User talk:Stemonitis/Archive05

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between July 1 2006 and September 30 2006.

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

Max

Hi, You have removed the umlaut from Müller's name in the categories. Is there a reason for this? Paul B 13:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. "Ü" sorts after "Z" in MediaWiki, whereas in German, "ü" collates as "u" (occasionally as "ue"). See the German notice board for a recent discussion of this. --Stemonitis 13:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Beetle stub

Good pic! BTW, the List of British beetles is now finished - feel free to do any formatting work you want to on it. SP-KP 11:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Just for information, I've checked all the insect stubs from M to Z from A to Z for beetles. I'd normally do more before giving up, but I'm going to be away for ten days or so, and I haven't got much time. --Stemonitis 12:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: removing the beetle cat from beetle stubs - I understood that it was against guidelines to add articles to both a category and its parent category. Is that not correct? SP-KP 12:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm now adding the British Larger Brachycera list - all of these have English names and all are given in Mixed Case in the original source, so that means some more formatting work coming up - I'll let you know when its done.

I always treat stub categories as something else. No article (except perhaps beetle itself) should be in both Category:Beetles and Category:Insects, but Category:Beetles and Category:Beetle stubs seems OK to me. Maybe that's just my opinion; I don't know if there's a policy on it. --Stemonitis 12:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks for flagging this up, I'll check it out before going any further. If policy is clear one way or the other, I'll proceed - if not, I'll come back to discuss. SP-KP 12:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Larvacide (from User talk:Pollinator

Should it perhaps be "larvicide"? That would look better to me, and gets more web hits. Both names should at least be mentioned in the article, unless they mean different things. Good work, by the way. --Stemonitis 11:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. And thanks. Pollinator 13:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Herma Szabo

Hello Stemonitis! Could you help me with this article? I have a few questions about Herma's mother and father, questions you may be able to answer because you understand German better than I do.

Are Christine von Szabo and Christine Schäfer the same person? (See Karl Schäfer.) Is Herma their child? I have been referencing all the relevant articles in English and German, as well as http://www.engelmann.co.at/k_history.htm, but I can't figure it out. That external link seems to say that Helene Engelmann is Herma's cousin, but if Helene is Eduard Engelmann Jr.'s daughter, then Helene would be Herma's aunt. (But I may just be misunderstanding because my German is poor.)

Also, am I missing anything major from de:Herma Szabo?

Thank you for any help you can give! --Fang Aili ^talk 18:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

British Larger Brachycera

List now complete. SP-KP 18:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Primula auricula

Have a look at this - I can't remember whether this was P. auricula or not [1] Velela 20:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That would depend on where it was taken. If, for instance, it was in eastern Austria, then it's certainly Primula lutea (under the current naming system). If it were taken further west, then it could be Primula auricula. The distinguishing characters for the two species rely on the presence or absence of glandular hairs on the leaf margin, the strength of the flower's odour, and minor differences in flower colour, in short, things not readily visible on a photograph. So, geographical information is the best determiner, in this case. --Stemonitis 06:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on List of German-language poets!

Feel free to drop by the List of German-language philosophers as well. We could use some help there, I think. Cheers, Universitytruth 18:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Graian and Pennine Alps

Hi, since you're interested in the Alps, we're having a discussion at Talk:Pennine Alps about the limits of the Graian and Pennine Alps. For instance, is Mont Blanc part of the Graian Alps? Do you know something about that? Markussep 11:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really. I changed [2] the Mont Blanc article to say it was in the Pennine Alps only because that agreed with the content at Graian Alps and Pennine Alps, not from some deep-seated conviction that that was the ultimate truth. All such divisions are pretty subjective, and not really worth arguing about. --Stemonitis 08:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Cryptozoa

Do you know what cryptozoa are? I thought they were Isopoda, but if not, do they exist at all, or are they part of Cryptozoology, in which case I do not see a future for the page. --apers0n 08:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm only guessing from the text, having no direct knowledge of the subject myself. Some of them might, possibly, be isopods, but mostly they'd be too small for that, from the sound of it. --Stemonitis 08:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Austria

