Jump to content

User talk:Stemonitis/Archive44

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between November 11, 2013 and April 8, 2015.

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

Move of Fly Orchid

[edit]

Naturally I applaud your move (the English name really only applies to one subspecies anyway). Just a point: given the continued hostility to the use of scientific names (if you want to waste your time, see Talk:Cucurbita#Why aren't we titled Squash here?), I think it's better to give "WP:FLORA" in an edit summary as the reason for the use of scientific names. "WP:PLANTS" invites the "it's only a local consensus" response. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC) P[reply]

Thanks. I'll try to remember that (most of my edit summaries are filled in by the browser's memory of earlier entries, so it might be a while before it comes to dominate). I actually think Wikipedia has improved in its acceptance of scientific names in the time I've been here. It used to be difficult to get any taxon to rest at the scientific-name title if any one person had ever proposed a single vernacular name (not "common name" s.s., of course). At least now there is acceptance among fairly large portions of the editorship that scientific names can be the most appropriate titles for some taxa, and WP:FLORA is blazing a trail for preferring scientific names in general. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also try and invoke WP:UCN in the edit summary (as in this diff) if a Google test has the scientific name ahead by a large margin, which I hope will help preempt any objections based on common misreadings of UCN. If I could move Tembusu, I'd also throw WP:UE into the edit summary as another policy that is widely misinterpretated to prohibit scientific names (is there any good reason to go with the Indonesian name "tembusu" over the Thai, Vietnamese, etc. vernacular names?)
I came here to ask if you had any criteria/rule of thumb you were employing to decide to make moves to the scientific name as you worked through the Linnaean species (and if so, whether I could suggest additional titles that might meet your criteria). I was pleased to see Common Dogwood and Common Hogweed moved to scientific names. The "Common Foo" vernacular names strike me as especially bad, since the actual commonly used name is usually just "Foo" (with some ambiguity about whether Foo refers to a genus or one particular species). I'd llike to see Common Tormentil, Common Butterbur, and Common spotted orchid moved to scientific names, if you'd be willing to consider it. I'm not sure why you decided to move "Fly Orchid", but if you think moving orchids to scientific names is generally appropriate and uncontroversial, there's Fragrant orchid, Frog Orchid, Lady orchid, Lizard Orchid, Musk Orchid and Southern Marsh Orchid. I'll probably eventually get around to making Requested Moves for these, but I've been hoping an admin sympathetic to scientific names will make the move without going through RM. Plantdrew (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely agree about "common foo" names. If this artificial qualifier is needed, it shows that "foo" is ambiguous. No-one is going to search for "common foo"; they will search for "foo". I actually gave a talk last night about the plants of Sutton Park which included tormentil. I would never have thought of calling it "common tormentil". On the other hand, "Common Spotted Orchid" and "Southern Marsh Orchid" are standard names on the BSBI list, and I do use them in talking to a lay audience. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, an extra reason to move "fly orchid" is that it usually refers only to O. insectifera subsp. insectifera. O. insectifera subsp. aymoninii is called Aymonin's bee orchid in my sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It look me a little while, but all the species mentioned above have now been moved. To answer Plantdrew's direct question, I don't think there were any strict criteria in mind. I saw lots of articles that ought to be moved, but I didn't want to divert too much time into moves while in the middle of another laborious task. It was probably the capitalisation of "Fly Orchid" that prompted me to look more closely, but I'm sure I skipped over similar cases. If there are others that you want moving, then do let me know. There are lots of plant articles still at vernacular-name titles, and I don't want to launch into an enormous campaign straight away, but I'm happy to cherry-pick ("Prunus-avium-pick"?) small numbers on an ad hoc basis. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Parochetus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clover leaf (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for deletion

[edit]

As you may have seen, I've been emptying very small plant categories and marking them for deletion – I see you've deleted some of them. If you feel energetic, all the following genus categories were created by User:Polbot and so were done without any consideration of size. Most had only 1-3 articles in them, which I've moved up to the family, order or whatever.

Peter coxhead (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I consider such cases to be uncontroversial. Let me know if any more crop up, and I'll happily dispatch them. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll certainly let you know of any Polbot created categories. I suspect there are many more; this bot created a trail of problem stubs – genera assigned to the wrong family, duplicate articles on synonyms, as well as categories for a single genus and species. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I know only too well the problems that Polbot left behind. I have been slowly working through the debris for the last six years or so. It was a good idea but too hastily executed. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More Polbot:

Enough for today. (Just look at Category:Annonaceae. There are 42 subcategories with under 10 articles. All those I've quickly checked are Polbot creations. Sigh...) Peter coxhead (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, and lots of two-article Polbot categories among them! There's always a good chance that they will turn out to be monotypic, but with one (unsourced) article on the genus and one on the species (e.g. Mkilua, Monocyclanthus, etc.). All good fun. Once the categories have been tagged, it's the work of moments to delete them, so don't worry about overloading me; I don't think that will happen. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally I'd check with TPL, etc. to see whether the genus is monospecific, and if so make the genus article a redirect, etc. There are just too many to do this now, so I'll content myself with removing the very small categories the bot created. (Ideally there should be a category for "Polbot created stubs" so we would have a list to be worked on.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More Polbot

[edit]

I'm only marking for deletion those with <10 species listed at the genus article; even if only one species has an article but there are 9 red links, I've left the category. Perhaps too conservative an approach? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Thanks for deleting all the above. What do you think of Category:Annonaceae now? All the subcategories are potentially sufficiently large, in that the genus article lists 10 or more species. However, there are 123 articles in the category, which might be thought too many, perhaps. There are well-sourced subfamilies, so the 123 could be diffused – would this be worthwhile? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably leave it as it is now, although it is of course a matter of taste. I could certainly think of better places for your efforts to be directed, if you fancied a challenge (see, for instance, Category:Pteridaceae, which is full of undersized categories). 123 pages doesn't seem too many for a category to me; they all fit comfortably into one page. I'm sure there used to be some advice about how large a category might be before being diffused, but it seems to have gone. Biological articles are probably more hierarchically arranged than in many other fields, so over-large categories is probably not a problem we will often encounter (even Category:Carex is far from unmanageable ... so far). Rather, I think we probably suffer from over-diffusion. Categories are supposed to allow a reader to find related articles, so there ought to be a decent number in each category; the trouble is that "decent" is hard to define. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that we probably suffer from over-diffusion, so I'm happy to leave Category:Annonaceae as it is. For the present, I'm going to finish the "basal angiosperm" categories, and then get back to something more useful, i.e. articles. I'm content to leave Category:Pteridaceae to others. :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other categories for deletion

[edit]

DYK nomination of Parochetus

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Parochetus at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rcej (Robert) – talk 09:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

[edit]

Could you please move Euryale ferox (only species in Euryale) to either Euryale (plant) or Euryale (genus)? (I know your preference!) Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is better to have a title without a disambiguating term; since both Euryale and Euryale ferox are perfectly valid names, it is best left where it is (although any genus-specific categories should be moved to one of the redirects). Our preference for genus-titled articles is only really a tie-breaker given that either the binomen or the genus would be a reasonable title. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing I couldn't move it – I'd completely forgotten this point. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I nearly did it, too, before a nagging doubt stopped me! --Stemonitis (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Parochetus

[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

[edit]

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Thorpe (Stho002)

[edit]

Hello, at this discussion you said of Stho002 "(although he continues to add links to Wikispecies under a series of alternative accounts without, thus far, getting into mischief)" - do you by chance still know which these are? His latest sock has been blocked for block evasion after I brought it to SPI, as (as you should know) his main account here was indeffed a while back - so you really probably should have reported them at first sight, but whatever. Just a quick question/heads up, I don't expect you to have kept track and don't really want this to turn into a witch hunt (though it may have accidentally kick-started the demise of Wikispecies, whoops). Cheers, Ansh666 07:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of at least four accounts, but all are used constructively. Yes, technically they should all be blocked, but I actually think it's better to allow known accounts to continue than to force a recognised puppeteer to create new ones that we won't be able to track so easily. In a way, it's a shame – albeit more or less inevitable – that the latest sock was blocked; it would be useful, and courteous, to allow Stho002 to comment on issues here, since he is intimately involved in the (perceived) problem. I doubt he'll be terribly amenable to impertinent questions on other forums (Wikispecies or wherever) now; blocking does tend to raise hackles. If the community insists on my naming the accounts, I will of course do so, but I'd rather follow WP:IAR for the greater good on this occasion.
Incidentally, I don't think Wikispecies will end, but it may be that the embarrassment caused to wider Wikimedia by having two of its largest projects (largest Wikipedia and largest special project) falling out with each other will cause things to be shaken up from outside (not that WP:PLANTS speaks for en.wiki as a whole, so even this is a little way down the line). --Stemonitis (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, not a problem, and I kind of agree with you here, actually. I'm not sure about the technical side of things, but I think the new block may have reversed the TPA/email blocks on his old account, and we should really encourage him to use that account to communicate anyways, but whatever works, I guess. And to the second point, I really meant Wikispecies as we know it, i.e. his reign over the site, I'm getting incoherent now, I should go to sleep... Thanks, and hopefully this will go down quietly and with minimum fuss. Ansh666 08:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Leyland cypress may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *×''Hesperotropsis leylandii'' <small>A.&nbsdp;B. Jacks. & Dallim.) Garland & Gerry Moore</small>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources for accepted names?

[edit]

I would question the logic of "Secondary sources are preferred, as they show that the name is still accepted" (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cytherellidae&diff=584433515&oldid=584399293). Surely, it is more consistent with other WP articles if names are assumed to be still accepted unless there is a source to say otherwise? By analogy, in an article about a person, the person is assumed to be still alive unless there is a source to say that they have died. More generally, the status quo is assumed to continue unless there is a source to say otherwise. The problem with your approach is that you would need to keep updating articles with the most recent secondary sources, which would be a waste of time, not to mention that the reliability of the secondary sources may vary, adding another unnecessary dimension of complexity. Entomologist2 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There could be problems if taken to extremes, but typically a single relatively recent secondary source is enough; it doesn't have to be the most recent. The opposite problem is that of merely citing the protologue, with no indication that the name was accepted by any later authors. Lots of taxon names have been published that later turn out to be unworthy. (It's a long time since I've seen any numbers, but I think that at least for higher plants synonyms outnumber accepted names several-fold.) The point is that the taxon authority given in the taxobox is a two-part assertion: it says firstly that the person indicated did (validly) describe the species in question, and secondly that the name given is the name currently used by competent scientists. A citation to the original description can cover the first part, but cannot begin to deal with the second. General problems with reliability of secondary sources are dealt with by the usual means. --Stemonitis (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Plant List says that currently only 29% of its roughly 1,000,000 species names are accepted, so non-accepted names outnumber accepted names by about 2.5:1. So for plants, without a reliable secondary source – e.g. a checklist or monograph – the default assumption should be that a name is not accepted, not that it is accepted.
For other groups, reliable statistics are hard to find. The table here for insects suggests a much lower proportion of synonyms, with only about 20% synonyms, although I find this figure hard to believe – if you look at the checklist of British hymenoptera, as an example, virtually every species has one or more synonyms. A quick count of the first 100 species suggested closer to 50% synonyms for this relatively well-studied group. So again, a reliable secondary source is essential. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that your logic is wrong! It doesn't matter what proportion of nominal taxa are likely to be valid. You seem to be assuming that no attempt is made to find a source for invalidity, but that is not what I am suggesting! My methodology is to always cite the primary source, and always search for a secondary source for invalidity. If such a source is found then cite it. If not, then no need to cite any source for validity. Entomologist2 (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the analogy is with a biographical article. Look for a source to say that person is dead. If none found, then no need to say more ...Entomologist2 (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not about making assumptions. Wikipedia relies primarily on secondary sources (see WP:PSTS, linked above). This, incidentally, is one of the many ways in which it differs from Wikispecies. The ideal reference for a taxonomic authority is, therefore, like with anything else, a reputable secondary source. The analogy with living people is a false one; a person may or may not have died, but a taxon will have been named, and possibly several times. For a taxon published last week, we will use the primary source, because there won't be any published secondary sources yet. (One could argue about whether we should be documenting such taxa before they are accepted by the scientific community, but in practice we frequently do, and I don't think it's a problem.) For older taxa, on the other hand, and especially for taxa which have been referred to by different names – even if that's just movements between genera – a secondary source is greatly preferable. In some ways, it doesn't actually matter whether you agree with my logic. This is the established practice on Wikipedia (or en.wiki, at least), and is something we all need to abide by. For nomenclatural purposes, citing the original description is invaluable, but for a generalist encyclopaedia, it really isn't. The edit in question, by the way, was to restore a reference removed by a previous editor; I am not advocating a policy of removing primary taxonomic literature, but was merely undoing an attempt to replace an up-to-date secondary taxonomic source with an antiquated primary source. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can, of course do whatever you like this side of the metaphorical "barbed wire fence", but I would just like to point out that your logic is still faulty, and WP:PSTS is probably just designed to prevent anyone from doing anything that might rival the big funded online secondary sources/biodiversity databases (i.e. keeping WP dumb). You have misunderstood and/or misrepresented my analogy. A taxon being named is analogous to a person being born. A taxon which has been sunk as a synonym has "died". We don't need to cite evidence that the taxon has NOT "died". At least that was my intended analogy. Where the analogy does break down, though this actually makes my argument stronger, is that (1) a taxon does not die objectively (usually), but subjectively, so one taxonomist's synonym can be another's valid species; and (2) a taxon which has died can come back to life again! It is precisely because of (2) that your argument breaks down, i.e. if you don't use the most recent secondary source (and there are good reasons why one wouldn't want do have to use the most recent), then you have the same problem over again! You need another, more recent secondary source to show that the name is still invalid! But perhaps WP editors like moving in circles?! :) Entomologist2 (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your conspiracy theory is entertaining, but not helpful. The logic behind WP:PSTS is clearly to make a reliable generalist encyclopaedia, and I'm astounded that anyone could seriously read it any other way. It, like all the other policies and guidelines, were drawn up by the community in a transparent way; the discussions are all available for everyone to see.
It is exactly the subjectivity of taxonomy that requires us to use secondary, rather than primary sources. Every author of a new taxon believes it to be real (the IC[B]N, at least, does not accept any taxon that the authors themselves doubt), but we want to know whether a taxon is generally accepted. The primary sources are inevitably biased on that issue, so secondary sources have to be used (where available). At no point did I say that one has to use the latest source – indeed, I have explicitly dismissed this canard – and there is nothing in WP:PSTS or elsewhere that says so. I believe that I have answered your query, and I don't believe that there is much more to say on the issue. Let's leave it there, shall we? --Stemonitis (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Please learn to proof-read your comments before pressing "Save". Interminable edit conflicts caused by your tinkering are unlikely to win you any friends. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, apologies for that, but I tend to keep thinking about things which inevitably leads to further modifications! I think, though, that for such a central issue to WP, the issue could do with a bit more discussion. Your most recent reply suggests that you are actually talking about "general acceptance", which is, I think, different to validity, which was what I was talking about. I think that "general acceptance" is a notoriously vague concept, whereas validity seems to be more precise and relatively unproblematic. The reality is that, with the possible exceptions of botany and ornithology, there simply aren't any secondary sources even attempting to evaluate "general acceptance". They (the second. sources) just take my approach, i.e. valid unless someone has published a synonymy. As for "conspiracy theory", I tend to think that there is a little bit of truth in just about everything (and a little bit of conspiracy!) ... Entomologist2 (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If a species is not mentioned anywhere in a reliable secondary source, then it should normally not be in Wikipedia. As Stemonitis wrote, there's nothing else to say on the subject; the relevant policies – at WP:RS, for example – are quite clear. The last thing we need in Wikipedia is to have large numbers of articles (doubtless stubs) at species names which turn out to be synonyms. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, you are misunderstanding me. Firstly, there are editors here creating large numbers of stub pages for species (names), just because those species are listed as if valid on a secondary source (like CoL or WoRMS). My point is that these secondary sources are not evaluating the likely validity of these names, except by tracking published synonymies, and often not even then. So, secondary sources per se are not helping you to weed out what should be on WP from "mere names". For most species on Earth (i.e. terrestrial inverts), there are no secondary sources which evaluate "general acceptance". Entomologist2 (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My position is that if there are no reliable secondary sources, then there generally shouldn't be an article. As with all such rules, there are exceptions. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, there are some secondary (tertiary?) sources that do evaluate, such as Catalogue of Life. See here for example, Latest taxonomic scrutiny: Bourgoin T., 01-Sep-2011. And other scientific papers by different authors can be considered secondary sources with respect to their evaluation of the claims of their predecessors, as they are primary with respect to their own data and theories. --Bejnar (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Encephalartos senticosus

[edit]

