User talk:Oiyarbepsy/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

All posts on this page are permanently linked through User talk:Oiyarbepsy/2015I

Species abbreviation and related dab pages

I just came across Bullata (disambiguation), and thought it might be of interest to you, but I'm not sure where to put it on your species abbreviation pages (it doesn't use the species abbreviation template). There are other pages in Category:Taxonomy disambiguation pages that are lists of species sharing epithets, but the category also includes some dab pages that seem to be genuinely necessary. Plantdrew (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh lord, it will take forever to go thru all these. I'll wait until the ones that had the template get resolved, which will remove about 90-some entries from the category. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a huge mess that makes me despair. DAB pages with the species abbreviation template are just the tip of the iceberg. There is a lot of other stuff in various categories that needs similar treatment to what the species abbreviation DABs end up getting. Plantdrew (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Your move of East Link Extension

Until the line comes into service as the Blue Line in 2023, I recommend keeping the page at East Link Extension (Sound Transit) (the official project name with the disambiguator). Please do not move the other Link line/extension articles to this scheme, as it will become pointless when Sound Transit implements its final names for the lines (Red and Blue so far) in 2023. Sounder Bruce 04:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I already posted at your talk page. Whatever we call it, "East Link" alone is unacceptable, since there are 5 or 6 such lines thruout the world and no reason to think Seattle's is most important. I'm fine with you moving the page to have the word Extension in it. Bots will fix the redirects, and they'll fix the redirects when we move it again after Sound Transit names it. No time has been wasted and no time will be. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Please keep all discussion of this here. Flipping back and forth will do us no good.

Anyway, you've created quite a mess that will take a few hours to fix and slowly clean up (including a lot of back-end works in templates). Please hold off on making further changes while I can at least try to prevent further damage. Sounder Bruce 04:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

- The claimed mess is highly exaggerated. All the links will redirect, so they are not broken, and I only found three templates linking to East Link to change. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  - A redirect chain was created, breaking navigation on a few of the station articles. On a few of said station articles, the East Link article was a red link because you misspelled an already grammatically-incorrect title. I had to get AWB out to fix it, which is something I do not enjoy doing. Anyway, it's been patched and won't present issues for now. I need to do some further work to prepare for the 2023 changeover (in which all the extensions will fall under 2 lines and could warrant full merging into the new line articles). Sounder Bruce 04:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

What about Central Link

I'm noticing that there are separate articles for different parts of the same line. University Link is simply an extension of the Central Link, as is Northgate Link and Lynnwood Link and the Federal Way extension. Having separate articles for all these doesn't make sense when they will be all one line. It makes more sense to just describe how it was phased in the article text whether than separate pages. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

They are not one line, they are all individual projects in the way that Sound Transit and the Federal Transit Administration recognize them. Between 2016 and 2023, these extensions will be merged into proper lines, but the project pages will probably remain. All of these articles are quite old and outdated, so it will take a lot of time and effort to re-organize them (a burden I'm placing on my own shoulders when the time comes). Sounder Bruce 04:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You are absolutely right that they are separate projects. You are absolutely wrong that they are separate lines. They are separate projects that come together to one, single, line. They is no endpoint at Westlake where you will need to get off the U train and onto the SeaTac train, and there will not be any such endpoints at Northgate or Seatac or Angle Lake. Big infrastructure is built in phases. This is an obvious statement, that doesn't mean it is separate units of infrastructure. Therefore, all these articles should be merged now, and never should have been created in the first place. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- I mis-typed there. I was trying to emphasize that they're separate projects and do need to remain separate articles or split and merged into the right line and station articles when the lines open; it is far too soon to consider merging all of the articles together, as these projects are all in different stages (some haven't even finished final design yet). Also, Northgate will be an end-point for the Blue Line (East Link's future designation, interlined with the Red Line/Central Link) according to current service plans that are subject to change. Sounder Bruce 05:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Separate projects means nothing, you do realize that, right? When Interstate 5 was built, they built it in many separate projects, probably 20-30 of them. Does this mean we need 20-30 articles on Interstate 5 because they are "separate projects". Of course not, since it is a single facility. Same here. Explaining the separate phases works way better when it's all in a single article. You can then have a single route diagram showing the big picture, instead of obscuring it like it does now. Encyclopedia are, of course, about the big picture. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Big picture or not, it is not appropriate to make the change right now. The way I see this happening is that University Link is merged into the new Link Red Line article after the line opens (complete with new signage and an official announcement from the agency) next year. The Northgate article stays and is expanded as progress is made on that project, and then it is merged in 2021. (etc.). Sounder Bruce 05:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

What future IdeaLab campaigns would you like to see?

