User talk:Stemonitis: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:13, 18 April 2007

n.b.

I will reply to messages wherever they are posted. If you write something here, my reply will also be here. If I have written something on someone else's talk page, I will be watching it for a while.

Because of their length, previous discussions on this page have been moved to the archives:

		The Fauna Barnstar
		For your thousands upon thousands of tireless edits to arthropod-related articles, and in particular crustacean-related ones, I award you the Fauna Barnstar. IronC hris \| (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your thoughtful and very articulate RM closing at Talk:Danah Boyd. Nicely done. :) --El on ka 16:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that makes a nice change from the usual "What were you thinking?!" diatribes that one tends to receive after closing contentious moves! --Stemonitis 16:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Thanks

For your help with the Prentss Oakley stub. Others redirected it to Bonnie and Clyde ane were insistant on doing so. Kaltenborn 22:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carnedd Llywelyn

Hello again, we have chatted in the past, but could you take a look at the latest deletions by ras52, I put in other citations and references yesterday and they have been unilaterally deleted by the above user, I have not reverted the deletions as its probably best to get some idea if there is any support for citing the RGS and other such bodies, and other books, i.e. "Gerald of Wales" in 1198. It took quite a while trawling through the libraries to locate them, but they got deleted in justa few minutes. Admitedly they are not perfect, but I didn't deserve that treatment. Thanks in advance. (Gowron 08:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

I was also a little uncertain about the references being added to Carnedd Llewelyn, but I refrained from acting until I could think of a better solution (thinking that constructive criticism is better than outright deletion). The trouble is that we are trying to communicate that Welsh(-speaking) writers tend to use "Llywelyn" predominantly, but we haven't got a reference which says that explicitly. Wikipedia's original research policy is clear that conclusions we draw (even if they're true) cannot be included. We would need a citation from somewhere else about the different spellings and who uses which; it is not enough to collate information about which author uses which ourselves. Without such a citation, all we can say is that some authors use Llewelyn (including the OS) and others use Llywelyn (including the NPA). To say anything further would be original research. The best I can find at the moment is George Clerk, Major-General Cheetham, M. N. MacLeod & al. (1943). "Physical names for the Map of Britain. Discussion at the Afternoon Meeting of the Society". The Geographical Journal. 102 (4): 10–169. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |quotes= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) (pdf available on request), in which several people argue that "Carnedd Llewelyn" should be corrected to "Carnedd Llywelyn" (although some also argue by the same rule for "Y Glyder Fawr" and "Carnedd Ddafydd"). Even this is pretty far from what we need. --Stemonitis 08:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your comments as always, and thanks for taking the view that straight deletion was a little too agressive, it is now possible that other may not get to see them. I was also not overcome with joy at seeing such negative remarks in the comments to edits. I may have missinterpreted what was being required, I agree that the many citations may well have seemed too many. The "Carr and Lister" comment was supposed to have assisted in highlighting (the inconsistencies) in the book, that a known author (will provide this when I get home), had stated that the mountain was given its name because of "Llywelyn", however they had used "Llewelyn" for both the mountain and the prince, which is odd because Prince "Llywelyn" was always spelled in that manner. This was a neutral comment for AGAINST people, that got removed.

I did cite the The Geographical Journal reference that you mention above, but that got removed also, however I'm not at this point using any of these citations to close the argument, but to suggest wider usage and acceptance in English writtings and not only confined to Welsh writers. In most cases what I did was too attach the citations to existing text. Many thanks though. (Gowron 11:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I just noticed that ra52 had actually strung some the citations together in one line, I had not seen that done before, so apologies. (Gowron 11:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"Guiana Space Centre" vs "Centre Spatial Guyanais"

Hi, could you please provide proof of the statistics you quoted on Talk:Guiana Space Centre. There seems to be a sizable difference between your search results and the results of searches for the same terms which I have run. Thanks --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Talk:Guiana Space Centre --Stemonitis 18:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L. Athira Krishna move

Damn that was fast. Cheers! FiggyBee 13:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orkney-stub