Hello, just a quick heads up (and congratulations) regarding Encephalartos senticosus - this article that you created has been nominated at DYK, and I've reviewed and passed it. Should be on the mainpage soon! :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 19:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks for letting me know. I don't feel that I deserve much credit for it – it was almost entirely ObsidianSoul's work (and they would evidently have created it if I hadn't) – but it's still good to see it progress well. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear, I did leave ObsidianSoul a message as well. Oh and sorry to bug you but just in case you missed it: I left you a new message at WT:PLANTS#Request for assistance - Luzula arctica. :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 20:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Encephalartos senticosus

[edit]

Orlady (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Attheyella may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{copepod-stub}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hybotidae may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • the superfamily Empidoidea (Insecta: Diptera). | journal = [Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution]] | volume = 43 | issue = 3 | pages = 701–713 | doi = 10.1016/j.ympev.2007.02.029 | pmid=17468014}}</

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats

[edit]

Wiki recommendations are clear, US date for are for articles of primary interest where these date format are the norm i.e. U.S. and Philippines. These articles are about Europeans scientists, therefor the format that is normal for Europe (and pretty much the rest of the globe) should be used. Had these been U.S entomologists, then U.S. format would be perfectly extensible. Simuliid talk 21:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We use American English for obviously American topics, and British English for British topics. (Both dialects use both date formats, incidentally, albeit with different prevalences.) For articles on German people, we do not use German English, because there is no such thing. The way dates are presented in other languages is of no consequence whatsoever. In cases with no clear tie to an English-speaking nation, the article should be left the way it was originally written. Failure to do so can be considered vandalism. You now know that this is a contentious issue, and you may find yourself being blocked if you continue to make such changes. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No very clearly you are wrong, These are not US persons. therefor Non US rules apply. There are many more parts of the globe where English it the primary language and the non US data formant is used, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, South Africa etc. I I would would argues to that as English is the primary 'international language'. There is such a thing as German English, as anyone who has tried to conduct cross border trade in the EC will know. please see MOS:TIES Simuliid talk 22:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have read MOS:TIES, and you clearly haven't. It deals with any "article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation", and the scientists whose articles you edited do not have ties to a particular English-speaking nation. I honestly cannot see how you can have come to misinterpret this guideline so completely. If you can find any policy or guideline that actually corroborates your position, I would love to see it, but every guideline I have read (and I have revisited WP:DATEFORMAT and MOS:TIES among others in the course of this dispute) directly opposes you, and I have cited and quoted them. As far as I can see, you have no leg to stand on, which makes this potentially tendentious editing. Certainly it is without consensus, and I would not be surprised if you were to be blocked for it. There is no justification under Wikipedia policies, guidelines and day-to-day consensus for your edits, which you should really undo (WP:BRD). Neither MOS:TIES nor WP:DATEFORMAT divide the world into "US" and "non-US" factions, and nor should you. They apply to articles with strong ties to English-speaking countries only, and explicitly so. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few simple, straightforward questions for you.

  1. Can you see the part of WP:DATEFORMAT where the table of acceptable formats lists the format "September 8, 2001" and gives in the "Scope" column "Everywhere"?
  2. Can you see the part of MOS:TIES where it says "an article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation"?
  3. Do you accept that, for instance, Pierre André Latreille – a Frenchman born in France who lived and worked in France, never left France in his entire life, and eventually died a French citizen in France before being buried in a French graveyard – has no strong tie to any English-speaking nation?

My arguments are based on Wikipedia's established guidelines and policies, whereas yours appear to be based on wishful thinking (or, perhaps, POV-pushing?) and nothing more. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Episteira

[edit]

Could you take a look at Episteira and Episteira (moth)? The plant genus is an obscure synonym (one of Rafinesque's). I'm not sure it's worth making a dab for the plant name. It seems to me it would be better to move the insect to the base title. Plantdrew (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at Google Books and Google Scholar, I agree that the primary meaning is indeed the moth genus, so I have deleted the redirect, and moved the moth article to Episteira. If someone wants to recreate a redirect for the Rafinesque synonym, they can do so at Episteira (plant). --Stemonitis (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cirripedia

[edit]

I am quite new, like one week, to Wikipedia editing, and to html. I am also quite active on Wikispecies, extending and upgrading Cirripedia. What I would like to know is this; is there any way to create reference templates in that style for use here. Right now, in editing I have done so far, I am having to enter each reference the long way for each article. This over the long run, is quite time-consuming. I can understand that for the footnote system preferred on this end, the Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). system is excellent. Is there any way that system could be morphed with the template system, and called up with {{author, year}}? Neferkheperre (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) There is {{Cite doi}}. Although it has issues sometimes generating the author names.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I find {{cite doi}} to be troublesome. (It frequently messes up author lists or returns incomplete page ranges, and, because it stores the reference details away from the page citing them, requires all articles to use the same citation format, which is often undesirable.) I prefer to fill in {{cite journal}} (or equivalent) manually, and then copy and paste it between articles. I also think this is better in that it makes editing more intuitive for inexperienced users, who are I am sure frustrated by seeing an error in a reference, clicking the article's "edit" link, and not finding the problematic text in the edit box. It is not the quickest solution, but I think it is by some distance the best. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Except when I'm in a hurry or don't really care about the subject (LOL), I tend to avoid using it. Most of the times, I have to manually edit mistakes in it anyway. And I personally don't like LAST NAME, FIRST INITIAL formats. They're extremely confusing with multiple authors, resulting in a mishmash of commas, semicolons, and periods.
The fastest way I've found is to copy templates most commonly used for these subjects to your userpage, and yes, to keep a copy of an already filled in reference that is reused for multiple articles. Just fill them in with what's appropriate. I would suggest {{Cite journal}}, {{Cite book}}, {{Cite web}}, {{Cite WoRMS}} (since it's Cirripedia), and {{Cite thesis}}. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Cheer

[edit]
Holiday Cheer
Victuallers talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - Vic/Roger

I am wondering what editd you are considering vandalism. 66.61.92.158 (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bird's-foot trefoil listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bird's-foot trefoil. Since you had some involvement with the Bird's-foot trefoil redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --BDD (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion of interest

[edit]

Since you participated in the discussion at Talk:Rathaus, I think you may want to comment at Talk:Ratusz, too. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC that you may be interested in...