Originally posted at meta:User talk:Oiyarbepsy

Hi there,

I’m Jethro, and I’m seeking your help in deciding topics for new IdeaLab campaigns that could be run starting next year. These campaigns aim to bring in proposals and solutions from communities that address a need or problem in Wikimedia projects. I'm interested in hearing your preferences and ideas for campaign topics!

Here’s how to participate:

Take care,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 03:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Duplicated citations

Hello Oiyarbepsy, I was wondering whether the Template:Duplicated citations template is a style issue or a content issue. I constantly battling my mind on this topic because the ideas I have conflict in my head. Either it is having duplicated citations as a styling issue or it is simply having the duplicated citations in the article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 02:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I wonder if the words there should be reworded. I have added a talk section at Template talk:Duplicated citations. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 02:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I responded there. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... I still cannot decide about this style issue or content issue problem, though you did a pretty good job on this re-wording. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 21:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how style vs content is relevant to anything at all, but I see this as purely a style issue. The content of an article with this issue is pretty much irrelevant to anything at all. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Admin attacking User:Oiyarbepsy for protecting new users. Thank you. clpo13_(talk) 23:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 14:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Peterborough Times

It was selected by the National Library as being significant enough to digitise every page they ever printed, so personally I'd rather go with their judgment than some trigger-happy dude with no knowledge of newspapers.

Peterborough is a significant regional centre in that part of the state: Australia being the size it is, with the population clustered along the coast, just because a rural centre is small in population doesn't mean it isn't significant. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course the National Library digitised it. It's their goal to digitise as much as possible, so that provides zero evidence of notability. As far as regional center, it seems to play second fiddle to Port Pirie and Port Augusta. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- It is part of a national newspaper digitisation plan singling out newspapers of particular importance, as assessed by experts against criteria, so yes, it does provide evidence. I'm not sure what your point is about there being larger regional centres in South Australia, as it has no bearing here. You seem to have complete contempt for Wikipedia's notability policies (and a bit of a history of it, too), and all of your edits today seem to be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Removing sourced buildings an architect designed with obvious claims to notability (heritage-listed, built for notable people, central public building in a state capital, etc.) is just flat-out trolling. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've kept the ones that do provide claims to notability - the one that states it was heritage listed is still there, as is the outpatient's addition to the hospital. Again, listen to my words - Show me a source that discusses Beaver in-depth, that is what notability means. It doesn't mean to show me that the newspaper wrote about him periodically. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Balansae

There are a vast number of species names from surnames and I suggest we don't add them to the list but redirect to the person. Could add new section: "Species epithet": "The adjective Balansae derived from this person's surname is used in biological nomenclature (search... ). " Could be done with a template. Would need a ref? Might be worth consulting a WikiProject or two re wording? Even without such section, redirect seems best approach. I don't know whether any epithets are not related to just one scientist -could imagine several Smithii species in difft fields? I can't spend much time on Wiki next week or two so can't do much. PamD 05:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry this is misplaced -something odd with section headings and mobile interface. PamD 05:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

User:PamD I think I agree with you that it makes sense to list it on the scientist's article, for example, under the legacy section. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
@PamD: But Carlo Luigi Giuseppe Bertero of Berteroana doesn't have an article on English wiki. Any ideas on how to handle this? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Create a stub for him? Can't offer to do it myself - mobile-only for a few days, limits my editing. PamD 06:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@PamD:Yo prueba de habla español. Quiza soy puedo, ummm, translate Carlo Luigi Giuseppe Bertero de español. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

A quick google search found http://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.person.bm000000658 which looks useful. PamD 06:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

(Also @PamD:) Carlo Luigi Giuseppe Bertero has been created. Please consider adding more cats and apropriate project templates to the talk page. Thanks.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

There are certainly some cases where scientists with the same surname working in different fields have species named after them. There are also some cases where scientists with a shared name working in the same field have species named for them (hopefully there aren't any dab pages for these). And I really hope there aren't any dab pages such as Smithorum (-orum indicates it's named after multiple people with the same name; husband and wife, father and son, two brothers, etc.) Plantdrew (talk) 08:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Plantdrew, the translator/editor is not a botanist. According to the JSTOR bio however, there is unlikely to be any confusion. If you find any errors , please correct, and please consider doing the same article on the other language Wikipedias. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung:, there doesn't seem to be any problem with multiple people named Bertero/species named Berteroana, I didn't mean my comment to be targeting the article you translated. PamD noted that "Smithii" might present problems, and I was commenting that "Smithii" (and other names) might indeed be tricky. Plantdrew (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

Putting this at User talk:Oiyarbepsy/2015G#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed