. Can you please explain why you undid all. If you don't agree can we suggest a move to Pepin. I will add my expansion of the article about the name to the Pippin article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renetus (talk • contribs) 10:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

You didn't move Pippin to Pepin: you copied the content from one article and pasted it into the other, then blanked the first article (as a redirect). This is inappropriate, as it makes it look like you created the content while hiding the history showing who actually produced it. The article should be moved properly (possibly, I don't take a position, perhaps there should be discussion first), along with its history, talk page, etc. There are also significant style problems with the page that you attempted to produce, and with the article as it is now. It used to be a disambiguation page and is now some strange sort of hybrid which starts out looking like an article and ends up with a disambiguation list. This is not helpful. Readers reaching a dab page shouldn't have to wade through an article before finding links to where they really wanted to be, and readers looking for an article about surnames don't really need a list of every article in Wikipedia. There is a type of article called a set index which can contain relatively brief prose introducing a list of related terms, however all the terms should be of the same type, for example surnames. This article doesn't qualify. You could perhaps examine Smith, Smith (surname), List of people with surname Smith as one way to handle this, if you feel there should be an article for this surname. Or see Mills (surname) for an example of a set index. You should also check all incoming links before changing a page from one type to another (eg. dab to article), although in this case I didn't notice any that would be a problem. Lithopsian (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Your edit reversal

RE: Saratoga Cup
"Latest revision as of 20:16, 28 October 2019 (edit) (undo) (thank)

Lithopsian (talk | contribs)

(Undid revision 923465069 by Stretchrunner (talk) page blanking)

(Tags: Undo, New redirect)"

Should we keep a redirect to something that has zero to do with the other?Stretchrunner (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't blank pages. Just don't, not for any reason (one exception: pages you recently created yourself that have no other non-trivial edit history). Lithopsian (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Daidairi

Heian Palace is not the primary topic for daidairi. A daidairi is a feature of Japanese palaces. Having daidairi redirect to Heian Palace makes as much sense as redirecting moat to Angkor Wat. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep bulldozing, don't ever stop to think. Since you've decided this is better discussed here out of the glare of publicity, do you have any intention of cleaning up the wikilinks that you just converted to dab pages? Do you even know what a dab page is for (or a redirect for that matter) or how it is supposed to be formatted? Astonoshing that someone could make so many edits without learning the basics. Lithopsian (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

cut'n'paste move

How am I supposed to switch Palestinian and Palestinian (disambiguation) -- Kendrick7^talk 20:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a move command on the more menu on each page. Or WP:RM explains the ways if you don't have the user rights to do it yourself. If you think the move is an "uncontroversial" technical request, in other words nobody is likely to object, then you create an entry at that page and an admin will come along and make the move. Or they may kick it back if they don't think it is uncontroversial. Or someone else may come along and revert it if they don't think it is uncontroversial. Or you create a move discussion as described. At the end of the discussion, typically after a week or so, someone will close the discussion and implement the decision. Although it may seem like a no-brainer to you that Palestinian and Palestinians should go to the same page, you should familiarise yourself with the relevant policies at WP:DAB and WP:REDIRECT (and WP:HATNOTE), especially those related to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so you can present a convincing case. The overriding need in all cases is to get the most readers to where they really wanted to be with the least hassle on their part, not to make things "tidy" or convenient for editors. As an example American does not redirect to Americans because someone searching for "Americans" most likely means people living in the United States (even though there are other possibilities) while "American" has many meanings and no single one can be picked out as the most likely search term. Lithopsian (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. You actually make a good point regarding American. Thanks for the reply! -- Kendrick7^talk 01:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Willbb234. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Plenty Valley Lions FC, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Earthworks demerge

I believe from what you wrote earlier in the discussion that you would support reverting Ssolberj's megamerge. But just to put it beyond doubt, would you add your sig at Talk:Earthworks#Request to demerge, please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Shorland

Let's discuss before moving a page. Talk:Shorland#Requested_move_10_December_2019 93.185.28.63 (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

shell collapsar

Thanks for correcting dates Swen (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Noted: I can see you were trying to help out with this.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User Snowflake91 keeps deleting Son Chaeyoung from the Twice page. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Betelgeuse Dimming Edits

Hello Lithopsian,

You have done a nice job with most of the Beltelgeuse dimming edits. Nice work! Moving most of the information lower and into its own section was a great idea. The citations you added and fixed are also helpful. Thank you!

You made one change that I question. You undid one of my changes that I should have explained better, revision 934015651. You wrote that you undid the "unexplained removal of cited material."