[edit]

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category for deletion

[edit]

Category:Cytisus didn't have very many articles, so I reclassified those articles into the next category up (Category:Genisteae). Do you mind deleting the empty Category:Cytisus? Ninjatacoshell (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isopoda

[edit]

I have been working to expand Isopoda and wondered if you would be able to take a look at it to see if I have made any gross blunders. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using one of your photos

[edit]

Hello Stemonitis, I could not find any mail contact, so I am trying this way. I would like to use one of your pictures for private purposes. How can I get in touch with you?

Pls let me know Thx Eddie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.142.176.2 (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can send a Wikipedia email ("Email this user" in the "tools" toolbar). I am reluctant to leave my email address on a talk page. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I am sorry, but there is no field "Email this user". I would like to use the great owl picture you have published here on wikipedia and edit it for a picture for instagram. It is just for private purposes, not commercial. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.142.176.2 (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Athene noctua by Trebol-a
The only owl picture I can think of is this one (right), which is actually a work by Trebol-a at Wikimedia Commons; I merely cropped it. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alstonia boonei, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cyme and Bole. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revert against the articles about the bees

[edit]

Why did you revert an edit that is correct as those predatorive bee insects could be bees?--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which specific edit you're referring to, but your recent series of edits conflated bees with wasps. The two terms cover quite separate groups, in English at least. As the article wasp makes clear, "[a] wasp is any insect of the … suborder Apocrita that is neither a bee nor an ant". That is, bees are not wasps, and wasps are not bees. None of the articles you edited was about any kind of bee. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Colchicum may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * ''[[Colchicum triphyllum]]'' (<small>Kunze</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cyclida, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hypostome. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tóin an tSeanbhaile, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ling. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Characium marinum

[edit]

You helped me once before with this species. I have added a few details but lost some of the info on previous edits, including "References". Will be grateful for your help. Confused and worried.Osborne 21:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I think User:Bgwhite may have solved your problem in the interim, but do let me know if you're still having trouble. Just a thought: should "Chloreopyta" in the reference actually be "Chlorophyta"? --Stemonitis (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. "Bgwhite" did solve the problem! I'll go back and check the Chlorophyta as you suggested. Thanks again.Osborne 21:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blueberry shock virus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Washington and Inoculum. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the diaeresis in plant names

[edit]

Regarding this edit, I should point out that this case does NOT fall within article 60.6 of the ICN, which explicitly states "The diaeresis, indicating that a vowel is to be pronounced separately from the preceding vowel (as in Cephaëlis, Isoëtes), is a phonetic device that is not considered to alter the spelling; as such, its use is optional."

While I agree that the change is valid, it should at least be done for the correct reason (namely that most sources use the spelling without diaereses). Circéus (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. I take your point that the edit summary wasn't completely accurate, and I think I even realised this at the time. The real explanation, however, is not just down to frequency in respectable sources (as good a reason as that may be). If the diaeresis is only a guide to pronunciation, equivalent to a macron over a long vowel, then it is not part of the spelling, and has no place in an article title. Indeed, from a nomenclatural point of view (rather than a Wikipedia point of view), any indication of pronunciation is a mere opinion; names are to be treated as if Latin, even if Latin-derived, but are explicitly just a collection of letters that should be somehow utterable. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor style point

[edit]

