Talk:Lybia

Harmful styling

I recently removed the markup {{div col|colwidth=21em}} from the list of species; and have been reverted. On my Netbook, it causes the final item on the list to be displayed over the image in the infobox. Why do we need it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a bug with the MediaWiki software, from the sound of it. WP:BUG is probably the place to go. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you; but even if true - I doubt it is - that doesn't answer my question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Not using columns produces a large amount of whitespace (at typical desktop resolutions, which covers the majority of the readership). I am intrigued that you don't consider it a bug. It may not be with the MediaWiki software (it could be in template coding), but it is clearly wrong that body text should overlap the infobox. That is a bug, and the solution is to fix the bug, not to reformat articles so that it doesn't arise. What browser are you using? --Stemonitis (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd contend that it's CSS GIGO, not a MediaWiki bug, and that "a large amount of whitespace" is a subjective aesthetic view, which should not carry anywhere near as much weight as the tangible symptom I've described. I'm using Google Chrome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I still think the more pressing task is to fix whatever's broken. If everyone were to keep sidestepping the problem, it will never get fixed. Google Chrome produces the same results for me; Firefox and Opera are fine, and Internet Explorer is so useless it won't display columns at all. It looks like {{div col}} needs to be fixed to work on Google Chrome, or that Google Chrome needs to be fixed to become standards compliant. I have dropped a note on the talk page of that template. Since it occurs with {{reflist}}, too, it is probably somewhat deeper, but at least it should be a start in the right direction. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile the article is rendered virtually unreadable, to a significant proportion of visitors, for no other reason than aesthetic preference. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The point is, it's not just here. There must be thousands of articles using that code. If it's a serious problem, then the solution is to be sought elsewhere; changing this one article will not solve the vast majority of the problem. User:Edokter provided a helpful link to the Google Chrome bug page at Template talk:Div col, which you may find useful. The other possibility would be to make a convincing case on that page (and the talk pages of other templates using similar formatting) that they cause more harm than good. This is not the place for any of those discussions. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 6 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, default to status quo which will mean a move back to Lybia. This is basically a primary topic question, whether the primary topic for "Lybia" is the crab genus, the antiquated spelling for Libya, or if there isn't a primary topic and we should disambiguate, as argued for towards the end of the discussion. All three options had reasonable arguments in favour, but none were so strong that they were definitively correct in terms of our primary topic guideline. Therefore, I could not discount that opinion here was clearly split, resulting in no consensus. No prejudice against a new nomination in a few months – I especially think the idea to have a dab page at "Lybia" might be able to gain a consensus. As an aside, this is a good example of why requests at RM/TR to revert bold moves should always be actioned, regardless of the personal opinion of the admin who happens to be there at the time. Jenks24 (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Lybia (crab genus) → Lybia – Was moved without discussion and then redirected to Libya with inadequate reason (and without fixing redirects). Peter James (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Peter James: Too similar to Libya. There is a hatlink back from Libya to Lybia (crab genus). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• That's the same "reason" given by the person who moved the page, and which Peter James and I think is inadequate. Do you have an additional reason to offer? Jeh (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Revert Readers are not entitled to be not-astonished* when they enter a typo that happens to be the name of a different article than what they wanted. I don't necessarily object to this move, I think this move should be reverted, but if it's left as is then "Lybia" should redirect here, to the crab genus, not to the country that has a different name. A hatnote here already points them at "Libya" if that's what they really want. This will provide some educational value, which simply absorbing their typo and assuming we know what they meant will not. Jeh (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

*@Prisencolin:'s explanation {diff) for moving the page was: "seems like a likely mispelling of the country WP:ASTONISH more people want to see the country than an obscure crab species" Jeh (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• This should be moved back to Lybia, it's unsurprising that if readers get the name wrong they may reach a different article; people who are looking for this shouldn't be redirected to an unrelated (and very long) page for which this is not even a recognised variant spelling (there may be exceptions but I don't think this is one). Disambiguation isn't necessary as (if Lybia leads to this page) the content makes it immediately clear that it isn't about Libya. Peter James (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep Move to Lybia (genus), which seems to be the standard, not only is this a common misspelling, but "Lybia" appears to be a valid historical spelling for the country/region as well.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Don't care. I don't think the principle of "redirect for common misspelling" (or historical name) should apply when there's an actual article that correctly uses the "misspelling" as its title. Jeh (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There are enough people accidentally using "Lybia" for the country that it's even been in the news.[1][2][3]. I guess my previous misspelling of mispelling kind of proves the point also.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Wow. You had to go back to 2011 and 2012 to find a grand total of three, and the third one wasn't even about this name specifically. But I don't think those news stories prove what you think they prove. If the misspelling was all that common then it wouldn't be newsworthy, any more than is the use of "colour" vs. "color".

But anyway, that is not responsive to my point. The issue for me is not whether or not it's a common misspelling. I don't care how common it is, and I don't care how often it's the case that people wanted the "country" article. My point is that where there's a valid article by the "misspelling" name, we should not redirect away from it, because it's not a misspelling for that article's name. Nothing I find at WP:REDIRECT supports your position that we should. How popular one article is vs. the other should not be a consideration.

We do have a hatnote here pointing to the country; why is that not sufficient? That's what we have hatnotes for.

What you're saying is that someone who wants this article should either have to type "Lybia" and then click through a hatnote to get here, or else should have to type "Lybia (genus)". Speaking of which, the move from "Lybia (crab genus)" will not change this, it just requires five fewer keystrokes to avoid the hatnote.

Either way that's an absurd thing to do to a reader, so let's not. The person who types "Lybia" when they meant "Libya" should be the one who has to click the hatnote (and maybe learn better thereby). It's not as if "Libya" won't work, after all. Jeh (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jeh: Well we do have a precedent where things like "US" redirect to United States, despite other articles having a title of just "US". It's not really a mispelling, but neither is "Lybia", which can be covered by Template:R from historic name.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