The problem with what I had deleted is this: Saying that the recent dimming is caused by "fluctuations in the star’s surface brightness" is that it seems circular. The obvious reason for a star dimming is that it is not as bright as it was. This is the nature of variable stars. Although this explanation was in the article I cited, it still seems incredibly unsatisfying as an explanation for why a variable star has dimmed by an unexpectedly large amount. Also, I searched for other sources that treated "fluctuations in a star’s surface brightness" as a distinct phenomenon to explain dimming, and found none.

The wording I used when I removed this explanation was not as good as what I had orginally added with this circular explanation; but "fluctuations in the star’s surface brightness" still needs to be removed, or explained more clearly.

Regards,

Jim (Jswtp) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jswtp (talk • contribs) 01:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Although most of the sources used in relation to this topic are quite poor, the given source did specifically say that the fluctuations could be down to eruptions of gas and dust *or* fluctuations in the surface brightness (possibly even paraphrased a little too closely). Although it may seem tautological, the surface brightness of a star is very different from its overall brightness, because the size of the surface can vary a great deal. Surface brightness is a somewhat vague term, but is is directly related to the temperature of the surface, with hotter surfaces being brighter. In the case of Betelgeuse, the situation is complicated by the fact that most of the radiation is emitted at infrared wavelengths, and a small decrease in temperature (assuming no change in size) causes a disproportionate decrease in the visual brightness with only a small decrease in the bolometric luminosity. And there is initial evidence that the temperature of Betelgeuse has decreased slightly in the last few months. As for other examples, the large-amplitude pulsating variables like Mira and Cepheid variables change in both size and temperature. Their surface brightnesses change, but so does their size, and not in phase, so the visual brightness we observe changes out of phase with both the surface brightness and the size. There are some graphs showing this at χ Cygni. Anyway, this has gone from the lead, possibly gone from the body by now in favour of something better-explained and cited. I'll take a look later and see where things are with copy-editing. Lithopsian (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I edited one sentence (with a citation) to clarify that Betelgeuse is a pulsating variable star whose brightness normally fluctuates due to changes in its size. This helps clarify the alternative explanation below of changes in surface brightness. Regards, Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jswtp (talk • contribs) 05:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Betelgeuse distance

Hi Lithosopian - just noticed you reverted my calculation of the central estimate for the distance; am happy to add the error bars as calculated from the quoted error in the parallax measurements. However, would I be right to think this would also be inadmissible on the grounds of original work? Thanks ! Robma (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Tricky one. The statistical margin of error on a distance calculated from a parallax is not the same as the inverted values from the parallax margins. The most likely value of the distance is not even the inverse of the parallax, although it is very close for small-ish parallaxes with small-ish margins of error. This is one of the reasons that the starbox calculation often shows "approx." rather than a precise value and margin of error. You can read more detail than you ever wanted to know at Bailer-Jones et al. (2018). Conveniently, this also gives statistically valid distances for all the stars with Gaia DR2 parallaxes, unfortunately not including Betelgeuse. Lithopsian (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Large systematic errors with Gaia DR2

Hi there! I know this isn't exactly the best place to share this around, but I wasn't quite sure where to share that would get the appropriate amount of attention needed.

There are some large systematic errors in Gaia DR2 parallaxes, of around -0.054 mas. I know 0.054 may not seem like a lot, but it becomes very noticeable with distant objects. Eta Carinae is around 7,550 +/- 52 LY away, but without accounting for systematics, Gaia says it is 8,600 +/- 68 LY away. 47 Tucanae is 14,180 +/- 120 LY away, but without accounting, Gaia says it is 18,530 +/- 210 LY away. The LMC and SMC are about 160,000 and 200,000 LY away respectively, but according to Gaia, both of them have negative parallaxes, whose wrongness should go without saying. I found this paper on subject that seems to have noticed the same thing: [21].

Since you're one of the more active editors on astronomy-related pages, I figured I should bring this to your attention, since it will massively affect the distance measurements of distant stars. That is, if Wikipedia is even at liberty to make use of it. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Its a known issue. The original DR2 release papers describe systematic errors, without being too sure about how large. The raw databases ignores them because they aren't quantifiable. Several papers have since studied various areas of the sky to try and measure how large the errors are and where they apply, but it is all a but vague and statistical because of a lack of things to compare to at the necessary accuracy. One more reason not to get too hung up on one source for distances even if it looks "direct". Lithopsian (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is the original paper about the DR2 astrometric solution which discusses the systematic errors as they were known at the time. Some subsequent papers take account of these, but most don't because there isn't really a good way to correct individual parallaxes. Lithopsian (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you link me any of the papers trying to identify systematic errors in different regions of the sky? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

WGEO

FYI the "hundreds of links" that were "broken" were actually to the shortwave station and *you* actually broke those links by reinstating the redirect. I've created a new WGEO (shortwave) page and replaced the redirect with a disambiguation page. You can see how many links remain ie the links that weren't intended for the shortwave station, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/WGEO SolTrek (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing like bragging because you messed up the first time and had to be prodded into doing a better job. FYI, reverting a bad edit isn't breaking anything that wasn't already broken. Lithopsian (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution on DH Tauri!