A minor point, but at Begoniaceae, the only properly formatted citation prior to your recent edit used the CS2 style. So based on WP:CITEVAR, I would say that the others should have been matched to this one. (But then I strongly prefer CS2 over CS1.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You spotted it; I was hoping no-one would notice. I don't really understand {{citation}}, and I don't like its output. (Italic article title followed immediately by italic journal title? Madness! I'm not sure {{citation}} is well-suited to journal citations.) By rights, yes, I should have used it, but I thought the ends justified the means (WP:IAR). If you choose to change it back, I won't undo it. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The italic article title followed by italic journal title is a known bug (see Help talk:Citation Style 1#Titles of journal articles), only present for the last c. two weeks following an incorrect change to the Lua module that now underlies all the cite/citation templates. There's a promise that it will be corrected this weekend.
When the bug is fixed, the CS2 style produced by {{citation}} is supposed to produce exactly the same output as the CS1 style produced by the various cite templates except that the separator is a comma, not a full stop, and the terminal full stop is omitted. If I have a free choice I prefer commas to full stops in citations, but it's certainly not worth changing back at Begoniaceae. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with {{citation}} and journals is now fixed.
Recent tightening of error-checking has left a lot of citations with red error messages, whether they use the "cite" template family or the "citation" template. For example, Stevens suggests citing APweb using the date "2001 onwards" and there are many citations with this format, but open-ended dates are now forbidden. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have noticed this. I took an informal break for several months not long ago, and found on my return that several perfectly good articles were marred by needless messages. It seems that referencing is getting more and more prescriptive and narrow. There is supposed to be flexibility, but in practice it is getting more and more restricted. I'm sure a number of problems get picked up by this method, but it does also cause headaches at well-formed articles. Any such issues should probably just be flagged up as potential problems, perhaps via hidden categories or a database report, rather than visible flags, in my opinion. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. At least half the plant articles I started seem to have red citation errors, almost all of which are not actually errors in my view. One of the side-effects of changing to Lua for the code underlying the cite/citation templates is that changing them is now restricted to very few editors (currently just Trappist the monk, it seems), whereas previously administrators and template editors could join in. So we can now only make requests, which in my case aren't accepted.
One of my grouses is the failure to support open-ended dates. APweb, for example, recommends a citation style involving "2001 onwards" (see here). So to reference Stevens' discussion of Allioideae, for example, I have been using something like {{cite web |last=Stevens |first=P.F. |year=2001 onwards |title=Asparagales: Allioideae |website=Angiosperm Phylogeny Website |url=http://www.mobot.org/mobot/research/apweb/orders/asparagalesweb.htm#AllAma |accessdate=2014-12-01 }} However this now produces a date error because open-ended date ranges aren't allowed. The online Flora of China and Flora of North America are other examples where only an open-ended date range makes sense to me: since the volumes have been issued and put online at different times, and errors in the paper copies are corrected in the online versions, it's not clear what single date could be used.
I vacillate between deleting the date altogether in such citations and converting the citation from a template to plain text. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, I guess one solution might be to quote the "last modified" date on a website. This works in many cases, and indeed the APWeb pages are individually dated. The purpose of the citation is to set down what thing you are referring to, so the dated version satisfies that; the citation does not need to detail the time over which the work was carried out, just the time when it was published, so citing the Chloranthales page as "(24 November 2014)" would fulfil that requirement, for instance. There would be some slight redundancy with accessdate=, but there's nothing too harmful in that. Things would be different, however, on websites that didn't give that information, which is entirely within the bounds of reason. A website could very well (a) give no "last modified" dates on individual pages, (b) suggest a citation of "2001 onwards" and (c) clearly have been updated after 2001. This is a situation that cannot currently be conveyed. In fact, there are a whole range of vague forms of dates, such as "c. 1529", "1935–1936" or "late 19th century", that could crop up. I agree with you that these should not be flagged as errors, and especially not to casual readers (as opposed to logged-in editors), as currently occurs. A hidden category like Category:Pages using non-standard date formats in citations would suffice (n.b. "non-standard date formats", not "date errors" or "malformed dates").
Another pragmatic (i.e. bad) solution would be to code a dedicated template for APWeb citations that as far as possible replicates {{citation}} (or {{cite web}} for that matter, which suffers from the same problem), but doesn't whinge about the date field. This would of course lead to numerous longer-term problems.
For FNA and FoC, I tend to cite the books, but link to efloras.org, assuming that there is little difference between the two. As time goes by, the two will presumably begin to diverge, and this approach will become less and less acceptable.
Any template that pushes well-meaning editors towards not using it has failed and ought to be altered. The fact that you're considering resorting to plain text to avoid the Lua bellyaching shows that something is wrong with the template system as it stands. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your considered response. Actually the APweb pages are not exactly "individually" dated; there are notes in different places on the same page saying when sections were last updated. I agree that these could be used and might be better than Stevens' suggested dating, although more work for the editor to find and use them. Fixing red-flagging of previously acceptable citations does seem to me to be a total waste of editors' valuable time.
We agree that the Lua template system is wrong as it stands, but there seems no way to get those involved to make changes, so I suspect that bypassing will increase. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

rhus typhina

[edit]

you must've missed that section earlier in the article describing autumn foliage... Famartin (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but the extra image still isn't tremendously helpful to the reader. WP:IUP describes the policy thus: "Images on Wikipedia should be used in an encyclopedic manner. They should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter." It is not clear to me that your image does any of that. Having already seen the leaves in the taxobox image, and being told they turn red, we don't really need another image to show that they can, indeed, be red. On the other hand, an additional image does tend to cramp the article, making it harder to read. The other images show things that cannot readily be visualised by someone reading the prose. The male inflorescences are not shown in the taxobox image, and do not closely resemble the female inflorescences shown there. Likewise, although the galls are mentioned, the reader has no idea what they might look like, so the image I added is helpful. There is nothing wrong with your image, but it doesn't improve the article for the reader, and that has to be the main criterion. There is only room in the article at its current length for three images at most (and there's a strong case for saying there's only room for two), and your fall foliage image is less valuable to the reader than the other three. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly this is "in your opinion". First you said its not in the text, now you claim it doesn't add to the article (and made sure to add a separate image just so that its up to the 3 image limit). Your an admin, I'm not, so I guess I have to bow to your greatness, but I don't have to like it. Famartin (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything I have said (aside from overlooking the mention of autumn leaves) has followed from the Image Use Policy. Adminship has nothing to do with it. When I first saw the page, it had 17 images, not counting the range map. I'm sure you will agree that that was too many. I think the current state is a great improvement. The article still has the link to the Commons if readers are interested in seeing lots of pictures. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of the vascular plants of the Falkland Islands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Narcissus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia genealogy project

[edit]

Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carex deletions

[edit]