That would be fine if "Lybia" was not also a current, correct name for the genus. This article was fine as it was. A hatnote here could say "For the country or region previously known as "Lybia", see Libya." Wikipedia should not be dumbed-down to "correct" things that aren't mistakes. Jeh (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Move the crab genus somewhere else. External search engines already treat Lybia as a typo and return results for Libya by default. I don't know how many people arrive at Lybia by using Wikipedia's search. If they are intentional searching for "Lybia" as a historical spelling, they'd be better served by arriving at Ancient Libya. Leaving that aside, the current title is inconsistent with similar articles. The defacto standard disambiguatory term for genera covered by WikiProject Arthropods is "(genus)". The de facto standard for most other genera of organisms that need parenthetical disambiguation is an English name for a higher group; in this case, there's already a redirect for Lybia (crab). Move there or to Lybia (genus) if it is decided to keep Lybia as a redirect to Libya. "Lybia (crab genus)" is not consistent and could be more concise. Plantdrew (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Are there significant numbers of articles named "some_genus_name (genus)" ? Seems to me that unless the genus name occurs in some other context the articles are just named "some_genus_name". Consider Ninox, Xenoturbella, etc. At Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) I don't see where "some_genus_name (genus)" is recommended, and there is only one example of its use; from that we can assume that it should only be used where there is another article with the same name as the genus name, but not about the genus. We don't have an article called Lybia that's about the country, therefore this wouldn't apply. Jeh (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No, articles on genera aren't preemptively disambiguated with "(genus)". But when disambiguation is necessary, "(genus)" not "(crab genus)" is the usual solution for crab genera. I don't know of any genera that are only disambiguated against a misspelling, but I'm convinced that Lybia is a legitimate archaic spelling for Libya ([4] see Google Books), not just a misspelling. However, I'd guess most people typing in a search box are Lybia are really looking for Libya and misspelling it. I don't think that the misspelling is a "primary topic" that should redirect to Libya, versus either a dab page at Lybia that lists the crabs and the archaic spelling or having the crab page at the base title with a hatnote. Lybia should not redirect to Libya. Plantdrew (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Question is "Lybia" always a typo, or is it in older sources a variant archaic spelling? From Greek and Latin it shouldn't be, but not sure that it wasn't. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • According to Google books it shows up in translations of Herodotus all the way to 2016 publications.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
• Revert back to the proper title. As above, uncommon typos should not take the place of correct articles. Laurdecl ^talk 05:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
• Revert per WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT. A typo is a typo, regardless if it wasn't always a typo. A hatnote is sufficient to redirect people to the page they want. It would certainly be educational for them to learn the modern proper spelling. We aren't google and shouldn't really be hand-holding or second-guessing people on what they should be looking for.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah but it's not actually a typo, it's a very clearly attested historical usage. In fact the modern form "Libya" doesn't seem to have become the most widely used term until maybe 100 years ago, by that rate we could consider WP:RECENTISM to be at play here. I don't understand why you wouldn't want to assist people would type in "Libya" to mean the country.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• The fact remains that it isn't used now and is regarded as a typo. The official name of the country today is Libya. Not Lybia. When I type "Lybia" I want to be taken to a page on "Lybia", not have Wikipedia assume immediately that I can't spell or I was born 100 years ago. This isn't the case of articles sharing the same title. The name "Lybia" whatever its historical usage may be, is currently used for the crab genus as a singular term. Any confusions can be dealt with by hatnotes (with the secondary benefit of indirectly telling the reader that they spelled it wrong). Just because the topic of the crab genus isn't that familiar, doesn't mean it should immediately be regarded as a secondary topic to a misspelling.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• We don't need to be linguistic elitists here, who really cares if people aren't using correct spelling. page views for the crab are insignificant compared to the country that readers are more likely looking for. It's the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and thus the topic that is most prevalent should take precedence. Historical spelling don't just "expire", they can still remain valid. This is not really a situation like Apple vs Apple Inc., I'll repeat that the country/region is head above heels more prominent a subject than the crab genus.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• But your page view count doesn't tell you how many are getting there via the redirect. Anyway, I don't believe that PRIMARYREDIRECT applies to correcting spelling errors when there is a valid article underneath the "error". Jeh (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, the country is. The country spelled LIBYA. You are again using the WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT rationale, which is not a valid argument in itself, and worse, you are using it to coopt a properly spelled page title for a misspelled redirect. It's irrelevant if it was used a hundred years ago. It IS a misspelling. By your rationale, we should redirect Appel, Apel, Apfel and Appell to Apple, because the latter is a far more prevalent topic and the former four are possible misspellings, are all historical Old English/Germanic spellings for "Apple", and have insignificant pageviews. We don't.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay the spelling is obsolete, but that doesn't make it a misspelling or otherwise incorrect. Spelling styles don't ever "become incorrect" as far as they are concerned. TBH I'm not sure what I was going for with the Apple/Apple Inc. analogy, so ignore that, but anyways you can't make the comparison to Old English, because "Lybia" was used in Modern English. Also, none of those Apple redirects are in modern English so per WP:USEENGLISH they would be WP:FORRED and invalid redirects anyways. --Prisencolin (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

As you said, it is obsolete as an alternative spelling. So yes, it is a misspelling. No modern source lists "Lybia" as a valid alternative spelling, as is clear on the numerous articles which make fun of people who misspell it (including Obama).

We use "modern English" in the sense of English spoken in the modern context. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling#Archaic spelling. We don't mean it in the sense of the entirety of the Modern English language (as opposed to Old and Middle English) from the 15th century onward. Verily, dost thou writest thy Wikipedia prose in Shakespearean English?

As a misspelling, it should not take precedence over a subject that is correctly spelled and accepted in modern English, as it gives the impression that the spelling is still accepted. The article title is preoccupied. A hatnote is enough. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you're going to need a more reliable source than https://www.spellchecker.net to determine whether it's a misspelling or not.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Requires disambiguation. Lybia is not just a misspelling, it's an accepted variant of Libya. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with SmokeyJoe. ".ly" is a notable "export" of Libya, which (though I know it's silly) will continue to breathe new life into the variant spelling. Disambig. Homunq (࿓) 14:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lybia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606061453/http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/rbz/biblio/s17/s17rbz.pdf to http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/rbz/biblio/s17/s17rbz.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)