Thank you for your great contribution on DH Tauri! Thank you for adding an infobox and more references, just letting you know your help is greatly appreciated! Golem08 (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

"Gafftopsail" disambiguation

Hello! So, if you didn't care for the disambiguation page I made, then what do you think is the correct way to disambiguate among this series of fish that share a common name? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I've re-targeted Gafftopsail to somewhere that may be more helpful: Bagre (fish). The previous redirect was to a species for which gafftopsail seems to be a rather obscure and uncommon name. That still leaves one fish from a different genus. If you think there could be confusion, then you can add a hatnote at Bagre (fish). There are also things such as "Gaff Topsail" which is a slightly different term that doesn't have an article or even a redirect, and "Gaff Topsails", again not the same title. If you think there is a need to disambiguate the term more widely than a hatnote can achieve, then you might start at Gafftopsail (disambiguation) and see if it ever gets to the point where the redirect is less helpful than the dab page. Terms that aren't actually "gafftopsail" or accepted variants such as plurals should go in a see also section. Remember that a term doesn't have to become a dab page just because it is ambiguous: a redirect is often more helpful - see WP:TWODABS and related sections on that page. You should probably also read MOS:DAB for the quite strict guidelines on how to format a dab page, taking note of the formats when there is a primary topic or not.Lithopsian (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Please complete Eta Dor 2 or just redact the refs [if the former look behind astron. journ. paywalls for precise pages as the sources] for the "kept" (but now obscure) Draft:Eta2 Doradus

My dear friend

Rather than your simply leaving this lovely, kind article-ette by me in a state of lacking perfection - forgive me - please do not just dump it as draft &/or history page of informative content but I admit only free public-access skeleton that I've done. Could you not with due regard to 1A) the number of willing astronomic contributors (surely an astronomic number) 1B) fact this is the first star alphabetically in the constellations (those Bayer-designated) NOT to have an article:

instruct one of such contributors or mighten one suggest one of your, I suppose and with a Socratean filter applied as if going to embody a part one might as well go the whole hog, plentiful winged monkeys (or possibly your conscience, should you decide to abandon them) to complete the subject-mentioned ways forward (one or the other step)? This does rather spare one from looking in one's crystal ball/hourglass and leaving the star just floating, unbeknown to mankind, in outer space. Thanks!!! I rather assumed experienced editors with a friendly demeanour and not rigidly political approach to all others would be a little more proactive and not just dismissive of kind several minutes of content researched and added, so everyone can see we have a START (or maybe STUB to be fair). And such courteous options include, on reflection on all of the contributory approaches (turn the encyclopedia green not grey/red) to MESSAGE me accordingly to just do a start and leave the intended helpful where to look (to bring it up to your project's impressive standards for a full page) out. Perhaps I assumed too much effort one way or the other - a handful of clicks of simple deletion / research+addition.  ;-) It only follows you are somewhat in league with the paywalls, alas. I really don't know where to start to get up to those high standards when the ideal sources are extinguished behind a black-hole density cloud of profiteering.- Adam37 Talk 07:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

You appear to be serious, despite the light-hearted tone. The article was simply not in a state to be publicly displayed. Missing citations can be tagged. Brief or even missing information could be treated as a stub. Big blobs of red text from erroneous templates could be fixed or commented out without a massive effort. However, completely false data (copied from another article as a template) just can't be allowed. I could spend a lot of time trying to delete everything that was wrong so that a bare-bones skeleton can remain (maybe I will if I get an hour or two spare). Instead, there is a place where articles can be worked on, slowly or quickly, one editor or many, until they are ready to be seen by people who are not privy to the ins and outs of developing an article and who just want something they can believe. That is called draftspace. Nothing is lost. When it is a bit more coherent, it can come back. I will even move it back myself if you want, but you are free to do it yourself. I'll ignore the paranoid accusations for now, but think carefully about what you accuse people of in what is still a public venue. Lithopsian (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not an allegation but a show of the policy I was hinting at - i.e. you state "simply not in a state". Nothing is wrong save for citations and 0s or other obvious number ERRORS which take: seconds to remove; or minutes to research behind the paywalls. Hardly hours to take out. Both of us are guilty of exaggeration. That is all. Stop being so precious to think you are the rightful complainant to some sort of libel. You are not. You're a very thorough editor. One thing you are not however is particularly kind. P.S. I'm ecstatic the draft has not been mothballed as I feared, good work. - Adam37 Talk 14:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

So fix it then, if it only takes seconds. You could presumably have done it in the time you've spent complaining here. As soon as the claims in the article are largely correct and supported by citations (two dots does not count as "correct!) then it can be reviewed and accepted as a new page. And as of now, don't post on my talk page any more. You have repeatedly shown yourself incapable of the basic courtesies and failed to recognise your own unacceptable abuse, so you can just go away. And no, that isn't me being precious, as you so delightfully put it. Lithopsian (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Catalog of red supergiants, including some for List of largest stars?