Hello, Stemonitis. I saw that you recently deleted 184 articles about species of the genus Carex. The topics of each of these articles is notable in itself, as you will be aware from WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Your only rationale for deletion was that the pages, at the time you deleted them, were redirects. However, the person who made them into redirects was yourself, earlier the same day! Trying to game the system in this way does not seem to me to be a very collaborative way of working. Further, if you examine WP:R#DELETE, it says only that you might want to delete a redirect (my emphasis) and it also specifically says to consider the exceptions listed at WP:R#KEEP. Exceptions (1), (2) and (3) apply in this instance. These pages should therefore not have been deleted. Please reconsider your decision. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to have to disagree with almost everything you have just written. No-one is questioning the notability of the topics, just the value of the pages created. The fact that they were redirects was not the "only rationale"; rather the complete rationale is: "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article," [this clearly applies; I wrote a couple of short Carex articles this week] " and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject," [again, clearly, yes] "it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself." Contrary to your assertions, none of the stated exceptions applies:
  1. There was no significant history, just a couple of automatic edits (in the sense of not considering the topic consciously) as part of an ill-advised mass-creation drive, and sometimes a couple of edits cleaning up afterwards. The articles were too short to be recognisable under copyright law, so none of the licensing requirements really applies.
  2. They do not help prevent accidental linking or duplicate article creation. They weren't that kind of redirect. Moreover, a comprehensive list is already in place to guide those who wish to create a decent article, so misspellings aren't very likely in the first place. That exception is for things like establishing a redirect at Invented Sedge to redirect to the article on the invented sedge at Carex confictus (all fictitious).
  3. They do not aid any searches, because, again, all those titles are already present in the list, so any search will already guide the reader to the information they were seeking, or as much of it as we have at the moment.
The pages were produced contrary to policy, and were deleted in accordance with it. I understand that you might be irked by this process, and it was never my intention to cause bad feeling, but the decision was correct. Wikipedia is better off with a list of red links than with a list of blue links each linking to a page with no additional information. What could a reader benefit by clicking on a link labelled "Carex accrescens Ohwi" and being told only that "Carex accrescens is a species of sedge that was described by Jisaburo Ohwi"? The reader already knows it's a sedge from the article he/she has come from, so the gained information is nil; at this point, the reader is probably pissed off at being tricked into following such a link and would like to know which of the names on the list, if any, might lead to a worthwhile article. One must always consider the reader. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised this at WP:DRV. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have closed the deletion review discussion as follows: "There is a clear consensus to overturn the 184 speedy deletions, without prejudice to a possible AfD. Because of the number of the articles involved, I am asking the deleting admin to assume responsibility for their error and to do the work of undeleting the articles." Thank you in advance for undeleting these articles. Regards,  Sandstein  07:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carex pseudocyperus

[edit]

Thank you very much for your improvements to this article. I would query one point: reference 2 was meant to apply only to the parenthetical material "or hop sedge" and therefore I put it before the period, as per the spirit of MOS:PUNCTFOOT. You moved it to the more usual place after the period, which I think was wrong in this case. Would you object if I moved it back? Wellset (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. I mistook it for a typo; sorry to have doubted you! --Stemonitis (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, done. Wellset (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding of speedy deletion criteria

[edit]

Hello Stemonitis, you state above that "The pages were produced contrary to policy, and were deleted in accordance with it." Yet your deletion summary was "WP:R#DELETE (10) better to leave a red link". Do you understand that the 10 reasons cited there are not speedy deletion criteria? In fact there are only two speedy deletion criteria for redirects. So it does not appear to me that these deletions were performed in accordance with policy at all. You are out of order, and I think you would be better to admit your mistake rather than continue defending it. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that may have been poorly worded, but I think the principle is sound. Note that I did not claim to be deleting under CSD. (Incidentally, "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to" 14 items listed at WP:DP, of which CSD is only one. That policy nowhere states that pages must not be deleted in any other cases, and explicitly leaves room for other justifications.) Perhaps more pertinently, WP:IAR is also a policy, and makes the point that the improvement of the encyclopaedia has to be the overriding aim – that the outcome trumps the process. None of the recent commentators seems to have claimed that such pages are useful, and as far as I can see, that ought to be the primary consideration. I was making changes that, in my considered opinion, improved the encyclopaedia for readers. Why is it that the content is so low on the agenda? --Stemonitis (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to assume good faith that you were acting (in your view) in the best interests of the encyclopedia. But you do not seem to be taking on board the multitude of editors who are telling you your methods were out of process and inappropriate. Do you accept that WP:CSD criteria describe the only situations when administrators should delete pages without a deletion debate? Your best course of action at this stage, would be to undelete the whole lot (I'm willing to help you with this) and then start a batch AfD where the arguments can be hashed out. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why I'm defeatist

[edit]

You noted at WT:PLANTS recently that I appeared "defeatist". The discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_December#184_Carex_articles reinforces my view. You are criticized, not for the substance of what you did, which would be a sensible topic to discuss, but because you didn't follow what wikilawyers consider to be the "rules". Similarly I was criticized for nominating a category for immediate deletion, because I'd emptied it and that apparently makes my nomination against the "rules", yet no-one criticizing me bothered to discuss whether the category was of any use. If you search the logs at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion for "NotWith", you'll find repeated criticisms of this user's behaviour, yet no admin is prepared to do anything about him or her. (I'm certainly not encouraging you to do so; it would doubtless lead to yet more aggression towards you.) I find the atmosphere increasingly hostile to sensible editing which focusses on improving content. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand the reasons behind your comments at WT:PLANTS, and I sympathise. I was hoping that a rallying cry might elicit some enthusiasm that could lead to a resolution. That may yet happen (give it a week or two, and if no-one has complained, I will propose a position for the project to take; that won't have any direct standing, but it's something that can be referred to in deletion discussions or elsewhere – "the consensus view of the relevant WikiProject is ...").
It was good of you to stand up for my position at WP:DRV, and much appreciated. It looks likely that the deletions will be undone, and I fear that that will encourage the creation of (in my opinion) worthless substubs on the hundreds of other Carex species, and perhaps all the species on any other "List of Xxxx species" page. My enthusiasm for the necessary cleanup work has been entirely sapped by today's exchanges, and I know that there will be a lot required. As I mentioned in one of my postings, I did look into writing something about Carex × abitibiana (because it's the first on the list, and has an interesting name), but couldn't find anything concrete to write about. It wouldn't surprise me if some of those hybrids could never be the subject of a reasonable article. If asked (which is unlikely), I would say that they would need at the very least to say what the parental species were; that might give an industrious reader something to interpolate between, if we have substantive articles on the parents. "Carex × abitibiana is a hybrid species of sedge that was first described by Lepage in 1959" can never be enough.
I don't know why the emphasis on content has got diluted over time, and it does seem a shame to me, as someone who chiefly likes to write articles. When I see heated debates, I often find that few of the parties involved have any significant content creation in their recent edit history. Contributing primarily to other aspects of Wikipedia is not a bad thing, but I do think the balance is often somewhat askew, and that more input from content-creators would be beneficial. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FAR of Marine shrimp farming

