User talk:Stemonitis/Archive13

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between April 24 2007 and May 04 2007.

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

Dispute on your reply on Case Closed naming

After your closing of WP:RM discussion on Case Closed, saying, inter alia, Izuko (talk · contribs) seemed to be disputing invalid argements that you mentioned in the closing arguments. Please answer him/her there. --Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 13:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a little misunderstanding, I think. I've addressed the issue there. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. --Stemonitis 14:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

List of mycologists

Thanks for creating the list of mycologists. The only thing that might be missing is the author abbreviation. I have been linking a lot of those lately in the mushroom articles.

I noticed that the botanists have everything set up pretty well - They have a list of botanists with abbreviations and also a template to make it easy to put a box in an article that gives the abbreviation info.

I copied it and changed a couple words - Now we have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Mycologist

I tried it out on Gaston Guzman.

There are still some red links, I haven't decided if I should reword the template or add the articles that are in red.

What do you think?

Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 20:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see the advantage of having author abbreviations included on the list of mycologists, and I can't see the harm of a separate {{mycologist}} to parallel {{botanist}}, although since mycology falls under the ICBN, all mycologists are, in some sense, botanists (and many were both, particularly in the early days), so the links in the template should lead to author citation (botany) and botanical name. We should not expect a separate article on "author citation (mycology)" to be created, since mycological naming is botanical naming, even if the organisms aren't plants. --Stemonitis 21:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Melolonthinae

Thanks for fixing the errors I made in creating Melolonthinae. I took a leap creating it since I have zero practical knowledge of the subject. Hey this is totally random, but I figure you might know a thing or two about biology as a whole. Why does Canis lupus familiaris cover everything from a chihuahua to a great dane yet other animals with very minor variations (ex. Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdnerii, Oncorhynchus mykiss newberrii) are distinct subspecies? -- drumguy8800 C T 21:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The species is normally defined as a group of "actually or potentially interbreeding populations" (the biological species concept), which means that if two animals can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, they are considered conspecific. Subspecies are defined more vaguely, as divisions of a species which are not different enough to prevent interbreeding, but which have fairly constant differences. I don't know what the morphological difference between O. m. newberrii and O. m. gairdnerii is, but I am sure there is one. The unusual situation is Canis lupus familiaris, which has been subject to artificial selection, and so exhibits much more physical variation than is normal for taxa of such limited genetic isolation. I am not sure whether it is really valid to apply scientific names to domestic dogs and the like in the first place, although it is widely done; perhaps it represents the scientific name of the wild taxon from which the domesticated breeds are derived. By contrast, cultivated plants have their own system of nomenclature, separate from the ICBN. --Stemonitis 07:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Hello Stemonitis, you wrote that there has not been consensus with the name change, however, the article has been moved several times without consensus and without sources. I brought up several sources, proving what the most commonly used name is to the public. In addition, I brought up sources including the Israeli government's website and the Lebanese government's. These sources all have consensus and stand strong. Please tell me what I am to do at this point. --Shamir1 05:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I commend your work in finding sources, and by all means try to establish a consensus name among contributors to the article. I would, however, warn against any further move requests. I see someone has just opened another request to have the article shifted about, and I doubt that that action is going to make any friends. My advice would be to hold on to your sources, even seek new ones, but let the naming conflict die down over a length of time, and return to it fresh in a few months. I cannot believe that any new arguments will appear in a fifth move request that did not appear in the first, second, third and fourth. Instead, it is likely only to increase frustration and annoyance among the editorialship. So my adivce is: let it lie. --Stemonitis 07:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Luis Miguel

_ _ I'm afraid i'm short on trust of enough eyeballs turning up; it's not at all clear to me whether that's bcz i've seen too many crap decisions made, or whether i perceive that situation as a result of having too many crap opinions myself! In this case, i would be ungracious in the extreme if i failed to at least say "You told me so".
_ _ Now that i've gotten the 4 (four!) Rdr-free LoPbN entries for him placed, let me say thanks for your good advice and your patience with a difficult colleague, and for your diligence (most valuable to me) in what i gather is one of your specialties. Best to you.
--Jerzy•t 20:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Kambrya College

Dear Stemonitis, I am contacting you regarding your restoration of the Kambrya College page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kambrya_College )

According to the page history "(cur) (last) 13:16, 22 April 2007 Stemonitis (Talk | contribs) m (moved Vschols to Kambrya College: undoing series of moves; WP:RM)"