When reverting an external link anon spammer, please check other their contributions. `'mikka (t) 08:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• If I always had the time, I would. --Stemonitis 08:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No pressure; you are not alone. Just keep in mind that such cleanup when tracks are fresh is just one "revert" click away, while if unnoticed for some time it will require more effort to deal with (and not so immediately recognizable as a surge of spam). `'mikka (t) 08:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

about Tiger pistol shrimp

Hi, I notice that you delete the interwiki link to zh:卡搭蝦. Actually that Chinese article was originally translated from Tiger pistol shrimp. But its Latin name is different from the English version. The Chinese version is Alpheus heterochaelis; the English version is Alpheus bellulus. I guess that the Chinese editors changed the name because in the External links, the National Geographic article says the shrimp is Alpheus heterochaelis, not Alpheus bellulus. Are you sure that the current latin name in the English version is correct? Thanks. --Neo-Jay 17:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be possible that the two names are nomenclatural synonyms, so I bore that in mind when I did a web search to see if I could find any site that listed both species separately. The Danish Wikipedia, which I found, has separate articles for Alpheus bellulus and Alpheus heterochaelis. There are hundreds of species of Alpheus in the world, and they are all snapping shrimp. It is, however, still possible that the Danes have accidentally made two articles about the same animal under two names, but until that's certain (or cleared up), I didn't want our A. bellulus article linking to the Chinese A. heterochaelis article. There seems to be a discussion about the name here, but I can't understand a word. If they are synonyms, then the zh: link should of course be reinstated and someone should tell the Danish editors. I hope that's clear; nomenclatural problems can be a real pain. --Stemonitis 07:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. --Neo-Jay 07:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed external links

Why have you removed the external links I added?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andyfellwalker (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia gets a lot of spam links added every day, and a lot of them go unnoticed and clutter up the articles for ages. I admit that I didn't look into the issue in much detail, but the link you added seemed to be a hiking diary or blog, rather than a website that would particularly inform readers. In general, I'm very suspicious of any new user whose sole contribution is adding links to a number of articles, all of which point to the same website, which he/she presumably runs. See also Wikipedia:External links. If you can really justify your links as giving access to information that the relevant articles could never contain, then by all means add them. Otherwise, it's better for Wikipedia if you just add the information. --Stemonitis 07:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I do run the website I created the links to but if you had bothered to read them or ask me you would see that it is a non-commercial site dedicated to sharing the experience of walking the hills of the Lake District. It takes a lot of effort to maintain the site, adding new content on a weekly basis. I believe that the descriptions of my walks and the associated photographs are a valid resource to anybody wanting to know more about the hills, adding all of the content to a general purpose information article would overwhelm it. Are you a Wikipedia official or just self-appointed, why do I have to justify myself to you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andyfellwalker (talk • contribs) .

Don't talk it to heart; I said that I didn't look into it in detail. No, I am not an official, and my opinion is just as valid or worthless as that of any other contributor. However, I suspect that most editors would treat the mass addition of links by a new user in a similar way. --Stemonitis 09:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for making me feel welcome and encouraging me to participate. The encyclopaedic vision is very narrow isn't it when you don't own the content. If you had taken the trouble to find out or if you had any real interest in the Lake District apart from "knowing" about it you would have welcomed my original and unique insight into the hills and villages. I won't be bothering you again but now I know about Wikipedia and can let other people who really care about the Lake District that it has nothing to offer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyfellwalker (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the encyclopaedic vision being very narrow, but I suspect you're taking things personally that weren't intended that way. I have tried to be encouraging, providing suggestions to you of ways to proceed, and trying to explain my actions. Yes, my own contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of the Lake District have been relatively small, but they are real: I have started articles on a couple of fells, and contributed to many others. I would be more than happy to see you join in, and try and improve our articles; there's certainly plenty to be done. I'm sure you know a lot more than I do about the subject — I haven't been to the Lake District in years (although I should be spending more time there in the future than I have been able to lately) — so your input would be highly valued. --Stemonitis 16:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I note that this user has added about 30 new links, all of which seem to be to the same general page on his site. Imo these links provide no information that is not available on other sites. I am not happy about them. Wikipedia is not a free advertising service. But I have a conflict of interest because of the links to my site on some of these pages, which compromise my ability to remove his links without being accused of enforcing double standards. I would argue that (i) these links provide unique information, unavailable anywhere else on the web, or, afaik, apart from a few panoramas made by Chris Jesty, anywhere else, and (ii) I did not initially add these links myself, or know about their initial addition. When they were first added they were promptly reverted. I modified them to include specific links and reduce their potential commercial exposure (now eliminated), then reinstated them with the support of other users. Viewfinder 15:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you need to worry too much about double standards; there is no case law at Wikipedia. Anyway, I have removed the links that were added today, and tried to provide an explanation on User:Andyfellwalker's talk page. I hope that he can be encouraged to interact with the community, as you did, and find an appropriate means of linking to his site. A good walking guide, specific to a given mountain, would be a useful addition, providing content that is unsuitable for Wikipedia ("cross the stile and head towards the cairn…" - that sort of thing). From what I've seen at his talk page, he is likely to be disheartened by my repeated reversions, which I don't think he should be. We'll just have to wait and see what happens. --Stemonitis 16:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The preceding comment was written before this edit, but only added afterwards, due to an edit conflict.