[edit]

I have nominated Marine shrimp farming for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About your (non)participation in the January 2012 SOPA vote

[edit]

Hi Stemonitis. I am Piotr Konieczny (User:Piotrus), you may know me as an active content creator (see my userpage), but I am also a professional researcher of Wikipedia. Recently I published a paper (downloadable here) on reasons editors participated in Wikipedia's biggest vote to date (January 2012 WP:SOPA). I am now developing a supplementary paper, which analyzes why many editors did not take part in that vote. Which is where you come in :) You are a highly active Wikipedian (90th), and you were active back during the January 2012 discussion/voting for the SOPA, yet you did not chose to participate in said vote. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why was that so? For your convenience, I prepared a short survey at meta, which should not take more than a minute of your time. I would dearly appreciate you taking this minute; not only as a Wikipedia researcher but as a fellow content creator and concerned member of the community (I believe your answers may help us eventually improve our policies and thus, the project's governance). PS. If you chose to reply here (on your userpage), please WP:ECHO me. Thank you! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hirticlavula

[edit]

Hello, I am just after a little advice please from a more experienced editor, re: the reverts on the Hirticlavula page by User:J Milburn and myself. The two issues I would like your guidance and thoughts on are the citation style. It’s my belief that using a citation template is the preferred style (though I cannot find anything that says so either way). Also, what I think I understand User:J Milburn in implying, is that once a citation style is in place it should not be changed. This is not my interpretation. Indeed, User:Jason_Quinn has been tidying my citations, something I am really pleased he does.

The second point I would like your thoughts on is the tome of User:J Milburn reply. I see this all rather abrupt. And not friendly helpful tone I expect on Wikipedia. Do you read his comments the same way? Do you think I need a just "man up" a little?

I am not trying to get Jason Quinn in trouble in anyway, He is doing a lot of great work on Wikipedia and long may he continue to do so. I am mostly trying to interpret Wikipedia content guidelines, which I find a minefield, and make myself a better editor in the process.Simuliid talk 12:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Simuliid. There is no set or preferred citation style for the entire encyclopedia. On an article-by-article basis, however, articles should generally use one particular citation style consistently and the article need not be changed from one style to another. Since many articles mix and match citation styles, it is perfectly legitimate to make the citation style consistent throughout. I also prefer the citation templates because they encourage people to use things like article identifiers which they otherwise might not. I haven't looked into the history of the above article yet, but if somebody is reacting to a change of cite style, I would hold off any reverts and talk it to the talk page. I'm not sure why you think I might get "in trouble" or how I relate to this particular discussion. I may chime in again when I feel like looking at the history. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Rhamnus cathartica
added a link pointing to Rhamnus
Rhamnus purshiana
added a link pointing to Rhamnus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:RMcontested

[edit]

Template:RMcontested has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reference work at Tsongkhapa

[edit]

Hey there Stemonitis, thanks for all the reworking of the bibliography at Tsongkhapa. As I am responsible for quite a few of those references, I'd love to learn how to "do it proper, like" - if you could point me to guideline material, that would be very kind. (20040302 (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I think the important thing is to make it clear what source is being used to back up which claim. Beyond that, almost anything goes. There are, however, a number of tools available for making references consistent and accessible. The various {{cite}} templates are useful for consistent formatting of references ({{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}, etc.), and are the de facto standard (more frequent than the pretty similar {{citation}} template). For repeated references to the same work, {{harvnb}} and related templates are probably the most common, and work with the {{cite}} templates if you use the ref=harv parameter; a useful alternative is {{rp}}, which appends superscript page numbers to an inline reference. Wikipedia:Citing sources is a pretty thorough guide; feel free to ask around (including here) if anything is unclear.
I must admit I only did half the job of standardising the references at Je Tsongkhapa, because my aim was only really to remove the "ibid." references (which are generally clear enough when first inserted, but quickly become compromised by subsequent edits). --Stemonitis (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks anyhow! (20040302 (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jean-Paul Marat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weeping willow. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 26 March

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next meetups in North England

[edit]

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Multiscale mathematics

[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Multiscale mathematics, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Yaris678 (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

David Rockefeller
added a link pointing to Doubleday
Schoenoplectus lacustris
added a link pointing to Autonym

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

flower

[edit]

hi, you removed a nice picture of a pulsatilla from the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsatilla_alpina could you please restore it? Rodolph (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our image use policy. It is not enough for an image to be "nice"; it must enhance the reader's understanding of the article. The illustration you added did not do that. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
of course it added to it. You are wrong and pompous. Your opinion is not definitive. Any information adds to something.Rodolph (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Defaultsort

[edit]

Why are you removing the defaultsort template, like you did here? Debresser (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't doing anything; sorting has been case-insensitive for some years now. In such cases, it's better to avoid the magic word (not template, technically), in case of future page moves. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, since MediaWiki 1.17 was introduced in June 2011. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Then why hasn't the DEFAULTSORT magic word (you're right) been removed massively in all cases where it doesn't change anything? Debresser (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess because it's not doing any immediate harm. Anyone moving a page ought to check the category indexing, so there shouldn't be a problem. In practice, though, it's the sort of thing that can easily get overlooked. I remove it if I remember when making other edits; I don't think it's worth doing on its own. There are some surprising exceptions, too. I took it out from a couple of pages with en-dashes in their titles, and a bot very quickly came and added it back in! --Stemonitis (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Debresser (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stemonitis/Archive44&oldid=1076084842"