The Leadership team of Kambrya College, located in Melbourne Australia, has been trying for some months to remove the page from Wikipedia (probably all the wrong ways). Kambrya College has an official website and someone (likely a student) has created an unauthorized site using Wikipedia. The Principal, who has been named in the site without permission, has requested Wikipedia to delete the site but so far without success. I created an account specifically for the purpose of deleting the site but it keeps being restored by Wikipedia Administrators, not doubt trying to maintain the integrity of the site. Kambrya has an excellent reputation with the dept of Education in Victoria and is used as a model for other schools. Some person of unknown origin is using Wikipedia to attack the reputation of Kambrya. We simply want the site removed. I would very much appreciate the site being removed, or is it possible for us to lock the site with the contents simply being a directive to the official website at http://www.kambryacollege.com/ (which makes is a pointless page for Wikipedia but at least it wont be able to be recreated). Not sure of the protocols here. You can authenticate this posting by emailing to the address on the entrance page of the Kambrya website (bottom of page) and marking it to the attention of the Principal.

We would very much appreciate your attention to this or advice on what we need to do to end the campaign of this unknown person. I am operating as antipathy1 and will be happy to email you directly if you send your contact details via the Kambrya College email address. Thank you very much for your time. I know you work in a volunteer capacity.

If Kambrya College is a well-respected school, then there's no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about it. We also have policies against pages that consist only of links to external websites, and these are deleted on sight (under speedy deletion criterion A3), so we cannot have the article be a mere link to the official website. That said, if someone is trying to attack any individuals, or post unwarranted attacks on the institution, then these can be removed from the article (by any registered user). In fact, there is only one negative section in the article, namely that students "have reportedly experienced difficulties in understanding, due to incomprehensive curriculum", which I shall remove presently. The rest is descriptive. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and neither requires nor seeks permission from the subjects it covers. We do, however, have policies that all material must be attributable, and are especially firm on sourcing information regarding living people. I agree that the principal's name is not especially relevant in this context, and I shall remove that as well (although it is verifiably true). The only reason for which I could imagine the article being deleted is a lack of notability, but, since we already have articles about many individual schools, in Australia and elsewhere, that seems unlikely to succeed. I am sorry that I can't help any further. --Stemonitis 05:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Stemonitis.

accidental spelling error

Hi Stemonitis -

I accidentally mispelt the name of this fish (Image:Apistogramma_nijesseni_mf_mirror.jpg), I corrected it by re-uploading the image with a new name (Image:Apistogramma_nijsseni_mf_mirror.jpg) but I thought I should delete the former and I'm not sure how to? Wondering if you could help me? Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 23:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's no problem. I've deleted the mis-spelt copy. --Stemonitis 06:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Myobatrachus

Hello (again:)
Thanks for fixing the taxobox at the article. The link was, of course, for the new article. I considered making the single species genus a single article. I followed your link to WP:TOL where the suggestion regarding article naming is discussed (Amphionides is nice, by the way). Cogger (1983) maintains his system of a description for the genera and then a (column) section for the species. It certainly makes browsing through that book more convenient, that may be relevant here. I had thought to expand the genus article with past and current discussion on the known species and other burrowing frogs. Anything else I can find as well, assuming it is informative and relevant. The species article can discuss the description, distribution and ecological circumstances. I don't think they will be too short. If you have anymore thoughts, or links, I would find them helpful. Thanks, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 17:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am struggling to see the point of separating a species article from a generic article, when the genus is monotypic. I suppose if the genus had contained other species, before they were placed in different genera, then there might be scope for a little separation, but even then, separate headings or paragraphs would seem to be enough. The layouts that work in a book are not necessarily the same as those that work in a hyperlinked enrivonment (Wikipedia is not paper). I think it would be frustrating for people to have to click through from the species to the genus, or vice versa, to find out different information about what is, essentially, the same taxon. --Stemonitis 18:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, don't let me distract you from your good work. Perhaps I am being too bold in this venture, I did say 'may be relevant' to wikipedia. WP:PAPER starts "This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page. There is a feasible limit for individual article sizes that depends on page download size ..." and nothing about a minimum. It does go on to mention splitting large articles. I agree with the idea of articles being self contained, yet 'hyperlinks' are an integral part of the topic (biota) on wikipedia. Articles on various genera and species could benefit from similarity in structure, especially for the browsing reader. I imagine many readers would click through articles on biota to find information they need. I will see if I can dig up another species in the genera :) ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 08:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It may not be written into policy anywhere, but there is a general agreement that very short articles should be avoided. If the sum total of information on a subject is not enough to fill a reasonably-sized article, then two or more should probably be merged. However, I don't think that's really what we're discussing here. The key issue is of having information on one subject in one place. I am not aware of any precedent on Wikipedia of having articles on a single topic at two or more titles (redirects excluded). Indeed, such content forks are actively discouraged. --Stemonitis 08:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your attention to the matter. Your edit and reply indicate that further discussion will not be productive. I will take what you have said into consideration. Perhaps you could create a guideline on this 'unwritten law', especially as it relates to biota? I will get out of your way now. Regards, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 09:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that it is already written somewhere… Found it: Wikipedia:Article_length#A rule of thumb. There is also some discussion at Wikipedia:Stub. From what I have seen, Myobatrachus does seem to be monotypic (the family is Australian-endemic, and no other species are listed in the Australia Frog Database), so it looks like a single article is indicated, which, by WP:TOL convention would be at Myobatrachus or turtle frog, but not Myobatrachus gouldii. I am not familiar with Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, so it may be worth consulting their pages (and members) for further guidance. To reassure you, it is difficult to "be too bold", and you needn't worry about getting in my way. If my answers were curt, it was only an attempt to convey information clearly, not impatience or impoliteness. --Stemonitis 09:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I found that your links only gave support to my view, it did not give the discussion I hoped to find. I too recall a discussion being written somewhere, I'll let you know if I find it. Forgive my attempt at humour in 'digging up another species' and any misunderstanding it caused. Kind regards, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 09:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith

*You* should assume good faith. *You* accuse me of combattive warring. Alithien 16:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I did not, however, edit a page just to settle a score, nor deliberately go against consensus to impose my preferences on others. Editing to try to get to the third revert is not good practice, and many experienced editors prefer a one-revert rule. That is why I responded on your talk page, and waited for a while for an answer before reverting the article. --Stemonitis 16:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you accuse me. Here I would have edited a page just to settle a score.

there is no consensus not to give a size to images. I can find 100's images with a size. User setting do not solve everything.

You didn't wait for my answer before reverting. You just reverted because you think you are right.

This being written. No matter for me. This image size is good like that. Alithien 17:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I only meant consensus at that article, incidentally, and the fact that other articles do it differently is a weak argument. --Stemonitis 17:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to argue in that direction ? Because if I ask you to show me where there has been a consensus about the size of *that* picture on *that* article, I think you will be quite embarrassed...

I am quite sure there is a link somewhere about "getting the last word". I would discuss the way you do, I think I would have to find it but... See you, Alithien 14:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Bliar Redirect Complaint

This redirect does not contribute constructively, can I expand the article to provide the information why Bliar is used in context with Blair ?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omeganumber (talk • contribs)

Um, I'm not sure off the top of my head. If there were to be sufficient content to discuss about the term "Bliar", then I suspect that a different title would be required. Perhaps it could redirect to Criticism of Tony Blair or something. A list of misspellings was never likely to survive there, but a discussion of its primary meaning - I'm not sure. The more I think about it, the better "Criticism of Tony Blair" seems as a redirection target. It already discusses the "Bliar" business under #Satire. --Stemonitis 17:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Airport-Manchester Line

I think you were meaning National Rail. Here is some evidence from Network Rail on Styal Line. Even the Manchester Airport Line says it leaves the Styal Line on a spur to the airport. Simply south 09:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, they use "Styal line" (lower-case "l") and "Styal line & Manchester Airport". Neither of those is exactly the proposed title. I'm pretty sure that "Airport-Manchester Line" is wrong, but I can't yet see compelling evidence for any other title being the best. How do the railway companies refer to them? Is it by name, or by number, or do they simply describe them? I could be convinced by "Manchester Airport Line" (or "Manchester Airport line"). It's not at all clear to me what the best solution is. --Stemonitis 09:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I also found a press release from Network Rail about Gatley. Also, on there is talk about the Styal Line Corridor on a Manchester Metrolink from Manchester City Centre to East Didsbury. A report on Greater Manchester Strategic Rail Study Final Report June 2001 from the DfT also shows the Styal Line. Simply south 10:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's better. It does still seem that the Styal Line does not usually include the Airport spur. Perhaps there actually isn't a proper name for the two parts together. In that case, I suppose, Styal Line is as good a name as any. Of course, the target (Styal Line) is unobstructed, so you don't really need my support (or anyone else's). I think you should just be bold and do it, if you're convinced it's right. It's not as if anyone disagrees with you, just that there wasn't enough comment to judge the consensus during ht emove request. --Stemonitis 10:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Simply south 12:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've included the spur anyway with a note that it leaves the Styal Line. I hame also finally properly reworded the article with a small bit of help. Simply south 10:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work. That looks fine now, and it explains the situation clearly. --Stemonitis