Category:Municipalities of Switzerland

Hi, you have been removing all Swiss municipalities from the category mentioned above. Has it been discussed anywhere ? I am not saying it is a bad idea, but there had been a discussion in the past about this, and at the time we left the categories as they were. Such a big change warrants a discussion, and if it happened, I missed it. Schutz 14:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there had been a Switzerland-specific discussion, but if there was, I'm ignoring it. Articles should not be in both a category and a subcategory of that category (without good reason - there are some exceptions). More importantly, though, articles should not be added to a category via a template where further sorting would need to be done and the template cannot or does not do it. Category:Municipalities of Switzerland was a disaster, and as soon as I found out what was filling it, I emptied it. All the articles that were in it are held in one of the well-organised subcategories, as they should be. Problem solved. --Stemonitis 14:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouah, calm down. I am not opposed to the change, and in any case, I don't remember where this discussion is (I will look into it), but I think it was worth pointing out that it had happenend. Schutz 14:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong; I'm not angry. I saw an error and I corrected it, in a fairly matter-of-fact way. The only difference from any other minor change is that this one required a hundred edits or so (my own fault, because I'd misunderstood the nature of the problem previously).

So no, I didn't know about any discussion, but I also don't particularly want to be pointed to it. Wikipedia policy is clear that articles in a sub-category do not also go in its parent, and that also makes sense. If the previous discussion came to a different conclusion, then it was, to put it bluntly, wrong. If you want to be able to see the names of all municipalities at the same time, which could be desirable, then a list is probably the better solution (although I notice that the current list of municipalities in Switzerland is also split into cantons at the moment). --Stemonitis 15:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this what you meant: Template_talk:Infobox Swiss town#Sub category for Municipalities of Switzerland? --Stemonitis 15:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hum... yeah, I remember this one, although I thought there were more arguments about why the large category was useful. Anyway, case closed, and I am glad you are not angry, given that there is nothing to be angry about. All the best, Schutz 15:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I was expecting someone to say something, it being a fairly major change and all. Probably I was a bit over-defensive. --Stemonitis 15:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Whiteside etc

No disrespect but I don't agree with some of your edits. Whiteside East Top is the true top of Whiteside - never met anybody who thinks that - however if thats the policy I suggest you change Gray Crag, Wainwright summit 699 metres, point on ridge 710 metres, got to be consistent you know. Also why have you took out the translation "White Hill Slope" that came out of a reputable walking book by John and Anne Nuttall. Also Goat Scar (great viewpoint) on Shipman Knotts needs mentioning so I will put that back in at some time but leave out the reference to Bill Birkett, who you obviously don't think is a good source. Regards --Mick Knapton 19:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the translation, Whiteside fairly obviously means "white side" to anyone who knows English. As for Gray Crag, that's hardly a summit at all, neither the 699 m one or the 710 m one; they're both just an arm of High Street in my opinion. (Although it does look likely that the 710 m spot height might also be a Nuttall, if anyone cares). A "crag" needn't be a summit, so I see no problem with that. With Whiteside, on the other hand, the 699 m "summit" has almost no relative height, whereas the 710 m summit has considerably more (34 m vs. ~12 m). My removal of the Birketts information follows a discussion at Talk:List of Birketts, where they were generally agreed not to be notable. Since I'd added almost all the links pointing to that article, I thought I ought to take them out again. If Goat Scar is worth mentioning as a viewpoint or something (which I can well believe), then of course it should be mentioned, but not just as being mentioned on a non-notable list. Feel free to ask any further questions. --Stemonitis 07:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hermit crab

May I ask why you removed all of the vital information off of the hermit crab article? Even removing things that were on there prior to us even making one single edit. And then our link. We are not a business, we make absolutly no money what so ever. We are helping educate and make sure information provided to the public is both accurate and complete. Our site is not commercial but an information site with care tips and information on Hermit Crabs. Everything we do is free of any charge whatsoever. We have over 15 years research and owning experience as well as members of about 20 hermit crab forums and sites, we have been published in newspapers and in a book in regards to help and history of hermit crabs. You wrote...Mass revert of suspect additions May I ask why it was suspect? I can understand if we were a business, were selling hermit crabs or items for their care, we do not. The reason why everyone posted their links on that article is to offer help for owners.. and that is why we did too. Why are we not allowed yet everyone else can?

The changes were suspect because they included sentences like "Like their close cousin the marine hermit crab, Land Hermit Crabs live primarily on land." Not only is this improperly capitalised (a minor problem), it is demonstrably false. Marine hermit crabs do not live primarily on land. If they did, they would be terrestrial hermit crabs, and not marine hermit crabs. Much of the remainder is a detailed how-to guide for keeping hermit crabs as pets. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia, and such text does not belong here. That they are kept as pets is worth mentioning and was mentioned before, but an owner's guide is not. An encyclopaedia should cover what they are and why they're important, not how one keeps them alive in artificial settings. The external link is likewise superfluous, as are most of the external links in that article. I'll look through them and see which are really informative. --Stemonitis 08:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The sub-categories like caribbean hermit crab and ecuadorian hermit crab, coenobitidae, do not contain much enclopaedic content and a lot of links which all appear to reference each other.

This is true; feel free to improve the articles. --Stemonitis 06:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Insect tarsus, etc.

Begging your pardon, but I did oppose this change. Squamate 14:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Where? The correct place for discussion was Talk:Arthropod leg; if your opposition was anywhere else, then I won't have seen it. --Stemonitis 07:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see now where your discussion was. To answer your concerns, a merger need not result in a loss of references - these could easily be brought over to arthropod leg. Nor would there necessarily be any dilution of information, since insects have their own section in that article. The separate articles are stubs and are unlikely to grow into anything much longer. They would however, fit perfectly into the arthropod leg article. I can see little reason for preserving their separateness. --Stemonitis 07:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree 100% but I see what you mean, and what you're trying to do. They stay merged. Squamate 17:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Stinging nettles

Believe me, they were ... I got stung by them shortly after taking the picture. Though perhaps I should find a more typical-looking grove (at this time of year, they're all over the Catskills). Daniel Case 00:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about the flora of North America, but the position of the flowers looked wrong to me (should be pendant, not ascending), and the leaves haven't got the typical saw-tooth edges I would expect of U. dioica. But I could be wrong. --Stemonitis 07:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Clachnaben

Hi, Thanks for your edits. Quite happy with them, but wonder about how you obtained the prominence. My map (and the OS maps linked from Grid Ref) show a complete 540m contour below the 589m summit. Am I missing something?Finavon 19:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite right. I had obviously seen the height of the trig point, and not the true summit when working it out. I've fixed the mistake now; thanks for drawing my attention to it. --Stemonitis 06:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of seeming thick, or petty - why 44m? The difference between drawn contour & summit is 49m and if an estimate of true height of col is 535m, the prominence would be 54m. Am I missing something? Finavon 12:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right again. I don't seem to be able to get this right at all. 54 m is of course correct. --Stemonitis 12:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Scavenger disamb

sorry for reverting your edit wrongly, that just seemed odd to me at first sight, I didn't know that's the standard practice. I will remember that.:)--K.C. Tang 11:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Stub sorting - Giant Short-Faced Bear

I noticed that you recently marked Giant Short-Faced Bear as a {{mammal-stub}}. Please be aware that animals from order carnivora get {{carnivora-stub}}, not {{mammal-stub}}. 132.70.50.117 05:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's one step closer. Someone really needs to update the listings at Category:Animal stubs; there are a series of new insect stub types as well. --Stemonitis 06:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

aw, shoot

I knew it had to be there somewhere ({{ITIS}}, that is)... I searched but came up empty. Well, off to clean up my mess. Thanks for pointing it out! --Graham^talk/mail/e 18:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Tempest

You marked the page for Tempest to be deleted, but I don't see it on the Articles for deletion page. Where does one go to debate the deletion? I was only filling in a page already red-linked on a few other pages. Trying to clean up loose ends. Whatever. Laszlo Panaflex 11:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I was using the new {{prod}} method (see WP:PROD), which is designed to be less bureaucratic than articles for deletion. To contest the deletion, all you have to do is remove the message itself, ideally with an indication of why. After that, if someone wanted to delete it, they will have to go through the full WP:AFD. For all I know, Tempest may be notable, but I didn't see any evidence of it. --Stemonitis 11:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Thorugh"

Just for information: recent change "thorugh" to "thorough" [3], should have been "through". --Stemonitis 10:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops. And it's also the more likely typo to make IMHO. Thanks for spotting it. Cheers, CmdrObot 22:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Cite journal2

Hello. Since Template:Cite journal has an option for removing the quotes from around the title of the article (by adding "quotes=no" to the reference), can Template:Cite journal2 be depreciated? Thanks. Mike Peel 20:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Are there any plans to have a 'bot replcae them all? --Stemonitis 06:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've now put in a bot request to do this (Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Template:Cite_journal2). Mike Peel 21:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ptarmigan/Rock Ptarmigan

Stemonitis: Hello! Just wanted to let you know I was going through North American birds and saw your Ptarmigan/Rock Ptarmigan listing as needing some help. I tried crrecting it, but see you reverted back to your original text. Let me explain why I think it needs changing and see if you agree. The photo you have listed is of a Willow Ptarmigan, and you list the other 2 species of Ptarmigan as "other names" when in fact they are other species. The picture you show is NOT a Rock Ptarmigan even though your redirect indicates as so. I thought leaving your page as the Ptarmigan genera page linking the other 3 Ptarmigan species page to it made sense, rather than linking Rock Ptarmigan to some incorrect information. Let me know what you think.............pmeleski 4 Sept 2006

I think you've confused me with another editor. I only made one edit to Ptarmigan recently, and that was to revert the deletion of an image that seemed to be perfectly OK by an anonymous editor. Beyond that, I have done nothing and I have no opinion on the matter. --Stemonitis 06:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that! New to this wikipedia editing and am still unsure who edits how much of an article. I changed the pic to what I'm pretty sure are Rock Ptarmigan. The prevous photo was a Willow Ptarmigan/Grouse and is mislabled at commons. Hope this clarifies.....give me a shout at pmeleski

if you have further questions..........

Removing categories from files

Hello, I noticed you removed categories from files I just recently categorized. According to the recommendations in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:FAQ the categories should NOT be removed, just think as a second way to find the given pictures. 18:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, er…, OK. I was just following what I'd seen others do, and what seemed to make sense. --Stemonitis 08:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Umlaut & ß

Hello, thanks for correcting it to AT not DE, I had the language in mind and wasn't thinking about the country!
In answer to your question: I hoped when I created the page that we could get some good examples of how good, native writers of English deal with ß and umlauts, as a model of good usage for Wikipedia to follow.
As a translator, I myself would be proud to follow the example of Mary Fulbrook, Professor of German History at University College London, who did a PhD at Harvard (she wrote one of the books on the list), or James Meek, 2004 Foreign Correspondent of the Year in the British Press Awards (he wrote one of the Guardian articles); apart from their qualifications, they also have their work edited and proofread before it is printed. I would rather follow their example than that of Mr Stefan Helders, whose job I don't know, and who comes from Leverkusen. Mr Helders may have excellent English, for all I know, and may even have it edited, but that is the point: I don't know.
If you would like to change the page into a general review of how any people from all over the world write ß and umlauts in English, well, this is Wikipedia: you're the editor - go ahead, but: please change the start of the page if you do. You'll need to remove "this is a page for collecting data on the use of umlaut and ß in English language publications" and also remove "show an example of ß/ss or the presence or lack of umlauts in English language texts written by native speakers of English, from reliable, well-written sources such as printed newspapers or books.". Saint|swithin 21:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand pistol prawn

Not sure why you changed the category to Freshwater..... It is definitely marine, never in freshwater. The rest of the edit appreciated GrahamBould 07:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's still early in the morning here. I just wasn't thinking. --Stemonitis 07:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Mountain