You forgot the comma on {{Orkney-stub}}. Happy editing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. So I did. --Stemonitis 16:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easter move

Hi. I have removed the closed discussion boilerplate, as the discussion was still ongoing, with the latest edit being only 2 days prior to you closing the discussion. From how I understand building concensus, it's not normal procedure to close a discussion that is still ongoing. I would suggest waiting at least 1 week following the last contributory edit before considering closing the dicussion. Best regards, --Rebroad 10:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus is clear after five days, there is no need to wait any longer. Most move requests are closed on the sixth day after listing. Only where the consensus seems likely to change (especially where it is likely to become apparent where it hadn't been before) is there any sense in continuing. Adding an extra week seems excessive (effectively increasing the lag time between request and action from 5 days to 12). --Stemonitis 10:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the concensus seems clear, but your summarisation of it seemed misleading in that you alluded that the current article should remain about the Christian festival. It was not a clear concensus on this, with many people saying it should INCLUDE the pagan origins, etc. --Rebroad 10:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was clearly against the proposed move, which was the issue under discussion. Any remaining issues, such as whether the pagan aspects should be included at Easter or elsewhere, can (and indeed, should) be discussed outside the move request framework. --Stemonitis 11:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Moves

Hi. I know you work on the requested moves page, so do you know why the Dukes of Burgundy are still caught in the backlog? Michael Sanders 13:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about these today. There are only a few votes in each case, and the votes went different ways, so it's difficult to ascertain which method is preferred overall. I did a web search for Philip II/the Bold, and found that "Philip the Bold" is indeed much commoner an appellation than "Philip II", but most of the sites (c. 60%?) call him "Philip the Bold, Duke of Burgundy", not just "Philip the Bold". Would that be an acceptable solution? I think the reason it has taken so long is that few administrators (and probably none of the half-dozen or so regulars at WP:RM) are familiar enough with the naming conventions for royals and nobles to know which conventions apply in which cases. Anything that I'm unsure about, I tend to leave for someone else to deal with, and I suspect others do the same, which can result in moves being apparently ignored for quite a while. Another question: is it important that all four articles are named in a similar way, or is it acceptable to have Philip the Good but Philip II, Duke of Burgundy as article titles? --Stemonitis 13:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philip the Bold, Duke of Burgundy would be acceptable to me; since I was expecting the original nomination to fail after the views had been made on that page, I was planning to renominate for moving as Philip the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, anyway. As for this issue, I'd cite WP:NAME's 'in a nutshell' - "This page in a nutshell: Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." So far as I can see, the Dukes of Burgundy are rarely, if ever referred to by ordinals; they are generally referred to by their epithets. The only truly difficult one is Philip the Bold, because of Philip III of France - to rename the article from "Philip II, Duke of Burgundy" to "Philip the Bold" would go against WP:NAME because it would be too ambiguous; but PtB,DoB wouldn't (as for Charles the Bold, that would be a different issue - though personally, I think it is well accepted that "Charles the Rash" is the 'correct' form of his name and epithet, but "Charles the Bold" is the most commonly used English form - thus in line with WP:NAME). As for a similarity in names, I personally wouldn't consider it important; however, since I'd still say that more people would recognise "Philip the Bold, Duke of Burgundy" than "Philip II, Duke of Burgundy", it comes to much the same thing. Michael Sanders 14:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that moving the page Philip II, Duke of Burgundy against two oppositions and with only the nominator's support was unwise. As was ignoring my point about the king of France. The page ought to be moved to Philip the Bold, Duke of Burgundy. Srnec 06:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I explained my actions, including my dismissal of your concerns. If that was unclear, I will try to clarify. Move requests are not votes, but are based on a balance of arguments put forward by either side, so the numbers of opinions given is not a deciding factor. --Stemonitis 06:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But who decides what argumemts are better? Even if "Philip the Bold" most commonly refers to our friend the Burgundian duke, it should be made a disambiguation page unless the proponderance of instances of its use favour the duke, but I think that Philip III of France is frequently called "the Bold" too, so I see no "preponderance." But perhaps I'm wrong. I am certainly one person to whom "Philip the Bold" refers to the king of France. (Granted I am also one who has not studied the Valois duchy very much.) Srnec 13:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philip III of France is most frequently called Philip III of France. Philip the Bold of Burgundy, by contrast, is most commonly called Philip the Bold. It is thus, provided each article notes the existence of the other, not ambiguous. Michael Sanders 13:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, thanks for your assistance in moving the articles. Michael Sanders 22:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you so much for moving my userpages over to my new username. I am pleased with my new username.—OHWiki 19:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Happy editing. --Stemonitis 20:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History merging

A user moved Anthony Carelli to Johnny Geo Basco, then moved it Johnny Basco, then redirected and pasted that back at Anthony Carelli. The result is that the edit history of the page is at Johnny Basco, while the page is at Anthony Carelli. You you merge the history of the pages back to Anthony Carelli? TJ Spyke 06:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The history's a little bit messy in one place, but the only alternative involved my ticking hundreds of little boxes individually, and I've already done that once this morning (and it's not even 8am yet :-). --Stemonitis 06:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. TJ Spyke 06:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Stemonitis -

Thanks for the Nymphes myrmeleonides article! It's my photo - I'm glad you like it :D! Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 10:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lamy, Joseph Alfred

Hello Stemonitis,

I prefer to put this maker under L since the last name is Lamy, Joseph Alfred. If you would like to place it to read first name|last name, could you please do so that the name still shows up under letter L. Thanks in advance.Milliot 22:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British and Irish Hills Userbox

My compliments to you on your fabulous userbox for British and Irish Hills! I am Billy227, a member of the same WikiProject. I am suggesting that you actually make that into a userbox, which could then b used by all members of the Project. Just a suggestion! -Billy227 23:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Add {{:User:Stemonitis/BIhills}} to a page to have it appear. I shall also announce it at the project. --Stemonitis 06:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pennine Way link on Black Hill page

The link to The Pennine Way site I put on the Black Hill page was removed. I dont understand why. The Pennine Way passes over Black hill - the link was useful and relevant. Can you give me a reason, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennine Way (talk • contribs)

The link you added to Black Hill (Peak District) contained almost nothing of relevance to Black Hill. The only sentence on that page which concerned Black Hill was "His own experiences of the walk included getting stuck in a bog up to his waist on Black Hill - he had to be pulled out by a passing National Park warden!", which is not vital information. There are dozens of guides to the Pennine Way; we don't need them all linked to our articles about every peak that appears on the route. I don't mind having the link at Pennine Way (although someone else may take a different view), but adding the link to so many articles is a clear case of linkspam. The guidelines at WP:EL are worth reading thoroughly to get an idea of what is and is not acceptable. Don't be fooled by what you see on other pages; chances are they too need to be cleared of inappropriate links. --Stemonitis 16:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: stub sort

Hi there, I noticed that you 'stub sorted' the Lygodactylus articles I created recently. What is that exactly and is it something I can do as I create the articles to save others the work? --killing sparrows 17:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 121: / Line 121: @@
 :The link you added to [[Black Hill (Peak District)]] contained almost nothing of relevance to Black Hill. The only sentence on that page which concerned Black Hill was "His own experiences of the walk included getting stuck in a bog up to his waist on Black Hill - he had to be pulled out by a passing National Park warden!", which is not vital information. There are dozens of guides to the Pennine Way; we don't need them all linked to our articles about every peak that appears on the route. I don't mind having the link at [[Pennine Way]] (although someone else may take a different view), but adding the link to so many articles is a clear case of linkspam. The guidelines at [[WP:EL]] are worth reading thoroughly to get an idea of what is and is not acceptable. Don't be fooled by what you see on other pages; chances are they too need to be cleared of inappropriate links. --[[User:Stemonitis|Stemonitis]] 16:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
+== re: stub sort ==
+Hi there,
+I noticed that you 'stub sorted' the Lygodactylus articles I created recently. What is that exactly and is it something I can do as I create the articles to save others the work?
+--[[User:Killing sparrows|killing sparrows]] 17:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)