Philippine peso

You're welcome to disagree but I personally believe that normal editors are as reliable, if not more, as admin editors. Especially normal editors who have good edit history. Berserkerz Crit 12:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that admins are no better than other responsible editors, but the added appearance of impartiality and finality is tremendously useful, and leads to much greater stability. Editors are much less likely to undo an admin's move than a move by one of their recent opponents. --Stemonitis 12:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Kaltenkirchen

Hi,

would you care to explain why you reverted the edit by User:Hughstew? I am coming somewhat late into the discussion, but it is well-known among those familiar with local history that there was a sub-camp of Neuengamme located in Kaltenkirchen. For instance you can read it in the book by Gerhard Hoch, cited in the German wikipedia entry. Also, there is this entry on the sub-camp as well: KZ Kaltenkirchen. Crix 01:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This was part of a campaign by that editor to add concentration camp information to a great many German and Austrian geographic articles, in a formulaic way, and often with no consideration for the article's structure, balance and flow. Where the information is correct and relevant, it should of course be included, but I reverted those edits to try and nip his actions in the bud. He later began to work the references into the articles much better.

There are a lot of people on Wikipedia who are obsessed with the NS era in Germany, and that threatens to cloud all of our coverage of German people and places with Nazi-specific information. In everyday life in Germany and Austria, the Second World War is not really an issue, so to deliver all our Germany-related content through the filter of the 1940s is really not appropriate. Kaltenkirchen's real importance (like that of the vast majority of German places) is as a current habitation, and not for historical events which occurred on a much wider geographical scale. I hope that explains it. --Stemonitis 07:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I can agree with your position. You should really go read Gerhard Hoch's book "Zwölf Jahre unter dem Hakenkreuz", having a sub-camp with hundreds of forced labourers (of whom 700 are estimated to have died) is a significant part of the history of a small town such as Kaltenkirchen and justifies inclusion in the article, especially since the airstrip at which said labourers were deployed is mentioned. Although one of the Wikipedia principles is to assume good faith, the rest of your explanation strikes me as somewhat disingenuous (I especially take offence to your comment "In everyday life in Germany and Austria, the Second World War is not really an issue"; if you follow the link still there in the article under "external links", you will find that the memorial is an endeavour that was started as recently as 1999). We are talking about one sentence here, and granted that the original phrasing was quite awkward, it was fully justified. This wouldn't make the history of 1933-1945 dominate the article. Keeping it out of the article, on the other hand, could possibly give rise to claims of attempted revisionism and white-washing of history (relative to the town, not to German history in general), and thus I believe it to be appropriate to work in a sentence that accurately reflects the town's role "unter dem Hakenkreuz". (a side note: for some reason, the English-language Wikipedia tends to have less detailed information on the history of that era for many German places, but this is absolutely not the case for the German-language Wikipedia, it invariably contains a description of the Nazi era. I do not see this as a deficiency of the German-language Wikipedia but as one of the English language one.) Crix 08:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. My position is that the information should be included, in a sensitive way, as I said before. --Stemonitis 08:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

well you gave me a lengthy description about how the Nazi era shouldn't dominate articles on German place names, when we are talking about one sentence here. (And your position does not directly follow from your statement that that part of the history is not relevant for ordinary Germans any more, to which I strongly object, but it is not my inclination to start a political discussion here) Anyway, maybe instead of completely deleting the sentence, a sensible rephrasing would have been more appropriate. Crix 08:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's the long-term solution but, in the circumstances, the time required for such work was not available while further edits were being made by the same editor without any real attempt to work them into the articles. You must see my actions in the context of all of the edits of that time. It is my impression that Germany has come to terms with the events of the 1930s and 1940s much better than many other countries, and has moved on, and I wish that other countries and people could do the same. --Stemonitis 08:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

ACK. When I find the time, I will try and work it into the article in an appropriate manner. As for the past, yes, Germany has largely come to terms with what happened during the Nazi era, but part of the process is to remain aware of the past and remember it. In that sense, the past is still highly relevant for present-day Germany (as a recent example, see the controversy surrounding the eulogy of Hans Filbinger given by Baden-Württemberg's premier Günther Oettinger), but you are right that in general Germans are not obsessed with it to the exclusion of everything else. Crix 08:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Heaven Lake

Hi Stemonitis, thanks for taking control of that situation and making a difficult decision under fire. I intentionally stayed out of the conflict over the renaming of this lake, but saw most of it since that article was on my watchlist. I am a completely impartial observer, an American of neither Chinese nor Korean ancestry.

A couple of days ago, a bit too late, I thought of a name which (I think) is much better: Heavenly Lake. This has three advantages over the current name: 1) it appears to be a better translation of either Tianchi or Cheonji; 2) it avoids the conflict mentioned by some with the book "Heaven Lake" about the lake in Xinjiang; 3) personally, I think it is a more mellifluous and nicer name.

The name is not in use on Wikipedia, so it would be an easy move and would cause no further controversy. Under normal circumstances, I would have already moved it to the new name, but obviously in this situation such bold action is ill-advised. However, I believe that renaming the article would improve the encyclopedia and also ease user access to the intended articles via Google searches, so I think it is important to consider it.

Please let me know what you think. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The key test is whether the name is used outside Wikipedia; in this case, the answer seems to be yes (although it's always difficult to tell with all the different lakes of the same name around). Perhaps copy/summarise this discussion to that talk page, and allow a couple of days for anyone to protest (I don't suppose they will; it's possible it might open up the whole can of worms again, in which case we abandon the idea), and then go through with it. If you could single out a couple of highly-esteemed sources that use the name, that would help a lot. --Stemonitis 05:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can find numerous online sources (including both Korean and Chinese ones) which use Heavenly Lake, but I would not call any of them "esteemed". By the way, User:LionheartX has been deleting his comments from the highly contentious discussion at Talk:Heaven Lake, along with switching the position of the Korean and Chinese wikiproject banners there. I have reverted his deletions and switch, but I think it would be best if you dealt with his actions (if anything further is needed). I'm not sure whether a report to WP:ANI is warranted, so I have not done so. --Seattle Skier (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have archived the existing talk (hoping that out of sight is out of mind); if anyone should continue to edit the old stuff, let me know again, and I'll take some other action (not sure what yet). With only Internet sources, I'd be wary about starting another move request (even an informal one) so soon. It is, of course, entirely up to you, but it seems to me like too little gain against too much possible damage. Don't get me wrong — I like your translation as much as any other, but without some really good sources, it may just be stirring up the old debate. That said, I've got no idea what your sources are… --Stemonitis 14:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ

I noticed that you edited the note on WP:RM. I understand why you did that, and would have done something similar but the WP:MOVE said I should make them identical. The reason I come here is to ask for your support or opposition. I feel like it is totally in line with policies and guidelines, and that those who are opposing me are just exerting a POV. I could be mistaken, which is why I would like a bunch of people to comment. Would you care to comment? I understand there's a lot to go over, but I think the requested moves section covers it well enough. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. McKay 20:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's very likely to be me who closes the debate after the five days. As such, it would be best if I didn't comment on the request while it's under discussion. Usually, if the arguments are solid, no amount of POV pushing or other attempts to undermine consensus will be able to affect the outcome. --Stemonitis 20:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a much better answer than any I was thinking you were going to give. Yeah, best not to comment. Thanks for your help :D McKay 20:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Toei

Hello. I have to ask, why did you change the redirect of Toei, as done here? ~I'm anonymous

As you pointed out, there is no point in having an undisambiguated title redirecting to one ending in "(disambiguation)". However, a fuller move request would need to be undergone to determine whether Toei Company is, or is not, the primary meaning of "Toei". My edit was merely to restore an internally consistent situation until the move request (if any) finishes. It is not meant to imply that the move is or is not justified. There are two possible outcomes:

1. Toei is a disambiguation page, with a link to Toei Company
2. Toei redirects to Toei Company, which links to Toei (disambiguation)

I don't mind which system prevails, but before my edit, we had a mixture of the two, which is untenable. --Stemonitis 09:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Understandable. Though Toei Animation is prime for the company, as they are more notable, I think, for their anime series production. But like you said, let's see of the outcome. Peace. ~I'm anonymous