Sorry, thanks for catching that. I did not intend to. I'll be more careful about that. Droll 11:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Double linking

Hi Stemonitis, Re Triakis, I think double linking is OK if the links are different words or phrases, which is usual with names of living things. If you check most fish genus pages double linking is the norm. It is very helpful both when creating these pages, & for picking up broken links, as you can instantly see what has been linked & what hasn't. I cannot see any harm in this, only benefits. I think the guidelines refer to double linking the same word in an article. I hope you will reconsider, as there are hundreds of fauna articles etc with double linking that I wouldn't want to see changed. Cheers GrahamBould 11:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually have a very strong opinion either way, and I'm certainly not about to change "hundreds of fauna articles". The real reason behind my edit was to reduce the number of links to the (disambiguating) page leopard shark (oops, just made another one!). Where both links are blue in a list, there is no need to have both, but for red links, I take the point (although I think it should be stressed somewhere that editors really should make the redirects from scientific or common names as appropriate). I think this may be another one of those phenomena where a given page or format is very useful for editors, and where we sometimes forget that the project is aimed at readers. This isn't a criticism; I'm just thinking aloud. Feel free to revert my edit if you think it's better the other way. --Stemonitis 11:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Etienne Laspeyres

Any special reason why you changed Etienne to Étienne? As per the French, it's not necessary, but more importantly, Laspeyres was a German, the first name was adapted and he didn't use the accent. And that is what matters for name-spelling. Clossius 12:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Just making assumptions again. In cases like these, I tend to look at the other-language Wikipedias. In this case, the French Wikipedia gives the name with an acute, which could just be due to francification (is that the right word?), but so does the German. I also tend to assume that where some sources use an accented character and others do not, that it is likely to be an error in those that don't (since some people seem to be violently allergic to accented charatcers of any kind). I know nothing about the specifics of this case, and if there's compelling reason to spell it without the acute, then that's fine by me, but it might be nice to put a note to that effect on the other Wikipedias as well. --Stemonitis 14:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You need to discuss merges before you do them

Dear Stemonitis.

It is Wiki protocol (Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages) to discuss merges and moves before you actually perform the operation. Had you looked at the discussion pages, you would have found that both Cylindrachetidae and Sandgroper_(insect) are ongoing works.

I have just spent several hours putting them together and discussing them with another editor. I am -- justifiably -- miffed that somebody has just jumped in and blown all the work out of the water.

So, please, put it back. I really don't want a Revert War.

Gordon | Talk, 30 September 2006 @07:51 UTC

The page you pointed me to includes the following text:

There are several good reasons to merge a page:

• There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject.

This is patently the case here, where one article was located at the scientific name and the other at the "common name". It is not true that taxoboxes follow their own "fork", or at least it should not be. Where two terms are synonymous, one should redirect to the other. The only problem here seems to be that a link in a taxobox in the article sandgroper (insect) would redirect back there. The solution is to remove that link. Note that the family Nephropidae is not linked in the article lobster because they both refer to the same thing. You may perhaps wish to move the page back to "sandgroper (insect)" if you can argue that that name is used commonly enough, but there is no argument for having two separate pages. --Stemonitis 08:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested in the Lobster/Nephropidae, because I have not looked at the peculiar circumstances -- in particular, I have not looked at the Talk page.

While you may think that in "clear cut cases" you don't have to discuss, you must also be aware that in Wiki the proverb be bold does not mean be authoritarian. Wiki is guided by consensus, not by DAD.

I have just performed the first revert. I didn't want to, but you appear to not care. Gordon | Talk, 30 September 2006 @09:52 UTC

I am perfectly prepared to discuss things, but I have yet to see a good reason for having two articles on one subject. Please provide one, and we can discuss it further. Your reverts, incidentally, also undo a variety of formatting and other improvements that I had incorporated into the article. The only reason given on the talk pages was the possibility of a link to a redirect that would have lead back to the article; I have both solved this problem and shown how it can more generally be solved. By all means give me a reason for having two articles, but until you do so, they should stay as one. Consensus has already been reached: "A redirect should be created for articles that may reasonably be found under two or more names (such as different spellings or former names)." — WP:NC --Stemonitis 10:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)