Hi Lithopsian,

I just came across this paper: Messineo & Brown 2019 - A catalog of known Galactic K-M stars of class I, candidate RSGs, in Gaia DR2. In this paper, they make a catalog of nearby red supergiant candidates. They estimate stellar radii for stars "with the equation of Josselin & Plez (2007)", which after looking at that source, seems to be calculated from the luminosity and effective temperature.

What do you think of this source? It lists a bunch of stars over the 700 R_☉ cutoff point. My main concerns are that a) the L/T_eff method isn't that accurate, and b) it's a catalog, so they didn't pay close attention to each star for any irregularities.

Thanks in advance for any information. Loooke (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the L/T_eff method. Levesque et al., much quoted here, uses that method. The tricky part has always been calculating the luminosity. Only a relatively few stars, and only relatively recently, have angular diameters that are sensible enough to be used for calculating a radius, and it is quite difficult to calibrate that method to give a radius corresponding to the effective surface temperature. Most of the stars in List of largest stars are there because of entries in bulk catalogues. This one at least has the best available data to work from. Only a relatively few of the stars actually ended up being supergiants, but the data for the others should still be accurate. I just looked up UY Scuti since we've been looking for a reliable source to downgrade it: 755 R_☉. First port of call, I think :) Lithopsian (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Good to know. I noticed that this source downgrades size estimates for a lot of stars; for example KY Cygni is listed as 672 R_☉ which is below the 700 R_☉ cut off point. In this case, how should the list be edited? Loooke (talk)

Statistically inevitable. The "largest" stars are highly likely to just be those for which our estimates are the most wrong. Later revisions will inevitably be to smaller sizes. The list should generally follow individual star articles. If it is considered appropriate to update the starbox for an individual star then the list should certainly follow. I've started! Lithopsian (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Free League

Please tell me how to start an article on Free League the rpg company, given your move. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The best way to start out with a new article is to make it at a disambiguated title, for example Free League (RPG company). Or even start in draft if it is something you won't finish in one edit. Starting an article as a one-liner with few or no citations is asking for it to be deleted. So, once you've got your article, wait for it to get reviewed (fingers crossed), and then see how it works with other articles of similar names. You may think it should be moved, for example over Free League. Consider whether there are existing links to Free League, both inside or outside Wikipedia. You may be able to fix the ones in Wikipedia, but it is almost impossible to find everywhere externally that may have linked to [22]. Your case will be stronger if you give it a week or two and can show a lot of traffic to the new title. Also think about links to it from other articles, orphan pages are usually orphans for a reason. If there is a strong case for renaming, you can do it boldly yourself (may not be possible now that the redirect has been edited several times), or submit it for a move discussion and then someone will move it for you if that's what the discussion decides (see WP:RM). About disambiguation, when there are only two (and sometimes more) titles to be disambiguated for a term, it is common for the title itself to be a redirect to the most common usage (see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) and a hatnote can be put on that page in case anyone wanted to go to the other title. There can be hatnotes for several alternatives, but it quickly gets messy and a disambiguation page is needed. That's a long way down the road. Don't fall into the trap of thinking a disambiguation page is a handy way to advertise your new page, that's not what its for. Any more questions, feel free to ask. Lithopsian (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

?

Free League should be the article for the rpg company. There's zero reason to assume the Planescape faction to be even close to an equal primary topic. I moved it to get it out of the way. CapnZapp (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

You may be correct. However, it is very hard to claim that an article that doesn't even exist deserves to be disambiguated or even a primary topic ahead of something that does at least exist, even if it is only a tiny mention in a section of a larger article. Disambiguation pages are there to disambiguate between different Wikipedia articles, not as some grab-bag list of things you think the term should refer to. That is fairly conclusively proved by Free League (disambiguation) being speedily deleted because it only disambiguated one extant page. Write your new article, in draft or under a new name, and then make the case that it should be the primary topic. I just had a go at reading the Swedish article and perhaps Free League (publisher) would be a better name to start with? Assuming the English form of the name is actually used. If not, then use the real company name. Some Googling suggests that Free League Publishing is a more proper English name. Anyway, titles can be changed, writing an article is the important thing. Lithopsian (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

UCQ disambiguation page

Hi, I just reverted your revert and restored the disambiguation page UCQ. The acronym "UCQ" doesn't seem to be a common way to refer to Central Queensland University: it doesn't even occur in that article, and searching for "UCQ Queensland" doesn't give any relevant results. By contrast, "UCQ" is the established acronym in database theory to refer to unions of conjunctive queries (searching for "UCQ query" gives plenty of relevant results). For that reason I don't think having a hatnote rather than a disambiguation page makes sense. Regards, --a3nm (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Ditrichum

Just wondering why the moss genus Ditrichum has been redirected to the flowering genus Verbesina? Jowaninpensans (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jowaninpensans: I would second that question.

To answer your question, Ditrichum Cass. is an obscured synonym dating back to 1817 (link). Joseph_Laferriere made redirects for the synonyms of Verbesina back in 2014 (here) and created circular links in the taxobox of the Verbesina article (see old version). These were later removed leaving the redirects redundant.

Yesterday I created an article for Ditrichum, the moss. I replaced the redirect because it wasn’t used in any articles in mainspace. Clearly an article on a living moss genus is more important than an unused redirect for a two centuries old synonym. Such obscure redirects should be deleted according to WP:R#DELETE.

My article on the moss was removed when Lithopsian reverted my change on the grounds that it would rescue the 50+ wikilinks to this redirect, plus who knows how many external urls. I cannot find these uses of the redirects in the article namespace and cannot see any utility in maintaining hypothetical external links to redirects. If the redirects are using the Ditrichum redirect they are double redirects and should be fixed (see WP:2R) so they target Verbesina.

While I could add disambiguation to the moss article title, I feel this would be a disservice to potential readers. Those searching for ‘’Ditrichum'’ will be looking for the moss rather than the asterid plant using an obscure synonym. This is why I made the seemingly uncontroversial decision to usurp the unused redirect. I still feel this was the correct decision and that my change should be restored. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

At the time I found multiple wikilinks targetting Ditrichum (mostly, I didn't check every one) as a synonym of Verbesina. Often many of these sorts of wikilinks are in navbox templates, but I didn't check in this case. Now there are none. I'll assume good faith and that these were all disambiguated by some editor at around the same time as my patrolling. Or maybe I made a mistake, who knows, very hard to track down now. If the moss is the primary topic, then so be it, I was not making a judgement on that. If you feel a redirect should clearly be deleted, you are always free to submit it for WP:RFD. Remember that converting a redirect to an article on a different topic is side-stepping that deletion discussion. Thank you for discussing instead of starting an edit war. I won't revert again if you wish to make your changes. Lithopsian (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Yonmara

Hello, Lithopsian

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Slatersteven and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Yonmara, should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yonmara.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Slatersteven}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Strange. I'm fairly sure that I didn't create that article (at the time, now a redirect, and now dead). Possibly I'm down as the creator of the redirect as I may have renamed the article to something sensible. Anyway, gone now, good riddance. Lithopsian (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Chamkaur

Two battles of Chamakur were fought One in 1702 One in 1704 Please write both the articles Ama975193 (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to write any articles on this subject, if that's what you're requesting. The existing article seems to be largely (entirely?) about the Second Battle of Chamkaur (1704), which redirects to Battle of Chamkaur. There is also First Battle of Chamkaur (1702), which also redirects to the same place - presumably because there is nowhere better to target. If you want to do something about this, I suggest converting that redirect into an article about the 1702 battle. Make sure you support it with reliable sources. Perhaps write it in draft since it might take more than one edit to become cohesive enough that it won't just get reverted. From previous edits, it appears that you will need very careful sourcing to demonstrate the two different battles took place and both are notable. Lithopsian (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistent text on WR 124?

Hi Lithopsian,

On February 16, 2014, you added this text to the page WR 124:

M1-67 has little internal structure, though large clumps of material have been detected, some of which have 30 times the mass of earth and stretch out up to 150 billion km (90 billion miles). If placed in our solar system, one of these clumps would span the distance from the sun to Saturn.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WR_124&oldid=595743032

The content of this text is still present, but Saturn is only 1.5 billion km from the Sun. I wasn't able to find any sources stating the size of clumps myself, so can we please update the text (and maybe add a reference too?)

Thanks, --Jfriedly (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't write that text. It was already present when I reorganised the article. That text is uncited, so should at least be tagged. Lithopsian (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Gillian Wright

Thanks for reviewing my new article :) Just wondering if you could take a look at my question on the talk page of Gillian Wright (Astronomer)? Many thanks Spacetime73 (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Same title, different paper. Interesting. I think I've fixed it now. Lithopsian (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Gefragt - Gejagt

Hello, I am a German woman and I would be glad, if you could repare this article instead deleting it. Which wiki rule I habe breaked? Greetings from Berlin! 44Pinguine (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Greetings. You created an article called The Chase (UK game show). The content you added for this article was clearly incorrect (German game show, not UK), and probably not what you intended. Gefragt - gejagt (note the type of dash) currently exists and is a redirect to the list of international versions of this quiz. The US and Australian versions have their own articles, but I don't know if a German version would be considered notable; there's an easy way to find out since you've already written the article. Lithopsian (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, yes, I canceled the redirect to write my own article. Therefore the lemma should also bear the German title. Why should the German version be less relevant than the other two versions? And: my article is away :|. In the existing list I see only some names and the date of beginning. 44Pinguine (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You wrote an article about a German game show under a title called The Chase (UK game show). That's *UK*. So I reverted it. If you wrote it as The Chase (German game show) or perhaps Gefragt - gejagt (note WP:UE) I wouldn't have reverted it. I wouldn't have reviewed it either, but someone with more knowledge of the policies for non-English TV spin-offs would have decided. Lithopsian (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the lemma is very relevant because it quickly belongs to 200 million people in Europe who speak German as their mother tongue! // The redirect contained here must then be cleaned. 44Pinguine (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. Perhaps there is a translation problem. You cannot take a redirect titled The Chase (UK game show) (bold shows the important part) and convert it to an article about a different subject, in your case a German quiz show. The article title must reflect the content.

Also, you don't have to convince me it is notable. People always think the articles they write are important, but that decision will be made by another reviewer. Writing a well-structured article with good references will help a lot to demonstrate whether it is notable or not. Lithopsian (talk)

Disambiguating Supreme Electoral Court

Hi there, I saw you reverted my disambiguation of Supreme Electoral Court - thanks for pointing out the incoming links.

I do think the page should be a disambiguation, considering that there are now plural articles with that actual name - I'm happy to go through and modify the incoming links appropriately. Would you be happy for me to undo your edit and instead correct the incoming links, or do you have a separate objection to the page being a disambiguation at all?

Cheers, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I would have some concerns about whether the existing redirect is a primary topic or not, but it doesn't look clearcut. The Brazil page is by far the most likely search target but isn't actually called by the dab name. It was apparently renamed from Supreme Electoral Court (Brazil) in 2012 as a mis-translation? Traffic to Supreme Electoral Court (Brazil) is low suggesting people aren't attracted to that name. Disambiguating might be the best way out. Lithopsian (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done! Disambiguated all the incoming links (along with some other minor fixes on some of the articles that had incoming links over there). If you get a moment, I'd appreciate you taking a look and checking you're happy with the result Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Someone else already reviewed it, so all done I think. Lithopsian (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Heh, what now...

So what else might be good to mainpage one day.....keep on going...with Bellatrix? Alpha Centauri? Canopus? Arcturus? Fomalhaut? Or VY Canis Majoris to "set" it so vandals don't keep at it....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Would have though Alpha Centauri and Canopus both deserve to be featured articles. Alpha Centauri is probably detailed enough, but has a fractured history and attempts to restructure it always seem to flounder. Canopus is really short on the technical side, lots and lots of etymology and history though. I'm just having a go at R Doradus, probably not going to go FAC but will be better than one paragraph when I'm finished. Lithopsian (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Canopus seems to be really poorly studied. I found it hard to muster up the material. Shorter ones are often easy. R Doradus has interest as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I've found the same thing. Several times I've come to work on Canopus and not found a lot of material. I'm going to try again. There are lots of papers mentioning it, not a lot closely studying it, but surely I'll find something about a star which has left the main sequence and is the second-brightest in the sky, one of the closest giants (or supergiants). Lithopsian (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay that'd be cool. On the plus side, it's a single star so no headaches with star vs star system....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Foliate

Why?.. Broken links? Why not fix them? Am I supposed to turn this redirect into a disambiguation page instead, or what? – because we'd at least want a link from this page to my article, right?

Also: This is a wiki! – Couldn't you just do by yourself what you think needs to be done with this article instead of just reverting and having me running after you? – I hate it when I have to guard my edits here.--Kulandru mor (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Why? Because you changed the meaning of a page from a botanical term to a piece of computer software. And then were too lazy to even fix all the wikilinks that were sending people for botanical information and now ended up reading about some Linux software which probably isn't even notable. Not to mention who-knows-how-many thousands of external urls pointing at foliate that have been there for years and you broke. If you did that to an actual article, you'd be lucky not to get banned for vandalism. Doing it to a redirect is almost as bad. Just go and create your page under a different title (eg. Foliate (e-book reader)) and if you really feel like the software is the most important "foliate" in the world, you can argue later that your page should be moved over the redirect. Lithopsian (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Why did you remove the 474 solar radii estimate for Stephenson 2-18?

On the Wikipedia article for Stephenson 2-18, I saw that you removed the 474 solar radii estimate. Why did you do that? I saw the view history of the article and you said that the 474 solar radii estimate was referring to another star. However I don't completely understand the removal of the 474 solar radii , so please give a further explanation on why you removed the 474 solar radii estimate for Stephenson 2-18. User122.2.30.162 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.30.162 (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Because it is for a different star :) OK, more detail. In Stephenson's original paper, only 10 red supergiants (candidates at that time) were listed in the centre of the cluster, ordered by right ascension. Davies, Figer, and Kudritski, the reference for the value 474, lists stars from 1 to 72 by order of K-band magnitude, with a few doubles as well. Stephenson 2-18 is listed as number 1, the brightest star in the region although not in the main clump of cluster stars. Simbad designates it Stephenson 2 DFK 1 to be clear which paper the number 1 is from, after Davies, Figer, and Kudritski. In the table of derived physical properties, star number 1 is not listed. This is because it is identified as a red supergiant, but not not considered a cluster member. It is identified as a red supergiant but with a position and radial velocity which mean it cannot be reliably associated with the main cluster. Later papers would identify St2-18 and nearby red supergiants as being in a cluster RSCG2 SW at about the same distance as the main cluster. In Deguchi (2010), additional red supergiants are included under a different numbering scheme. Table 4 cross-references the DFK numbers with the Deguchi numbers. Lithopsian (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

OK so what cluster member the reference was referring to ? By the way please edit the List of largest stars because the 474 solar radii is still there, and please comment if Stephenson 2-18 still has uncertainty in its size. User 122.2.30.162 15:13 UTC , 10 June 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.30.162 (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't edit the list. It is locked down and only Wikipedia gods can touch it. 474 R_☉ is for Stephenson 2 DFK 18, of course. It is a relatively modest red supergiant in the core cluster grouping, #7 on Stephenson's original list. Deguchi didn't observe it and doesn't give it a number. DFK classed it as M4, but Neguerela (2011) observed it (referred to as D18) and classed it as M1.5Iab. Lithopsian (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

WOH G64

I think you need to check the new quoted estimate values for WOH G64, including the lower value of 1,090 R_☉ which is likely based on a luminosity of 111,000 L_☉ (which is unresonably low), before I could end up in an edit war because I told to Nussun to NOT use WP:OR radii that are calculated from ourselves if there's a reference that already gave a radius (useless if there's a good reason why we should use them) but he didn't listen. Should we use those new radii (and as well use 1,640-2,770 R_☉ for NML Cyg, which I would use them since it is more accurate and resonable than the 1,183 R_☉ that is based on a assumed temperature of 3,834 K that is too high for a M4.5-7.9 class star and low distance of 1.22 kpc IF I can find a ref that gives those values but I would still like to see if there's a new radius value for NML Cyg) or still use the 1,540 R_☉ value for it? 2A01:E0A:47A:F100:412C:B287:C99A:20C1 (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I've been meaning to look, but VizieR was down and sometimes it is easier to wait until the edit wars have settled down. Lithopsian (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear. Can of worms and all that. Leaving aside how to calculate anything sensible from the SAGE database, which has two entries for WOH G64 with dramatically different temperatures, and both of which give two wildly-different luminosities, none of which takes into account the non-spherically-symmetric nature of the source (see [23]); it appears to have extracted the wrong MCPS UBV magnitudes. The visual magnitude is given as 12.972 which is about six magnitudes too bright. The MCPS data is for a source about half a degree away. I have no idea what is going on, but that can't be considered reliable, even ignoring all the other problems. Please give me a sanity check on all this before I revert everything back to the stone age. Could always open a discussion, of course. Lithopsian (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

"Irelia" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Irelia. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 18#Irelia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pandakekok9 (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You May Now Kill the Bride

Hello! You've reversed my edit about You May Now Kill the Bride. There is an episode called "You May Now Kill the Bride" on CSI Miami but there is also a TV movie called You May Now Kill the Bride that has nothing to do with CSI Miami. See [24]. So they are two very different things. I don't want to start an edit war so can you check the situation yourself, please? Jjanhone (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll believe you. However, you can't just take an article about one subject (a CSI: Miami episode) and change it to be about a different subject (the 2017 movie). If you did this to an actual article, you would probably get blocked for vandalism. Doing it to a redirect is almost as bad, it may be linked to by external urls and is definitely linked to by internal wikilinks. People will end up in the wrong place. So, unless there are very strong reasons why the movie should be considered to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this title (trust me, there aren't), create your article elsewhere. I would suggest You May Now Kill the Bride (movie), or better yet Draft:You May Now Kill the Bride (movie). Once the article is in place, reviewed, approved (big ig, since the stub your wrote was simply an unreferenced infobox and would be unlikely to get approved), and cleaned up, then you can start worrying about whether You May Now Kill the Bride should be changed to a dab page, redirected to the move, or whether the new article should be moved over it. This may require a discussion first, which would be a good way to avoid an edit war. Lithopsian (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Dishiishe

Dishiishe is a tribe which forms part of Darod clan. Dishiishe page shouldn't be redirected to other pages because the tribe is one of Somalia's considerable tribes.

Thank you,

Argali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argali1 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

It is good practice to place comments about a new subject into a section, usually at the bottom of the page, so I have done this with your text which was completely lost near the top of the page. Talk pages even have a tab or button (depending on the theme) to add a new section automatically. Then, please sign your comments, which you can do with ~~~~. Sometimes a bot will do this if you forget, but not 100% reliable. Especially in a discussion, it is important to know who is making comments and replies. Lithopsian (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Now that the formalities are done, I can comment on your concerns. My reply would be to continue discussing this at your talk page, where the problems have been explained in great depth by people that you really (really really) should listen to. I pointed out that you were treading very close to the line (eg. multiple reverts). You have now crossed the line and are living on borrowed time and the generous nature of Wikipedia admins. Talking is good, but you really just need to follow the suggestions at your talk page and learn how to successfully create Wikipedia articles. Definitely don't edit Dishiishe again, or my guess is you'll just get banned from Wikipedia. Lithopsian (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Visa policy of the Falkland Islands

Hello, I understand that there is already a piece of information regarding the visa policy of japan he Falkland Islands. The information supplied on the Visa policies of British Overseas Territories page is not enough? There is very little information regarding its policy? That’s why I created a new page with loads of new detail which was all sourced. For example why does the Faroe Islands have it’s own page then? Having the Falkland Islands own visa policy page would be more beneficial than having a small detailed segment in another page. Ire96 (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about the mistake of words at the start of my message, it was supposed to say “information regarding the visa policy of the Falkland Islands” sorry about that. Ire96 (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Put your information in the existing article. Then if you feel that it makes the article too long, too unbalanced, or otherwise meets the criteria at WP:SPLIT, then start a discussion about whether to break it out into a separate article. Until then, it is best all in one place. What do the Faroe Islands have to do with it? They aren't a BOT. Lithopsian (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, yes all my information seems to be too long for the BOT page? I mentioned the Faroe Islands because I was trying to make a point. The point was that the Faroe islands isn’t a fully independent country like the Falkland Islands yet it has its own visa policy page but the Falkland Islands doesn’t. Hope that cleared that up. I will transfer all my information to the BOT page and see how that turns out. Ire96 (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

If there really is too much information then people will be delighted when you propose to split it. It didn't look too much to me, but I didn't see it all in place and maybe you have more to add. No worries, it will end up the best way in the end. Lithopsian (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

WOH G347

On Talk:List_of_largest_stars/New List , I saw a star named WOH G347 that has a size of 1421-2348 solar radii. Both sizes were based on log of 4.968 & 5.404 respectively which in my opinion is okay-ish but both were based on an unreasonably low temperature of 2673 Kelvin. I read somewhere on Wikipedia that the limit for red supergiants and hypergiants is 3000 kelvin.Please remove WOH G347 and also IRAS 05346-6949 because IRAS 05346-6949's size was also based on an unreasonably low temperature of 2673 kelvin as well. Please remove them. That is is my request, thanks if you removed them already. User: 122.2.30.162 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.30.162 (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I haven't been editing the new list. It is experimental, a place to develop a new structure and policies. I don't want to get too prescriptive, removing stuff that may or may not be good in my opinion. Let the policies settle down about which sources are good and which not so good, then the list will end up with the right stars. It isn't hurting anyone right now. Lithopsian (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The Sloan survey of the Magellanic Clouds and the rest of the Local Group.

Hi,

I was just going through the references in the list of largest stars, and I could not find any reference of luminosity, temperature and/or physical parameters for the above mentioned survey (this: Please could you tell me where I could find the luminosity or temperature of these stars?

Thanks! PNSMurthy (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Data is online, for example at VizieR. Lithopsian (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Thanks Lithopsian. I tried searching on Vizier, but could not find the sources. Could you please also tell me where the tables for Cruzalebes et all are?PNSMurthy (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The way to find VizieR tables for any paper is to go to follow the bibcode link to ADS and then click on the CDS (or sometimes VizieR, not sure why the difference) link in the top right box. They are also linked directly from the bibliography list at Simbad for each star which is more convenient if you don't already have a link to the paper. Lithopsian (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I tried to find the list of all stars in Messineo 2019 but I can't. I wonder how Nussun05 did to get find those new radii in the Messineo 2019 (see this edit [25] ) 2A01:E0A:47A:F100:C49B:4A9E:15D9:5E64 (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

All stars in Messineo (2019)? There are only 889. You could get VizieR to show you them all, I suppose, but you're only interested in those larger than a certain value so just search for that. For example, there are only five larger than 1,000 R_☉ and 18 of 700 R_☉ or more. Lithopsian (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I must be forgetting my manners - Thanks for the help!PMurthy1011 (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)